Revolution

[ONE]

I've been reading people's posts and quite a few are big on revolution. They want to arm themselves and fight; they want to start a revolution in their hometowns and even look for foreign wars to participate in.

People, its the 21st century, revolutions nowadays are waged through the media and words, where your brain is the weapon of choice. I'm not ruling out the possibility of uprising and revolting as a last option for the oppressed majority, but it shouldn't be your first.

People in general are averse to wars and violence. killing = Bad; so when they hear leftists expressing the need for revolutions and eager to be participants in them, it only reinforces their negative stereotyping of anything and anyone leftist. This does not help in spreading the word, selling the philosophy and convincing people of socialism.

Are people only looking for something exiting (revolutions), or following a theory that was more applicable over 100 years ago?

Are armed revolutions the only answer?

Can someone please enlighten me?

[Fidelbrand]

Personally, i think sophisticated cognitive processing is needed in this hyper-information age~~ aS u said, revolutionary ideas may be waged & agistated by the media. .. but a decent human brain (a less polluted one i should say) & a compassionate heart would find it not too difficult to divde out what's legitimate to do /uphold / in this complex world.

I believe all commies in this forum are not looking for something exiting (revolutions)...... or whatsoever... i antipate...... hmmm..... similarly , we all think/believe that things can be bettered in certain ways~

but as regards to theories.... I never pay too much attention to them~ :P I use my own instincts and they guided me... similar to how i landed on che-lives.com and start to read about Che because i saw things aren't going the right way (not agitated by the media). :lol:

Armed revolutions of coz are not the answers..... large-scale petitions and parades are very powerful in the last & this century too.. right? they are un-armed revolutions~

hope u know what i meant.. and i think this is a rather good discussive question to be asked~ great~ ;)

cheers! :)

[ComradeJunichi]

We are radicals, we're not some moderate center-left/right chunks of crap. Radicalism is called radicalism because it's radical, get the gist? The choice of weapon may be the brain, but to pull the trigger of that weapon is revolution. Western countries, like the US, are not possible to have a radical change. However, third world countries should be our "ground zero" persay.

You said "People, its the 21st century, revolutions nowadays are waged through the media and words, where your brain is the weapon of choice", explain yourself. I believe you mean to say "Counter Revolution is waged through a medium of media and words". I have not seen any communist movements trying to spread through media.

I don't believe in some "democratic" method in America to achieve socialism. Revolution is not exciting. When lives are at risk, you don't necessarily call that fun. At least, I'm not in it because it's fun. Frankly, I'm not sure if I would be the best fighter if any revolution came down around the corner.

Armed revolution is not the only choice, but it's the only method.

Any criticisms? I'd like to know.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Glad to see you back, Comrade Junichi :)
Revolution is the only way to effectively destroy bourgeois society. How can we topple a system of government while working within that system? If we're trying to emancipate those who are used by the ruling class for profit, how can we expect to find co-operation from the ruling class? The ruling class will never simply yield to the oppressed masses, this is obvious, but what you must remember is that the ruling class is in power. This power is not an extension of the masses' will, and this is why they must be destroyed. If they are to be taken from power by the peoples' force, then this is revolution. What you are suggesting is that we, within the system, overpower those currently in power. This is propostrous and absurd, it will only lead to failure and we will simply be destroyed. For your idea to be truthful, it would mean that, with the people on our side, we would be able to democraticaly attain power, but do you really think that any of what goes on is remotely democratic?

I'll give you and example: In the times of slave abolishion in the US, the slaves would never have been freed if those profiting from slavery were in power. If they were, black-Americans would still be enslaved and disregarded by the law, exactly how the proletariat is today by the bourgeoisie.

[redstar2000]

Western countries, like the US, are not possible to have a radical change. However, third world countries should be our "ground zero" per se.

What's your estimate of South Korea?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Perhaps if we manage to revolutionize most of the third world, the first world would not be able to sustain its exploitative self, and therefore their economy would suffer greatly. As we have learned from history, when a country is in crisis, radical governments are established, this could be our chance to peacefuly seize the first world from within. maybe, it was just a spontaneus thought.

[ComradeJunichi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 01:47 AM
Western countries, like the US, are not possible to have a radical change. However, third world countries should be our "ground zero" per se.

What's your estimate of South Korea?
God damn it, Che-Lives needs to fix this forum. I keep getting this god damned Access Denied or Forbidden thing. I just wrote a long reply and it's all gone and frankly I don't want to write it again. :(

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by ComradeJunichi+Aug 15 2003, 10:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeJunichi @ Aug 15 2003, 10:28 PM)
[email protected] 15 2003, 01:47 AM
Western countries, like the US, are not possible to have a radical change. However, third world countries should be our "ground zero" per se.

What&#39;s your estimate of South Korea?
God damn it, Che-Lives needs to fix this forum. I keep getting this god damned Access Denied or Forbidden thing. I just wrote a long reply and it&#39;s all gone and frankly I don&#39;t want to write it again. :( [/b]
yes I got that same message earlier... it seamed very like the traditional che-lives sever down times. I thought they solved all those problems.

[elijahcraig]

I agree with VC and Junichi completely, revolution is the ONLY way to achieve socialism. Labor aristocracies in Imperialist nations limit what can be done. If there were third world revolutions, the aristocracies in the labor power would dissolve, and the exploitaiton of the third worlders would fall back on the labourers in Imperialist nations, meaning an opportunity to have revolution.

[Bianconero]

People, its the 21st century, revolutions nowadays are waged through the media and words, where your brain is the weapon of choice. I&#39;m not ruling out the possibility of uprising and revolting as a last option for the oppressed majority, but it shouldn&#39;t be your first.

I really don&#39;t mean to be harsh, but you lack basic education on the subject.

Socialist revolutins ogf course can&#39;t be &#39;waged through the media and words&#39;, as the media is in the hand of those pathetic little creatures, i.e. in the hands of the ruling class.

You will find no room for leftist propaganda/education (whatever) as the capital simply doesn&#39;t allow it. Which is, actually, the most natural thing in the world. Of course those who are in power, who are in charge, who make profit of children dieing, are not looking for changes.

And what&#39;s the conclusion? The dictatorship of the capital can only be crushed if the left stops whining around. &#39;No revolution, make love, make peace&#39; - blah blah blah ...

Stop being so naive and try to think.

[redstar2000]

God damn it, Che-Lives needs to fix this forum. I keep getting this god damned Access Denied or Forbidden thing. I just wrote a long reply and it&#39;s all gone and frankly I don&#39;t want to write it again.

Painful experience has taught me to write my posts in a notepad file and, when they are completed, copy & paste them into the "add reply" box.

Meanwhile, is South Korea a "first world" country with a "labor aristocracy" or is it still a "third world" country awaiting a Leninist-Maoist revolution? (By the way, those expressions--"first world" and "third world"--are really stupid. Why can&#39;t we learn to say capitalist and pre-capitalist or even semi-capitalist?)

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Painful experience has taught me to write my posts in a notepad file and, when they are completed, copy & paste them into the "add reply" box.

hahaha, that&#39;s where you "bold" all your work...then sit back and have a cigar.

:lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar, third world countries are capitalistic, the capitalist class simply does not live there. They (or the labor they provide) are still absolutely esssential for capitalism. There are classes, there is money, you can purchase property, they are industrialized, they are plutarchal, they are capitalists, dude&#33;

[ComradeJunichi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:59 AM
God damn it, Che-Lives needs to fix this forum. I keep getting this god damned Access Denied or Forbidden thing. I just wrote a long reply and it&#39;s all gone and frankly I don&#39;t want to write it again.

Painful experience has taught me to write my posts in a notepad file and, when they are completed, copy & paste them into the "add reply" box.

Meanwhile, is South Korea a "first world" country with a "labor aristocracy" or is it still a "third world" country awaiting a Leninist-Maoist revolution? (By the way, those expressions--"first world" and "third world"--are really stupid. Why can&#39;t we learn to say capitalist and pre-capitalist or even semi-capitalist?)
LOL, sorry RedStar I didn&#39;t mean to completely forget about your question like that :P In a sense, I did reply...:P *Types in Notepad*


This is a difficult concept, it&#39;s also very controversial when it comes down to "first world" or "thir world", revolution, ect.

Before I get into anything, I&#39;ll try to answer your question about first world and third world countries. I suppose these categories were formed because the term "capitalist nation" does not necessarily mean &#39;wealthy&#39;. For example, Mexico is fairly capitalist however it&#39;s not what one would call a &#39;first world country&#39;. I suppose you may say "semi-capitalist country" however, I believe that term would apply to countries like Sweden and Norway.

So, South Korea is a country dominated by the US - mainly. What I mean is, the US has a large sphere of influence on South Korea. The government used to be a puppet state up until the mid-90&#39;s. The economy of South Korea is like a wave pool; up and down, up and down. However, it is one of the richest nations in East Asia, does this make it &#39;first world&#39;? South Korea is not quite third and not quiet first, what do we call that? Second?

I don&#39;t think South Korea is "awaiting a Leninist-Maoist revolution", however I do believe it&#39;s a possible place for it.

