Ruthlessness and the Revolution

[Azula]

I want to talk about violence.

Often, we say that the Revolution will probably be violent. But I have a sense that most of you with "violence" mean smashed windows, cops beaten, barricades and other romantic drivel.

Are you psychologically ready to receive bullets in your bodies which would shatter your arteries, cut your muscles and possibly kill you or leave you invalidised for life?

Are you psychologically ready to kill people yourselves? To look them in the eyes before pulling the trigger, to see life vanish from their bodies?

You seem to underestimate our opponents very much, seem to think that only if the people react, then the rulers will somehow cow down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqN6sy7xWjw

This is an illustration of how utopians view the Revolution. But the Revolution is not, as Mao said, a picnic.

The Revolution could mean everything from a few thousand dead to an all-out civil war with millions killed and maimed. Of course, it could be fairly bloodless - but it is wrong to base all hypotheses around the bloodless scenario.

It is better to imagine many different scenarios.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Are you psychologically ready to receive bullets in your bodies which would shatter your arteries, cut your muscles and possibly kill you or leave you invalidised for life?

Are you psychologically ready to kill people yourselves? To look them in the eyes before pulling the trigger, to see life vanish from their bodies?

I'm sure you are, Internet Tough Guy.

[Azula]

Now we should hold this discussion seriously.

And I am not a guy.

I am, in fact, a lady.

[Azula]

The question is: Why do revolutionaries tend to imagine peaceful revolutions?

[Apoi_Viitor]

The question is: Why do revolutionaries tend to imagine peaceful revolutions?

They don't.

[Susurrus]

Not many really do, and most are ready to fight for it. I don't think anyone on this forum expects it to b peaceful.

[piet11111]

The proletariat is an immensely powerful group of people without us every factory stands still and no electricity is generated.

If the masses only realized that we are the ones that hold capitalism's life support in our hands then we could overthrow the capitalists today !

[Azula]

The proletariat is an immensely powerful group of people without us every factory stands still and no electricity is generated.

If the masses only realized that we are the ones that hold capitalism's life support in our hands then we could overthrow the capitalists today !

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Neutral, supportive to the stronger faction

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minority

[gendoikari]

The question is: Why do revolutionaries tend to imagine peaceful revolutions?

We don't, we hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[Azula]

We don't, we hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Are you prepared for the black helicopters massacring protesting masses? Or for people brought to concentration camps? Of crawling naked through the mud while policemen in black uniforms are kicking you and their Dobermanns are barking in your ears?

I think a revolutionary must be prepared for that scenario.

[Susurrus]

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Neutral, supportive to the stronger faction

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minority

You cannot do anything without rousing the masses to action.

To become a power the class-conscious workers must win the majority to their side.

Lenin

[gendoikari]

Are you prepared for the black helicopters massacring protesting masses? Or for people brought to concentration camps? Of crawling naked through the mud while policemen in black uniforms are kicking you and their Dobermanns are barking in your ears?

I think a revolutionary must be prepared for that scenario.

I'm a physicist/explosives expert. That crap won't be necessary.

[Zanthorus]

Are you psychologically ready to kill people yourselves? To look them in the eyes before pulling the trigger, to see life vanish from their bodies?

No, and I suggest that if you yourself are that you seek psychiatric help immediately. Humans, like most animals, do not naturally seek to kill others of their own kind. The majority of soldiers in war, for example, do not shoot to kill, and initially psychologically healthy soldiers who spend too much time in a warzone can quickly become unstable. You claiming that you are psychologically ready to kill another human being is probably indicative of one of two things. Either you are, as Apoi_Viitor put it, an internet tough guy posing about being a 'true revolutionary' ready to gun down reactionaries (Which is very much like a virgin talking about having sex) or you are, as I stated previously, some form of psychopath.

[gendoikari]

No, and I suggest that if you yourself are that you seek psychiatric help immediately. Humans, like most animals, do not naturally seek to kill others of their own kind.

That's highly dependent on what you call your own kind now isn't it. Cause there's a lot of homo sapiens that I don't consider human.

[Azula]

No, and I suggest that if you yourself are that you seek psychiatric help immediately. Humans, like most animals, do not naturally seek to kill others of their own kind. The majority of soldiers in war, for example, do not shoot to kill, and initially psychologically healthy soldiers who spend too much time in a warzone can quickly become unstable. You claiming that you are psychologically ready to kill another human being is probably indicative of one of two things. Either you are, as Apoi_Viitor put it, an internet tough guy posing about being a 'true revolutionary' ready to gun down reactionaries (Which is very much like a virgin talking about having sex) or you are, as I stated previously, some form of psychopath.

Shouldn't revolutionaries be prepared to repress their more humanist traits? If you doubt whether or not to use your rifle in a life and death situation, the enemy might make that decision for you.

[gendoikari]

Shouldn't revolutionaries be prepared to repress their more humanist traits? If you doubt whether or not to use your rifle in a life and death situation, the enemy might make that decision for you.

we don't repress our humanist traits we do what must be done, killing any human is a horrible thing that only the naieve can talk of nonchalantly. I mean how much of the opposition do think will simply be mislead people lied to by the bourgeoisie and how many will be the actual low life scum bag like hedge fund managers.

[Tablo]

Socialist revolution is the seizing of productive means, not shooting cappies.

[Azula]

we don't repress our humanist traits we do what must be done, killing any human is a horrible thing that only the naieve can talk of nonchalantly. I mean how much of the opposition do think will simply be mislead people lied to by the bourgeoisie and how many will be the actual low life scum bag like hedge fund managers.

Human beings have always died in huge numbers. We must ensure a future of peace, freedom and equality for all human beings, even if that means temporary sacrifices.

[Luc]

Couldn't put in Spoilers sorry if it is offensive to anyone (but Azula)

I must say Azula your talk of steeling yourselves (sentiment not thoose exact words) and killing traitors reminds me of Breivik. I see in your words (not just this thread) the potential for politicide and your Totaliteritarian and Sexist ways will achieve nothing but the continued suffering and oppresion of the proletariat.

I hope you do some reflecting on your current position but as we have stated you can't force someone to change their opinion and we can't yours. Many people have clearly demonstrated the prieviously mention alot better than I and I hope you change.

I am just expressing my concern for and about you. I will not discuss this, it has already been done.

[Psy]

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Neutral, supportive to the stronger faction

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minority

You missed the scenario of a massive armed proletarian army like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense but scaling it up far more and for the entire proletariat not just a oppressed minority.

If you have a large enough revolutionary force they might even get away with a victory with very little fighting as most bourgeoisie forces don't want to mess with a revolutionary army with hundreds of millions of fighters.

[Zanthorus]

Shouldn't revolutionaries be prepared to repress their more humanist traits? If you doubt whether or not to use your rifle in a life and death situation, the enemy might make that decision for you.

I'm not going to argue about the morality or not of killing other people in the name of a cause, but in terms of the psychology of killing, and the question you asked about whether anyone was ready to kill reactionaries, the answer would be universally no. Psychologically healthy human beings in general are very bad at being prepared to kill other members of their own species. The only way it can be done is through the generation of de-humanising abstractions, usually along racial or national lines, such as that we are fighting 'Nazis' or 'Japs' rather than people. Even then, the majority of soldiers will not shoot to kill if they can help it.

[gendoikari]

Socialist revolution is the seizing of productive means, not shooting cappies.

This is true unfortunately they're going to be protecting those productive means with armed mercenaries.

[Susurrus]

Kill as little as possible, but be ready to kill and struggle when the need arises. Our main objective is to kill capitalism.

[gendoikari]

Kill as little as possible, but be ready to kill and struggle when the need arises. Our main objective is to kill capitalism.

Amen. However, I'll be [Censored] the Hedge fund Managers though, those motherfuckers aren't even really human.

[Susurrus]

Amen. However, I'll be [Censored] the Hedge fund Managers though, those motherfuckers aren't even really human.

Them and those damn real-estate vultures. Not to mention various white-supremacists.

[Rss]

I'm a physicist/explosives expert. That crap won't be necessary.

You are Gordon Freeman?


I can definitely see where Azula is coming from in this issue. Often, way too often revolutionaries have underestimated will and desire of ruling class to remain in power. Historically, they will not hesitate to shoot unarmed protestors when push comes to shove. Having a nice smile on your face and handing out flowers ain't gonna stop a charging steer.

That being said, I'd probably shit my pants ten times over in real combat, even if I have training from conscription.

[gendoikari]

You are Gordon Freeman?



No, more like another famous american Socialist physicist.


Them and those damn real-estate vultures. Not to mention various white-supremacists.

white supremecists by virtue of the fact that they will be trying to kill us. but I see no real reason to kill the real estate vultures, they're still categorized as human in my book.

[ColonelCossack]

Maybe when the state sees the armed, unstoppable mass of the revolutionary proletariat, they'll start shittin' bricks and leave the bourgeoisie to fend for themselves...?

Or maybe only 60% of the proles will become class consious and engage in revolution, with the rest going against them- in this case the state would probably be less likely to flee because they'd still have a very considerable number (many millions at least) on their side.

Who knows? we can only be sure of these things when the actually happen.

[Azula]

Maybe when the state sees the armed, unstoppable mass of the revolutionary proletariat, they'll start shittin' bricks and leave the bourgeoisie to fend for themselves...?

Or maybe only 60% of the proles will become class consious and engage in revolution, with the rest going against them- in this case the state would probably be less likely to flee because they'd still have a very considerable number (many millions at least) on their side.

Who knows? we can only be sure of these things when the actually happen.

We need to prepare.

[Susurrus]

white supremecists by virtue of the fact that they will be trying to kill us. but I see no real reason to kill the real estate vultures, they're still categorized as human in my book.

I just can't fathom how such people turn others out of their homes and reap insane profits. They are like a visual manifestation of capitalism.

[ColonelCossack]

We need to prepare.

True. I'll give you that.

[Per Levy]

I want to talk about violence.

ok...


Often, we say that the Revolution will probably be violent. But I have a sense that most of you with "violence" mean smashed windows, cops beaten, barricades and other romantic drivel.

nope, we know very well what the ruling class and it defenders can and will do if uprising or even a revolution will occur, it wont be pretty to say at least.


Are you psychologically ready to receive bullets in your bodies which would shatter your arteries, cut your muscles and possibly kill you or leave you invalidised for life?

no, because i never had a bullet in my body, and before that will happen i doubt i'll be "psychologically ready" for that. what about you? you ever had a bullet in your body?


Are you psychologically ready to kill people yourselves? To look them in the eyes before pulling the trigger, to see life vanish from their bodies?

um, what is your point? would i in a armed conflict be ready to fight to for a revolution? for worker power and so on? yes i would. on the other hand i would not participate in executions or something like that if it is that what you mean.


You seem to underestimate our opponents very much, seem to think that only if the people react, then the rulers will somehow cow down.

again, i think we all kow what the ruling class is capable of.



The Revolution could mean everything from a few thousand dead to an all-out civil war with millions killed and maimed. Of course, it could be fairly bloodless - but it is wrong to base all hypotheses around the bloodless scenario.

It is better to imagine many different scenarios.

yeah we know, just a look at history is enough to know that, thank you very much.

[LegendZ]

You missed the scenario of a massive armed proletarian army like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense but scaling it up far more and for the entire proletariat not just a oppressed minority.

If you have a large enough revolutionary force they might even get away with a victory with very little fighting as most bourgeoisie forces don't want to mess with a revolutionary army with hundreds of millions of fighters.Still engaging in idealism I see...


We need to prepare.I think you are talking to couch potatoes and armchair revolutionaries. You'd be better training dogs how to do a pole vault.

[ColonelCossack]

I think you are talking to couch potatoes and armchair revolutionaries. You'd be better training dogs how to do a pole vault.

:sneaky:
I go to demos! :blushing:

[Psy]

Still engaging in idealism I see...

So you don't support a global revolution? A revolutionary army with hundreds of millions of troops is not idealism if the bulk of the Earth population is revolutionary, there is billions of people on Earth and revolutionary armies would consolidate into a single Earth revolutionary army if becomes a worldwide revolution.

Stop thinking revolution on a insignificant scale and start thinking about revolution on a global scale as the revolution that will actually defeat capitalism will make the Russian Revolution and subsequent civil-war look like child's play as it would be the last world war.

[Susurrus]

I think a lot more of us(myself included in the guilty category) would get active if there were some way to get active. I only know one leftist irl, which is hardly enough to take down the capitalist machine. If there were an organization of comrades doing direct action, working towards revolution, etc, I'd sign on in a second.

[thesadmafioso]

Why was I not surprised that Azula was the topic creator of this abhorrent mess of a discussion when I read its title?

But I digress, violence is NOT something which we actively seek or prepare for in revolution. If it the sort of option which is an absolute last resort only to be undertaken in the name of defense of the revolution and of the will of the proletarian. A workers revolution should be primarily focused upon a workers seizure of power of the means of productions and the smashing (not literal) of the institutions of capitalist rule, we should not immediately view it as a coming civil war. General strikes, workers soviets, mass demonstrations, these are all legitimate tactics of agitation and insurrection, as opposed to blind militaristic aggression.

I really am starting to find the relish you take in violence to be unsettling and off putting, as I'm sure many actual workers would.

[LegendZ]

So you don't support a global revolution? A revolutionary army with hundreds of millions of troops is not idealism if the bulk of the Earth population is revolutionary, there is billions of people on Earth and revolutionary armies would consolidate into a single Earth revolutionary army if becomes a worldwide revolution. :laugh:

Stop thinking revolution on a insignificant scale and start thinking about revolution on a global scale as the revolution that will actually defeat capitalism will make the Russian Revolution and subsequent civil-war look like child's play as it would be the last world war.Putting the picture before the puzzle pieces I see. Stop dreaming about large masses of revolutionaries attacking bases and start organizing. You can't get MILLIONS of people to support your cause if YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING YOURSELF. Go organize a rally. Put yourself and YOUR ideas out there. Because you sure as hell can't expect anyone else to do it.

I never see leftist organizations doing anything except making articles to their same 1,000 subscriber base every month. INSTEAD of getting out their fucking house and interacting with the working class.

[CHE with an AK]

I think perhaps what the original poster is somewhat inarticulately referring to is the internal dynamics of the revolutionary left, and the love and hate ratio within such potential revolutionaries. Because those with humanistic values and compassion are predisposed to lean towards the left, it has always been a concern if those same individuals simultaneously contain the necessary degree of violent controlled rage required to defeat a truly merciless foe, who shows every time that they will stop at nothing to annihilate us. It is a difficult line to walk, but precisely the one that must be traveled in order to both (1) violently overthrow the oligarchs of capitalism and (2) establish a humane communist alternative built on compassion and collective emancipation – while still reserving a ‘cold heart’ for those who wish to set the clock back.

