Could Communism Socialism and or Marxism take power in a Capitalist society with peac

[tradeunionsupporter]

Could Communism Socialism and or Marxism take power in a Capitalist society with peaceful elections and voting Communists into office and Reforms or is this not possible has this not ever happened in history without a Revolution what did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have to say on this subject ?

Debunking CPUSA's communism by proxy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orw0YZVP_ic

A Message to the CPUSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwpFgMEwbAs

Bob Avakian, "The 'voting trap' under capitalism"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hERCRUGsRI

The Myth of American Democracy


Sep 1, 2004
By John Gallup and Melissa Sanders


http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1297


http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism


http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/Communism/faq.html

[miltonwasfried...man]

Small reforms can occur through the ballot, by electing left/centerist parties. But this will only make capitalism a little more bearable for the working class, when the idea should be total liberty and equality. I believe that for true change to occur we must dismantle, not support the government. These "representatives" are corrupted by corporate lobbying and pressures from the capitalist elite. It takes huge amounts of money to run a election campaign, thusly they need corporate money which makes them indebt to the corporations. So once elected they will serve the rich donors and not the rest of us. Even if the politician remained true to the socialist cause, our governments are set up in such a way that is is nearly impossible to get anything done. You need a large consensus and a lot of compromise, which will dilute any real change. Also the politicians are very well paid, so why would they want to tax the rich? Finally say by some miracle a socialist party gets democratically elected, the capitalists will find a way to take them out. By either the rich withdrawing their money from the stock market, causing a economic collapse or supporting a coup to take out the socialists. Look at what happened to Salvador Allende in Chile. We want enlightenment of our cause to the masses, not political lobbying. We want revolution, not concession. We want true democracy, not an elected dictatorship. We want Communism, not welfare capitalism.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

there are these newfound things called comma's and periods.
if enough of the population where on board, then yes, yes you could. but the likely ability of that is about 0% chance. Americas propaganda is fucking good. and it might happen in greece
EDIT: yes your very right^

[CommunityBeliever]

I doubt socialism will arise peacefully on Earth, but as communists we will be the last to oppose it.

[Rafiq]

No, it won't. The proletariat must take power with drastic force and crush the bourgeoisie and achieve class dictatorship.

[Luc]

Communism (and definitly anarchism) cannot be handed down by "representatives" or else the people will not get any experience in organising in Communes and Soviets. We'd be stuck with the State and depending on your tendency; the state must be smashed and replaced by Communes.

Another hinderance is that the state exists to protect the right of property, just as Magon said:


"Governments have to protect the right of property above all other rights. Do not expect then, that Madero will attack the right of property in favour of the working class. Open your eyes. Remember a phrase, simple and true and as truth indestructable, the emacipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves."

If property remains then the revolution has failed.:(

Since the state is the puppet of the bourgeoisie we will have to confront the state which will almost definitly be violent. I doubt the state will commit suicide for the people. I wish it could be peaceful but that just doesn't seem plausible (unless your definition of peaceful is them shooting us without us shooting them then, I would rather it be violent; us shooting back).

as Delegado Cero said:


"This is only going to change from the bottom and from the left."

[Luc]

what did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have to say on this subject ?


In V. I. Lenin's the State and Revolution (which contains large quotes from Marx and Engels) Marx says that the proletariat will have to "smash" the state.

As quoted from The State and Revolution:

"On April 12, 1871, i.e., just at the time of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann:

"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." (Neue Zeit, Vol.XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709.)
(The letters of Marx to Kugelmann have appeared in Russian in no less than two editions, one of which I edited and supplied with a preface.)

The words, "to smash the bureaucratic-military machine", briefly express the principal lesson of Marxism regarding the tasks of the proletariat during a revolution in relation to the state. And this is the lesson that has been not only completely ignored, but positively distorted by the prevailing, Kautskyite, “interpretation” of Marxism!"

Note: the only quotes I put in are infront of: On April... and after: Marxism!

[Tommy4ever]

A socialist revolution cannot be entirely peaceful for the simple reason that those who would oppose such a revolution would never allow it to be peaceful - no matter how great a degree of legitimacy it might have through an election.

[Red And Black Sabot]

I don't even believe in pushing for reform or voting for the less of two evils as that usually just ends up strengthening capitalism in the end. As for actually winning through electoral means, I dont think that is possible at all as I feel the state and its structures exist to benefit the elites, not the working class. Using the state apparatus and it's representative "democracy" won't ever lead to communism if not for anything else, simply because we don't have as big a sway when it comes to getting folks out to the polls as the rich and their interests and their propaganda do nor do we have the money to put into advertising, public events, or basically winning elections the way the dems and reps do.
Plus... considering what it would take for us to organize well enough to win communism through electoral channels we would have done it way easier and quicker if we just as well had organized the revolution™ instead.
Also, just cause a majority votes to redistribute wealth, it doesn't mean it'll be a peaceful redistribution. Those fuckers won't give up that easy.

[Susurrus]

The bourgeoisie are always the first to declare violence.

[RGacky3]

I think it is possible for socialism to take hold, democratically, such as is happening for example in Bolivia (slowly), and in venezuela

But it is by no means peaceful, not because the socialists are being violent, because the ruling class does.

You also have the Argentine takeovers which were relatively peaceful (at least until the police came).

I think socialists should always aim for peaceful revolution, try democratic methods, as well as any other methods (syndicalist for example), but be ready for the capitalist to turn to violence (as they generally do when they loose).

[Aspiring Humanist]

Allende tried it and he got himself shot

[Thirsty Crow]

Allende tried it and he got himself shot
Don0t you know that he committed suicide? Personal responsibility, comrade, and not a savage backlash on behalf of the ruling class backed by imperialists.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Don0t you know that he committed suicide? Personal responsibility, comrade, and not a savage backlash on behalf of the ruling class backed by imperialists.

If there wasn't fighter jets, tanks and infantry circling the presidential palace he wouldn't have killed himself. If there wasn't a US-backed coup in retaliation for his marxist views he wouldn't have been shot. Yeah, he shot himself, but indirectly, Allende used politics to implement marxism and he got himself shot. By himself yes, but shot nonetheless

[miltonwasfried...man]

Allende shot himself to avoid being taken hostage by Pinochet and tortured mercilessly. He protected his image and all he stood for by eliminating the coup's chance at humiliating his good name by parading him through the streets a broken man.