* I&#39;m sorry it&#39;s so brief :P

[MikeyBoy]

People, its the 21st century, revolutions nowadays are waged through the media and words, where your brain is the weapon of choice. I&#39;m not ruling out the possibility of uprising and revolting as a last option for the oppressed majority, but it shouldn&#39;t be your first.[QUOTE]

In Marx&#39;s time there were no automatic rifles or submachine-pistols. An armed revolution of the workers meant that they were prepared to fight, using anything from a broom to single-shot musket. The word &#39;revolution&#39; has become so negative that most people assosciate it with death and destruction. Once the time comes the workers will have enough numbers to make their oppressors surrender.

[QUOTE]People in general are averse to wars and violence. killing = Bad; so when they hear leftists expressing the need for revolutions and eager to be participants in them, it only reinforces their negative stereotyping of anything and anyone leftist. This does not help in spreading the word, selling the philosophy and convincing people of socialism.

I do agree that the hate-lingo turns people off, and I agree with your opinion on violence. The ironic thing is that even though veterans will say war is horrible, we still make newer weapons and tell people to join the army. But maybe if the bank hadn&#39;t taken the farm then young Johnny wouldn&#39;t have to join the military just to get food. It is the bourgeoisie that push the working class into these situations, and only the working class can get itself out.

[redstar2000]

Redstar, third world countries are capitalistic, the capitalist class simply does not live there. They (or the labor they provide) are still absolutely esssential for capitalism. There are classes, there is money, you can purchase property, they are industrialized, they are plutarchal, they are capitalists, dude&#33;

I guess this is the kind of misunderstanding that comes up when we use some kinds of categories too easily.

Back during the "cold war", the terms "first, second, and third world" were coined to designate the U.S. and its allies; the USSR and its allies; and countries not firmly in either bloc.

Because most of the "third world" countries were economically backward, the phrase began to be used as a code for "poor"...sort of the way "urban underclass" really means black.

The current capitalist phrase is "developing countries"...it also means poor. It also usually means corrupt and violent.

Marxists should look at these things in terms of class. A country with a large peasantry, a ruling class of landed aristocrats, and a weak bourgeoisie that essentially works "for" one or several imperial powers is, to all intents and purposes a pre-capitalist country...even if it also has a small industrial proletariat.

As such a country slowly develops, the pressures grow for a real bourgeois revolution...but the native bourgeoisie is sometimes too weak to do it by themselves and must call on both the working class and the peasantry for assistance. Nationalism is invoked as a "progressive ideology" of resistance to the imperial power. Land reform is promised. Even "Marxism" (Leninism-Maoism) can be used for this purpose--the old colonial bourgeoisie is eliminated and a new vigorous native bourgeoisie installs itself as the new ruling class "in the name of the workers & peasants".

However, those are exceptions. Usually the native bourgeoisie gradually learns competence in the world market and begins to carve out a niche for themselves; their bourgeois revolutions take the form of military dictatorships. South Korea and Taiwan seem to have been unusually skillful in this regard and are probably now more developed than Europe was before World War I. They seem to have become full-fledged capitalist countries and, though weaker than the EU or the US, are nevertheless fully capable of competing in the world market. That makes them, in my view, "eligible" for proletarian revolution.

Semi-capitalist countries, in my view, would be countries still in transition to the stage that South Korea and Taiwan have reached. The landed aristocracy and old colonial bourgeisie, though still powerful, are in retreat; a vigorous native bourgeoisie is rising to power. There may still be a large peasantry...but their way of life is in decline and the most vigorous peasants move to the cities and become new proletarians. If such countries have proletarian revolutions, they will probably fail...it&#39;s "too soon". Military dictatorship is an attractive option for the rising capitalist class.

There are quite a few countries that fall into this "semi-capitalist" category, some closer to full-fledged capitalism than others. If I knew a lot more than I do, I could be more specific and maybe even develop some kind of "scale" to measure this. Which is closer to "full capitalism", Brazil or the Union of South Africa? Venezuela or Mexico? Egypt or Iran? Malaysia or Thailand? You can see the difficulties.

And what can you make of a country like Argentina, where capitalism (or semi-capitalism?) seems to be in permanent crisis? And where there appears to be significant "pre-revolutionary" sentiment on the part of the proletariat?

Beats the hell out of me&#33;

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Marxists should look at these things in terms of class. A country with a large peasantry, a ruling class of landed aristocrats, and a weak bourgeoisie that essentially works "for" one or several imperial powers is, to all intents and purposes a pre-capitalist country...even if it also has a small industrial proletariat.

Most countries catogorized as third world are heavily industrialized, have a large peasantry like any country, wealthy or not, have very centralized ecomies relying heavily on industry, have a ruling class of aristocrats, and a weak bourgeoisie.
Third world refers to a low standard of living, so essentialy, the average wealth of a nation. But since these nations are not egalitarian, the average really means nothing, now doens&#39;t it? I probably should&#39;t say most, because I&#39;m using Brazil as a referrence, but certainly many countries, such as Mexico, Argentina, Egypt, S. Africa, China perhaps, are in similar conditions.

[ONE]

Like I said in my original post; I&#39;m not ruling out the possibility of revolutions; but it is not absolutely necessary and should not be the only choice. Socialists are the minority – This has to change or the revolution won’t be successful and this can&#39;t be done through talks of violence. Those who are undecided or are not fervent capitalists would be turned off by talks of revolution. More details to follow.


Let’s keep in mind these four assumptions as we move forward in this discussion:
1 The political system we are trying to change is a democratic capitalist system.
2 The objective is a change of that system.
3 It is desired to maximize the efficiency of a revolution
4 Minimize bloodshed ( I hope this is one of your concerns)



...
“Socialist revolutins ogf course can&#39;t be &#39;waged through the media and words&#39;, as the media is in the hand of those pathetic little creatures, i.e. in the hands of the ruling class.”

“You will find no room for leftist propaganda/education (whatever) as the capital simply doesn&#39;t allow it. “
...



Then this is how the new revolution should be pursued. Socialists have to learn how to play the capitalist’s game. It’s only when all other methods have been exhausted that a revolution is acceptable and widely supported. Otherwise, you will only be the minority trying to enforce your philosophies on others that don&#39;t have the same views and beliefs as you. It is essential that the majority subscribe to socialism. Look at all socialist/communist countries now; do you think the majority believes in communism? If you don&#39;t support a philosophy and a way of life, then no amount of revolution will help/make you support it. On the contrary, you will be viewed as the enemy even if you&#39;re looking out for people’s best interest and society&#39;s over all happiness. Therefore, you have to take in to consideration the state of affairs after the fact. The goal should not be a simple victory. For a system to work, the majority has to believe in it and uphold its ideals. Don&#39;t you think it&#39;s best to have a lot of "commies" around after the revolution?




(ComradeJunichi) “I have not seen any communist movements trying to spread through media.”



True, and that’s why they haven’t been working&#33; “If you always do what you always did, you&#39;ll always get what you always got”


The whole political structure was a lot different in Europe in the 1800. What was the best choice and most applicable solution then, is not so today. There were a lot of monarchies and major democratic support did not mean much since it would have been impossible to change the system without taking the monarchy out, (you simply can’t change a monarchy). That’s why a revolution was necessary and viewed as the only answer. In addition, back then you fought violence with violence. The new game today is influence; you have to fight propaganda with education. Politics today are very different and you have to adapt or die (as a theory/method or approach).


So hopefully we’ve established and agree on two things thus far:
It’s wise to look at the long term after the “revolution” or change of rule.
Politics and political structure over 100 years ago was very different.



Now, under a democratic system, the majority rules (that’s the way it should be)
If, as a movement, you maximize the support, and achieve a clear majority backing, then according to the above statement, your organization will rule.
How do you maximize support? By education and advocacy. In order to win over the maximum number of people, you have to get your message across to them. What is the most effective way of doing that? The media – TV, Papers, Charities – doing good so people will associate your organization with good rather than bad (revolution=killing=bad). After all, isn’t socialism/communism’s objective a good society? By helping others, helping your community and society, you are effectively demonstrating your philosophy and people will take heed&#33; You will lead by example. People will see what you are really about and understand your proposed way of life and belief system. People fear what they don’t understand and many don’t understand what you are trying to achieve. You have to change the way people perceive you.



Even if you are adamant about a revolution, consider this.

Would it better and easier to have a revolution with the backing of 5 individuals? No&#33; How about 500? NO, how about 50,000,000? Better, but if we’re talking about the US, the population is 300,000,000. How about 200,000,000? Now we’re talking, but better yet, how about 250,000,000? As you can see, the more support you have, the easier, more efficient and supported the revolution will be.

So, wouldn’t you say that it (revolution) is best started when you have maximized your support? I hope your answer is YES. Then, how would you maximize this support? Look above: media (all facets), projects that have helped the community and society, etc. Now at this point, since you will have the support; to satisfy assumption -4- above (minimize bloodshed), you should try and change the rule democratically first.
If the majority demands socialism, then "democratically" they should get it. Even if those in power (bourgeois, capitalists or whatever you want to call them) tried to impede democracy, if you maintain pressure, play their games and you have a clear majority, then no matter how much power they have, they will eventually break down. If however somehow the ruling “capitalist” eradicated democracy in favor of despotism, or democracy simply did not work (after maximizing support and therefore obtaining the backing of large percentage of the population), then, by all means, go ahead and revolt. This would be the only prudent time for a revolution (and you will have huge support)


As you can see, both routes will oblige you to maximize support first and lead you to working through the democratic system first before you consider a revolution.

