Why the proletarian revolution can't be spontaneus?

[el_chavista]

According to the Manifesto, the socialist revolution got to be done by a revolutionary movement which must be conscious of its specific goals of changing the capitalist system -unlike precedent historic changes of system. Where can it be found more historic-materialist elaboration about this?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Well the actual Revolt can be spontaneus and any spontaneus uprising should be supported, its just that if it doesnt take a direction after the overthrowing of the leadership, the risk is that the revolution will get lost like in France may 68 where the workers and students managed to actually overthrow the system just to let it come back.

[TC]

People don't spontaneously act in a coordinated, organized, disciplined fashion - and people who are highly coordinated and highly disciplined wield power far more effectively than those who do not - they control those who are not organized and disciplined. A tiny military unit can disperse a massive mob. This is not a class thing, it is a tactics thing - and when one's enemies use disciplined organization and we do not, we will lose.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As you can see from what is happening in Egypt, for example, without an organisation of some sort, the initiative will always pass to the ruling class -- since they are organised.

[Edge1905]

Because people are so enslaved by their jobs that they don't even have time to think and do something on their own. They need support, they need to know that others workers are with them and they need objectives. Some people aren't willing to risk the very little they have for something they don't know.

[Across The Street]

I don't think we've seen the end of peoples rule in Egypt though, and nobody is to say that organization always breeds success. When you have tactics, you have those who know how to exploit those tactics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No one said organisation always breeds success, but one thing is for sure: lack of organisation always breeds failure, and that is because the ruling class are always organised, and, if allowed to, will seize back the initiative.

And sure, the Egyptian revolt is not yet finished, but it will be unless the people organise and take on the power of the state -- which is still organised.

As is the international ruling class -- a people's/workers' state will have to challenge property and exploitation relations and that will invite ideological and military intervention from abroad, lest such ideas spread and threaten the metropolitan areas.

[Paulappaul]

When we socialists think of Spontaneous, we think of chaos, disorder and disorganization. That sort of Spontaneity doesn't exist. By Spontaneous what is meant that it takes place outside the traditional norm.

Every action takes places in a definite organized form. The May 68 events are often said to be "spontaneous" - truth be told, the students organized into Workers-Student Committees, the workers into Wildcat Strike Committees. These are organisations which we're given life as a direct result of the workers' initiatives. The defenders of the so called "spontaneity" relish this sort of organization as the means for which to really the turn the table against Capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't like May 1968 at all. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html)

[ComradeOm]

I'm in a Gramsci mode of late so I'll quote the man and note that "behind spontaneity is presupposed pure mechanicalism". That is, that the conception of revolution as 'spontaneously' breaking out and seizing power, without the presence of a political vehicle for the proletariat, is determinism of the crassest order. It denies, or at least downplays, the role of human agency in destroying the old order and creating the new

[bcbm]

A tiny military unit can disperse a massive mob. This is not a class thing, it is a tactics thing - and when one's enemies use disciplined organization and we do not, we will lose.

depends what you mean, plenty of disciplined cops have been routed by mobs, its a matter of applying certain tactics to situations. disciplined organizational structures tend to be rigid, with more fluidity a "disorganized" group can overtake them

[¿Que?]

The issue of spontaneity for me is unresolved. Spontaneous can mean a lot of things, and it does not necessarily translate to organized. Couldn't an organization (or a number of them) act spontaneously?

[ZeroNowhere]

The Manifesto does not say that. In fact, the point of the 'ten planks' is precisely that it isn't.

"Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes."

[nuisance]

It's pretty far-fetched to believe that the first proper revolt during Mubaraks 30 years in charge was going to bring about a society which has disposed of the ruling class, whether it be organised or not. What we are seeing in the Arab world is stepping stones, with people gaining vitial information and skills for future battles against State and Capital. The shattering of the illusion of invulnerability of the enemy is the first task of any radical movement, just like Millbank in the UK.

[The Grey Blur]

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." - Kurt Vonnegut

i know it's trite to just reply with a quote but this seemed relevant.