I think this is the fundamental issue that has plagued every revolutionary in history, and especially those from the French Revolution through the Cuban Revolution. How do you balance the necessary brutality to preserve our gains, while maintaining the necessary amount of kindness to make the whole struggle worth it? In that same vein, will the same revolutionaries who want to heal the sick and feed the hungry, also be able to match the heartless viciousness of our foes and not let our humanism become our own Achilles heel and thus downfall? Is it possible to forge a new more humane world at the same time as you are crushing those who will stop at nothing to stand in the way? I think it is, but it is not easy and will not be perfect. It is a fine line to walk and can sway from justified terror to unadulterated slaughter. An army of trigger pulling ascetic poets is not an easy thing to forge, but I think it is a necessary component to the overall class struggle.

[Psy]

Why was I not surprised that Azula was the topic creator of this abhorrent mess of a discussion when I read its title?

But I digress, violence is NOT something which we actively seek or prepare for in revolution. If it the sort of option which is an absolute last resort only to be undertaken in the name of defense of the revolution and of the will of the proletarian. A workers revolution should be primarily focused upon a workers seizure of power of the means of productions and the smashing (not literal) of the institutions of capitalist rule, we should not immediately view it as a coming civil war. General strikes, workers soviets, mass demonstrations, these are all legitimate tactics of agitation and insurrection, as opposed to blind militaristic aggression.

I really am starting to find the relish you take in violence to be unsettling and off putting, as I'm sure many actual workers would.
But we know it is coming and we know that there will be more casualties the less armed we are since we know the counter-revolutionary forces won't just roll back any gains we make but oppress the masses even more. You just have to look at Pinochet to see what happens when we don't prepare for counter-revolution, if the people of Chile had a revolutionary army they could have crushed Pinochet's forces and saved countless lives by preventing the reactionaries for taking power.

The West Virginia uprising of 1877 showed how fast a general strike can become an armed uprisings, one day you have a peaceful general strike and only a few weeks later your are in a revolutionary war against the US Army.

[Chris]

A socialist revolution should do what is necessary to defend the revolution. No more. The goal is the destruction of capitalism, not the extermination of the capitalists. There's a difference there. Of course, a bloodless revolution without a violent counter-revolution I personally think is impossible. But the first act of a socialist revolution shouldn't be to commit atrocities out of revenge either. If we're paving the path to a better future, it shouldn't be stained with unnecessary amounts of blood surely?

[thesadmafioso]

But we know it is coming and we know that there will be more casualties the less armed we are since we know the counter-revolutionary forces won't just roll back any gains we make but oppress the masses even more. You just have to look at Pinochet to see what happens when we don't prepare for counter-revolution, if the people of Chile had a revolutionary army they could have crushed Pinochet's forces and saved countless lives by preventing the reactionaries for taking power.

The West Virginia uprising of 1877 showed how fast a general strike can become an armed uprisings, one day you have a peaceful general strike and only a few weeks later your are in a revolutionary war against the US Army.

Revolutionary war with the US Army? Is this topic seriously to become one where we play out some comically unlikely scenario involving a sprawling revolutionary civil war of this sort?

We don't know that any revolution will actually deteriorate to such a point and if these active preparations are made under this presumption we only increase the likelihood of the outbreak of such conflict. Quite honestly, I doubt that any organization of the revolutionary left would even be able to act upon revolutionary conditions if they present themselves in this sort of aggressively violent fashion.

The vanguard party of the proletarian is not a paramilitary outfit, it is a politically conscious mass of workers and those who support their aims who work in conjunction with the movements of workers to make a revolution. There is nothing inherently militaristic about the structure of this organ of workers power.

[Psy]

Revolutionary war with the US Army? Is this topic seriously to become one where we play out some comically unlikely scenario involving a sprawling revolutionary civil war of this sort?

I was referring to the fact that in 1877 the militant working class found themselves in a revolutionary war with the US Army in just weeks and they took no precautions they gained the bulk of their revolutionary army via defectors in the National Guard. Which is similar to the Winnipeg uprising of 1919 where the bulk of the police union voted to defect and become a revolutionary army yet the strike committee turned them down and shortly after the RCMP invaded Winnipeg.

History shows that it is very likely for a revolutionary situation to quickly materialize a revolutionary army just from defectors from armed bodies of the bourgeoisie offering to fill that role.



We don't know that any revolution will actually deteriorate to such a point and if these active preparations are made under this presumption we only increase the likelihood of the outbreak of such conflict. Quite honestly, I doubt that any organization of the revolutionary left would even be able to act upon revolutionary conditions if they present themselves in this sort of aggressively violent fashion.


The vanguard party of the proletarian is not a paramilitary outfit, it is a politically conscious mass of workers and those who support their aims who work in conjunction with the movements of workers to make a revolution. There is nothing inherently militaristic about the structure of this organ of workers power.
I don't think it increases the likelihood, it just escalates conflicts simply because the ruling class can't just crush the uprising. For example if the Winnipeg Strike Committee took the police up on their offer and the police repealed the RCMP invasion it would have bought Winnipeg time to build up a proper revolutionary army to repel the Canadian Army and to spread the revolution so the Canadian Army wouldn't have just be dealing with Winnipeg.

[thesadmafioso]

I was referring to the fact that in 1877 the militant working class found themselves in a revolutionary war with the US Army in just weeks and they took no precautions they gained the bulk of their revolutionary army via defectors in the National Guard. Which is similar to the Winnipeg uprising of 1919 where the bulk of the police union voted to defect and become a revolutionary army yet the strike committee turned them down and shortly after the RCMP invaded Winnipeg.

History shows that it is very likely for a revolutionary situation to quickly materialize a revolutionary army just from defectors from armed bodies of the bourgeoisie offering to fill that role.


I don't think it increases the likelihood, it just escalates conflicts simply because the ruling class can't just crush the uprising. For example if the Winnipeg Strike Committee took the police up on their offer and the police repealed the RCMP invasion it would have bought Winnipeg time to build up a proper revolutionary army to repel the Canadian Army and to spread the revolution so the Canadian Army wouldn't have just be dealing with Winnipeg.

Ok, so some situations do occasionally emerge when physical military struggle can be undertaken against the forces of capitalism. That isn't to say that any such situation is revolutionary or that such action is productive or even justified.

A workers revolution is just that, a workers revolution. For such to be met with success, it needs to have a solid base of support throughout the population of the working class. We cant just aimlessly venture into military struggle whenever a police force or an organization with leftist tendencies decides to arm itself with the intent of waging war against the capitalist order. To advocate for such it ignore the necessity of proper material analysis of revolution, one based on conditions and not factors of a militaristic nature.

You simply cannot view the process of revolution through a frame so tinted by militarism, as a workers revolution is not something which relies entirely upon armed struggle for success. It is occasionally a present aspect of revolution, but only out of defense and in a secondary role to other means of larger significance. This is really far too narrow of an outlook for it to be of any practical of theoretical value.

Honestly, rhetoric like this only serves to alienate the working class from leftism. You cannot speak about some crude militaristic vulgarization of communism and then seriously expect workers to find such ideology agreeable.

[LegendZ]

I was referring to the fact that in 1877 the militant working class found themselves in a revolutionary war with the US Army in just weeks and they took no precautions they gained the bulk of their revolutionary army via defectors in the National Guard. You mean the weekend warriors?:laugh: Despite the name the National Guard is almost completely under state control. The majority of the soldiers in the NGs were also working class no different from the ordinarily civilian. Where as if this a regular army unit that probably wouldn't have happened. As a matter of fact if you decide to stop showing up at drills they just take you off the payroll and forget about you. Whereas if you go AWOL from the regular Army your ass is spending some time in Leavenworth after MPs come searching your friends and family's house...

Which is similar to the Winnipeg uprising of 1919 where the bulk of the police union voted to defect and become a revolutionary army yet the strike committee turned them down and shortly after the RCMP invaded Winnipeg. The police are still civilians. Still facing trained soldiers who have been taught to kill with no remorse and DID so just a couple of months before. The police lack the experience to hold a simple point. Not to mention holding off an attack with MGs, Artillery, and experienced NCOs who ran HEADLONG into MG fire and went into hand to hand combat after spending weeks in mud getting shot at by artillery waiting to attack.


I don't think it increases the likelihood, it just escalates conflicts simply because the ruling class can't just crush the uprising. For example if the Winnipeg Strike Committee took the police up on their offer and the police repealed the RCMP invasion it would have bought Winnipeg time to build up a proper revolutionary army to repel the Canadian Army and to spread the revolution so the Canadian Army wouldn't have just be dealing with Winnipeg.Lol the Police stopping a Professional Military trained in stabbing someone in the gut and moving on to the next target with blood on their face.

Anyone wanna bet on how long a militia(with people who have NO experience in any weaponry for the most part) would have lasted vs Professional Military units fresh from combat in the worst conditions ever experienced at the time? They would've wrecked house. Hell ONE Canadian division would've wrecked house. The entire Army would've made no-mans-land seem like a playground.

[Psy]

Ok, so some situations do occasionally emerge when physical military struggle can be undertaken against the forces of capitalism. That isn't to say that any such situation is revolutionary or that such action is productive or even justified.

They are productive and justified as historically there has been far more casualties in peaceful uprisings then armed uprisings. If you are going to challenge the property rights of the ruling class you need a army to take the means of production by force and stop the ruling class from taking said property back.



A workers revolution is just that, a workers revolution. For such to be met with success, it needs to have a solid base of support throughout the population of the working class. We cant just aimlessly venture into military struggle whenever a police force or an organization with leftist tendencies decides to arm itself with the intent of waging war against the capitalist order. To advocate for such it ignore the necessity of proper material analysis of revolution, one based on conditions and not factors of a militaristic nature.

You expect to take away the privilege of the ruling class and not have a war on your hands?




You simply cannot view the process of revolution through a frame so tinted by militarism, as a workers revolution is not something which relies entirely upon armed struggle for success. It is occasionally a present aspect of revolution, but only out of defense and in a secondary role to other means of larger significance. This is really far too narrow of an outlook for it to be of any practical of theoretical value.

Honestly, rhetoric like this only serves to alienate the working class from leftism. You cannot speak about some crude militaristic vulgarization of communism and then seriously expect workers to find such ideology agreeable.
Historically it has not been a problem, when the Black Panthers took up arms the black community thought it was about time blacks took up arms to defend themselves from the pigs. Also the Black Panther strategy would have worked if they expanded they operations to radicalize and arm the proletariat in general not just blacks.

[RED DAVE]

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Neutral, supportive to the stronger faction

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minorityThis is Maoism, not Marxism. It completely, as Maoism does, ignores the role of the modern working class: the class which controls production.

There are no "masses." We may use that term rhetorically, but actually it's incorrect. We deal with "classes," not masses. If the working class is, in fact, neutral during the working class revolution, the socialist revolution, the Marxist revolution, then we have no revolution.

The People's Liberation Army notion is based on politics that is not, itself, based on the working class. Maoism is based on class collaboration. Even in China, it was bogus. After the defeat of Japan, the Chinese working class rose up, ready to seize the economy. The Maoists told the workers to go back to work under the control of either military or their own bosses. This can be documented easily.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

They are productive and justified as historically there has been far more casualties in peaceful uprisings then armed uprisings. If you are going to challenge the property rights of the ruling class you need a army to take the means of production by force and stop the ruling class from taking said property back.


You expect to take away the privilege of the ruling class and not have a war on your hands?



Historically it has not been a problem, when the Black Panthers took up arms the black community thought it was about time blacks took up arms to defend themselves from the pigs. Also the Black Panther strategy would have worked if they expanded they operations to radicalize and arm the proletariat in general not just blacks.

I think you seem to be taking the concept of class conflict just a bit too literally, and that leads to some serious issues when dealing with the actual dissemination of leftist theory. The contradiction of class and the struggle which emerges from such results in a conflict waged through political, economic, and social mediums.

Marx nor any other serious leftist theoretician ever imagined a proletarian revolution as resulting from a conventional armed conflict, this is nothing short of absolute revisionism laced with a healthy dose of militarism. You speak of nothing but traditional conquest which is covered in a thin veneer of leftism, and such is counter to the interests and aims of the working class. This is a complete distortion of leftist theory and it really isn't deserving of much serious consideration.

And are we seriously upholding the Black Panthers as having had the right idea so far as organizing goes? This discussion is only growing more laughable by the second.

[Psy]

You mean the weekend warriors?:laugh: Despite the name the National Guard is almost completely under state control. The majority of the soldiers in the NGs were also working class no different from the ordinarily civilian. Where as if this a regular army unit that probably wouldn't have happened. As a matter of fact if you decide to stop showing up at drills they just take you off the payroll and forget about you. Whereas if you go AWOL from the regular Army your ass is spending some time in Leavenworth after MPs come searching your friends and family's house...
The police are still civilians. Still facing trained soldiers who have been taught to kill with no remorse and DID so just a couple of months before. The police lack the experience to hold a simple point. Not to mention holding off an attack with MGs, Artillery, and experienced NCOs who ran HEADLONG into MG fire and went into hand to hand combat after spending weeks in mud getting shot at by artillery waiting to attack.

Professional troops have also defected.



Anyone wanna bet on how long a militia(with people who have NO experience in any weaponry for the most part) would have lasted vs Professional Military units fresh from combat in the worst conditions ever experienced at the time? They would've wrecked house. Hell ONE Canadian division would've wrecked house. The entire Army would've made no-mans-land seem like a playground.
That is assuming the army doesn't go strike like British forces in August 1945 (just because troops doesn't defect doesn't mean they won't support a uprisings through on strike). It also assumes the revolution won't spread larger to what the Canadian army can deal with uprisings across Canada and the USA with American revolutionary armies reinforcing Canadian revolutionary armies.

[Pretty Flaco]

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Neutral, supportive to the stronger faction

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minority

so much for proletarian revolution

[RED DAVE]

Historically it has not been a problem, when the Black Panthers took up armsDo your research. The Panthers never "took up arms." They possessed a limited number of weapons, which they brandished largely for show. They never engaged in armed defense of the Black community against the pigs. Learn to separate legend from fact.