I hope you can see these important points now:
I- It is best to gain support first whether you choose the revolution route or not. In order to do this, there has to be a massive mobilization on the non-violent fronts. Effective use of media and changing the negative stereotypical image through education/advocacy are essential in gaining more support.
II- To minimize bloodshed and maximize empathy in case a revolution is inevitable, you have to attempt to bring about change politically and democratically first.

I am tempted to go in to more details, but this post is already long enough...

[Bianconero]

Then this is how the new revolution should be pursued. Socialists have to learn how to play the capitalist’s game. It’s only when all other methods have been exhausted that a revolution is acceptable and widely supported. Otherwise, you will only be the minority trying to enforce your philosophies on others that don&#39;t have the same views and beliefs as you. It is essential that the majority subscribe to socialism. Look at all socialist/communist countries now; do you think the majority believes in communism? If you don&#39;t support a philosophy and a way of life, then no amount of revolution will help/make you support it. On the contrary, you will be viewed as the enemy even if you&#39;re looking out for people’s best interest and society&#39;s over all happiness. Therefore, you have to take in to consideration the state of affairs after the fact. The goal should not be a simple victory. For a system to work, the majority has to believe in it and uphold its ideals. Don&#39;t you think it&#39;s best to have a lot of "commies" around after the revolution?

Of course socialists have to learn &#39;how to play the capitalist&#39;s game.&#39; I see we have an agreement here. But it&#39;s not that easy. The left is not in the position to fight the ruling class through the media, as the media is controlled by the ruling class. It&#39;s really plain and simple. The only capacity is the armed struggle.

Furthermore, it would of course be nice to have as many comrades as possible, but you can&#39;t just ask millions of brainwashed slaves to simply &#39;see the light.&#39; Realize, keep in mind: 90% (probably even more) of the world population would be on our side if they knew. But they are brought up with lies, lies, lies. They haven&#39;t got the slightest clue about politics. Oh sure, they keep on repeating what some bourgeois tabloid told them the day before, but that simply ain&#39;t enough. They have no class consciousness. So what do you expect?

Us visiting the &#39;Fox News&#39; management? &#39;Oh please, we know you are a bunch of reactionary pricks, but please allow us to spread our communist education. You know, children are dieing ...&#39;

Please, get real and educate yourself. It&#39;s basic stuff, really.

[ONE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:34 AM

I really don&#39;t mean to be harsh, but you lack basic education on the subject.


Education? you sound like those religious fanatics... "But the book says...."

Times change, circumstances differ, what applied then might mot apply today.




Stop being so naive and try to think.


Think... ahhh, That&#39;s how I came up with, and realized that revolutions as a first option will not work or at least, won&#39;t be effective - I did NOT read this somewhere.... so I will redirect your advice back at you. Don&#39;t simply read and accept. No matter who the author is "Stop being so naive and try to think "...

[Bianconero]

Education? you sound like those religious fanatics... "But the book says...."

History teaches. Analyse history and come to conclusions. This is everything but religious fanatism. This is simply learning from the mistakes of the past. &#39;Reformism&#39;, &#39;educating the masses for the revolution&#39; ... it simply doesn&#39;t work, I&#39;m sorry. Check the facts and have a look yourself.


Times change, circumstances differ, what applied then might mot apply today.

This is a saying, that is wrongly put in this context.

Anyway, I was a bit emotional and I hope you didn&#39;t take offense in what I said. I guess you did, so I assure you I&#39;m sorry. But what I said you didn&#39;t prove wrong.

[ONE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 11:25 PM
Of course socialists have to learn &#39;how to play the capitalist&#39;s game.&#39; I see we have an agreement here. But it&#39;s not that easy. The left is not in the position to fight the ruling class through the media, as the media is controlled by the ruling class. It&#39;s really plain and simple. The only capacity is the armed struggle.

Furthermore, it would of course be nice to have as many comrades as possible, but you can&#39;t just ask millions of brainwashed slaves to simply &#39;see the light.&#39; Realize, keep in mind: 90% (probably even more) of the world population would be on our side if they knew. But they are brought up with lies, lies, lies. They haven&#39;t got the slightest clue about politics. Oh sure, they keep on repeating what some bourgeois tabloid told them the day before, but that simply ain&#39;t enough. They have no class consciousness. So what do you expect?

Us visiting the &#39;Fox News&#39; management? &#39;Oh please, we know you are a bunch of reactionary pricks, but please allow us to spread our communist education. You know, children are dieing ...&#39;

Please, get real and educate yourself. It&#39;s basic stuff, really.
so your solution is to revolt, and then force people to accept your philosophy??? Rather than educate them??? You even said: "keep in mind: 90% (probably even more) of the world population would be on our side if they knew. "

"Of course socialists have to learn &#39;how to play the capitalist&#39;s game.&#39; I see we have an agreement here. But it&#39;s not that easy"

And starting a revolution when you&#39;re less than 10% with not much empathy is easy??? Either way you look at it, it&#39;s not easy - you just have to get with the times&#33;

Media wars and influencing people doesn&#39;t have to be done through FOX. Like I mentioned, every little project you do in your community that benefits society is a battle against "Capitalism" Start new organizations to educate the masses, open "new and hip" radio stations, etc.... there are numerous ways to get your message across and not simply "FOX"

So none of my previous post convinced you of anything? It was very simple, really&#33; Everything I said makes total logical sense; but you simply refuse to accept.



Please, get real..."


I&#39;m not the one who&#39;s stuck in 19th century world order... and please, we&#39;re trying to have an intelligent discussion here, no need for "advice" such as this...

[ONE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 11:41 PM
Anyway, I was a bit emotional and I hope you didn&#39;t take offense in what I said. I guess you did, so I assure you I&#39;m sorry. But what I said you didn&#39;t prove wrong.
No problem.

But you did not prove me wrong either&#33; You simply stated that my proposition is not realistic, and recommended that I get real. If you don&#39;t agree with my proposed conclusion, you should at least point out the logical flaws in my argument.

[Bianconero]

so your solution is to revolt, and then force people to accept your philosophy??? Rather than educate them???

Of course I want to educate them, but this can&#39;t be done before the revolution. The left has been trying to do this for years now, with the result being that the left is more or less dead now. In a system of mass media, truth is of no relevance. It&#39;s about capacity. Who has the money to start campaigns, who can be present in TV, who can spread his propaganda in newspapers etc.

It&#39;s not us, I assure you that.


And starting a revolution when you&#39;re less than 10% with not much empathy is easy??? Either way you look at it, it&#39;s not easy - you just have to get with the times&#33;

&#39;To get with the times&#39; ... this is not relevant here. Of course it would be better to &#39;get with the times&#39; (use TV, newspapers, school, ...) but the left simply hasn&#39;t got this capacity. We don&#39;t have it and we never will in a system of capital - dictatorship.


Media wars and influencing people doesn&#39;t have to be done through FOX. Like I mentioned, every little project you do in your community that benefits society is a battle against "Capitalism" Start new organizations to educate the masses, open "new and hip" radio stations, etc.... there are numerous ways to get your message across and not simply "FOX"

&#39;Fox News&#39; was an example as most of you (at least that&#39;s my impression) live in the United States. Now where I live, we have numerous newspapers. Some of them are simply tabloids, some would be considered to be &#39;intellectual&#39;. But none of them are left. At least not in the original sense.

[redstar2000]

If I read this dispute correctly, the alternatives suggested are

1. Educate the population (through the bourgeois media), win a heavy majority to socialist ideas, develop a political party with majority support...and resort to revolution only if the old ruling class refuses to yield to the outcome of bourgeois elections...

or

2. Educate a small minority, make a revolution based on that (vanguard) minority, impose socialism and then educate the rest of the population.

It seems to me that both of these ideas are "weak".

In the case of the first option, it&#39;s not reasonable to expect extended coverage of any left group from the bourgeois media except when they can "make us look bad" or at least when they think that&#39;s what they&#39;re doing.

It&#39;s also not reasonable to assume that any genuinely "left" party will ever be allowed to "win" serious political clout in bourgeois elections--the record shows that when "left" parties are finally allowed to "win", they have already ceased to be "left".

But even if you have somehow overcome the first two obstacles, and you find yourself "calling for revolution"...why should anyone listen or respond? You&#39;ve just spent 20 or 30 or more years convincing people that you are NOT "revolutionary"...and then you expect to suddenly switch directions and think that people will "follow" you???

The alternative offered is the standard Leninist prescription of a vanguard party that "makes" a minority revolution, runs a "socialist" dictatorship over the majority and hopes to convince, in time, the majority of the correctness of their ideas and the benevolence of their intentions. We know this idea will "work" in pre-capitalist countries and may work in some semi-capitalist countries...no proletariat in an advanced capitalist country has responded to this kind of "appeal" and I see no reason why any should.

Why trade an old boss for a new one?


Behind both of these alternatives is an assumption about social change itself...that it is the outcome of "will". It is widely assumed across the left part of the political spectrum that changes in class society come about because somebody "wills" that the changes take place, that revolutions are something that you can "make" like you "make" a sandwich.

