Who should 'do' revolution and how?

[razboz]

Who should conduct the revolution? Why?

How should they conduct the revolution? Does the 'who' affect the 'why' and the 'how'?

Maybe mention what you mean by revolution as well, because i'm sure there's thousands of different answers on Revleft.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The working class. Because it's a workers revolution...

Revolution -> violently overthrowing the capitalist state and system.

[Peace on Earth]

Workers should take over, occupy, and run their businesses. Coordinating with others of the same industry as well as of other industries, the revolution would grow as more and more workers join the struggle, as well as the potential of the revolution growing as more and more means of production are taken over.

[razboz]

Could you guys maybe give me something more to work with?

Why should the 'workers' conduct the revolution? Who are these workers, and where is their revolution? What role do students have to play in this? What about academics, artists musicians. Where is their revolution?

We agree that we want society to change completely (revolution). But how can we do this when only one part of society is invited to join?

Also why must revolution be violent?

I'm not playing devil's advocate, btw. I sincerely believe these are questions leftist have very obviously failed to answer adequately so far. The world revolution has not happened, and ihave to wonder: Where have we been going wrong for the past 150 years?

I think that some of the categories leftists take for granted are very complex identities. Like a common argument is that the workers will rise up, because they are the ones being most robbed by the capitalist who in turn has most to benefit. But this is incredibly reductionist. Workers are individuals who are motivated by completely different things to each other. They have myriads of dreams and aspirations, many (if not most) are in no measure revolutionary, or agree with self-appointed revolutionaries.


Revolution -> violently overthrowing the capitalist state and system.

And installing another State system? Another capitalist system? Revolution is not merely a destructive act. What else does it mean?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Under capitalism it's possible to satisfy the wants and needs of everyone on earth, but it can't and won't happen. The means to create the things people want and need are owned by a tiny minority interested only in increasing its profits.

The great majority -- the working class -- has no control over those means and so must work for someone who does in order to survive. Through its labor, the working class creates all the wealth in existence while receiving only enough in return to keep itself alive and functioning. Workers are exploited wage slaves. This condition is what unites them in class war against the exploiters.

The working class is unique because of its position in society. It neither requires nor is able to exploit any other class. Simply by pursuing its own interests it can eliminate classes, exploitation and oppression all together. By liberating itself, it's liberates everyone.

In order to liberate itself, the working class must eliminate private property in the means of production and sweep away all the crap that comes with it. Because the exploiters will not give up their dominant positions without a life-and-death struggle, this can only come about through the revolutionary overthrow and abolition of the capitalist state and existing social conditions.

The class war in ongoing. It may seem to have ended for long stretches of time only to quickly break out into the open.

The various defeats of the working class have not and cannot bring an end to its struggle. It remains exploited. Humanity continues to cry out for liberation.

To move forward we need to learn from history and apply the lessons to future struggles. What's needed is class struggle across national boundaries and the self-activity of the class, independent of and even against the "friends of labor" who derail, divide and/or hijack working class action.

[revogirl]

Who should conduct the revolution? Why?

How should they conduct the revolution? Does the 'who' affect the 'why' and the 'how'?



Firstly the opening point in the last post is contradicting of itself as it states the following,

Under capitalism it's possible to satisfy the wants and needs of everyone on earth, but it can't and won't happen.

Either capitalism can or can not satisfy the wants and needs of everyone on earth.
I think though that I if understand what is meant by this statement it is a good illustration of how capitalism works.
This is because the whole construct of capitalism has to create by it's very nature a false belief that it is not only capable but the only viable way to satisfy all the needs and wants of everyone on earth.
As capitalism has successfully sold this lie to the majority of the worlds proletariat its survival and growth has been more or less assured.

So now looking at at the original questions posted to open this thread which were



Who should conduct the revolution? Why?

How should they conduct the revolution? Does the 'who' affect the 'why' and the 'how'?

Maybe mention what you mean by revolution as well, because i'm sure there's thousands of different answers on Revleft.






My answer to the first question asked which is

Who should conduct the revolution?

Would be that everyone who is alive and capable should be instrumental in conducting the revolution.

To the question asking

Why?