[T]he black community thought it was about time blacks took up arms to defend themselves from the pigs.This is far from the truth. The Panthers, while the subject of great interest, never sank roots into any Black community and the communities were very iffy about the use of arms in the way that the Panthers did.


Also the Black Panther strategy would have worked if they expanded they operations to radicalize and arm the proletariat in general not just blacks.The Panthers specifically eschewed the proletariat as a revolutionary force and explicitly based their theory on the lumpen proletariat. They had no "operations." Had they attempted to arm the proletariat, they would never have been repressed even faster than they were.

Learn your history.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

Professional troops have also defected.


That is assuming the army doesn't go strike like British forces in August 1945 (just because troops doesn't defect doesn't mean they won't support a uprisings through on strike). It also assumes the revolution won't spread larger to what the Canadian army can deal with uprisings across Canada and the USA with American revolutionary armies reinforcing Canadian revolutionary armies.

Again with the revolutionary armies. Do you know what the real army of revolution is? The class of the proletarian! It alone has the power to cripple the capitalistic mode of production and bring the whole system to a screeching halt, it alone has the capacity to engage in mass politics of protest, and it alone is capable of seizing power. They do not need armies of revolution to assist them to the degree which you seem to think is necessary; your analysis only underestimates the promise and potential in an awakened and class conscious proletarian.

You cannot approach revolutionary theory in terms of traditional military combat, for it is a process of a complexity far beyond such a method of theory.

[Psy]

I think you seem to be taking the concept of class conflict just a bit too literally, and that leads to some serious issues when dealing with the actual dissemination of leftist theory. The contradiction of class and the struggle which emerges from such results in a conflict waged through political, economic, and social mediums.

Marx nor any other serious leftist theoretician ever imagined a proletarian revolution as resulting from a conventional armed conflict, this is nothing short of absolute revisionism laced with a healthy dose of militarism. You speak of nothing but traditional conquest which is covered in a thin veneer of leftism, and such is counter to the interests and aims of the working class. This is a complete distortion of leftist theory and it really isn't deserving of much serious consideration.

Conventional armed conflict is to provide the environment for the revolution to grow, so the revolution won't be snuffed out by armed forces in reaction to the revolution.



And are we seriously upholding the Black Panthers as having had the right idea so far as organizing goes? This discussion is only growing more laughable by the second.
The Black Panthers got the police off the back of the communities temporary that allowed for communities to organize stuff like the free breakfast program without police shutting them down. This worked till the FBI escalated the conflict but this just shows that struggle quickly escalates not from what we do but from the ruling class reacting to what we do.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Conventional armed conflict is to provide the environment for the revolution to grow, so the revolution won't be snuffed out by armed forces in reaction to the revolution.
The time for armed conflict is after other means have been exhausted in agitating the bourgeoisie, and awakening the class conscious of the proletariat. It's at that point self-defence will be very likely, and the toppling of bourgeois rule will pin workers against soldiers and police, who are not there to break things up, but to put an end to it completely and begin to stamp out the revolution.

Beginning a revolution with armed conflict is the silliest idea I've heard, especially for modern times. Where does the support base come from if the worker is not awakened by the mass strike, or by protests and demonstrations?


The Black Panthers got the police off the back of the communities temporary that allowed for communities to organize stuff like the free breakfast program without police shutting them down. This worked till the FBI escalated the conflict but this just shows that struggle quickly escalates not from what we do but from the ruling class reacting to what we do.
That's not the same situation as a revolution.

[thesadmafioso]

Conventional armed conflict is to provide the environment for the revolution to grow, so the revolution won't be snuffed out by armed forces in reaction to the revolution.


The Black Panthers got the police off the back of the communities temporary that allowed for communities to organize stuff like the free breakfast program without police shutting them down. This worked till the FBI escalated the conflict but this just shows that struggle quickly escalates not from what we do but from the ruling class reacting to what we do.

Alright, now you are not even paying any attention to communist or even leftist theory in the slightest sense of the term. Proletarian revolution is not based in senseless warfare, it is the result of the historical development of capitalist society and the class antagonisms inherent to such. It will not be made out of the sort of military conflict which you describe and to think otherwise is to essentially refute the materialist conception of history.

And may the ruling class tremble at our free breakfast!

Seriously though, that still is not exactly what I consider to be an materialist model for a revolutionary party, I would hardly even say it was effective in any sort of substantive way justifying its replication.

[Psy]

Do your research. The Panthers never "took up arms." They possessed a limited number of weapons, which they brandished largely for show. They never engaged in armed defense of the Black community against the pigs. Learn to separate legend from fact.

This is semantics. They did use their guns in a few incidents



This is far from the truth. The Panthers, while the subject of great interest, never sank roots into any Black community and the communities were very iffy about the use of arms in the way that the Panthers did.

What do you call the free breakfast programs, or the ambulance programs?



The Panthers specifically eschewed the proletariat as a revolutionary force and explicitly based their theory on the lumpen proletariat. They had no "operations."

No argument



Had they attempted to arm the proletariat, they would never have been repressed even faster than they were.

They also would have had a larger force to repel said repression and have been able to incite uprisings in hopes of spreading militancy.



Again with the revolutionary armies. Do you know what the real army of revolution is? The class of the proletarian! It alone has the power to cripple the capitalistic mode of production and bring the whole system to a screeching halt, it alone has the capacity to engage in mass politics of protest, and it alone is capable of seizing power. They do not need armies of revolution to assist them to the degree which you seem to think is necessary; your analysis only underestimates the promise and potential in an awakened and class conscious proletarian.

Then why did Winnipeg 1919 fail? Could it be because they needed a armed force to defend the gains long enough for the revolution to spread?



You cannot approach revolutionary theory in terms of traditional military combat, for it is a process of a complexity far beyond such a method of theory.
You also can't divorce revolution from combat because the ruling class resorts to combat to defend itself and if a revolution ignores combat the ruling class simply will win via combat. Eventually workers will lose the will to strike if a capitalist army that is unchallenged just shoots strikers in firing squads to scare workers back into submission.

[RED DAVE]

The Black Panthers got the police off the back of the communities temporaryOh please! WTF are you talking about? The Panthers did no such thing. Would that they could have done such. What they did, for a very limited period of time, in Oakland, was to lesson the intensity of police violence. They got a lot of publicity for it, but the direct political effect, even in Oakland, was nill.


that allowed for communities to organize stuff like the free breakfast program without police shutting them down.(1) The free breakfast program was organized by the Panthers themselves. (2) t was a tiny operation that lasted maybe a year. The police did shut it down. Basically, though, it was social work. it was useless for any significant revolutionary recruiting.


This workedWorked to do what?


till the FBI escalated the conflictThere was no "conflict" in the sense of a conflict between the Panthers and the oinks. The Panthers weren't stupid. They never attacked the police, the FBI, etc. Starting an armed conflict with the powers-that-be would have got them killed even quicker. What happened was infiltration, attack and murder by the phoebes and other blueberries.


but this just shows that struggle quickly escalates not from what we do but from the ruling class reacting to what we do.Of course the pork will act when and where they choose. However, there was no "escalation" as the Panthers were not capable of, nor would they have tried to, take on the Man.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

Then why did Winnipeg 1919 fail? Could it be because they needed a armed force to defend the gains long enough for the revolution to spread?


You also can't divorce revolution from combat because the ruling class resorts to combat to defend itself and if a revolution ignores combat the ruling class simply will win via combat. Eventually workers will lose the will to strike if a capitalist army that is unchallenged just shoots strikers in firing squads to scare workers back into submission.

I'm not too well versed on the exact situation in Winnipeg, but I imagine that it wasn't as firmly in the functions of class struggle as it would needed to of been to be met with success. You can't shoot your way to a proletarian revolution, it is a process which is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

In a situation after the physical seizure of power has been conducted and a revolution stands threatened by the forces of reaction, we obviously cannot refute the necessity of workers armies to defend the progress and gains of their revolution. But you speak of an entirely different concept, wherein revolutionary struggle exists independent of the proletarian and their efforts against the bourgeois and where it is conducted by an actual army with an apparent bent on preemptive warfare.

Nothing which you speak of here falls in line with a materialist conception of history nor the revolutionary theory of communism. You have just co opted the aesthetics of Marxism so as to justify a peculiar sort of theory completely separate from the working class and their aims.

[Psy]

The time for armed conflict is after other means have been exhausted in agitating the bourgeoisie, and awakening the class conscious of the proletariat. It's at that point self-defence will be very likely, and the toppling of bourgeois rule will pin workers against soldiers and police, who are not there to break things up, but to put an end to it completely and begin to stamp out the revolution.

True but along the way you are going to have defectors for the bourgeois forces wanting to defend the revolution. So you are going have to deal with police and troops (plus others) saying they want to join the revolutionary army, if one doesn't exist it means you'd be relying on defectors for defense and inherit their organizational structure as no thought was given to a revolutionary prior to bourgeois armed forces switching sides.



Beginning a revolution with armed conflict is the silliest idea I've heard, especially for modern times. Where does the support base come from if the worker is not awakened by the mass strike, or by protests and demonstrations?

I don't expect workers to be awakened by the conflict. I expect the workers to be awakened by other means then turn to the revolutionary army for defense or join the revolutionary army to defend so movements are not snuffed out.

So the workers seize means of production then the revolutionary army defends this gain and pushes farther only to preemptively take out threats to the revolution where feasible.



That's not the same situation as a revolution.
No argument there, yet in it we see that blacks arming wasn't not a problem even FBI documents show the FBI didn't give a shit about them being armed what they didn't like was them organizing and them being armed hindered police oppressing attempts at community organization.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Neutral, supportive to the stronger faction

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minority

I always love the irony of a teenager westerner sitting behind their computer talking about the most unrealistic of scenarios.

If you want to have that kind of revolution, why don't you fuck off to somewhere where the material conditions allow for a minority-based revolution.

It's clear that there is no developed western country where such tactics would work.

Are you a third-worldist? How's Lin Baio doing these days?

[Psy]

I'm not too well versed on the exact situation in Winnipeg, but I imagine that it wasn't as firmly in the functions of class struggle as it would needed to of been to be met with success. You can't shoot your way to a proletarian revolution, it is a process which is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

The problem in Winnipeg was external forces snuffed it out before it could spread.



In a situation after the physical seizure of power has been conducted and a revolution stands threatened by the forces of reaction, we obviously cannot refute the necessity of workers armies to defend the progress and gains of their revolution. But you speak of an entirely different concept, wherein revolutionary struggle exists independent of the proletarian and their efforts against the bourgeois and where it is conducted by an actual army with an apparent bent on preemptive warfare.

Preemption were feasible and not to revolutionize anything just to weaken the capitalist's position.



Nothing which you speak of here falls in line with a materialist conception of history nor the revolutionary theory of communism. You have just co opted the aesthetics of Marxism so as to justify a peculiar sort of theory completely separate from the working class and their aims.
I am not saying armed struggle advances class consciousness, just that armed struggle deals with the capitalists as a armed threat not as a social relation.


Oh please! WTF are you talking about? The Panthers did no such thing. Would that they could have done such. What they did, for a very limited period of time, in Oakland, was to lesson the intensity of police violence. They got a lot of publicity for it, but the direct political effect, even in Oakland, was nill.

I'm talking about the times the Panthers resisted police assaults, true they only delayed the police.



(1) The free breakfast program was organized by the Panthers themselves. (2) t was a tiny operation that lasted maybe a year. The police did shut it down. Basically, though, it was social work. it was useless for any significant revolutionary recruiting.

Worked to do what?

It was a start and them being armed did cause the police to be more cautious thus slowing down their reactions.



There was no "conflict" in the sense of a conflict between the Panthers and the oinks. The Panthers weren't stupid. They never attacked the police, the FBI, etc. Starting an armed conflict with the powers-that-be would have got them killed even quicker. What happened was infiltration, attack and murder by the phoebes and other blueberries.

Of course the pork will act when and where they choose. However, there was no "escalation" as the Panthers were not capable of, nor would they have tried to, take on the Man.

RED DAVE
Yes there was a conflict how could the FBI murdering Fred Hampton not be seen as escalation and this is my point the escalation was on the side of the bourgeois state.

[Die Rote Fahne]

True but along the way you are going to have defectors for the bourgeois forces wanting to defend the revolution. So you are going have to deal with police and troops (plus others) saying they want to join the revolutionary army, if one doesn't exist it means you'd be relying on defectors for defense and inherit their organizational structure as no thought was given to a revolutionary prior to bourgeois armed forces switching sides.
I'm not sure what you mean here...


I don't expect workers to be awakened by the conflict. I expect the workers to be awakened by other means then turn to the revolutionary army for defense or join the revolutionary army to defend so movements are not snuffed out.
The point is to awaken the workers, not disillusion them with minor paramilitary activities that will no doubt be easily crushed by the state.


So the workers seize means of production then the revolutionary army defends this gain and pushes farther only to preemptively take out threats to the revolution where feasible.
The worker's will not seize the means of production without seizing the government and state, so that isn't an issue. So, a red army will be created by then for sure.


No argument there, yet in it we see that blacks arming wasn't not a problem even FBI documents show the FBI didn't give a shit about them being armed what they didn't like was them organizing and them being armed hindered police oppressing attempts at community organization.
The right to bear arms is in the US constitution...as well, if they decided to start Urban Guerrilla warfare, they would have been crushed.

[thesadmafioso]

The problem in Winnipeg was external forces snuffed it out before it could spread.


Preemption were feasible and not to revolutionize anything just to weaken the capitalist's position.


I am not saying armed struggle advances class consciousness, just that armed struggle deals with the capitalists as a armed threat not as a social relation.

I've gotten the impression that it was a rather isolated incident from your descriptions of it. And revolutionary conditions can't be eradicated by armed force. I don't deny that the military involvement in this conflict impeded its possible spread, but I would argue that if it was defeated so easily that it was likely without the necessary support throughout the population demanded of a realization of a full proletarian revolution.

Military preemption has absolutely no place in the practice of communist politics, it is a crude method which is only capable of sinking a revolution in its youth. It also ignores the role of the working class in revolution almost entirely, hardly something I would consider communistic.

And armed struggle should NOT try to actively create a military threat from the capitalist class, it should only serve as a regretful last resort in matters where the defense of the working class and their revolution is at hand.

[Psy]

I've gotten the impression that it was a rather isolated incident from your descriptions of it. And revolutionary conditions can't be eradicated by armed force. I don't deny that the military involvement in this conflict impeded its possible spread, but I would argue that if it was defeated so easily that it was likely without the necessary support throughout the population demanded of a realization of a full proletarian revolution.