It&#39;s much harder to grasp the understanding that changes in the nature of class society are the product of changes in material conditions, the "laws" of a particular kind of class society, and the collision of material conditions and those "laws".

Winning an election or staging a coup is not the same thing as participating in a massive uprising of the working class.

One should not confuse them.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

I think first of all, it is important to work out exactly what it is we are trying to achieve with having a revolution. Some people have said Socialism, but to be honest is that really what we need after the working class have taken arms. Our objective comrades has to be, and always, Communism.

ONE&#33; You talk about revolution as if the left have all sat around and said "so how can we make this tranisition to power as bloody and as violent as possible.....oooh how exiciting will a revolution be". Of course this is not true. Revolution is a conclusion reached by extremly clever people who studyed and analyzed society. Developing theories and using facts to come to a final decision about how we change society.

Look at society. Look how violent it is already. Wars and poverty, even subtle violence such as people being forced to sell their labour power for next to nothing. Just so they can give it all back to the state or to capitalists, in the way of tax, bills and food.

I and my comrades believe that the only way to stop the exploitation of the working class, stop poverty, stop wars, stop wage slavery is to change the system our society is governed by. Capitalism. But capitalism isn&#39;t just some &#39;thing&#39; which you can be turned off when ever you want too. It is everything. The air we breathe, the shoes we wear. It is reality.

Like I said, it isnt as if the revolutionaries all sat around and thought how bloody they could make it. Of course if we didnt have to fight, that would be great. But the fact is, revolution, fighting, is the only way we can change the system. Take for example, the anti globalisation demonstrations. Those people where only demonstrating against capitalism, and look what the police did. In genoa a demonstrater was shot by soldiers. They wheren&#39;t even trying to fight capitalism, they where merely demonstrating against it.

When the working class have become conscious and they stand up and say, "we want control over our lives" do you honestly believe that people like George Bush, Tony Blair, the oil bosses, people like rupert murdoch will role over and say, here, have our power, have our wealth. Of course not. They will send in the police and the soldiers, and this time, they wont shoot one of us, they will shoot all of us. What would you have us do then, through flowers at them. Try and reason with a man who would rather beat you over the head with his club than have a civilzed conversation with you. Do you think we should all go home and say "better luck next time". I think not.

People say "mass education is the solution. " Education is good, sure. But your not going to educate the police, the soldiers. How on earth would you get to George Bush and try and convince him of left wing ideals. Your living in a fantasy world. Of course once an insurrection began, some police and some soldiers will join the working class, but not all of them. The rest will use bombs and guns and bullets to try and smash us into the ground. That isn&#39;t a possibility, it is an inevtiaility, and when the time comes, there can be no room for sentimentality. When it&#39;s the working class or a police mans head, I know where my boot will be. :ph34r:

[ONE]

First of all, let me clarify that I&#39;m not delusional about changing the system anytime soon through my proposition. It will be a slow process that will take years.

So if the main objective is to change the system fast. Then I agree with you, in this case, revolution would be the best option.

However, my proposed solution is based on the following premises (again):
1 The political system we are trying to change is a democratic capitalist system.
2 The objective is a change of that system.
3 It is desired to maximize the support and efficiency of a revolution (as you all should agree, it&#39;s better to have more support)
4 Minimize bloodshed (again, I hope this is one of your concerns)

In this case, a revolution without exploring the alternate methods would be the wrong choice.


----------------

You are saying that capitalists control the media, true, but I&#39;m suggesting this: play their game&#33; the message has to be delivered subtly; you obviously won&#39;t go to "FOX" and tell them, "hey, what up, I&#39;m a commie, can I get a time slot".
Use any means necessary to reach people. The target audience would be kids and teenagers since it&#39;ll be difficult to "convert" adults. This will take a long time, but eventually will work. Do you think the slaves in America ever though they would be free? With time, even the gentle ocean waves will wear down the mighty rocks on the shore…



&#39;To get with the times&#39; ... this is not relevant here. Of course it would be better to &#39;get with the times&#39; (use TV, newspapers, school, ...) but the left simply hasn&#39;t got this capacity. We don&#39;t have it and we never will in a system of capital - dictatorship.



In the case of the first option, it&#39;s not reasonable to expect extended coverage of any left group from the bourgeois media except when they can "make us look bad" or at least when they think that&#39;s what they&#39;re doing.


You can&#39;t dismiss an approach until you&#39;ve really tried it. Of course it&#39;s an uphill battle through the media, but as I mentioned earlier, so is a revolution when you&#39;re nowhere near ready&#33;

Revolution will not work in the US (seems like a lot are from there) with the numbers that currently subscribe to the communist philosophy. ANYWAY you look at it, you HAVE to gain more support and that is done through advocacy and education.




You&#39;ve just spent 20 or 30 or more years convincing people that you are NOT "revolutionary"...and then you expect to suddenly switch directions and think that people will "follow" you???


No, you&#39;ve spent 20-30 years wooing and persuading them to adopt the philosophy and ideals of socialism/communism. If democracy does not work, and there is a necessity for a revolution, then why would they abandon their newfound ideals?

Violence and revolution should not be the basis and only method of changing the system; but I didn&#39;t rule it out.



Revolution is a conclusion reached by extremely clever people who studied and analyzed society.


No doubt, but my point is that society and politics were different back then. Wouldn&#39;t you agree? These same “extremely clever people” would have probably come up with different theories if they were still alive and trying to analyze the current sociopolitical system.
Do you think prehistoric politics were the same as, say, Mesopotamian politics?
Do you think Mesopotamian politics were the same as Industrial revolution politics?

My point is that politics (and other affairs) change.

You are giving up on democracy before you try. Various communist parties have failed in persuading the population to adopt their philosophies. I don&#39;t even see anyone preparing for a revolution, there is only talk and nothing is getting done; so if you truly want socialism/communism, then you have to do something, and since no one (it seems) is ready for a revolution, you might as well play the media game -at least- until "it&#39;s time"

Please consider these questions:

- Do politics change?
- Is it possible that a theory (any theory) would change over time? After all, it’s not a proven approach, but a THEORY
- If you have two approaches, A and B, and you’re not ready or persuading A, then would persuading B hurt?

I’ll leave it up to you to arrive at a conclusion...


------------

Once more, if you take the premises I based my argument on, it logically follows that revolution should NOT be the first and only choice. If you agree with those assumptions, then you should agree with my conclusion unless there was a logical flaw in my argument.

However, if you don&#39;t endorse premises 3 and 4, then "Revolution as the first choice" option will be one of the logical choices (My proposition will still work, but will be weaker). If you only take the first two premises, then you will be reducing the argument to its foundations: create a communist system.

If we are in agreement so far (in regards to the above) then we can put it behind us and discuss premises 3 and 4...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 04:38 PM
Use any means necessary to reach people. The target audience would be kids and teenagers since it&#39;ll be difficult to "convert" adults. This will take a long time, but eventually will work. Do you think the slaves in America ever though they would be free? With time, even the gentle ocean waves will wear down the mighty rocks on the shore…
slavery abolishon, comarde?
if those in power had been profiting from slavery, nothing would have been abolished. The slaves may have been able to gain their independence in time, but in America they did not. Sometimes the emancipation of the oppressed must be conquered for the by a vanguard. Normaly i oppose a vanguard, but your slavery metaphor made me think. :unsure:

[Bianconero]

ONE ...

There would be a couple of things I&#39;d argue, but I doubt it would lead to anything. Just a few things.


It will be a slow process that will take years.

&#39;Slow process that will take years?&#39; This theory is debunked, friend. Get over it. That kind of revisionist Bernstein - drivel is simply a dead end. Sitting back and trying to &#39;change the system&#39; slowly is not working. Look at countries that had a solid revolutionary movement in the beggining of the last century. They followed Bernstein&#39;s &#39;theory&#39;, sat back and waited for people to vote for them in capitalist elections. Of course it didn&#39;t work. People of course didn&#39;t vote for them, as capitalism always wins capitalist elections. There is no democracy in capitalism. It lies in the very nature of capitalism to be a dictatorship.

Sure, there are slight differences between political parties in capitalism, but these differences are not relevant. Some are social - democrats, some are conservatives, some are liberals, others call themselves &#39;Greens&#39;, but all of them are not left, all of them are advocating capitalism. It doesn&#39;t matter what they tell you, they are not left.

The system we are trying to destroy (not &#39;change&#39;, or &#39;reform&#39; - destroy) is not democatic, it&#39;s a dictatorship. The dictatorship of the capital.


You are saying that capitalists control the media, true, but I&#39;m suggesting this: play their game&#33; the message has to be delivered subtly; you obviously won&#39;t go to "FOX" and tell them, "hey, what up, I&#39;m a commie, can I get a time slot".
Use any means necessary to reach people. The target audience would be kids and teenagers since it&#39;ll be difficult to "convert" adults. This will take a long time, but eventually will work. Do you think the slaves in America ever though they would be free? With time, even the gentle ocean waves will wear down the mighty rocks on the shore…

I&#39;ll say it again. We don&#39;t have the possibility to simply &#39;play their game.&#39; It&#39;s useless, the left has already been trying to do that. We failed. Get over it, we don&#39;t have this capacity.


You can&#39;t dismiss an approach until you&#39;ve really tried it.

But I can dismiss an approach we have already tried.