I can only answer by saying the following,
If collectively we do not have a world revolution we are all facing a very unstable future.
When I say all I mean all including the ruling classes who at present keep capitalism alive.
This class of the elite who are the ones in control whether they will see it or not are also vulnerable as they can not survive without the working classes.
These working classes face a number of potential catastrophes ranging from wars to environmental disasters.
The bourgeoisie are wholly dependent on their ability to exploit the poorer of society.
I am prepared to be presumptuous enough to say that capitalism has had it's day.
It is not capable of sustaining itself for any longer.

So now if we move on to the question raised of how to conduct the revolution the answer lies in education.
This is the only possible way.
Revolution is entirely dependent on the few who do understand the absolute neccessity for change to convince the present large numbers that do not.
This I believe can be achieved by working on many different fronts.
I personally do my best to win over as many people as I can to the revolutionary anticapitalist way of thinking almost on a full time basis.
I personally try to devote as much time and energy as I can towards this cause.
The theory socialists use such as myself is that by enlightening people to the real facts that lay behind the behind the agendas of greedy capitalists that ultimately control imperialistic bloodthirsty governments they can then inform others who can then do likewise.
I am certain that I am not surprising too many people reading this that what I am trying to achieve is so very difficult.
The capitalist system has so deeply engrained such thoughts into people such as anticapitalism or communism are so far out there and wholly unworkable and dangerous concepts that people are extremely difficult to persuade to even entertain the ideas.
Anticapitalism is in reality completely logical and sane and capitalism itself is a system of pure madness and irrationality.
Capitalism serves to divide the working classes through such things as fascism , racism sexism and homophobia.
Unemployment is useful to capitalists as it keeps wages down and in turn leads to more profit being made. by the rich.

The way I see the world personally in the here an now is that world revolution is absolutely essential if humanity as well as the planet we live on stands any chance at all of a future worth having.
Right now I can not see any glimmer of a chance of a world revolution occurring.
This is due to many reasons not least the so called world recession.
On the face of it this unprecedented world financial crisis should be the catalyst needed for world change and maybe in the future it will be but not at this moment.
As more of the worlds population are unemployed or hanging on for dear life to the jobs that they may have they are not a united movement which they need to be.
Revolution can only possibly succeed on a fully international unified basis.
When the revolution does happen as I am in no doubt it will it is not possible to predict such things as will it be violent and bloody.
This is because we have never had a world revolution in the history of man.
There is a possibility that a bloodless social revolution may be what happens.
Of course if the ruling classes or the governments or capitalists refuse to surrender in the revolution we should not be under any misapprehensions that force absolutely must be used if required.
The working class will have absolutely no choice in this matter and need to take whatever actions that are called for to win their power and freedom and even more importantly what ever else is called for to defend their new position.
If the workers of the world are not fully committed to full on permanent revolution they must not even think about starting one.

[¿Que?]

Well, it's important to understand that a world revolution by no means is understood as a simultaneous revolution in every country. In fact, the idea of a world revolution is somewhat ludicrous, as revolutions will occur in each and every country when historical, material (economic) conditions can allow for one to develop, also when the working class has achieved enough consciousness to recognize the historical moment (pedagogy and class interest) and finally within specific conditions which pertain to certain countries or regions alone. In other words, the revolution in the US will not come at the same time and will not happen in the same way as the revolution in France, or Nepal etc.

Also, part of the problem are the reformists. For the most part, it is ok to work for reforms and with reformist organizations (I think) up to the point where things really get heated. Reformists always back off at the historical moment when revolution is at hand. If you take France just recently, the problem was that when the reformist organizations (the Unions, social democrats, universities) backed off, there was not a strong revolutionary current to make them irrelevant. Instead, they made the revolution irrelevant. As I understand it, things are still kind of active in France, but the mass movement died yesterday. Hopefully I will eat those words.