Defeated so easily? So you expect workers to see workers being shoot in cold blood by federal police and not fear further reprisals when the workers lack any means to defend themselves?



Military preemption has absolutely no place in the practice of communist politics, it is a crude method which is only capable of sinking a revolution in its youth. It also ignores the role of the working class in revolution almost entirely, hardly something I would consider communistic.

So if say a region forms a revolutionary government yet artillery is being deployed along the border of the region the revolutionary army shouldn't take the pre-emtive action to capture or destroy them before they are used?

Or push into neighboring regions and fortify in their cities in hopes to draw attention away from the revolutionary region?



And armed struggle should NOT try to actively create a military threat from the capitalist class, it should only serve as a regretful last resort in matters where the defense of the working class and their revolution is at hand.
The capitalist class would always be a military threat to a revolution.




I'm not sure what you mean here...

Imagine if when a chunk bourgeois armed forces declared they were they new revolutionary army. Now think how much smoother it would be if prior to that there was already a revolutionary army that had its own organizational structure one that made them more unidentified with the occupied workplaces. Which would be better? The old armed forces just becoming the revolutionary army or them being assimilated into a revolutionary army structure that was already constructed to be a tool of the democratic revolutionary government.



The point is to awaken the workers, not disillusion them with minor paramilitary activities that will no doubt be easily crushed by the state.

I take it you don't know what feasible means, it means the revolutionary army can do it without being easily crushed by the state, they also won't be minor.



The worker's will not seize the means of production without seizing the government and state, so that isn't an issue. So, a red army will be created by then for sure.

History says otherwise.

[Welshy]

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Neutral, supportive to the stronger faction

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minority

This stinks of two things. First the complete substitution of any form of real class struggle that would get rid of capitalism and lay the foundations of a communist society. Secondly, if you subscribe to marxism, then it's horribly revisionist in the real sense as one of the most basic tenets of marxism is the self emancipation of working class. So your idea of a people's liberation army taking care of the revolution for the workers (or as you put it the masses) is horribly unmarxist to the core.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Defeated so easily? So you expect workers to see workers being shoot in cold blood by federal police and not fear further reprisals when the workers lack any means to defend themselves?
It happens everyday to people with and without guns. Organized and unorganized. It changes nothing but make liberals want more oversight on police.


So if say a region forms a revolutionary government yet artillery is being deployed along the border of the region the revolutionary army shouldn't take the pre-emtive action to capture or destroy them before they are used?
Of course they should, but the wider means of production is the goal here, not just 5 or 6 factories. Nor should efforts and resources be wasted defending just those facilities, when they can be focused on taking all means of production.


The capitalist class would always be a military threat to a revolution.
So long as they exist, yes. However, the first step to revolution isn't the creation of a rebel force, which is likely to hinder the wider agitative actions by the masses.


Imagine if when a chunk bourgeois armed forces declared they were they new revolutionary army. Now think how much smoother it would be if prior to that there was already a revolutionary army that had its own organizational structure one that made them more unidentified with the occupied workplaces. Which would be better? The old armed forces just becoming the revolutionary army or them being assimilated into a revolutionary army structure that was already constructed to be a tool of the democratic revolutionary government.
Sure, however, the likelihood of that happening before mass strikes, and other wide scale agitation is very very very very unlikely. If they declare themselves the armed forces, what would already having a small rebel group do to convince them to merge with them, and be ordered around by them?


I take it you don't know what feasible means, it means the revolutionary army can do it without being easily crushed by the state, they also won't be minor.
So...how exactly will a revolutionary leftist force be able to organize and carry out paramilitary action in, say, the USA? How will they grow without the CIA, FBI and National Guard coming down on their ass from the start? The bourgeois state apparatus is not an ignorant child, it is intelligent, living, and knowing.


History says otherwise.
Yes taking the means of production in controlled areas is effective. However, this is done by workers, not the military vanguard you want to have. The workers are fully capable of defending it if they have the ability to take it in the first place.

[thesadmafioso]

Defeated so easily? So you expect workers to see workers being shoot in cold blood by federal police and not fear further reprisals when the workers lack any means to defend themselves?


So if say a region forms a revolutionary government yet artillery is being deployed along the border of the region the revolutionary army shouldn't take the pre-emtive action to capture or destroy them before they are used?

Or push into neighboring regions and fortify in their cities in hopes to draw attention away from the revolutionary region?


The capitalist class would always be a military threat to a revolution.

I don't expect any worker to needlessly die, I expect the system which allows for such crimes to be perpetuated to be smashed by proletarian revolution. This will not come to fruition with the sort of regressive ultra focalist tendencies which you seem to be offering an unconditional defense of. I, apparently unlike yourself, actually believe the working class to be capable of seizing power without such a bourgeois conception of warfare.

I don't by any measure advocate for a course of non violent pacifism, but there really isn't much of a reason to insinuate open conflict with the police. Most of this is of little relevance though, you are ignoring the significance of a materialist analysis of this sort of situation entirely. You seem to view revolution as something entirely reliant upon armed conflict, when it is in reality a dialectical movement far more intricate and complex. By belittling the role of the worker in the act of revolution, you are only alienating the class upon which communism is based. There is no sense to these tactics at all.

Come off the internet (militaristic) tough guy routine, it's just sort of pathetic and quite frankly its sort of insulting to those of us who actually try to uphold real communist politics and who don't hold the working class in contempt.

[Rocky Rococo]

There are other potential sources of much death and pain in a situation of chaos and upheaval, inherent in a revolution, besides the "military" aspect of combat between armed groups. In a complex, modern interdependent society, the disruption of certain supply chains represent an immediate and present threat to the health and well-being of millions without a single shot being fired. For many, particularly those of us of a certain age, it would be imperative for a revolutionary movement to quite quickly take control and maintain the continuity of the social pharmaceutical and related medical goods supply. I could be there among those fighting in the street (I am a military veteran) but only if I have continuing access to certain medications. Even the rather brief disruption of a supply chain of metoprolol and coumadin makes my health, and even survival, somewhat dicey. The same conditions hold true for millions and millions of others as well. Those who advocate for revolution need to recognize that it will become immediately incumbent on them to quickly gain control of, manage and maintain these critical sorts of social supply networks, even in the midst of street fighting etc. Failure to do so would among other things lead to large blocs of society turning sharply to the effort to crush the revolution for their own well-being, and that of their family, friends and other loved ones.

I realize this isn't as galvanizing and romantic as images of "trenches full of poets" but at least as real and important, if not moreso.

[Psy]

It happens everyday to people with and without guns. Organized and unorganized. It changes nothing but make liberals want more oversight on police.

No I'm talking about the masses rise up take control of their city and federal police forces just walk in and start shooting up the place. That is what happened in Winnipeg in 1919.



Of course they should, but the wider means of production is the goal here, not just 5 or 6 factories. Nor should efforts and resources be wasted defending just those facilities, when they can be focused on taking all means of production.
Wait what? A revolutionary army can't take means of production it would spread it resources too thin and anchor forces preventing them from out maneuvering the enemy. The workers have to take the means of production the revolutionary is nothing more then their escort keeping the capitalist forces off them by drawing the attention of the capitalists away from the workers doing the real work of expanding the revolution.



So long as they exist, yes. However, the first step to revolution isn't the creation of a rebel force, which is likely to hinder the wider agitative actions by the masses.

It doesn't take long for the bourgeois to escalate to armed conflict even when the workers refuse to take up arms.



Sure, however, the likelihood of that happening before mass strikes, and other wide scale agitation is very very very very unlikely. If they declare themselves the armed forces, what would already having a small rebel group do to convince them to merge with them, and be ordered around by them?

It happened in 1917 where Russian troops were assimilated into Bolshevik forces.




So...how exactly will a revolutionary leftist force be able to organize and carry out paramilitary action in, say, the USA? How will they grow without the CIA, FBI and National Guard coming down on their ass from the start? The bourgeois state apparatus is not an ignorant child, it is intelligent, living, and knowing.

By staying dormant till they are needed and starting with non-lethal force so at the start they would just be like the Black Bloc just better organized leaving their firearms at home. As a revolutionary situation leads to a uprising the vanguard has to make the call when to take up arms to repel attempts by the bourgeois state to restore bourgeois order, this should be at a point where the revolutionary army can open its doors to recruits and quickly increase its size to match and eventually exceed the numbers of the bourgeoisie forces also the revolutionary situation has created a revolutionary authority parallel to bourgeois authority.



Yes taking the means of production in controlled areas is effective. However, this is done by workers, not the military vanguard you want to have. The workers are fully capable of defending it if they have the ability to take it in the first place.
Workers take it from security forces and at first just defend it from police. They don't lock horns with the National Guard or federal armed forces.

[Psy]

I don't expect any worker to needlessly die, I expect the system which allows for such crimes to be perpetuated to be smashed by proletarian revolution. This will not come to fruition with the sort of regressive ultra focalist tendencies which you seem to be offering an unconditional defense of. I, apparently unlike yourself, actually believe the working class to be capable of seizing power without such a bourgeois conception of warfare.

The problem is instead of a warfare focused on maneuver your are suggesting a war of attrition where the masses just rush the capitalist forces and hopes to kill enough of them that they surrender.



I don't by any measure advocate for a course of non violent pacifism, but there really isn't much of a reason to insinuate open conflict with the police. Most of this is of little relevance though, you are ignoring the significance of a materialist analysis of this sort of situation entirely. You seem to view revolution as something entirely reliant upon armed conflict, when it is in reality a dialectical movement far more intricate and complex. By belittling the role of the worker in the act of revolution, you are only alienating the class upon which communism is based. There is no sense to these tactics at all.

No I see that the expansion of a workers requires not being clobbered by armed forces. The point of a revolutionary army would not be to win the revolution but to avoid losing it.

[thesadmafioso]

The problem is instead of a warfare focused on maneuver your are suggesting a war of attrition where the masses just rush the capitalist forces and hopes to kill enough of them that they surrender.


No I see that the expansion of a workers requires not being clobbered by armed forces. The point of a revolutionary army would not be to win the revolution but to avoid losing it.

I'm not suggesting any revolutionary program which glorifies the role of literal warfare in the liberation of the working class.

You are really not understanding the point which I am trying to convey. The act of revolution and its aims takes precedent over the formulation of any anticipatory military plan of preemptive war against some as of yet defined force of counter revolution. If the proletarian state and revolution should come under threat from reactionary armed insurrection, then I fully support the creation of a workers army to counter this threat. But unless a revolution is met with such conditions, this tactic should not be considered.

More importantly, it should be allotted no serious position in the philosophy or theory of communism due to its circumstantial nature. If is not as if we desire outright war with the capitalist class, it is only that the vanguard of the revolution should be prepared to adopt such measures if the need should become apparent. You are going well beyond that basic point in bestowing a disproportionate amount of value on the role of 'revolutionary armies' and in glorifying your imagine of their importance to the working class. As I have already said, it is insulting to treat the proletarian as a class incapable of engaging in agitation against the capitalistic order through its labor, and it is just patronizing to the entire foundation of Marxist thought.

[Psy]

I'm not suggesting any revolutionary program which glorifies the role of literal warfare in the liberation of the working class.

I not glorifying it am just being realistic in what we can expect from the ruling class in reaction to a revolution.



You are really not understanding the point which I am trying to convey. The act of revolution and its aims takes precedent over the formulation of any anticipatory military plan of preemptive war against some as of yet defined force of counter revolution. If the proletarian state and revolution should come under threat from reactionary armed insurrection, then I fully support the creation of a workers army to counter this threat. But unless a revolution is met with such conditions, this tactic should not be considered.

I agree but lets be realistic the ruling class is not going to just roll over, they will react and be a major threat to the gains of any revolution. Thus preemption should not be taken off the table of a workers state, for example lets say in 1968 France became a workers state and NATO forces started to build up around France, a preemptive war with NATO to hit them before they fully mobilize wouldn't be unsound as one can easily predict NATO would eventually have invaded France had it became a workers state at the time. That is not to say such a war would help the revolution in anyway, it would just be dealing with a real military threat to the workers state.



More importantly, it should be allotted no serious position in the philosophy or theory of communism due to its circumstantial nature. If is not as if we desire outright war with the capitalist class, it is only that the vanguard of the revolution should be prepared to adopt such measures if the need should become apparent. You are going well beyond that basic point in bestowing a disproportionate amount of value on the role of 'revolutionary armies' and in glorifying your imagine of their importance to the working class. As I have already said, it is insulting to treat the proletarian as a class incapable of engaging in agitation against the capitalistic order through its labor, and it is just patronizing to the entire foundation of Marxist thought.
The proletariat class is capable of engaging in agitation through its labor but if that was all that was necessary the general strike of Iraq would have ended the occupation long ago but the US Army just slaughtered the militant Iraqi workers and the general strike ended.

[thesadmafioso]

I not glorifying it am just being realistic in what we can expect from the ruling class in reaction to a revolution.


I agree but lets be realistic the ruling class is not going to just roll over, they will react and be a major threat to the gains of any revolution. Thus preemption should not be taken off the table of a workers state, for example lets say in 1968 France became a workers state and NATO forces started to build up around France, a preemptive war with NATO to hit them before they fully mobilize wouldn't be unsound as one can easily predict NATO would eventually have invaded France had it became a workers state at the time. That is not to say such a war would help the revolution in anyway, it would just be dealing with a real military threat to the workers state.


The proletariat class is capable of engaging in agitation through its labor but if that was all that was necessary the general strike of Iraq would have ended the occupation long ago but the US Army just slaughtered the militant Iraqi workers and the general strike ended.

You seem to be falling victim to the trappings of bourgeois thought in this analysis, wherein communism arises in nations and where it must combat other nations in the name of survival. The fault in that thinking lies in its presumption that socialism must be constrained by national boundaries, when it is in reality an internationalist ideology base in class struggle across the globe.

This is an incredibly one sided view of socialism, and it is really not in line with the traditions of Marxist material based analysis.

And yes, you are correct in your assertion that major capitalist powers will engage the use of violence in order to suppress communism. That does not mean that we will be met with the same success in similar methods. We have an entire class on our side while they are nothing more than an entrenched elite, naturally they will be prone to such tactics. But that does not mean we need to resort to the same methodology, as the power of labor far outclasses that of the rifle.

[Die Rote Fahne]

No I'm talking about the masses rise up take control of their city and federal police forces just walk in and start shooting up the place. That is what happened in Winnipeg in 1919.
Yes, the Winnipeg General Strike. I can only imagine how much more the government would have come down on the strikers should they be involved with a paramilitary organization. More than two people would have been killed, that's for sure.