Violence and revolution should not be the basis and only method of changing the system;

It took me a lot of time to realize this myself, but violence is the only solution to &#39;change&#39; the system. It&#39;s either fight or be a pig, there&#39;s nothing in between.

[ONE]

Bianconero, where&#39;s the revolution then? is anyone working on that?



Sitting back and trying to &#39;change the system&#39; slowly is not working


Neither is revolution, I don&#39;t think the chief Capitalist nation is in danger of collapse due to a communist revolution...
Again, when was the last time a revolution REALLY worked? (this includes &#39;educating&#39; people, etc etc... )

You are talking about a theory that was proposed over 100 years ago and now I&#39;m proposing another theory. They are both theories, I supplied premises and worked out a conclusion, but you&#39;re dismissing all that. You either have to prove your theory or disprove mine, and so far, you&#39;ve done neither; you&#39;ve only criticized the effectiveness of my approach. Let&#39;s establish if my argument is logically valid first.

As I mentioned in my last post; it might be best to take this step by step. Given assumptions 3 and 4 in my previous post, do you think that revolting should not be a first and only option?

We can discuss the practicality after we have some agreement on the above.

[redstar2000]

You are giving up on democracy before you try.

Not true. Going all the way back to German Social Democracy in the late 19th century, communists and socialists have "tried" to win bourgeois elections repeatedly.

In fact, the vast majority of all "left" groups today still take bourgeois elections seriously enough to run candidates and devote serious resources to electoral campaigns. (I&#39;m speaking of advanced capitalist countries here.)

The persistence of the myth of "bourgeois democracy" is quite incredible; in spite of all the evidence, people on the left still believe that it "means something."

It doesn&#39;t. It never has. And I see absolutely no reasonable argument that it ever will.

I fully agree that minority revolutions led by self-appointed "vanguards" are an illusion. Those things can and have happened in pre-capitalist and semi-capitalist countries, not in any advanced capitalist country...ever.

Why then can we not simply tell people the truth?

1. The only way to gain anything from the bosses is some form of resistance that is outside of the "official channels" of "dispute resolution".

2. The ultimate form of "outside" resistance is proletarian revolution...the massive uprising of the entire class to take everything.

It&#39;s not really a very complicated "message" when you stop and think about it. It appears and will appear to many as "utopian"...mostly because working people have been carefully indoctrinated with contempt for themselves and contempt for their co-workers through, of course, the bourgeois media, school system, etc.

"It&#39;s a great idea but people are too fucked up to do it"...as we have all heard many, many times.

This is where material conditions come in...teaching the working class the practicality of solidarity in the course of inevitable struggles against the ruling class. Only in the experience of class struggle do workers really learn that their class sisters and brothers are not "fucked up".

That&#39;s not something that we can "make" happen, though we can encourage it.

What does lie within our grasp, the power that we do actually have...is to tell people the truth about capitalism and communism. Tell it as many places as we can, through as many media available, use the most convincing language that we know, etc., etc.

But don&#39;t fool around, don&#39;t weasel...tell the truth.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[ONE]

What does lie within our grasp, the power that we do actually have...is to tell people the truth about capitalism and communism. Tell it as many places as we can, through as many media available, use the most convincing language that we know, etc., etc.

But don&#39;t fool around, don&#39;t weasel...tell the truth.


This is my point. After the above has been done and more support gained; it doesn&#39;t hurt to try democracy. If it fails then revolution will be more justified.




Not true. Going all the way back to German Social Democracy in the late 19th century, communists and socialists have "tried" to win bourgeois elections repeatedly.


By definition, democracy is “Majority rule”; therefore, no matter how much you try to win bourgeois elections, it won&#39;t work without this majority. A minority winning an election is NOT unfair; it simply violates the definition of democracy and therefore impossible&#33; It’s when power can&#39;t be attained with a majority that you can safely claim the impossibility of winning elections in an advanced capitalist state.

The problem, however, is that leftist organizations are a tiny minority, and they’re doing rather poorly at promoting their visions and ideals (that explains the minority part). I&#39;m not even sure if there are any leftist parties in my neck of the woods&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

With a minority, you can win neither elections nor revolutions (in a "developed" democratic capitalist nation)

Again, the answer is education and advocacy no matter how you look at it.

[The Feral Underclass]

ONE: Just a quick question...Do you understand that a Revolution is inevitable?

[ONE]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 18 2003, 08:31 PM
ONE: Just a quick question...Do you understand that a Revolution is inevitable?
:wacko: have you been reading my posts?

"Revolution is inevitable" is a THEORY and NOT a fact ... You have nothing to lose if you take my approach, but a lot to gain. If Revolution were indeed "inevitable" then you would be in better shape for it

It&#39;s really not that hard to understand my argument.... unless you don&#39;t want to&#33;

[ONE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:58 PM
slavery abolishon, comarde?
if those in power had been profiting from slavery, nothing would have been abolished. The slaves may have been able to gain their independence in time, but in America they did not. Sometimes the emancipation of the oppressed must be conquered for the by a vanguard. Normaly i oppose a vanguard, but your slavery metaphor made me think. :unsure:
I&#39;m not sure I understand your correctly victor. Can you please elaborate?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by ONE+Aug 18 2003, 04:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ONE @ Aug 18 2003, 04:58 PM)
[email protected] 17 2003, 10:58 PM
slavery abolishon, comarde?
if those in power had been profiting from slavery, nothing would have been abolished. The slaves may have been able to gain their independence in time, but in America they did not. Sometimes the emancipation of the oppressed must be conquered for the by a vanguard. Normaly i oppose a vanguard, but your slavery metaphor made me think. :unsure:
I&#39;m not sure I understand your correctly victor. Can you please elaborate? [/b]
you said

Use any means necessary to reach people. The target audience would be kids and teenagers since it&#39;ll be difficult to "convert" adults. This will take a long time, but eventually will work. Do you think the slaves in America ever though they would be free? With time, even the gentle ocean waves will wear down the mighty rocks on the shore…

And this is not true. The bourgeoisie would not allow the people, in massive numbers, to form revolutionary ideas. No matter how obviously horrible capitalism is, the people will be blind to the oppression as long as the bourgeoisie is in power. And besides, you and I both know that bourgeois "democratic" governments never act upon the desires and demands of the people. The slaves were not liberated by those who had ownership of slaves, slaves were liberated by the government who had other bourgeois interests in mind. Those who were profiting from slavery will, and always will be in favor of slavery. And the same could be said for wage labor and the free market. So what I&#39;m getting at is that slaves in America were not liberated because the bourgeoisie finaly gave in to the people&#39;s requests, they were liberated in order to fool them into thinking that they&#39;ve been liberated, but are truly still wage slaves.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 06:50 PM
By definition, democracy is “Majority rule”
By that definition democracy does not exist anywhere on the planet. Socialists already tried what your&#39;e suggesting, it didn&#39;t work. Go do a websearch for "Salvador Allende" for a dramatic example of it&#39;s failure.

[ONE]

Victorcommie, The point I was trying to make is that things change, and sometimes the oppressed never see it coming, at least not in the manner they expected it...

Morpheus:
1. The discussion uses "developed", capitalist democracies such as the US, and European countries. Not third world countries.
2. Thanks for the evidence that the left has won an election (holding it is a different story)
3. What happened to the government (coup) was NOT because of democracy, but lack thereof. Coups are never democratic.
4. According to the definition "Majority rule", democracy does exist.


PLEASE, either make a good LOGICAL counter argument or don&#39;t post (sorry, honestly, I&#39;m not trying to be rude, but I don&#39;t have time to respond to every little attack on every sentence I&#39;ve used - also, this is not directed at anyone specific :) )

[The Feral Underclass]

I have read what you have put, and to be honest it is all romantic idealism. You talk about "playing the capitalist game" but I am not sure you fully understand exactly what capitalism is. It isn&#39;t some child which you can tame by speaking nicly to it. You can&#39;t train it to behave in a way you want it too.

Capitalism is like a blanket. It drapes over everything, and everything is contained within it. The media, food distrabution, electricity, how we sail the seas, the laws governing how we travel, everything right down to what food you buy. It is a system developed to allow individuals to gain wealth and power through using other individuals. Through history Capitalism has forced working class people into a cycle of selling labour in order to survive. The only time capitalism is changed is when the rich are not making enough money.

I can sympothise with how you feel about violence. Violence is apporent. It is evil but it is inevitable. The reason is, is that capitalism, the bourgeoisie will always try and defend their values. I said this before, and you never really tried to correct me, but i&#39;ll say it again. Revolutionaires do not sit around calling for blood and death, im sure some do, but their stupid. You seem to think revolution was suddenly decided upon because people like Marx, Engels and Bakunin didnt have anything better to do with their time. Revolution was a horrible conclusion that had to be reached by analyzing capitalism.

You talk about using the media, but who controls the media. Capitalists. You talk about education, but the capitalist class control what we learn. I agree that the movment does not do enough which is in line with the 21st century and indeed should use things like the media to attempt to educate people. But as soon as the movement starts to grow, those capitalists will shut us down. Educating people is fine, and that is exactly what the movement is attempting to do, but what happens when we get to the point you are talking about getting to. A mass movement of educated people. What happens then? The ruling class will smash us, with bullets. If your talking about educating the ruling class, then your crazy.