[revogirl]

I do get quite despondent at times as your are right.
We know from history that revolution in one country alone is highly likely to ultimately fail.
Coordinated world action is the only possible way as idealistic as that sounds.
Who knows one day the right conditions may occur.
You are spot on when talking about reforms .
I don't know what country you live in however here in the UK we are fighting to get some of the brutal anti union laws repealed so that workers have more powers.
That said what we ultimately want for workers here in the UK and around the world is to carry on getting abused and more and more exploited by the capitalist systems to create a situation where the working class simply can not tolerate it any more.
Only then might significant enough numbers start addressing such issues as how can the likes of the US and the UK even begin to justify such despicable behaviour such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq while poverty is becoming more rife in these so called rich countries.

[red cat]

I do get quite despondent at times as your are right.
We know from history that revolution in one country alone is highly likely to ultimately fail.
Coordinated world action is the only possible way as idealistic as that sounds.
Who knows one day the right conditions may occur.

What plans do you have for workers and peasants who are perishing with hunger ? Should they start building the revolution or should they keep waiting for "the right conditions to occur" and die silently ? Should they overthrow the system in whichever country possible and push forward the revolution to other countries or should they wait for the world-revolution and allow themselves to be economically and militarily murdered ?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Either capitalism can or can not satisfy the wants and needs of everyone on earth.
I think though that I if understand what is meant by this statement it is a good illustration of how capitalism works.
This is because the whole construct of capitalism has to create by it's very nature a false belief that it is not only capable but the only viable way to satisfy all the needs and wants of everyone on earth.
As capitalism has successfully sold this lie to the majority of the worlds proletariat its survival and growth has been more or less assured.It's a major contradiction. Capitalism has created the means to satisfy the modern needs and wants of the people of the world, but the nature of the system (ownership and control of those means by a minority) prevent it from happening.


So now if we move on to the question raised of how to conduct the revolution the answer lies in education.Hundreds of years of "education" has brought us where? Revolution is not an idea you can sell to people or convert them to. It's a real process that grows out of real conditions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What plans do you have for workers and peasants who are perishing with hunger ? Should they start building the revolution or should they keep waiting for "the right conditions to occur" and die silently ? Should they overthrow the system in whichever country possible and push forward the revolution to other countries or should they wait for the world-revolution and allow themselves to be economically and militarily murdered ?

This is a narrow view that sees revolutions occurring in one area as being isolated from the rest of the world. But capitalism is a world system and the working class is a global class. A working class revolution in any one country can only be a part of the world revolution.

[red cat]

This is a narrow view that sees revolutions occurring in one area as being isolated from the rest of the world. But capitalism is a world system and the working class is a global class. A working class revolution in any one country can only be a part of the world revolution.

How is this related to my post ? The question I have asked is whether the working class of one country should advance the revolution in its own country as far as possible or not ? If its counterparts abroad cannot make revolution in their own countries at the same time then whose fault is it ?

[ellipsis]

High School internet nerds. Posting to forums and playing videogames.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Instead of asking this question, go fight for yrself.

[cowslayer]

The workers themselves in their respective business areas. Take control, oust the boss. Set up Council in workplace with members being workers who were elected. Live happy life until some dick perverts your movement while masquerading as a savior of your movement and moves to crush the workers councils. Then live life in slavery. Finally, if all goes well, hopefully you would be able to live long enough and write a badass science fiction novel with inspirations from your life. Become Capitalist. Then die. Lolz.

[Blackscare]

dude i would totally do revolution, total hotty

[red cat]

The workers themselves in their respective business areas. Take control, oust the boss. Set up Council in workplace with members being workers who were elected.

Very interesting. Can you please provide a detailed overall planning of that, and outline either what will lead all the workers to do this at the same time or how a few factories will hold out against armed forces deployed by the state ?

[Political_Chucky]

Very interesting. Can you please provide a detailed overall planning of that, and outline either what will lead all the workers to do this at the same time or how a few factories will hold out against armed forces deployed by the state ?