Wait what? A revolutionary army can't take means of production it would spread it resources too thin and anchor forces preventing them from out maneuvering the enemy. The workers have to take the means of production the revolutionary is nothing more then their escort keeping the capitalist forces off them by drawing the attention of the capitalists away from the workers doing the real work of expanding the revolution. It's not the "revolutionary army's" duty to take the means of production. It's the worker's duty. By the way, the capitalists aren't idiots. They arent going to be drawn into conflict with the "revolutionary army" when the biggest threat is the worker control of the factory. Even so, if they do focus on the "revolutionary army" and destroy it, what is stopping the government from cracking down on a cooperative agent to the paramilitary, the workers in the factory?


It doesn't take long for the bourgeois to escalate to armed conflict even when the workers refuse to take up arms. No, however, it also does no good to start a "revolutionary army" without much class consciousness or support.


It happened in 1917 where Russian troops were assimilated into Bolshevik forces.Sure...though, why are you using this example? The Russian Revolution seems to go against your idea that an armed revolutionary force has to come before protests, and strikes and all that? Sure, the combat organization of the Socialist_Revolutionary Party took part in terrorist activity, and targeted assassinations, however it played no major role in defensive or mass military operations for the revolution.



By staying dormant till they are needed and starting with non-lethal force so at the start they would just be like the Black Bloc just better organized leaving their firearms at home. As a revolutionary situation leads to a uprising the vanguard has to make the call when to take up arms to repel attempts by the bourgeois state to restore bourgeois order, this should be at a point where the revolutionary army can open its doors to recruits and quickly increase its size to match and eventually exceed the numbers of the bourgeoisie forces also the revolutionary situation has created a revolutionary authority parallel to bourgeois authority.Okay, organizing a worker's militia, different from a paramilitary organization, prior to the initial sparks of a revolutionary movement is much different from what you say about using said militia to guard the strikes and fight police and all that.

You also have to recognize that until the class conscious is awoke by mass strikes, etc. there aren't going to be piles of people rushing to join this dormant militia.

Also, there doesn't need to be a vanguard. A vanguard is the biggest flaw of all the revolutions that have occurred. No central committee can teach the worker better than the revolution itself. The worker must have participation in political life, must form the mass of the party, and decisions must be made by all members of the party, not a select few intelligentsia, or generals.


Workers take it from security forces and at first just defend it from police. They don't lock horns with the National Guard or federal armed forces.You think that an anti-government armed force taking it in their hands to even show up to a mass strike or protest is going to ward off potential aggression? On the contrary, it will invite the aggression, and invite it on the masses, to a much greater extent.

[Psy]

You seem to be falling victim to the trappings of bourgeois thought in this analysis, wherein communism arises in nations and where it must combat other nations in the name of survival. The fault in that thinking lies in its presumption that socialism must be constrained by national boundaries, when it is in reality an internationalist ideology base in class struggle across the globe.

This is an incredibly one sided view of socialism, and it is really not in line with the traditions of Marxist material based analysis.

Of course the revolution can't be constrained by national boundaries but the revolutionary army also can't be constrained by the same boundaries. Of course if France became a workers state in 1968 the revolution would have to expand beyond France but NATO is not the workers, even if there was a revolutionary movement throughout Eastern Europe in 1968 NATO would still be a threat as even if you toppled every NATO member and replaced it with a revolutionary government NATO would still exist as a bourgeois armed body just one diminished as its members would just be coordinating it through exile.



And yes, you are correct in your assertion that major capitalist powers will engage the use of violence in order to suppress communism. That does not mean that we will be met with the same success in similar methods. We have an entire class on our side while they are nothing more than an entrenched elite, naturally they will be prone to such tactics. But that does not mean we need to resort to the same methodology, as the power of labor far outclasses that of the rifle.
Again the point of a revolutionary army is not to win the revolution but to avoid losing it. It is to counter the capitalist powers using violence to suppress communism with violence that it can be used to draw violence away from workers producing for the revolutionary society. Also as the revolutionary army matures it also gains other capabilities like being able to build barriers to slow down advances of enemy forces.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Often, we say that the Revolution will probably be violent. But I have a sense that most of you with "violence" mean smashed windows, cops beaten, barricades and other romantic drivel. I can't think of any better way to revolt.

[thesadmafioso]

Of course the revolution can't be constrained by national boundaries but the revolutionary army also can't be constrained by the same boundaries. Of course if France became a workers state in 1968 the revolution would have to expand beyond France but NATO is not the workers, even if there was a revolutionary movement throughout Eastern Europe in 1968 NATO would still be a threat as even if you toppled every NATO member and replaced it with a revolutionary government NATO would still exist as a bourgeois armed body just one diminished as its members would just be coordinating it through exile.


Again the point of a revolutionary army is not to win the revolution but to avoid losing it. It is to counter the capitalist powers using violence to suppress communism with violence that it can be used to draw violence away from workers producing for the revolutionary society. Also as the revolutionary army matures it also gains other capabilities like being able to build barriers to slow down advances of enemy forces.

This analysis is not based in Marxist theory though, therein lies the problem present here. You view the world in the bourgeois fashion of nations and the wars fought between them, such denies the irrefutable importance of class struggle.

Do you think you could form a thought or sentence without using the words 'violence'? It is really sort of discomforting to read all of this jubilant talk of violence from a supposed communist.

But I digress to the matter at hand, there is no literal armed struggle to be undertaken against capitalism. This is a conflict of class antagonisms, not one of literal arms. Yes, there are times where such means of revolutionary defense may be required, but you are exaggerating the theoretical importance of such tremendously. Your fabricated example is one which is entirely based in fiction as it is one which contradicts the material laws of history; it is one which is nothing more than self serving to your own convoluted position.

In short, get out of the war mindset and start applying class based analysis to this question. You are only being made to look like a fool by continuing on in this embarrassing fashion, as you are relying upon nothing more than standard bourgeois geopolitical thought which is covered in a thin veneer of communism.

[Psy]

Yes, the Winnipeg General Strike. I can only imagine how much mroe the government would have come down on the strikers should they be involved with a paramilitary organization. More than two people would have been killed, that's for sure.

That assumes the revolution doesn't spread in the time it takes the Canadian Army to mobilize.



It's not the "revolutionary army's" duty to take the means of production. It's the worker's duty. By the way, the capitalists aren't idiots. They arent going to be drawn into conflict with the "revolutionary army" when the biggest threat is the worker control of the factory.

The revolutionary army has to make themselves the larger immediate threat by going after the logistical tail of the capitalists forces. If the revolutionary army is blowing up the supply lines of the capitalist forces they just can't ignore them and go after workers occupied factories and if they do the revolutionary army can take advantage of their stupidity and encircle them when they run out of supplies and become sitting ducks.



Even so, if they do focus on the "revolutionary army" and destroy it, what is stopping the government from cracking down on a cooperative agent to the paramilitary, the workers in the factory?

Well that would be a huge failure on the revolutionary army, and not having a revolutionary army didn't stop Pinochet from brutally cracking down on the working class and Allende was just a reformist imagine if he was a Marxist.



No, however, it also does no good to start a "revolutionary army" without much class consciousness or support.

No argument there




Sure...though, why are you using this example? The Russian Revolution seems to go against your idea that an armed revolutionary force has to come before protests, and strikes and all that? Sure, the combat organization of the Socialist_Revolutionary Party took part in terrorist activity, and targeted assasinations, however it played no major role in defensive or mass military operations for the revolution.

I don't think it plays a role before protests, and strikes and all that.



Okay, organizing a worker's militia prior to the initial sparks of a revolutionary movement is much different from what you say about using said militia to guard the strikes and fight police and all that.

Having a unarmed militia to guard strikes and such shouldn't be a problem and encase you haven't notice protesters fight the police now.



You also have to recognize that until the class conscious is awoke by mass strikes, etc. there aren't going to be piles of people rushing to join this dormant militia.

Nor would there be a need for the militia to gave people rushing to join at that early phase.



Also, there doesn't need to be a vanguard. A vanguard is the biggest flaw of all the revolutions that have occurred. No central committee can teach the worker better than the revolution itself. The worker must have participation in political life, must form the mass of the party, and decisions must be made by all members of the party, not a select few intelligentsia, or generals.

The point of a vanguard is that the workers have to reinvent the wheel every revolution, the vanguard has memory of past struggles.



You think that an anti-government armed force taking it in their hands to even show up to a mass strike or protest is going to ward off potential aggression? On the contrary, it will invite the aggression, and invite it on the masses, to a much greater extent.

By that point it should no longer be a mass strike but a massive occupation of means of production and the government already decided on using force.

[Psy]

This analysis is not based in Marxist theory though, therein lies the problem present here. You view the world in the bourgeois fashion of nations and the wars fought between them, such denies the irrefutable importance of class struggle.

Do you think you could form a thought or sentence without using the words 'violence'? It is really sort of discomforting to read all of this jubilant talk of violence from a supposed communist.


Marx doesn't overturn Jomini as Marx doesn't go into the battlefield and Jomini doesn't leave the battlefield. As far as Jomini you still follow the same tactics of out maneuvering the enemy regardless of the reasons for war.



But I digress to the matter at hand, there is no literal armed struggle to be undertaken against capitalism. This is a conflict of class antagonisms, not one of literal arms. Yes, there are times where such means of revolutionary defense may be required, but you are exaggerating the theoretical importance of such tremendously. Your fabricated example is one which is entirely based in fiction as it is one which contradicts the material laws of history; it is one which is nothing more than self serving to your own convoluted position.

Why wouldn't NATO invade France if it became a workers state? The Warsaw pact did it a number of times.



In short, get out of the war mindset and start applying class based analysis to this question. You are only being made to look like a fool by continuing on in this embarrassing fashion, as you are relying upon nothing more than standard bourgeois geopolitical thought which is covered in a thin veneer of communism.
Again I don't see the revolutionary army as a replacement to class struggle just a escort to prevent them from being snuffed out.

Also I'm looking at reactions that will probably occur, it is like when something start to fall debating if one should get out of the way instead of saying gravity will pull it down so there is no debate. Same here, there is no debate, if there is no revolutionary army any revolution will be snuffed out by the bourgeois state without exception as the system will force the bourgeois state to react in such a way.

[Die Rote Fahne]

That assumes the revolution doesn't spread in the time it takes the Canadian Army to mobilize.
Which isn't that long, considering it is only a year after WW1. Either way, how exactly would the revolution spread, considering Winnipeg was the only participant in the strike, i.e. the only somewhat class conscious area.


The revolutionary army has to make themselves the larger intimidate threat by going after the logistical tail of the capitalists forces. If the revolutionary army is blowing up the supply lines of the capitalist forces they just can't ignore them and go after workers occupied factories and if they do the revolutionary army can take advantage of their stupidity and encircle them when they run out of supplies and become sitting ducks.
You speak as if the bourgeoisie are idiots who are running things because they are lucky, not because they are smart.


Well that would be a huge failure on the revolutionary army, and not having a revolutionary army didn't stop Pinochet from brutally cracking down on the working class and Allende was just a reformist imagine if he was a Marxist.
Allende was a Marxist, in ideology.

Pinochet was backed by the USA.


No argument there
...then...what about your earlier points...about...you...know...the revolutionary army being the first step...



I don't think it plays a role before protests, and strikes and all that.
Wait...but...you mention how they should be active in protecting these strikes and protests...so..if they aren't created before...do you suggest they be created during? I don't get it...


Having a unarmed militia to guard strikes and such shouldn't be a problem and encase you haven't notice protesters fight the police now.
I am speaking of an armed militia. An unarmed militia would just be more people taking part in the protest...they would serve no real function...what, are they going to meat hoses, guns, flash bangs, tear gas, etc with fists?


Nor would there be a need for the militia to gave people rushing to join at that early phase.
what?


The point of a vanguard is that the workers have to reinvent the wheel every revolution, the vanguard has memory of past struggles.
What? Have you ever read Lenin?



By that point it should no longer be a mass strike but a massive occupation of means of production and the government already decided on using force.
I really don't udnerstand where you're coming from anymore...

[Ocean Seal]

The most realistic scenario, however is:

The masses - Allies, the whole reason that a revolution is possible

The state - Capitalist-controlled, enemy

The People's Liberation Army - we, an armed minority
Fixed

[thesadmafioso]

Marx doesn't overturn Jomini as Marx doesn't go into the battlefield and Jomini doesn't leave the battlefield. As far as Jomini you still follow the same tactics of out maneuvering the enemy regardless of the reasons for war.


Why wouldn't NATO invade France if it became a workers state? The Warsaw pact did it a number of times.


Again I don't see the revolutionary army as a replacement to class struggle just a escort to prevent them from being snuffed out.

Also I'm looking at reactions that will probably occur, it is like when something start to fall debating if one should get out of the way instead of saying gravity will pull it down so there is no debate. Same here, there is no debate, if there is no revolutionary army any revolution will be snuffed out by the bourgeois state without exception as the system will force the bourgeois state to react in such a way.

Once more, Marxism is not an ideology of militarism and violent aggression as you seem to define it. It is a theory based in social, political, and economic class struggle. Why are you so intent on infusing the theory and thought of Marx with the deviation of extreme focalist thought? There is no need for it and in only serves an incredibly counter productive purpose.

The proletarian is perfectly capable of organizing itself into militia units should the need arise, there is no need for a massive revolutionary army to institute preemptive war on its behalf. Why must you continue to insult the very class which communism seeks to liberate from the chains of oppression? There is no sense to your excessively violent deviation from Marxist thought. To be honest, I'm not even entirely sure that you deviated from Marx, as that would imply that what you argue for was at one point based upon his work. I simply can't bring myself to believe that.

[Psy]

Which isn't that long, considering it is only a year after WW1. Either way, how exactly would the revolution spread, considering Winnipeg was the only participant in the strike, i.e. the only somewhat class conscious area.

The Winnipeg general strike being isolated was a problem but it could have spread since it is not like class consciousness was impossible outside of Winnipeg. It would have take a massive effort from the workers of Winnipeg but worth a shot.



You speak as if the bourgeoisie are idiots who are running things because they are lucky, not because they are smart.

I said if they were stupid enough to ignore the attack on their logistical tail (not probable). Odds are they would respond but that takes time this is how Hitler defeated France by the time France reacted to its logistical tail being steam rolled over by Nazi Germany it was too late.