[Red Bayonet]

SUCCESSFUL revolutions cannot be spontaneous. They must be engineered. Name one successful revolution that was entirely spontaneous.

[Paulappaul]

Name one successful revolution that was entirely spontaneous.

Hungary 1956. The Workers' broke up from factories into their own Workers' Councils took control of the means of production and changed the nation. It took a Soviet Invasion to put down the new order.

[Red Bayonet]

But they LOST. Name one that WON>

[hatzel]

Hungary 1956. The Workers' broke up from factories into their own Workers' Councils took control of the means of production and changed the nation. It took a Soviet Invasion to put down the new order.

Does that count as successful, then, or do we all have dreams for a short-lived revolutionary period, after which loads of us get killed and still more flee the country to avoid similar treatment? :confused:

[Red Bayonet]

Successful is when the revolution is able to successfully defend itself against counterrevolution. In Hungary, the revolt was crushed beneath the caterpillar tracks of counterrevolution, before it could take root and flower.

[Proukunin]

social media changes all this, those revolutions took place many years ago before we had advanced technology like we do now. We can actually have spontaneous revolutions of people with social media, because of the fact that we can get together in matter of minutes.

[bricolage]

But they LOST. Name one that WON>
Name ANY revolution that won.

[StalinFanboy]

But they LOST. Name one that WON>
It's a bit more complex than just "winning." The Russian Revolutionaries "won" in the sense that they successfully took state power.

However, they failed to transform the social relationships within Russia.

[Paulappaul]

But they LOST. Name one that WON> There has never been a successful revolution. Name one revolution that has won and established Socialism.


Does that count as successful, then, or do we all have dreams for a short-lived revolutionary period, after which loads of us get killed and still more flee the country to avoid similar treatment? :confused:Like I said to the other poster, if that's your criteria there has never been a successful revolution. In Russia there was internal counter revolution which killed revolutionaries. The same can be said for Spain at the end of its proletarian revolution. The Paris Commune too. Not my criteria, but whatever.

[el_chavista]

The Manifesto does not say that. In fact, the point of the 'ten planks' is precisely that it isn't.

"Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes."

The conditions referred to here are the objective conditions of the economical development. Once we have a revolutionary situation (contradiction between new economical developments of the means of production and old social relations not corresponding to them) it's a matter of class struggling. The bourgeoisie fought for their own interest and won political power.

In the case of the proletariat, it's not enough their fighting for their own working interests to drive the proletarian revolutionary movement directly to seizing power. Otherwise parties would be needless and useless.

My mistake I believed it could be drawn from the Manifesto. Perhaps I red it from a Leninist source (That's why I asked :confused: ).

[Psy]

social media changes all this, those revolutions took place many years ago before we had advanced technology like we do now. We can actually have spontaneous revolutions of people with social media, because of the fact that we can get together in matter of minutes.

Communication is not really the problem, the problem is the revolution not fully usurping the capitalist class. Eventually you need the revolution to take the kid gloves off and start taking capitalist property by organized and disciplined forces along with taking capitalists into custody.

[NewPartyTendency]

does that mean in the United States, you get to be a beneficiary of your own land next to the proletariat beneficiary with the right to private ownership here.

China has recently commenced the development of a civil code that allows property usage rights based on the civil law concept of usufruct. Usufruct is the legal right to the use, profit and benefit from land owned by another. The government has caused unrest in the last few years by transferring lands to developers who, with inadequate compensation, oust city dwellers from their homes and farmers from their lands and means of livelihood. There has been a groundswell of resistance where city dwellers have protested and farmers have divided collective land amongst themselves claiming private ownership of their family farms.

[MarxistMan]

EL CHAVIZTA: I am more Chavizta, than Saint Chavez. that's right i consider Hugo Chavez a saint, not a normal human being. If all US voters were like Hugo Chavez the USA would be a paradise !!

Hugo Chavez rules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.


According to the Manifesto, the socialist revolution got to be done by a revolutionary movement which must be conscious of its specific goals of changing the capitalist system -unlike precedent historic changes of system. Where can it be found more historic-materialist elaboration about this?