Haha I find it funny people would like to discuss the plans of overthrowing the state on a public internet forum. Wouldn't you think your plans be foiled pretty easily? Your like the evil villains on James Bond movies who tell Bond his whole master plan b4 he kills him, not realizing James bond has his trusty laser watch that cuts him out of his handcuffs in the knick of time and killing you with the chop of his hand.:rolleyes:

I think we need to understand one thing before you understand who is to "do" the revolution...which sounds utterly stupid btw. Lets go "do" some games. Lets go "do" football...:thumbdown: Anywho, we need to understand how we would even collectively get there FIRST. From the basics, we know that its going to come from the vast majority that we have brought together through teaching and "recruiting." What you need to start asking is not who "should" do revolution, but how can we start building towards revolution. Maybe the Author of this thread should read more into movements that have started already and actually go "DO" something to begin with.

[gorillafuck]

The working class, through overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with fully democratic organs of workers power and having the basis of the government be these organs.

Except I don't actually advocate this at all. P.S. hi police!

[red cat]

Haha I find it funny people would like to discuss the plans of overthrowing the state on a public internet forum. Wouldn't you think your plans be foiled pretty easily?



I appreciate your concerns for the revolution, but what I am asking for is just a general outline, which should be easy to provide in case such a model for revolution is really possible in practice.

[Political_Chucky]

Very interesting. Can you please provide a detailed overall planning of that, and outline either what will lead all the workers to do this at the same time or how a few factories will hold out against armed forces deployed by the state ?

Your not asking for a general outlined, as I quote you asking for a detalied overall planning... which inevitably is impossible to really describe without knowing the circumstances of the situation a revolution might have. There is a lot of strategic planning and lots of focus through leadership and groups acting as one. No one has a real idea of what a revolution is going to be unless you have fought in one already(then you might have a general idea of just how to fight maybe) and I Don't see how its even productive trying to really figure it out without trying to first determining how large the scale of it is, who and how many people are fighting together, and where and what type of terrain. Like I said, wouldn't it be smarter to focus on just the basics and building a movement first?

[red cat]

Your not asking for a general outlined, as I quote you asking for a detalied overall planning... which inevitably is impossible to really describe without knowing the circumstances of the situation a revolution might have. There is a lot of strategic planning and lots of focus through leadership and groups acting as one. No one has a real idea of what a revolution is going to be unless you have fought in one already(then you might have a general idea of just how to fight maybe) and I Don't see how its even productive trying to really figure it out without trying to first determining how large the scale of it is, who and how many people are fighting together, and where and what type of terrain. Like I said, wouldn't it be smarter to focus on just the basics and building a movement first?

Okay, my mistake there. What I really want is a general outline of smaller series of activities involved, that will lead to the workers establishing councils etc etc without a vanguard and being able to defeat the state forces. Until such a description of a revolution can be provided, I find no reason to believe that a revolution of this type is possible at all.

[Political_Chucky]

Okay, my mistake there. What I really want is a general outline of smaller series of activities involved, that will lead to the workers establishing councils etc etc without a vanguard and being able to defeat the state forces. Until such a description of a revolution can be provided, I find no reason to believe that a revolution of this type is possible at all.

You know, I attempted to start my own business and it failed miserably. I learned a little "chime" that represented the people of small businesses though. 20% of people have a vision of what they want, and do 80% of the work. 80% of the people don't know their end goal, but do about 20% of the work. Which one are you?

[red cat]

You know, I attempted to start my own business and it failed miserably. I learned a little "chime" that represented the people of small businesses though. 20% of people have a vision of what they want, and do 80% of the work. 80% of the people don't know their end goal, but do about 20% of the work. Which one are you?

One of my weaknesses is that I don't understand much other than very to the point addressing of straight-forward questions. A revolution and a small business aren't the same thing, you know ?

When it comes to a real revolution, that gets criticized by ultra-lefts for not being radical ( read utopian ) enough, but when I put forth questions on the technical aspects of the ultra-left military line, there is no proper answer. So to me it seems that rather than helping the cause of the working class, these ideas are being used primarily to confuse the proletariat from recognizing its very own revolutionary party. Marxism is a science and it must be studied and developed rigorously like one. There is no scope for vague, utopian statements.

[Political_Chucky]

One of my weaknesses is that I don't understand much other than very to the point addressing of straight-forward questions. A revolution and a small business aren't the same thing, you know ?

Well obviously they are two different things, but they do require the same type of actions to build up. You need leadership skills, knowing exactly what you want and how to get there. Just thinking too much will obviously shut you down. Thats pretty much my point.