Allende was a Marxist, in ideology.

Pinochet was backed by the USA.

Allende only reformed Chile and of course Pinochet was backed by the US.




...then...what about your earlier points...about...you...know...the revolutionary army being the first step...

Not the first step, you just have to prepare for when it is needed.




Wait...but...you mention how they should be active in protecting these strikes and protests...so..if they aren't created before...do you suggest they be created during? I don't get it...

Not in any meaningful way, the only reason you'd have a revolutionary army to protect strikes and protests is to start laying down the organizational structure early and start figuring out how to escort the workers when the stakes are insignificant.



I am speaking of an armed militia. An unarmed militia would just be more people taking part in the protest...they would serve no real function...what, are they going to meat hoses, guns, flash bangs, tear gas, etc with fists?

No function other then being a exercise in escorting workers.



what?

By this point lack of recruits wouldn't be a problem, as there really wouldn't be a need for protection, at this phase having it would just be an exercise.



What? Have you ever read Lenin?

Yes but the primary reason for a vanguard is workers don't learn from past struggles on their own as they have no memory of it.




I really don't udnerstand where you're coming from anymore...
By the time a revolutionary forces actually deploys as an armed force with intent of repelling attempts of the bourgeois state to restore order, the revolutionary situation should have grown beyond a general strike. Workers by that point should have taken means of production and set up their own governmental body.

[Psy]

Once more, Marxism is not an ideology of militarism and violent aggression as you seem to define it. It is a theory based in social, political, and economic class struggle. Why are you so intent on infusing the theory and thought of Marx with the deviation of extreme focalist thought? There is no need for it and in only serves an incredibly counter productive purpose.

The proletarian is perfectly capable of organizing itself into militia units should the need arise, there is no need for a massive revolutionary army to institute preemptive war on its behalf.

How do you know, we are not in a revolutionary situation and every previous revolution situation had the entire capitalist class reacting with military force?



Why must you continue to insult the very class which communism seeks to liberate from the chains of oppression?

Because I don't think it insults workers, I don't think workers like getting shot and applicate fellow workers taking up arms to defend them in a professional armed body.



There is no sense to your excessively violent deviation from Marxist thought. To be honest, I'm not even entirely sure that you deviated from Marx, as that would imply that what you argue for was at one point based upon his work. I simply can't bring myself to believe that.
Where is Marx against a revolutionary army? Where did Marx say the reason the Paris Commune failed is that they formed a revolutionary army to defend the commune and if they were not so excessively violent the Paris Commune would have thrived?

[thesadmafioso]

How do you know, we are not in a revolutionary situation and every previous revolution situation had the entire capitalist class reacting with military force?


Because I don't think it insults workers, I don't think workers like getting shot and applicate fellow workers taking up arms to defend them in a professional armed body.


Where is Marx against a revolutionary army? Where did Marx say the reason the Paris Commune failed is that they formed a revolutionary army to defend the commune and if they were not so excessively violent the Paris Commune would have thrived?

Your first point is hardly coherent just from a grammatical standpoint, so I don't know how you really expect me to respond to this. Yes, the capitalist class does often react violently to revolution, that is why I hold to the point that when a proletarian revolution is met with such a threat that it should organize armed units of workers in its defense. This is much different from your concept of 'revolutionary armies' driving the course of revolution.

It does though, as you are insinuating that they are not capable of enacting revolutionary upheaval to the status quo through the traditional channels of mass political agitation and by the use of their labor. You claim that they need an armed collection of condescending saviors to lead them to... something which you have really not specified.

State violence against the proletarian is absolutely deplorable, that is why it should not be encouraged by advocating for failed tactics of militaristic rebellion which will be doomed to a fate of mass bloodshed for their ranks. That is why successful tactics of revolutionary insurrection should be given defense and put into action, so as to dismantle this bourgeois state and its machinery of repression!

You are not a general leading an army, get that thought through your head. The working class needs no such Bonaparte, it needs revolutionary leadership.

Also, the word violence, can you seriously try to curb your use of it? I would really be interested in seeing if it is possible for you to carry on a discussion without bestowing torrents of praise upon it in all of its manifestations.

[Psy]

Your first point is hardly coherent just from a grammatical standpoint, so I don't know how you really expect me to respond to this. Yes, the capitalist class does often react violently to revolution, that is why I hold to the point that when a proletarian revolution is met with such a threat that it should organize armed units of workers in its defense. This is much different from your concept of 'revolutionary armies' driving the course of revolution.

I never said revolutionary armies exist to drive the course of the revolution, I said they are there to defend it.



It does though, as you are insinuating that they are not capable of enacting revolutionary upheaval to the status quo through the traditional channels of mass political agitation and by the use of their labor. You claim that they need an armed collection of condescending saviors to lead them to... something which you have really not specified.

Again the point is to defend the workers.



State violence against the proletarian is absolutely deplorable, that is why it should not be encouraged by advocating for failed tactics of militaristic rebellion which will be doomed to a fate of mass bloodshed for their ranks. That is why successful tactics of revolutionary insurrection should be given defense and put into action, so as to dismantle this bourgeois state and its machinery of repression!

I'm not advocating failed military rebellions. I'm against letting the workers get slaughtered because some people don't like having a professional armed body to defend the people from getting slaughtered and think the average factory worker can operate artillery on short notice with little training.



You are not a general leading an army, get that thought through your head. The working class needs no such Bonaparte, it needs revolutionary leadership.

Never said I was.




Also, the word violence, can you seriously try to curb your use of it? I would really be interested in seeing if it is possible for you to carry on a discussion without bestowing torrents of praise upon it in all of its manifestations.
We are talking about conflict in this thread.

[thesadmafioso]

I never said revolutionary armies exist to drive the course of the revolution, I said they are there to defend it.


Again the point is to defend the workers.


I'm not advocating failed military rebellions. I'm against letting the workers get slaughtered because some people don't like having a professional armed body to defend the people from getting slaughtered and think the average factory worker can operate artillery on short notice with little training.


Never said I was.



We are talking about conflict in this thread.

You've said both, really. And you have also shown that you have an incredibly peculiar interpretation of what constitutes defense, the conditions under which it should be undertaken, the confines under which it exists, and the exact conduct through which it should be undertaken by.

You would recklessly see the working class into folly and massacre whenever they may be in a position to arm themselves, you mind operates in much the same was as a feckless bourgeois general who is without compassion or consideration for the workers below him.

No, your point is not to 'defend the workers', you point is that you defend the hasty use of their potential whenever you apparently see fit and from a sheer perspective of bourgeois military tactic. They do not need your overly militaristic interpretation of defense to make revolution and they will certainly not listen to your excited taste for violence should you try to present them which such a claim.

And this is getting tiresome, you have yet to actually address my primary point. Why are you viewing the revolutionary struggle of communism through only the lens of militaristic terms? You treat the working class and their promise as a secondary aspect to your own personal image of 'revolution', as if it is but a coat of paint to throw over some aimless endeavor of rebellion.

When the proletariat seizes power, it will not be thanks to the efforts of some mysterious 'revolutionary army' looming over their actions and protecting their every move, it will be through their own desire to move society past the horrors of capitalism. This will be done without the trappings of capitalist thought and it will be achieved in no thanks to your reactionary rantings on militarism.

Oh, and as for not advocating for failed rebellions, were you not just saying that the Winnapeg strike would of been the spark for some glorious revolution had it been armed? How exactly would that not of failed? The Canadian army would of came crashing down upon it with a doubled effort, and they would of made themselves out to of been doing so in self defense. Thus leading to a massacre of workers and a failed armed rebellion...that you would of liked to of seen.

[Fawkes]

Seriously, just read some Lenin and you'll be fine.




(yes, I'm aware I'm beating that joke to death)

But to answer your question - fuck no I'm not ready. I don't know anyone who is "ready". But just because I'm not "ready" for the mugger around the corner doesn't mean I won't do everything within my power to defend myself. I don't think I'll ever be ready to shoot someone, but I'd like to think that at that point my sense of self-preservation will take over.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I picture the revolution as a quick seizing of government buildings and industry by the masses, quickly executing all major players in the government. The rest could be imprisoned.

Hopefully this would be done by a large enough scale that it is too fast and large to contain or stop. I should hope the military would stand down rather than shoot at their own people.

If it came down to pure warfare, the state would have us well outgunned due to technology. However, I do sincerely believe that much of the State's army would desert and join us rather than fight their own people. If it didn't, rifle over the shoulder and into the woods. Draw this out as long as we can, until victory. If we can't defeat them directly, then we can draw it out so they would feel a war like this where it hurts them the most, their wallet.

I hope for peace, and prosperity, however power concedes nothing without a demand. If history has taught us anything it would be that.

[Bostana]

Are you prepared for the black helicopters massacring protesting masses? Or for people brought to concentration camps? Of crawling naked through the mud while policemen in black uniforms are kicking you and their Dobermanns are barking in your ears?
Yes of course we are as it is quoted off of Che Guevara about revolution "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall."

[Die Rote Fahne]

The Winnipeg general strike being isolated was a problem but it could have spread since it is not like class consciousness was impossible outside of Winnipeg. It would have take a massive effort from the workers of Winnipeg but worth a shot.
It's not impossible for class consciousness to spread anywhere, however, it is the time it takes for that consciousness to come to fruition.


I said if they were stupid enough to ignore the attack on their logistical tail (not probable). Odds are they would respond but that takes time this is how Hitler defeated France by the time France reacted to its logistical tail being steam rolled over by Nazi Germany it was too late.ok...the "revolutionary army" is going to be a powerful force like the army of Nazi Germany...


Allende only reformed Chile and of course Pinochet was backed by the US. ...okay...

and yeah...you missed the point...



Not the first step, you just have to prepare for when it is needed.Sure, arming the working class is a good thing...though, your previous posts advocate the use of armed fore to defend protests, and to agitate the ruling class...and lead the revolution...now you change your mind?

There is a point when armed resistance will likely be needed, and no paramilitary force can prepare the masses for that. It will be spontaneous, as with the non-violent actions.



Not in any meaningful way, the only reason you'd have a revolutionary army to protect strikes and protests is to start laying down the organizational structure early and start figuring out how to escort the workers when the stakes are insignificant.Whattt? You lost me here...they arent created in any meaningful way, but are learning to defend the protests somehow...through witchcraft?


No function other then being a exercise in escorting workers.How, precisely, would their unarmed, or even armed, escort serve the protest?


By this point lack of recruits wouldn't be a problem, as there really wouldn't be a need for protection, at this phase having it would just be an exercise....


Yes but the primary reason for a vanguard is workers don't learn from past struggles on their own as they have no memory of it............



By the time a revolutionary forces actually deploys as an armed force with intent of repelling attempts of the bourgeois state to restore order, the revolutionary situation should have grown beyond a general strike. Workers by that point should have taken means of production and set up their own governmental body.It's like your argument is changing and taking new and antithetical positions to your previous arguments...

I quit...this is way to confusing for me right now...

Perhaps you think about what you mean, and put your position into one large post?

[Agent Equality]

I think we can all agree now that Azula is an insane sociopath with a violent authoritarian fetish that should not be taken seriously.

[Psy]

You've said both, really. And you have also shown that you have an incredibly peculiar interpretation of what constitutes defense, the conditions under which it should be undertaken, the confines under which it exists, and the exact conduct through which it should be undertaken by.

I never said the revolutionary army can spread the revolution or lead the revolution.



You would recklessly see the working class into folly and massacre whenever they may be in a position to arm themselves, you mind operates in much the same was as a feckless bourgeois general who is without compassion or consideration for the workers below him.

You would recklessly see the working class into massacres by thinking having workers having small arms and organized into militias can replace a mature revolutionary army with not only artillery and armor, learning nothing from the Spanish Civil-war.



No, your point is not to 'defend the workers', you point is that you defend the hasty use of their potential whenever you apparently see fit and from a sheer perspective of bourgeois military tactic. They do not need your overly militaristic interpretation of defense to make revolution and they will certainly not listen to your excited taste for violence should you try to present them which such a claim.

I'm not advocating bourgeois military tactics but military tactics taking account material realities on the battlefield.



And this is getting tiresome, you have yet to actually address my primary point. Why are you viewing the revolutionary struggle of communism through only the lens of militaristic terms? You treat the working class and their promise as a secondary aspect to your own personal image of 'revolution', as if it is but a coat of paint to throw over some aimless endeavor of rebellion.

I don't view revolutionary struggle of communism only through a military lens yet this thread is called ruthlessness and the revolution, we are talking about combat in the revolution the class struggle is off topic for this thread.



When the proletariat seizes power, it will not be thanks to the efforts of some mysterious 'revolutionary army' looming over their actions and protecting their every move, it will be through their own desire to move society past the horrors of capitalism. This will be done without the trappings of capitalist thought and it will be achieved in no thanks to your reactionary rantings on militarism.

Jomini isn't the trappings of capitalist thought it is a theory of warfare and the theory is the bases of Guerrilla warfare theory used by liberation movements like that of Cuba. Are you calling Che capitalist?



Oh, and as for not advocating for failed rebellions, were you not just saying that the Winnapeg strike would of been the spark for some glorious revolution had it been armed?

No I said if Winnipeg had been able to repel the RCMP it would have had more time.



How exactly would that not of failed? The Canadian army would of came crashing down upon it with a doubled effort, and they would of made themselves out to of been doing so in self defense. Thus leading to a massacre of workers and a failed armed rebellion...that you would of liked to of seen.
If the revolution spread (through class struggle) like West Virginia in 1877 the Canadian Army would not just dealing with Winnipeg.

[thesadmafioso]

I never said the revolutionary army can spread the revolution or lead the revolution.


You would recklessly see the working class into massacres by thinking having workers having small arms and organized into militias can replace a mature revolutionary army with not only artillery and armor, learning nothing from the Spanish Civil-war.


I'm not advocating bourgeois military tactics but military tactics taking account material realities on the battlefield.


I don't view revolutionary struggle of communism only through a military lens yet this thread is called ruthlessness and the revolution, we are talking about combat in the revolution the class struggle is off topic for this thread.


Jomini isn't the trappings of capitalist thought it is a theory of warfare and the theory is the bases of Guerrilla warfare theory used by liberation movements like that of Cuba. Are you calling Che capitalist?


No I said if Winnipeg had been able to repel the RCMP it would have had more time.


If the revolution spread (through class struggle) like West Virginia in 1877 the Canadian Army would not just dealing with Winnipeg.