Those people in control are arrogant by nature. George Bush and Ruport Murdoch believe they are gods, and in affect they are. Do you honestly believe you can suddenly convince GWB and Rupert Murdoch that what their doing isnt very nice, and that they will wake up one day and say "oh how mean I have been, for now on, im going to work for the working class". :huh: It just isnt going to happen, come on now&#33;

All the things you sujest are fine if you want to build a movement. But it isnt enough if you want to change society. At some point, you are going to have to fight. Once you have built the movement and got an educated following you are then going to have to go on the streets. So lets say you live in London, and the working class have been organized and educated and then they go on strike. The working class walkk out of their work places and stand on picket lines. Then the police come with their riot gear. After a week the country is beginning to shut down, the capitalists are beginning to lose money. The entire economy is being jepodised. The goverment suddenly pass legislation to say that all workers must go back to work or be arrested, just as they threatened the fire fighters when they went on strike. So what do we do now, give up. What a betrayel of your beliefs. The workers say no and the police move in and start to beat us, arrest us and shoot tear gass at us. What happens now? Do we go home. Of course not, we fight them. Of course it would be better to try and reason with the police and on some occasions you will win them over, but more often than not they would rather smash your head in. Your breraking the law remember, your a criminal in their eyes. Then all of a sudden the workers win, in london they take over key positions. Then the government send in the army with guns and tanks, what then? Do we go home then? Or do we through books and flowers at them? Of course we dont. Be realistic about this. You have to pick up a gun and defend yourself, your comrades and the revolution.

This is one example of what could happen and of course you will never know until it happens. But what you have to understand is, that that kind of violence will be inevitable. It dosnt matter what different methods you use to build the movement, in order to change society you are going to HAVE to go on the streets, and at that point the ruling class will use whatever means necessary to crush us, and at that point we must defend ourselves.

In order to understand how you as individual attempt to change the world, you must understand that revolution, or violence or whatever, is unfortunatly a fact. And unless capitalism suddenly disappears overnight, then that isnt going to change.

As for the working class thinking revolution is bad ,is true. They would look at the word revolution and automatically say that it is evil. but this is because they are not conscious to society. Once they begin to become conscious things like revolution will be understood a lot more. Once they understand their material conditions and how they change it, revolution will become something that they will be trying to fight for. And you shouldnt hide away from your principles and indeed fact, because someone might thing it&#39;s bad.

:ph34r:

[ONE]

Capitalism is like a blanket. It drapes over everything, and everything is contained within it. The media, food distrabution, electricity, how we sail the seas, the laws governing how we travel, everything right down to what food you buy. It is a system developed to allow individuals to gain wealth and power through using other individuals. Through history Capitalism has forced working class people into a cycle of selling labour in order to survive. The only time capitalism is changed is when the rich are not making enough money.



If capitalism is so powerful that, realistically, it can’t be combated in a powerful capitalist nation, then what makes you so sure that a revolution, let alone a minority one, would be successful? Once there is any evidence of mobilizing for a revolution, you will be shut down. Do you think the US or UK (for example) will give you ample time to even prepare for it? What I’m suggesting is at least tolerable in a capitalist society (especially when you pay money) but I doubt that you will be given a chance to mobilize. I think your approach is more of “romantic idealism” than mine&#33; Which do you honestly think the US would tolerate more? Educating people (can be done by everyone & everywhere) and publishing newsletters (for ex), or meeting in secret locations and gathering guns for the "inevitable" minority revolution?

Now even if you manage to organize for a revolution, do you think a small minority can defeat the police, FBI, National guard, Navy, air force and the other right wing gun nuts in the US? This is what “romantic idealism” is&#33;




All the things you sujest are fine if you want to build a movement. But it isnt enough if you want to change society. At some point, you are going to have to fight


Once the minority becomes a majority, IF there is still a need for a revolution, then so be it (I think you&#39;re misktaken me for Gandhi or Mother Theresa :lol: )




I can sympothise with how you feel about violence. Violence is apporent. It is evil but it is inevitable. The reason is, is that capitalism, the bourgeoisie will always try and defend their values.


True, even when you try to revolt. They will defend their values with a lot more determination and zeal&#33;


My main argument is that education/advocacy is essential whether you want to revolt or not (can we agree on this at least?). Another major point I’m making is that a revolution might not be necessary, however, I’m not claiming with 100% certainty that a change in the system can be accomplished without it either. Basically, you’re saying that a revolution is 100% inevitable; I’m disputing this percentage.


By the way, I never claimed GWB could be convinced; this would be an impossible undertaking :)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 12:47 AM
Victorcommie, The point I was trying to make is that things change, and sometimes the oppressed never see it coming, at least not in the manner they expected it...
And the point I was trying to make was that for the emancipation of the working class to occur, a revolt against the bourgeoisie must take place. There will be no gradual progression towards freedom from capitalism. the bourgeoisie will never give way to this or anything of the sort, remember: those who are profiting from capitalism are also in power.

[The Feral Underclass]

If capitalism is so powerful that, realistically, it cant be combated in a powerful capitalist nation, then what makes you so sure that a revolution, let alone a minority one, would be successful?

Your just not paying attention. I never talked about a minority revolution. I was talking about a revolution by the working class. A well educated, well organized, working class.

Once there is any evidence of mobilizing for a revolution, you will be shut down.

Of course they will. That is exactly my point. And then you fight.

Do you think the US or UK (for example) will give you ample time to even prepare for it?

This preperation you are talking about is education. This is what you are advocating. In order to perpare for a revolution, you must educate the masses. Once they understand society and want to change it, there will be strikes etc and at that point you begin to organize your next move. You can not prepare a revolution in advance, you can never know what is going to happen. You must play it by ear.

I think your approach is more of Romantic idealism?than mine&#33; Which do you honestly think the US would tolerate more? Educating people (can be done by everyone & everywhere) and publishing newsletters (for ex), or meeting in secret locations and gathering guns for the "inevitable" minority revolution?

You seem to be missing the point. Of course education will be more tolerated than some revolution by a group of nutters, but this isnt what im talking about. You talk of education and publishing newsletters as if this where not prone to bourgeois intervention. Educating is all fine and well, but as soon as the movement begins to grow you will be shut down. As soon as the ruling class get a sniff of what your doing, you are ewither going to have to fight, or go home.

Revolutions are not fought by collecting guns and having secret meetings. It is about education. I am not talking about gathering guns, that is a practical issue which will be dealt with at the time. For the moment, we have to concetrate on educating the masses.

Just out of interest, what on earth do you think newsletters are going to achieve. You call my logical conclusion romantic idealism then try and argue that publishing a newsletter is going to some how free the working class from their exploitation...please&#33;

Now even if you manage to organize for a revolution, do you think a small minority can defeat the police, FBI, National guard, Navy, air force and the other right wing gun nuts in the US? This is what Romantic idealism?is&#33;

I do not know about the US, but what I do know is that the working class in America are more. Once the working class have become conscious, then you stand up and fight. When you come infront of the national guard then you fight them. Look what happened in Indonesia and in Serbia. When a popular uprising began some of the police and army thought "what am i doing" and joined the uprising. This is bound to happen, but of course notr all of them will join you. This is why you need to fight. As for the FBI, i am sure they will use covert operations to undermine the revolution. So then the workers use covert operations as well. We fight. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This isn&#39;t romantic idealism. It is realistic.


Once the minority becomes a majority, IF there is still a need for a revolution, then so be it (I think you&#39;re misktaken me for Gandhi or Mother Theresa :lol:

What do you think will happen when the minority becomes the majority. That capitalism is going to stop. Of course it isnt. Capitalism wont just cease to be because a mojority of ther world have been educated about it. You say "if a revolution is still needed". But what happens once there is a majority. What happens is the army, the navy, the FBI come and try and smash you. Thats what is going to happen. It is a fact, and for the millionth time, when that happens you will have to fight.

I do not mistake you for Gandhi or Mother Theresa. More like Lassalle :angry:


My main argument is that education/advocacy is essential whether you want to revolt or not (can we agree on this at least?). Another major point Im making is that a revolution might not be necessary, however, Im not claiming with 100% certainty that a change in the system can be accomplished without it either. Basically, youre saying that a revolution is 100% inevitable; Im disputing this percentage.

I agree education is always important, and I do not want a revolution. It is something which is inevitable.

If you disagree that a revolution may not be needed, could you please tell me exactly what will happen once the "minority has become the majority". What happens to the police and the army, the FBI and the ruling class. Once you have published your newletters and educated a majority. What happens then? Maybe we can through flowers everywhere and make the place look pretty&#33; :ph34r:

[ONE]

Ok, before I start, I just want to say that we at least agree on the importance of education… One of my main points has been taken care of&#33;



Your just not paying attention. I never talked about a minority revolution. I was talking about a revolution by the working class. A well educated, well organized, working class.


So you are talking about a majority revolution? A “well educated, well organized, working class” majority is what I’ve been talking about from the beginning. Sorry I can’t remember if it was you or someone else was talking about the minority revolution as it is written… That’s why I addressed this point.






Of course they will. That is exactly my point. And then you fight.

This preperation you are talking about is education. This is what you are advocating. In order to perpare for a revolution, you must educate the masses. Once they understand society and want to change it, there will be strikes etc and at that point you begin to organize your next move. You can not prepare a revolution in advance, you can never know what is going to happen. You must play it by ear.