When it comes to a real revolution, that gets criticized by ultra-lefts for not being radical ( read utopian ) enough, but when I put forth questions on the technical aspects of the ultra-left military line, there is no proper answer. So to me it seems that rather than helping the cause of the working class, these ideas are being used primarily to confuse the proletariat from recognizing its very own revolutionary party. Marxism is a science and it must be studied and developed rigorously like one. There is no scope for vague, utopian statements.

And that is when you have to step back sometimes and think for yourself. There is no proper answer to what your asking because like I said b4, you need to know the conditions of any given revolution. Che had different conditions when he was in Bolivia then when he was in the Congo, but at the same time they were both a guerrilla warfare type of tactics. Depending on which state a revolution might take place in, what type of weaponry your up against, everything is a factor. To give a general outline(and forget about a detailed one) of any given revolution b4 it is even close to happening, its utter bullshit for someone to give you any type of answer with a vague question like that.

If your worried about confusing the proletariat, then you need to back off the basis of revolution first. You need to educate the masses WHY they need revolution b4 you tell the masses to GO to revolution. Thats the main reason why there isn't anything revolutionary in the U.S. for example. If you build upon that and build a movement based on educating the masses first, revolution will come.

[red cat]

Well obviously they are two different things, but they do require the same type of actions to build up. You need leadership skills, knowing exactly what you want and how to get there. Just thinking too much will obviously shut you down. Thats pretty much my point.

Exactly this is why a vanguard party is needed.



And that is when you have to step back sometimes and think for yourself. There is no proper answer to what your asking because like I said b4, you need to know the conditions of any given revolution. Che had different conditions when he was in Bolivia then when he was in the Congo, but at the same time they were both a guerrilla warfare type of tactics. Depending on which state a revolution might take place in, what type of weaponry your up against, everything is a factor. To give a general outline(and forget about a detailed one) of any given revolution b4 it is even close to happening, its utter bullshit for someone to give you any type of answer with a vague question like that.So though it is impossible to give even a general outline of a revolution before it is happening, ultras have somehow magically deduced that workers councils will do the job without any central organization and vanguard party. :rolleyes:


If your worried about confusing the proletariat, then you need to back off the basis of revolution first. You need to educate the masses WHY they need revolution b4 you tell the masses to GO to revolution. Wrong. If you have radical aims, you will be slaughtered by state forces as soon as you have stirred up even a small fraction of the masses. Education and revolutionary practice must go hand in hand.

[Political_Chucky]

Exactly this is why a vanguard party is needed.


So though it is impossible to give even a general outline of a revolution before it is happening, ultras have somehow magically deduced that workers councils will do the job without any central organization and vanguard party. :rolleyes:

Which ultras? Based on whatever theories they might believe in they have come to that conclusion maybe? I don't think anyone is saying that workers will not have things organized and whether or not there is a vanguard depends on the person you talk to. Your just getting overly excited on the fact you can't really explain a revolution before knowing the economic and historical conditions of why a revolution is taking place. I don't really understand what your arguing now, whether or not revolution would work or whether or your just trying to state your views that a vanguard is needed?


Wrong. If you have radical aims, you will be slaughtered by state forces as soon as you have stirred up even a small fraction of the masses. Education and revolutionary practice must go hand in hand.

Well obviously your not going to post your detailed outline of the revolution on a message board are you?:rolleyes:

Besides, there are plenty of people advocating revolutionary ideas. The problem is getting control of the masses before the state knows what to do. I think a great example of a failed overthrowing of the government was explained by Malcolm X regarding the March on Washington. He explains once the government knew the real intentions of this March, which was to riot the streets of D.C., they gathered up as much of the media as they could and invited public speakers to bring it to its knees and make it peaceful. He explains it in his Autobiography. So in a sense, your right, if you have radical aims the state will try and stop it. But if people were educated and organized first before trying to advocate violence against the state, obviously a media ploy wouldn't have stopped what should have inevitably came. Advocate violence with education and most of the time your going to scare away a lot people. :huh: My personal opinion.