I'm done dealing with your mildly disturbing fetish for violence, militarism and warfare as concealed under a thin facade of Marxist aims.

You can argue with yourself from this point out, as you certainly have contradicted your own incomprehensible stances with your other stances enough times to do so.

[anarcho-communist4]

I think we can all agree now that Azula is an insane sociopath with a violent authoritarian fetish that should not be taken seriously.

Yah, her other posts aren't any better.

[Psy]

Perhaps you think about what you mean, and put your position into one large post?
Okay.

The revolutionary grows as the revolution grows till it spans the world as different revolutionary armies merge into a united revolutionary army for all of Earth being the largest army ever fielded with access to artillery, armor, air and sea power.

Yet early off the revolutionary armies are just insignificant muscle for strikes and protests (if they exist at such a early phase), what such a organization would gain is experience in working with workers as escorts and coordinating forces. Trotsky mentioned he found his forces lacked enough coordination to do any kind of mobility based warfare so it will take some time before a revolutionary army can hold their own against capitalist forces so working on coordination early would be of some help.

As for class consciousness taking time to reach fruition, this is true but we don't know how much time, Paris May 1968 took leftist by surprise as they thought French workers were just too reactionary, we shouldn't underestimate how fast class consciousness can change.

The idea of preemption is for mature revolutionary armies when they have to strength to actually throw their weight around. A revolutionary army throwing its its weight around won't do anything to spread revolution but it will keep the capitalist focused on it. The idea is not to do USSR stile "liberations" but simply engage capitalist forces to weaken them and leave the liberation to revolutionaries spreading the idea of class warfare, of course the revolutionary army can help uprisings that it can come into contact with but it can't really spread revolution.

So what revolutionary armies do is grow beyond what simple militias can do, you can't have militias be effective an effective air force or providing artillery support. They are needed because of what we learned from the Spanish Civil-War of what late armed conflict against capitalist forces will look like.

[Le Rouge]

You missed the scenario of a massive armed proletarian army like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense but scaling it up far more and for the entire proletariat not just a oppressed minority.

If you have a large enough revolutionary force they might even get away with a victory with very little fighting as most bourgeoisie forces don't want to mess with a revolutionary army with hundreds of millions of fighters.

Nope the bourgeoisie won't. But the army is another thing you know. They got all the cool stuff (aka Tanks, machineguns, gattling guns, trained soldiers, aircrafts, etc.)

[Azula]

This is Maoism, not Marxism. It completely, as Maoism does, ignores the role of the modern working class: the class which controls production.

There are no "masses." We may use that term rhetorically, but actually it's incorrect. We deal with "classes," not masses. If the working class is, in fact, neutral during the working class revolution, the socialist revolution, the Marxist revolution, then we have no revolution.

The People's Liberation Army notion is based on politics that is not, itself, based on the working class. Maoism is based on class collaboration. Even in China, it was bogus. After the defeat of Japan, the Chinese working class rose up, ready to seize the economy. The Maoists told the workers to go back to work under the control of either military or their own bosses. This can be documented easily.

RED DAVE

I said that was the realistic scenario, certainly not the most desirable one. I expect any revolution to take 10-100 years to complete.

[black magick hustla]

i feel like i shouldn't engage this thread because its premise is abysmally dumb, but i think a lot of youngins and hoppers get into this weird aesthetic of violence and a lot of people, even adults that should know better, have no understanding of what class violence is. first, the "violent" element of revolution was exaggerated by some post-marx "marxists" theorists because of political and ideological maneuvering for whatever political faction they were serving. when communists talk about class violence we don't necessarily mean severing heads or some shit, but the forceful seize of the world and its means of production. this could include anything from intimidation, general strikes, riots, property destruction, and all sorts of organic violence that can either be bloodless or not. when some "stalinist" groups talk about violence they mean substitutionalist violence, which is a group of ideological cadre trying to instigate armed insurrection, either through terrorism or civil war, and see the terms of class violence and revolution as a military question. social upheaval requires the total overturn of society and its minds, its not just a question of killing the opposite band. "substitutionalist violence" is the violence of the petit-bourgeois and other elements that are condemned to not have a place in history

[Azula]

Nope the bourgeoisie won't. But the army is another thing you know. They got all the cool stuff (aka Tanks, machineguns, gattling guns, trained soldiers, aircrafts, etc.)

Yes, we need to focus on a long struggle.

[Psy]

Nope the bourgeoisie won't. But the army is another thing you know. They got all the cool stuff (aka Tanks, machineguns, gattling guns, trained soldiers, aircrafts, etc.)
In the October (November) Revolution the ruling class did just flee from the masses and armed forces were part of that though they didn't have to do much just the fact there was a revolutionary army caused the resistance of the ruling class to quickly dissolve. Same in Cuba, once the army approached Havana the resistance faded away.

[RED DAVE]

In the October (November) Revolution the ruling class did just flee from the masses and armed forces were part of that though they didn't have to do much just the fact there was a revolutionary army caused the resistance of the ruling class to quickly dissolve. Same in Cuba, once the army approached Havana the resistance faded away.Could you please rewrite that so that the points you are making are clear?

RED DAVE

[Pretty Flaco]

Yes, we need to focus on a long struggle.

I think we need to focus on ignoring your posts, which lack any coherency.

[ZeroNowhere]

:laugh:
Putting the picture before the puzzle pieces I see. Stop dreaming about large masses of revolutionaries attacking bases and start organizing. You can't get MILLIONS of people to support your cause if YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING YOURSELF. Go organize a rally. Put yourself and YOUR ideas out there. Because you sure as hell can't expect anyone else to do it.

I never see leftist organizations doing anything except making articles to their same 1,000 subscriber base every month. INSTEAD of getting out their fucking house and interacting with the working class.
I'm sorry, and you're accusing them of 'idealism'? That is absolutely hilarious.

[Welshy]

Yes, we need to focus on a long struggle.

No, what we need to focus on is organizing the working class, so we can actually have a revolution. Once that is actually done, then we can start thinking about arming the workers in order to defend the revolution. Any attempt at military struggle with any of the capitalist governments (in the west at least) without it being preceded by and combined with a proletarian uprising will almost certainly be a suicide mission and horribly damage any of our hopes of having a revolution.

[Psy]

Could you please rewrite that so that the points you are making are clear?

RED DAVE

When it came to the storming of the Winter Palace the armed body of the revolution just had to be a rapidly growing armed body. The Russian ruling faced with their own forces gravitating towards the revolutionary army decided to flee.

The the mistake many on the left makes when turning down the idea of revolutionary armies is to think that ruling class armed bodies will maintain their solidity in the revolutionary situations where revolutionary armies can realistically throw their weight around. By that time you are going to have the revolutionary pull, effecting the bourgeois forces causing bourgeois forces to become more class conscious.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If the revolution is genuinely popular amongst the working class, then they will defend it through democracy and their iron will.

If the revolution is unpopular amongst the working class, then fuck your revolution!

If the revolution doesn't view 'the masses' (ugh, what a phrase!) as anything other than neutral idiots, as in Azula's model, then you don't have a revolution, you have a computer and a few red flags at most, because your 'revolution' will never break out of such a bubble.

[Psy]

If the revolution is genuinely popular amongst the working class, then they will defend it through democracy and their iron will.

Iron will basically means making the enemy trip over our dead. The point of a revolutionary army is so we don't have to absorb such losses. For example in the Spanish Civil-War there is was no shortages of iron will and mass support, what was in short supply was organized armed resistance to the extent the masses could out maneuver the Nationalists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

By staying dormant till they are needed and starting with non-lethal force so at the start they would just be like the Black Bloc just better organized leaving their firearms at home. As a revolutionary situation leads to a uprising the vanguard has to make the call when to take up arms to repel attempts by the bourgeois state to restore bourgeois order, this should be at a point where the revolutionary army can open its doors to recruits and quickly increase its size to match and eventually exceed the numbers of the bourgeoisie forces also the revolutionary situation has created a revolutionary authority parallel to bourgeois authority.

The main reason, comrade, why I advocate the party-movement as the primary model is precisely the avoidance of the long-term pitfalls of the "revolutionary army only" model. In the short term, workers paramilitary organizations / paramilitias (more than mere "militias") are more capable of handling immediate political issues than non-party councils ever could without the influence of some party-movement (because of bureaucratic processes), but the requirement of strict centralization is its long-term deficiency.

Examples of "revolutionary army only" models include the Paris Commune's National Guard (hence my recent tirades about saving the Paris Commune (http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.html?p=2130478)) and Russia's Military Revolutionary Committees.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Iron will basically means making the enemy trip over our dead. The point of a revolutionary army is so we don't have to absorb such losses. For example in the Spanish Civil-War there is was no shortages of iron will and mass support, what was in short supply was organized armed resistance to the extent the masses could out maneuver the Nationalists.

But we're at a stage now where most developed western nations have large armies, equipped with a whole host of WMDs. You're not going to beat them by making a long march into the mountains, as you might have done in a country divided into the rule of smaller warlords back in the 30s and 40s as China was.

We are also at the stage where bourgeois democracy (or quasi-democracy) has advanced to the stage that it is incredibly unlikely that the working class will accept revolution via civil war. The split in opinion that a few burning buildings in England caused recently shows this.

Many developed western countries are small enoguh (USA aside), that the country can be won over, largely, into a supportive and opposition mass i.e. in a country of 40, 50 or 60 million, of small geographical area, it is actually feasible to get a critical mass of popular support, whereby the ruling class cannot oppose. In China the situation was different, it was a large, diverse country and it was difficult to get a critical mass of support, hence Mao's tactics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

(1) The free breakfast program was organized by the Panthers themselves. (2) t was a tiny operation that lasted maybe a year. The police did shut it down. Basically, though, it was social work. it was useless for any significant revolutionary recruiting.

So, so wrong. Part of the revolutionary recruiting done by the pre-war SPD involved social work. Oh yeah, and social work requires bureaucracy-as-process.

[Psy]

But we're at a stage now where most developed western nations have large armies, equipped with a whole host of WMDs.

WMDs that will quickly erode what ever loyalty they still had in the armed forces. For example if the USA had nuked Paris in 1968 is not only would have cased NATO to unravel but the whole US armed forces.

Egypt has chemical weapons yet they were not used to put down the uprisings, the Egyptian army really couldn't do much but wait for the militancy to die down.



You're not going to beat them by making a long march into the mountains, as you might have done in a country divided into the rule of smaller warlords back in the 30s and 40s as China was.

That is guerrilla warfare, think the Spanish Civil-War when you think revolutionary armies at war.



We are also at the stage where bourgeois democracy (or quasi-democracy) has advanced to the stage that it is incredibly unlikely that the working class will accept revolution via civil war. The split in opinion that a few burning buildings in England caused recently shows this.

It is not revolution via civil-war, civil-war is the ruling classes reaction to revolution.



Many developed western countries are small enoguh (USA aside), that the country can be won over, largely, into a supportive and opposition mass i.e. in a country of 40, 50 or 60 million, of small geographical area, it is actually feasible to get a critical mass of popular support, whereby the ruling class cannot oppose. In China the situation was different, it was a large, diverse country and it was difficult to get a critical mass of support, hence Mao's tactics.
You can't have revolution in one country, the revolution has to spread to eventually engulf the Earth.

[RED DAVE]

(1) The free breakfast program was organized by the Panthers themselves. (2) t was a tiny operation that lasted maybe a year. The police did shut it down. Basically, though, it was social work. it was useless for any significant revolutionary recruiting.
So, so wrong.According to who? You, Cockshott and McNair.


Part of the revolutionary recruiting done by the pre-war SPDYou mean that social democratic pile of shit whose leadership, including Kautsky, perpetrated perhaps the greatest betrayal of the working class of all time? That pre-war SPD? We're supposed to learn recruiting from them?


involved social work.I'll bet it did!


Oh yeah, and social work requires [I]bureaucracy-as-process.I'm sure it does.

Sometimes, DNZ, you read like a parody of yourself.

Fact is that the Panther's free breakfast program, and almost all similar work, in the absence of a revolutionary mass movement, deteriorates into social work. However, it's exactly social work that shit piles like your precious pre-war SPD favored as opposed to revolutionary action.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

When it came to the storming of the Winter Palace the armed body of the revolution just had to be a rapidly growing armed body.Only that's not what happened. The "armed body of the revolution" at the time of the storming of the Winter Palace was composed of units from the army that had declared their loyalty to the Revolution. There was no pre-existing revolutionary army.


The Russian ruling faced with their own forces gravitating towards the revolutionary army decided to flee.I assume that what you're saying here is that the ruling class fled the capital as more and more of their army proved to be disloyal.


The the mistake many on the left makes when turning down the idea of revolutionary armies is to think that ruling class armed bodies will maintain their solidity in the revolutionary situations where revolutionary armies can realistically throw their weight around.You have completely failed to demonstrate the necessity for building a revolutionary army before the revolution. So why speculate about the ruling class "armed bodies" when your premise is incorrect?


By that time you are going to have the revolutionary pull, effecting the bourgeois forces causing bourgeois forces to become more class conscious.Whatever. You need to stop engaging in wild-eyed generalizations and use concrete historical examples. So far, the one exaple that your chose idpsroved your point.

I suggest, before you go any further, that you make a study of revolution that goes beyond false generalizations from Maoism. Have fun interpreting what's happening in Nepal.

RED DAVE

[Rusty Shackleford]

Theres a time and place for everything. now, lets get some folksy shit up in here to diffuse any tension.


DejUPN4SksU

[Psy]

Only that's not what happened. The "armed body of the revolution" at the time of the storming of the Winter Palace was composed of units from the army that had declared their loyalty to the Revolution. There was no pre-existing revolutionary army.

I assume that what you're saying here is that the ruling class fled the capital as more and more of their army proved to be disloyal.

True



You have completely failed to demonstrate the necessity for building a revolutionary army before the revolution. So why speculate about the ruling class "armed bodies" when your premise is incorrect?

When it came to Russian civil-war the Red Army lacked the organization to engage in mobility warfare, same with revolutionary forces in the Spanish Civil-War. In both cases the revolutionary army was limited to attrition warfare. Thus due to the revolutionary army had to go to war so soon after being formed they were horribly inefficient at the profession of warfare.

A efficient army since Napoleon is a army that can out maneuverer the enemy, having the ability to attack the enemy's weak-points while avoiding frontal assaults.



Whatever. You need to stop engaging in wild-eyed generalizations and use concrete historical examples. So far, the one exaple that your chose idpsroved your point.