Educating is all fine and well, but as soon as the movement begins to grow you will be shut down. As soon as the ruling class get a sniff of what your doing, you are ewither going to have to fight, or go home.


And you honestly think that an impromptu revolution against the world’s mightiest and most fanatical capitalism will succeed? So if the government will shut you down as soon “as the movement begins to grow”, this means that the movement is still young and weak, right? This is the start you’re proposing for the revolution&#33; now do you think, again, that a weak revolution will work? This is “romantic idealism”


“You must play it by ear.”


Don’t you think this would be taking the revolution a little less seriously? It’s not like you’re trying to figure out what you want to do on the weekend&#33;




Revolutions are not fought by collecting guns and having secret meetings. It is about education. I am not talking about gathering guns, that is a practical issue which will be dealt with at the time. For the moment, we have to concetrate on educating the masses.



That’s what I’ve been talking about since the beginning&#33; I’ve said it over and over again.




Just out of interest, what on earth do you think newsletters are going to achieve. You call my logical conclusion romantic idealism then try and argue that publishing a newsletter is going to some how free the working class from their exploitation...please&#33;


A newsletter is an example&#33; The point is any form of communication should be utilized. I thought you agreed with the necessity of education&#33;




I do not know about the US, but what I do know is that the working class in America are more. Once the working class have become conscious, then you stand up and fight.



But not all the working class is leftist...




When you come infront of the national guard then you fight them. Look what happened in Indonesia and in Serbia. When a popular uprising began some of the police and army thought "what am i doing" and joined the uprising. This is bound to happen, but of course notr all of them will join you. This is why you need to fight. As for the FBI, i am sure they will use covert operations to undermine the revolution. So then the workers use covert operations as well. We fight. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This isn&#39;t romantic idealism. It is realistic.



Sure, fighting them is realistic, I’m not denying that… defeating them on the other hand without large numbers and even a section of the military helping is pure fantasy.




What do you think will happen when the minority becomes the majority. That capitalism is going to stop. Of course it isnt. Capitalism wont just cease to be because a mojority of ther world have been educated about it. You say "if a revolution is still needed". But what happens once there is a majority. What happens is the army, the navy, the FBI come and try and smash you. Thats what is going to happen. It is a fact, and for the millionth time, when that happens you will have to fight.
…
If you disagree that a revolution may not be needed, could you please tell me exactly what will happen once the "minority has become the majority". What happens to the police and the army, the FBI and the ruling class.


The FBI and the others won&#39;t "try and smash" you for no reason; if you try and riot, they might, but there has to be an excuse for them to do so.

You are under the impression that people and the working class would demonstrate and riot; this will compel the cops to use violence, things will go downhill from there, as this will incite more riots, etc etc and thus the revolution is born… How about this: when the minority becomes the majority, life continues as is, no need for demonstrations and riots, as life won’t necessarily be any more hellish as it is today.. With the majority being leftists, they will send politicians to parliament or congress or wherever. Remember, if leftists are concentrated in a particular riding, then, a leftist representative will be elected. But now you might say: the capitalists won’t allow this… this is a low level politician so they won’t risk “cheating” at this stage. Even if they do cheat, unless they want to explicitly do it, if there is a clear leftist majority, they won’t be able to do much (again if they don’t cheat openly). So now you will have leftist politicians and representatives that will apply pressure at the beginning. With time and slow progress, you will have more politicians until the party (doesn’t have to be called the communist party) becomes a major competitive force. IF democracy holds, the party will come to power if the majority demands this. If the capitalists sabotage this democratic process and cheat in subtle ways, maybe the left should be proactive and do the same. If they openly undertake such a method (cheating) and use force, then the revolution will have more support and at this stage; even elements of the armed forces would side with the leftists as some of them would be leftists (if the left is a majority that is distributed over the entire population, then there would be a substantial leftist segment within the armed forces). If the entire military is against you, then it’s futile and simply stupid to revolt. The result would be nothing but wasted blood, less leftists and a weakened cause.

… If you have a good ORGANIZED movement, rioting will only happen when it is time&#33; I’m sure if you were not rash, you would patiently wait for a more prudent stage in the struggle. It’s all about timing… This is my point when I say try democracy first. It might not work, fine, but progress as far as possible through the system. What are the chances of achieving your goals? I don’t know, but you’re insisting it’s 0%…




Once you have published your newletters and educated a majority. What happens then? Maybe we can through flowers everywhere and make the place look pretty&#33;


I would appreciate it if you maintain a more intellectual and less sarcastic tone…. And it’s “throw” not “through”

[FistFullOfSteel]

revolution is good&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[ONE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 04:18 PM
revolution is good&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Hugo, something tells me you&#39;re a man of few words :lol:

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 04:21 PM
You are giving up on democracy before you try.

Not true. Going all the way back to German Social Democracy in the late 19th century, communists and socialists have "tried" to win bourgeois elections repeatedly.

In fact, the vast majority of all "left" groups today still take bourgeois elections seriously enough to run candidates and devote serious resources to electoral campaigns. (I&#39;m speaking of advanced capitalist countries here.)

The persistence of the myth of "bourgeois democracy" is quite incredible; in spite of all the evidence, people on the left still believe that it "means something."

It doesn&#39;t. It never has. And I see absolutely no reasonable argument that it ever will.

I fully agree that minority revolutions led by self-appointed "vanguards" are an illusion. Those things can and have happened in pre-capitalist and semi-capitalist countries, not in any advanced capitalist country...ever.

Why then can we not simply tell people the truth?

1. The only way to gain anything from the bosses is some form of resistance that is outside of the "official channels" of "dispute resolution".

2. The ultimate form of "outside" resistance is proletarian revolution...the massive uprising of the entire class to take everything.

It&#39;s not really a very complicated "message" when you stop and think about it. It appears and will appear to many as "utopian"...mostly because working people have been carefully indoctrinated with contempt for themselves and contempt for their co-workers through, of course, the bourgeois media, school system, etc.

"It&#39;s a great idea but people are too fucked up to do it"...as we have all heard many, many times.

This is where material conditions come in...teaching the working class the practicality of solidarity in the course of inevitable struggles against the ruling class. Only in the experience of class struggle do workers really learn that their class sisters and brothers are not "fucked up".

That&#39;s not something that we can "make" happen, though we can encourage it.

What does lie within our grasp, the power that we do actually have...is to tell people the truth about capitalism and communism. Tell it as many places as we can, through as many media available, use the most convincing language that we know, etc., etc.

But don&#39;t fool around, don&#39;t weasel...tell the truth.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
There is no myth about what you call &#39;bourgeois democracy&#39; but which is more properly called representative democracy. Frankly inventing an alternative (and in your eyes perjurative) label for something which already has a perfectly good one is the hallmark of the zealot. It shouts load and clear that you lack the ability to explain why the thing itself is bad and are resorting to demonisation.

Democracy is about giving people the opportunity to determine for themselves as a group what it is that they want and then implementing it. But one of the things they may want is democracy itself. It is up to them to express what type of democracy.

Now overwhelmingly people will say they want representative democracy. Whether they are sensible to do so does not come into it. Another common trait amongst zealots like you is a refusal to acknowlege that a result which goes against you is still a valid result. It means you are failing to get your message across. This may be because conditions are stacked against you, or it could be because your message is actually pretty flawed. But in either case it matters not; because the simple fact is that if you have insuffiicent support to win a &#39;bourgeois election&#39; then you certainly have insufficient support for a revolution.

Really all you are doing is making excuses for your own failings. Putting off the dreadful day when you must stop writing pseudo intellectual weak claptrap with random highlighting of words , and actually take part in something which may grow into an effective movement. You do this I suspect because you, rightly, suspect that your particular bunch of ideas will never ever gain significant support and you are too arrogant to accept that this means it is you who will have to change. You dont actually believe in democracy as far as I can see. You believe only that it would be lovely if everyone agreed with you and provided democratic process confirmed this you would be happy with it.

There is nothing stopping you (or me) from fielding Communist or Socialist candidates in a &#39;bourgeois election&#39;; and in fact such candidates do stand. They poll (regretabally) very few votes. Are you seriously contending that this is because the results are rigged?&#33; If not it means that people dont buy our pacakage. We have failed to convince. Why matters only to us. It is us that needs to improve our communication , not wish that it already were so improved.

I personally find your naive view that &#39;bosses&#39; are somehow actually a fundamentally different group from &#39;workers&#39; as people almost incredible. To be a &#39;boss&#39; is merely a statement of a persons transient operational function, it is not (as you use it) a fundamental attribute of persona. It is more difficult to convince a rich person (which is all you seem to mean by &#39;boss&#39; to give up on the system that is making him/her rich of course. But that is all.

If socialist candidates poll more votes than liberal/ captalist ones and the result is ignored THEN we have cause for popular revolt. But since this has never occured in the first world it is most assuredly an academic question as to what to do about it.

Quite apart from anything else the mere taking part in such elections is a good way to communicate the message and an excellent test of commitment. If commitment and ideals cannot be maintained in the face of &#39;electoral pressure&#39; they most certainly wont be maintained in the face of the much more rigorous tests of operation.