[red cat]

Which ultras? Based on whatever theories they might believe in they have come to that conclusion maybe? I don't think anyone is saying that workers will not have things organized and whether or not there is a vanguard depends on the person you talk to. Your just getting overly excited on the fact you can't really explain a revolution before knowing the economic and historical conditions of why a revolution is taking place. I don't really understand what your arguing now, whether or not revolution would work or whether or your just trying to state your views that a vanguard is needed?

Well, anyone might believe anything. But when it comes to having a debate based on that belief, we expect it to be supported by facts and logic. Workers will have things organized and they have to organize up to a national level at least, which is why a vanguard is necessary. This is what every successful revolutionary war in history indicates. If one wants to negate this, he will have to come up with some other concrete solutions of the problems that at present make a vanguard necessary.


Well obviously your not going to post your detailed outline of the revolution on a message board are you?:rolleyes:

Besides, there are plenty of people advocating revolutionary ideas. The problem is getting control of the masses before the state knows what to do. I think a great example of a failed overthrowing of the government was explained by Malcolm X regarding the March on Washington. He explains once the government knew the real intentions of this March, which was to riot the streets of D.C., they gathered up as much of the media as they could and invited public speakers to bring it to its knees and make it peaceful. He explains it in his Autobiography. So in a sense, your right, if you have radical aims the state will try and stop it. But if people were educated and organized first before trying to advocate violence against the state, obviously a media ploy wouldn't have stopped what should have inevitably came. Advocate violence with education and most of the time your going to scare away a lot people. :huh: My personal opinion.

I don't know about the history of the US, but in general once you start educating the masses even about their rights, you are under threat from state forces. The state will spy on you, have counter-propaganda, and even try to murder you. You do not even need to promote violence against the state for it to use violence against you. Countering the state's measures during your primary mass-education period itself will require a tight centralized organization.

[Pravda Soyuz]

The revolution will be brought about by the lower classes and the intellectuals. When a nations economy spirals out of control, people will begin to look for alternatives. The intellectuals will rally, organize, and train the proletariat, and through riots, general strikes, and marches, socialism can be achieved. If unavoidable, violent revolution may occur, but i personnaly believe that reform will happen through economic solidarity

[Burn A Flag]

Vanguard schmanguard! :rolleyes:

[Kuppo Shakur]

Come on guys, I just did a revolution last week.
Nobody notices me.:crying:

[NGNM85]

Could you guys maybe give me something more to work with?

Why should the 'workers' conduct the revolution? Who are these workers, and where is their revolution? What role do students have to play in this? What about academics, artists musicians. Where is their revolution?

We agree that we want society to change completely (revolution). But how can we do this when only one part of society is invited to join?

Also why must revolution be violent?

I'm not playing devil's advocate, btw. I sincerely believe these are questions leftist have very obviously failed to answer adequately so far. The world revolution has not happened, and ihave to wonder: Where have we been going wrong for the past 150 years?

I think that some of the categories leftists take for granted are very complex identities. Like a common argument is that the workers will rise up, because they are the ones being most robbed by the capitalist who in turn has most to benefit. But this is incredibly reductionist. Workers are individuals who are motivated by completely different things to each other. They have myriads of dreams and aspirations, many (if not most) are in no measure revolutionary, or agree with self-appointed revolutionaries.

And installing another State system? Another capitalist system? Revolution is not merely a destructive act. What else does it mean?

These are very legitimate questions. First, what do we mean by ‘revolution’? The majority opinion is a very crude, reductionist conception. I would say there are many different kinds of revolution. Revolution is the process of building a better, more equitable and just world. This is a never-ending process. We need to move past this simplistic narrative of the good guys kicking the bad guys out then it’s beer and skittles forever.

Does revolution (As previously defined.) necessitate violence? Maybe. It depends on the circumstances. If you want to create any kind of social change in Burma or China, you’re probably going to have to use violence, because these are police states. The circumstances in the West are different. If you’re any kind of rational person you use non-violent means first, if they are available. This whole attitude of people who think they are too ideologically pure to partake in this process are just blowhards who want to sit in cafes and appear to be radical.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Communize to attack!
Attack to communize!