There is also Egypt recently then there is the National Guard in 1877 and the East German army in 1989 that would have became a revolutionary army if they was a revolutionary authority in East Germany to lead them.



I suggest, before you go any further, that you make a study of revolution that goes beyond false generalizations from Maoism. Have fun interpreting what's happening in Nepal.

RED DAVE
I'm not basing this on Mao, I'm looking at the Russian and Spanish Civil-War compared to Napoleon that was also isolated yet was able to smash through the competing imperialist armies of Europe with a recently restructured army that would have been very useful for revolutionary armies. Imagine if Trotsky instead didn't wield the primitive Red Army but a revolutionary army as effective as Napoleon's army.

[Fawkes]

Nope the bourgeoisie won't. But the army is another thing you know. They got all the cool stuff (aka Tanks, machineguns, gattling guns, trained soldiers, aircrafts, etc.)


Gattling guns? Okay, John Wayne. The army isn't "another" thing, it's made up largely by the working class. That's why raising class consciousness within the military is so important.

[Azula]

Both Psy and RED DAVE are wrong, but Psy is at least partially correct.

RED DAVE seems to believe that the party should just wait for the working class to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. What if the working class rise up, overthrow the oppressor figureheads and then buy the talk of the ruling class that everything is going to be alright (like in Egypt). What if they rise up and install a fascist society instead?

What if they remain divided? What if the revolution doesn't come?

To mold everything after the 1917 scenario is wrong. The Russian situation is not comparable with any given situation today.

That is also directed at Psy.

Russia was in an economic, moral and social crisis by 1917. The army had practically ceased to exist in the summer of 1917. No surprise that the Revolution succeeded then (but if the Bolsheviks had built the Red Army prior to October, the Civil War might have taken a few months instead of a few years and only cost a few hundreds of thousands of lives instead of a few million lives).

The most secure way of managing a revolution is by establish base areas, protecting the civilians living there and assemble the resources available to build an army in order to smash the bourgeois oppressors.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And Azula dear, what if the people don't want your army bases to protect them? What if they do not like your idea?:rolleyes:

You seem to ride absolutely roughshod over the idea of democracy and thus, Socialism.

[Azula]

And Azula dear, what if the people don't want your army bases to protect them? What if they do not like your idea?:rolleyes:

You seem to ride absolutely roughshod over the idea of democracy and thus, Socialism.

It is not a matter of what they temporarily want, but what they need which they might not recognise because of the shrouds of false consciousness.

If a five-year old is having a cold and refuses his medicine, should not a loving parent force the child to take the medicine?

[PhoenixAsh]

It is not a matter of what they temporarily want, but what they need which they might not recognise because of the shrouds of false consciousness.

If a five-year old is having a cold and refuses his medicine, should not a loving parent force the child to take the medicine?

Yeah...pretty sure the loving parent would explain why it was necessary and find a way to convince the child to take his medicine through other ways than force unless absolutely fucking necessary.

A loving parent KNOWS that its a more valued education and unpbringing if the child understands WHY he does things or should do things/....so he or she can learn and apply the thought process to new situations and actually learn to fend for themselves...instead of just doing thing because they are afraid of the consequences.

[Per Levy]

It is not a matter of what they temporarily want, but what they need which they might not recognise because of the shrouds of false consciousness.

If a five-year old is having a cold and refuses his medicine, should not a loving parent force the child to take the medicine?

so you advocate a dictatorship over the proletariat and not the dictatorship of the proletariat, do i get you right?

[Azula]

so you advocate a dictatorship over the proletariat and not the dictatorship of the proletariat, do i get you right?

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat cannot afford to lower it's guard when it is involved in a life and death struggle with the forces of reaction.

[Per Levy]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat cannot afford to lower it's guard when it is involved in a life and death struggle with the forces of reaction.

that means yes then. the point is this, you never talk about the workers take control, you always talk about how, your kind of, "socialism" should be forced on them with an amry that is, all in the interest of the workers, of course.
what you really are advocating is a millitary dictatorship that somehow is supposed to "protect" the workers from their enemys and themselfs. that is not the way to gain support with the workers, nor is it way forward to socialism.

[The Man]

This is a ridiculous thread that needs to be trashed immediately. To the OP, congratulations, you just posted the biggest bullshit I have ever witnessed outside of Chit-Chat. If you are one of those people that think revolution means shooting and gunning down people, than leave, leave right now. People like you make others run away from our movement. People need to stop having wet dreams of killing human beings. You want to participate in revolution? Great. Organizing, and educating is the revolution at this moment.

Damn it..

/rant

[Azula]

that means yes then. the point is this, you never talk about the workers take control, you always talk about how, your kind of, "socialism" should be forced on them with an amry that is, all in the interest of the workers, of course.
what you really are advocating is a millitary dictatorship that somehow is supposed to "protect" the workers from their enemys and themselfs. that is not the way to gain support with the workers, nor is it way forward to socialism.

That is the most successful way. Most revolutions have been based from the countryside, encircled the cities and then fought the armed forces in guerilla warfare and revolutionary warfare.

[Per Levy]

That is the most successful way. Most revolutions have been based from the countryside, encircled the cities and then fought the armed forces in guerilla warfare and revolutionary warfare.

you do know that most of these "revolutions" failed completly right? it is succesfull thoug, if you mean that a small elite(a party or a millitary council) is takeing the power and represses workers and base their power on the millitary is succesfull way to socialism. it isnt and everytime something like that happend it failed miserably.

[Azula]

How many revolutions have anarchists and trotskyists pulled off?

[RED DAVE]

It is not a matter of what they temporarily want, but what they need which they might not recognise because of the shrouds of false consciousness.That may well be, but the question then becomes are you, as a Marxist, going to try to force the working class to accept what it doesn't, for it's own good? If you are, you are flirting with Stalinism.


If a five-year old is having a cold and refuses his medicine, should not a loving parent force the child to take the medicine?Stalinism.

RED DAVE

[Per Levy]

How many revolutions have anarchists and trotskyists pulled off?

and that has to do what now with anything we discussed before? besides there are threads on that topic, you can go there read through them. also you didnt awnser my post in any way. you are advocating a "revolution" in wich there is no place for the workers pretty much and everytime this happend it failed. so how about, you know, have a real revolution with worker power and where the workers take controll and everything?

[RED DAVE]

How many revolutions have anarchists and trotskyists pulled off?How many state capitalist and private capitalist regimes have been erected on top of failed Stalinist and Maoist revolutions? You politics is a politics over the working class, not of the working class. The working class is not a bunch of children, nor are you and your ilk its parents.

If you want to see how well your politics are working out, check out Russia, China.

Under the guise of "ruthlessness," you introduce a dictatorship over the proletariat, yoke the proletariat in with other classes (instead of being the leading class, the vanguard class) and then you open the door to state capitalism and private capitalism. This is precisely what is happening in Nepal right now.

RED DAVE

[Azula]

How many state capitalist and private capitalist regimes have been erected on top of failed Stalinist and Maoist revolutions? You politics is a politics over the working class, not of the working class. The working class is not a bunch of children, nor are you and your ilk its parents.

If you want to see how well your politics are working out, check out Russia, China.

Under the guise of "ruthlessness," you introduce a dictatorship over the proletariat, yoke the proletariat in with other classes (instead of being the leading class, the vanguard class) and then you open the door to state capitalism and private capitalism. This is precisely what is happening in Nepal right now.

RED DAVE

That is because of failure to deal with the bureaucratisation of the revolutionary state and to prevent that either misguided bureaucrats or outright right-wing deviationists are infiltrating the ruling party, not because of the level of support in itself during the initial phase.

Even the October revolution had the same problem, despite that it was a proper "worker's revolution".

A liberal example of a socialist revolution was that in Portugal in 1974 which produced... a bourgeois democracy.

[RED DAVE]

How many state capitalist and private capitalist regimes have been erected on top of failed Stalinist and Maoist revolutions? You politics is a politics over the working class, not of the working class. The working class is not a bunch of children, nor are you and your ilk its parents.

If you want to see how well your politics are working out, check out Russia, China.

Under the guise of "ruthlessness," you introduce a dictatorship over the proletariat, yoke the proletariat in with other classes (instead of being the leading class, the vanguard class) and then you open the door to state capitalism and private capitalism. This is precisely what is happening in Nepal right now.
That is because of failure to deal with the bureaucratisation of the revolutionary state and to prevent that either misguided bureaucrats or outright right-wing deviationists are infiltrating the ruling party, not because of the level of support in itself during the initial phase.You have no concept of the the social forces within the revolutionary party. Bureaucrats and deviationists can only be dealt with if the party is in a fruitful revolutionary dialectic within the working class. Bureaucrats and deviationists, as you call them, I call them proto-Stalinists, are a result of the party being isolated from the working class. Neither Maoism nor Stalinism has ever come up with a theory to deal with this because under these ideologies, the door is open for them.


Even the October revolution had the same problem, despite that it was a proper "worker's revolution".And the inability to bring the party back into relationship with the working class doomed the revolution.


A liberal example of a socialist revolutionYou can't have a "liberal" socialist revolution. Liberalism is an ideology of capitalism.


was that in Portugal in 1974 which produced... a bourgeois democracy.That's because there was no revolutionary party to lead the working class.

How do you explain that a proper, even a leading, Maoist party is, as we post, playing an integral part in introducing a modern capitalist state into Nepal. These jokers even had a revolutionary army in the countryside, which they are now selling out faster than Wall Street is selling off.

[COLOR=RED]RED DAVE[COLOR]

[Azula]

You have no concept of the the social forces within the revolutionary party. Bureaucrats and deviationists can only be dealt with if the party is in a fruitful revolutionary dialectic within the working class. Bureaucrats and deviationists, as you call them, I call them proto-Stalinists, are a result of the party being isolated from the working class. Neither Maoism nor Stalinism has ever come up with a theory to deal with this because under these ideologies, the door is open for them.

The Great Purge?

The Cultural Revolution?



And the inability to bring the party back into relationship with the working class doomed the revolution.

Stalin saved the Revolution by eliminating right and ultraleft deviationists. It was first after 1953 it started to degenerate.


You can't have a "liberal" socialist revolution. Liberalism is an ideology of capitalism.

Exactly.


How do you explain that a proper, even a leading, Maoist party is, as we post, playing an integral part in introducing a modern capitalist state into Nepal. These jokers even had a revolutionary army in the countryside, which they are now selling out faster than Wall Street is selling off.

Because they are weak and their leaders have been bought off by the establishment in Nepal.

Nepal is also a small country with no resources. Try to institute proper anti-revisionist socialism there and China or India will intervene.

[Psy]

Both Psy and RED DAVE are wrong, but Psy is at least partially correct.

RED DAVE seems to believe that the party should just wait for the working class to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. What if the working class rise up, overthrow the oppressor figureheads and then buy the talk of the ruling class that everything is going to be alright (like in Egypt). What if they rise up and install a fascist society instead?

This is the task of the vanguard party not the revolutionary army. Also the Vanguard party does have to wait for the working class to rise up as vanguard means to be advance of the main force not alienated from it.



The most secure way of managing a revolution is by establish base areas, protecting the civilians living there and assemble the resources available to build an army in order to smash the bourgeois oppressors.
The civilians don't need a revolutionary army to act as a garrison, just arm them and they can be their own garrison. The real advantage of a revolutionary army is the ability to take the fight to the enemy as the army can become the revolution abroad.

[Wanted Man]

And Azula dear, what if the people don't want your army bases to protect them? What if they do not like your idea?:rolleyes:

You seem to ride absolutely roughshod over the idea of democracy and thus, Socialism.

Please don't use "dear" to patronise female users in this manner. I'm pretty sure that this is non-intentional so I'm not going to put this down as a "warning" or anything like that, but people can take offence to this, even if you didn't mean it this way.


This is a ridiculous thread that needs to be trashed immediately. To the OP, congratulations, you just posted the biggest bullshit I have ever witnessed outside of Chit-Chat. If you are one of those people that think revolution means shooting and gunning down people, than leave, leave right now. People like you make others run away from our movement. People need to stop having wet dreams of killing human beings. You want to participate in revolution? Great. Organizing, and educating is the revolution at this moment.

Damn it..

/rant

I agree, but I'm not going to close or trash this thread. I don't want to censor a discussion just because people think it shows a disgusting attitude towards human life (which I agree with). It's a perfectly legitimate discussion for those who can be bothered with it, and for those who can't, there is no need to post here. I will warn anyone who spams this thread, flames users in it, etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Great Purge?

Stalin saved the Revolution by eliminating right and ultraleft deviationists. It was first after 1953 it started to degenerate.

Just to disregard for a minute the blind devotion to a specific political authority arising from a specific political conjuncture due to historical development, why do you think that exactly after Stalin's death the USSR started to degenerate? What factors and what social forces were crucial here?

[Susurrus]

The most secure way of managing a revolution is by establish base areas, protecting the civilians living there and assemble the resources available to build an army in order to smash the bourgeois oppressors.

Black Army of the Ukraine sound familiar?

[Susurrus]

How many revolutions have anarchists pulled off?

about 5.

[PhoenixAsh]

How many revolutions have anarchists and trotskyists pulled off?

There have been preciously little revolutions in which at least Anarchists did not play a large role Azula.

[gendoikari]

that means yes then. the point is this, you never talk about the workers take control, you always talk about how, your kind of, "socialism" should be forced on them with an amry that is, all in the interest of the workers, of course.
what you really are advocating is a millitary dictatorship that somehow is supposed to "protect" the workers from their enemys and themselfs. that is not the way to gain support with the workers, nor is it way forward to socialism.

yes it is a branch of socialism called Azulaism, and it lies just right of stalinism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Please don't use "dear" to patronise female users in this manner. I'm pretty sure that this is non-intentional so I'm not going to put this down as a "warning" or anything like that, but people can take offence to this, even if you didn't mean it this way.



You're right, dear, I wasn't using it as a gender specific sexist patronisation. ;) I would have hoped my attitude towards sexism would be obvious by now!

I'm assuming you're a bloke, otherwise i'm in real trouble with that use of 'dear':lol: much like this thread. A lot of silly stuff being said.

The irony of Stalin getting rid of 'right deviationists'. What is more a 'right deviation' than the murder of anarchist comrades, the purging of even your ideologically-aligned comrades and a pact with Hitler over the division of Poland?

Of course, my mental gymnastic skills are not up to the levels demanded by the defenders of great comrade Stalin, I know.

[El Louton]

You mean revolutions aren't peaceful? *sarcasm*