[redstar2000]

There is no myth about what you call &#39;bourgeois democracy&#39; but which is more properly called representative democracy. Frankly inventing an alternative (and in your eyes pejorative) label for something which already has a perfectly good one is the hallmark of the zealot. It shouts load and clear that you lack the ability to explain why the thing itself is bad and are resorting to demonisation.

The term "bourgeois democracy" existed before I was born. It was coined to emphasize the class nature of what you are pleased to call "representative democracy"...a form of state in which the appearance of popularity sovereignty is combined with the reality of capitalist class control.

The term that you prefer to use, on the other hand, disguises the class nature of bourgeois democracy; you make it appear as if it exists "above" the class struggle...like a scoreboard at a stadium.

I would think you would know better than that...but evidently not.

Now overwhelmingly people will say they want representative democracy.

They may as well...it&#39;s not as if they&#39;re going to be allowed to choose any kind of genuine democracy, is it?

Up to this point in history, it&#39;s been a choice between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois-fascist dictatorship (the Leninists have not been a factor in the west). Given such wretched alternatives, is the "choice" particularly surprising?

But in either case it matters not; because the simple fact is that if you have insufficient support to win a &#39;bourgeois election&#39; then you certainly have insufficient support for a revolution.

Not necessarily...you&#39;re overlooking that enormous pool of non-voters. When more than 50% of the electorate dismisses the spectacle of capitalist "elections" with contempt, I think that&#39;s pretty significant.

That doesn&#39;t make them revolutionary of course...but it&#39;s a big target for revolutionary ideas.

And it&#39;s getting bigger.

I personally find your naive view that &#39;bosses&#39; are somehow actually a fundamentally different group from &#39;workers&#39; as people almost incredible. To be a &#39;boss&#39; is merely a statement of a persons transient operational function, it is not (as you use it) a fundamental attribute of persona.

The reason that you find it "incredible" is that you don&#39;t grasp the fact that being determines consciousness. (That&#39;s also why your "market socialism" schemes will never amount to anything.)

When you put someone in the position of "order-giver", you change their relationship to the means of production. That changes the way they look at everything. There is a little ditty that illustrates this very well...

The working class can kiss my ass;
I&#39;ve got the foreman&#39;s job at last.

It&#39;s difficult to grasp if you&#39;ve never met any ruling class kids, but you would not believe how well they are trained in the arts of assumed superiority. By the time they graduate from Harvard (or Oxbridge), they are as deeply convinced of their right to rule as any 15th century feudal lord.

(The difference, if any, is that they are also taught nowadays to pretend to be "democratic"...:lol:)

They are as far removed from the concerns of ordinary working people as if they lived on Mars...not simply because of their existing wealth and power but because of the attitudes engendered by the existence of that wealth and power.

Quite apart from anything else the mere taking part in such elections is a good way to communicate the message and an excellent test of commitment.

But it&#39;s communicating the wrong message.

When you run for office in bourgeois democracy, your message is "vote for me and I&#39;ll set you free". That&#39;s not how it happens.

It sends a message of passivity...that all you need do is pick the right leaders and they will take care of everything--when they don&#39;t, dump them and pick some new ones.

Nothing ever changes.

And it wouldn&#39;t, even if some group of really sincere, committed "socialists" won a majority. The state apparatus (civil service) would refuse to cooperate. The central bank would refuse to cooperate. There would be a "strike" of capital. The "socialist majority" would be legally helpless.

The population would be expecting you to "really do something" and you wouldn&#39;t be able to do anything. After the next election, you&#39;d be history.

It&#39;s no use saying that "well, if that happens, then we&#39;ll try the revolutionary alternative". After decades of servile submission to bourgeois "legality", you&#39;re "suddenly" going to do a complete about-face and become fire-breathing revolutionaries???

Bah&#33;

You believe only that it would be lovely if everyone agreed with you and provided democratic process confirmed this you would be happy with it.

Well, yes.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

The fact that the tern &#39;bourgeois democracy&#39; is an old insult does not change the fact that it is one. Say &#39;bourgeois democracy&#39; to a standard US voter and he will a) not really know what the heck you are talking about and b) automatically label you an extremist nutter without further ado. He&#39;d be right of course.

NON VOTERS are people who are in the main too apathetic even to spemd 10 mins registering a protest. Good luck if you think they are gonna make good revolutionary material. You&#39;ll be lucky if they send in a sick note on Red Friday. More likely they&#39;ll go down the pub.

Your whole problem in a nutshell is that you think only of where you like to be not about how you are going to get there. Nothing meaningful ever changes dramatically and suddenly and sucessfully in the way you&#39;d like it too. You cant go direct to where you want to be from here. Just a fact of life. One you wont live with, which makes your whole message destructively pointless. The Panda might just as well wish it was omnivorous and smaller because rats do so much better.

AS to your fixation on class and bosses. Citing a tiny minority of people as if they were truly the only ones with influence might make the problem read simpler. But it is not the truth.

In Marx&#39;s day there really was a polarised distinction; a distinct gap, between the &#39;proletraiat&#39; and the &#39;bourgeois&#39; (though of course even he need to describe an intermediate &#39;class&#39;). Today its a continuuum (with nobody at all in the first world anywhere near the extreme &#39;proletariat&#39; end).

Times have changed. Situations have altered. 150 year old strategies and understandings wont work. Yours never would have (and Karl of course never proposed it).

Let me put it yet another way - You are overwhelmingly fixated on whether ideas will work to deliver EXACTLY the world you want. If they wont (or cant be guaranteed to) you dismiss them. But you entirely fail to appreciate that at least they will actually work. Your &#39;plan&#39; (I use the word laughingly) to &#39;educate people into full communism and deny global warming and be forgiving to paedophiles (educate them out of it ?)&#39; wont ever work at all. More accurately it is not a plan at all; just a xmas wish list. Why not wish for &#39;world peace&#39; while you are at it, and maybe cross your fingers for six numbers on saturday (actually thats better odds than what you are wishing for).

Give my love to the dinosaurs when u meet up with em in heaven.

[ONE]

Finally... someone shares my point of view&#33;



In Marx&#39;s day there really was a polarised distinction; a distinct gap, between the &#39;proletraiat&#39; and the &#39;bourgeois&#39; (though of course even he need to describe an intermediate &#39;class&#39;). Today its a continuuum (with nobody at all in the first world anywhere near the extreme &#39;proletariat&#39; end).


That&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying; a theory that might have applied perfectly to a 19th century social structure must be re-examined, as it is obsolete now. Times have changed, the social structure is different and so is the political reality. The Sociopolitical system of today look very different than that of the 19th century&#33; Those who refuse to accept this are unrealistic and even comparable to religious fanatics. Only in this case, people are quoting Marx and regarding his theories as the unquestionable and irrefutable truth. No matter what political philosophy you subscribe to, you should always question it and only embrace what you believe in.

Those with extreme views blame a flawed and unfair democratic system rather than point the finger at the ineffectiveness of the various communist groups at appealing to the general public and more specifically the working class.

Even the definition of the working class is outdated... Many in low-level office jobs share the same realities as the working class.


You have to appeal to the general population, and talks of a sudden change in the sociopolitical system in a violent manner (ie revolution), will actually drive people away. I agree with sc4r, you can&#39;t get to communism over night; even if you manage to pull that off, it won&#39;t be long lasting since those who refused this system to start with, will refuse it even more fervently after the fact. You can&#39;t force people to accept your view, that’s what I&#39;ve been saying, teach people, gain support slowly. A minority revolution (as some are calling for) will never work, especially in the US and in a new "world order".

The destination of communism is commendable; however, the vehicle with which to get there is questionable.

The most realistic and effective option is socialism.

[redstar2000]

Give my love to the dinosaurs when u meet up with em in heaven.

As that pretty well summarizes the quality of your reformist "arguments", I don&#39;t think any reply is required.

The most realistic and effective option is socialism.

A form of class society...specifically, capitalism without capitalists (temporarily).

If that&#39;s all you want, fine. Go for it. I won&#39;t stop you or even try to argue you out of it.

I always think it&#39;s a shame when people waste their time and energy in impossible endeavors, but all I can do is warn people and then let them go their chosen way.

And hope that experience will teach where argument failed.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[ONE]

You have to pass through socialism before establishing a communist system. I don&#39;t believe you can achieve an effective change in systems in a short period of time through revolution, especially a minority one. This is the reality I am talking about.

If you wish to climb a staircase with the ultimate objective being to reach the top floor, can you make it all the way to the top in one leap? How about if you jump 10 steps at a time? Can you convince others to follow your lead? Now try to climb up one step at a time, even two steps at a time, do you think that&#39;s more realistic? Can you convince others to partake in this adventure?



I always think it&#39;s a shame when people waste their time and energy in impossible endeavors...



I agree with you&#33; ;) :D

[redstar2000]

As to your fixation on class and bosses. Citing a tiny minority of people as if they were truly the only ones with influence might make the problem read simpler. But it is not the truth.

That&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying; a theory that might have applied perfectly to a 19th century social structure must be re-examined, as it is obsolete now. Times have changed, the social structure is different and so is the political reality.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-exec...business-manual (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-execpay26aug26,1,2260353.story?coll=la-headlines-business-manual)

Marx...what a "dummy", right?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas