Next Global revolution

[cheguvera]

new global revolution should be launched against politicians & political parties.First revolution was launched against kings & dictators.we replaced them with so called politicians.But they have failed to serve needs of people.they developed vested interests.became power hungry.Most of them had been useless & destructive. best example is the third world.Most of those countries elected so called politicians.They were abusive towards people.opressive leaders.politicians have become servants of the elite group.when some is holding high ranking posts even for few years, he is developing power hunger& perks hunger.Countries can do better without politicians.it is time to get rid of politicians, leaders, & personalities.It is dagerous to depend on individuals or personalities.it is dangerous to centralise power withing one individual or one group.we need a better system to replace them with better one.I feel anarchism may help us to develop pure democracy, pure free speech, free behaviour,which serves people.I amfed up with lies of politicians, their bogus personalities, fraud, corruption withing them.When some one or group of people are holding to power even few years , they are becoming abusive, power hungry.Therefore evrything should be changed all the time.Most of the politicians are thinking health,education, transport, communications services as burden.When they cant serve theses needs why would we elect them to govern us.?

so called politicians who elected from popoular vote has become corrupt, power hungry, lawless bunch of criminals in africa, south east asia, & south america.Therefore we need a global march against them

[Искра]

There are still kings and queens.

[Per Levy]

just a little tip, the size of the text is pretty small and pretty hard to read because of that(for me at least) and my eyes are hurting now.

[Per Levy]

allright, after i finished reading your little rant now(and my eyes are bleeding^^), i dont really now what to say. i mean you advocate anarchism so no one can really hold power and can get power hungry and you want a global revolution against politicans because they failed us. did i got that right?

[cheguvera]

allright, after i finished reading your little rant now(and my eyes are bleeding^^), i dont really now what to say. i mean you advocate anarchism so no one can really hold power and can get power hungry and you want a global revolution against politicans because they failed us. did i got that right?
yep, I mean politicians may not be the best option to serve people.They are worst personalities especially in third world countries like asia,africa.They have too much power.They are above the law.
I am not advocating anarchism.I am thinking of good values in it.

[cheguvera]

just a little tip, the size of the text is pretty small and pretty hard to read because of that(for me at least) and my eyes are hurting now.
thnx :)

[RedMarxist]

alright, after i finished reading your little rant now(and my eyes are bleeding^^), i don't really now what to say. i mean you advocate anarchism so no one can really hold power and can get power hungry and you want a global revolution against politicians because they failed us. did i got that right?

Anarchism? seriously? I'm not dissing on the ideological system specifically, but you are aware that the working class won't just throw up their arms and shout in one powerful voice-WE WANT ANARCHISM NOW DANG IT!

I think Lenin was right when he said educating the proletariat on a simple economic platform won't work-BOTH the economic and political oppression must be addressed to the workers as well.

Plus, Lenin argued it was the task of the Revolutionary Social Democrats to agitate. Do you really expect the working class to just become Anarchists/or Communists without any reason to do so?

The proletariat need a nudge in the right direction, was basically what Lenin was saying.

People don't just Become Communists. Unless they know upfront that Communism could potentially be good for them through agitation/propaganda/etc. they will continue to turn to the Tea Party for guidance.

Plus, you cannot just "get rid of" political leaders right off of the bat. Plus, not *all* political leaders are heartless, corrupt dicks. Stereotype much? I'm sure you advocate true democracy just like every 'Left Libertarian' on this site ever since Greece blew it's top and revolted, right?

Let me tell you something: parties aren't going away. They will stay unless a true world revolution happens, which is far from likely as of now.

Oh ya, and will you kindly show me when that global march against Capitalism will be? No? I'll pass


we replaced them with so called politiciansOh ya, about that...Several countries, including the U.K and I believe Denmark(and that's just Europe!) still have figurehead monarchs. Nepal was a Monarchy until it got overthrown by the Maoists. The Middle East still has a few Kings...

[Le Socialiste]

Revolution on such a global scale isn't necessarily going to take on the same tactics and characteristics region by region. Of course, I believe that it must take on an international tone, otherwise you run the risk of falling into the same historical problems other efforts have faced; namely, reformism, opportunism, worldwide aggression, and an eventual turn from revolutionary politics and the restoration of full blown capitalism. Anarchism is a progression, one that realizes the futility in placing one's faith in the efforts and intentions of parties and organizations. These groups, while claiming a monopoly over the leadership of the movement, ultimately betray its class interests in favor of class collaboration with the existing state. It's essential that we work with the working-class, not forcibly take over as its leadership.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Revolution? Now? I'm in my pajamas wait for me! I gotta get my olive drab fatigues on!

Jk, I agree that revolution is needed, the sooner the better. However, a global revolution immediately isn't quite feasible. Revolution will take different forms throughout the world, some powers will collapse by force, others will follow suit due to public demand.

As for charging parliaments with red banners and bayonets fixed like it is the reichstag, it probably isn't quite how this is going to play out most likely. I would love for it to be sudden, worldwide, and immediate, however it doesn't seem like it will be that way.

[RedMarxist]

The OP obviously has a lot to learn about Communist/Far Left politics before writing these little rants of theirs. I suggest reading good old fashioned Karl Marx. May I suggest the Marx-Engels Reader or the Portable Karl Marx?

[Le Socialiste]

The OP obviously has a lot to learn about Communist/Far Left politics before writing these little rants of theirs. I suggest reading good old fashioned Karl Marx. May I suggest the Marx-Engels Reader or the Portable Karl Marx?

The important thing is the OP understands the need for a revolution with an internationalist perspective. Whether or not he/she is new to revolutionary leftism is known only to the OP. We shouldn't make assumptions. But reading up on different theories and practices within the movement is an important part in defining where one stands on the left. That said, the OP seems to know enough to know where he/she stands.

[cheguvera]

global revolution is a realistic concept.Recent uprising in middle east is an international revolution to some extent.Anarchism could be a global revolution when we could see a model.Most of the so called socialists countries were bad models for global people.They did not impress others.It is mainly because of arrogant leaders,bureaucracies,lack of real revolution in their systems.Some socialists countries even did not have free healthcare but full of nepotism, corruption.I feel so called leaders, long standing politicians are the main culprits.
Even in middle east, they may get rid of so called dictators, but they are replaced by vested politicians who are true servants of elite.They are more prone to corruption, abuse of law & opressive towards freedom of speech.Politicians have failed their countries in asia ,africa & south america.
I feel we need a better system where people can rule their themselves.

[La Peur Rouge]

Che, do you consider yourself an Anarchist? I see in your first post you say you believe anarchism will help develop democracy, but then in another post you say you aren't advocating anarchism.


Plus, you cannot just "get rid of" political leaders right off of the bat. Plus, not *all* political leaders are heartless, corrupt dicks. Stereotype much? I'm sure you advocate true democracy just like every 'Left Libertarian' on this site ever since Greece blew it's top and revolted, right?

Let me tell you something: parties aren't going away. They will stay unless a true world revolution happens, which is far from likely as of now.

Oh ya, and will you kindly show me when that global march against Capitalism will be? No? I'll pass

Why be so aggressive with someone who's clearly seen the need for revolution and seems to be in the process of forming their views?

Chill out, dude. Doesn't Lenin's tomb need to be dusted or something?

[Leftsolidarity]

Ahhhhhhh change your font!!!!!!!!!

[cheguvera]

Che, do you consider yourself an Anarchist? I see in your first post you say you believe anarchism will help develop democracy, but then in another post you say you aren't advocating anarchism.



Why be so aggressive with someone who's clearly seen the need for revolution and seems to be in the process of forming their views?

Chill out, dude. Doesn't Lenin's tomb need to be dusted or something?
anarchism is not an undemocratic concept.Anarchism glorifies freedom in every aspect.They rejects masters who are the main opressors of the freedom.
freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality

[La Peur Rouge]

anarchism is not an undemocratic concept.Anarchism glorifies freedom in every aspect.They rejects masters who are the main opressors of the freedom.
freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality

I agree completely.

Maybe you misunderstood my question, I'm sympathetic to anarchism. I was just asking if you considered yourself to be an Anarchist.

[thefinalmarch]

Anarchism? seriously? I'm not dissing on the ideological system specifically, but you are aware that the working class won't just throw up their arms and shout in one powerful voice-WE WANT ANARCHISM NOW DANG IT!
You are a fucking dumbass. No-one in their right minds believes they'll say this or the same about Marxism-Leninism or Council Communism or whatever, either.


Do you really expect the working class to just become Anarchists/or Communists without any reason to do so?
No, because the workers who overthrow capitalism and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat won't be communists, nor will they refer to the revolution as having been communist in nature.

Communism will simply come about through the organic self-activity of the workers, actively pursuing their material interests.
Let me tell you something: parties aren't going away. They will stay unless a true world revolution happens, which is far from likely as of now.
Perhaps, but by definition revolutionary parties in non-revolutionary periods won't be mass parties. By contrast, mass parties in non-revolutionary periods cannot be revolutionary.

[cheguvera]

I agree completely.

Maybe you misunderstood my question, I'm sympathetic to anarchism. I was just asking if you considered yourself to be an Anarchist.


yes, the day it fulfills my aspirations , i will consider me as an anarchist.
until such time , I consider as a man who is interested in anarchism.

[RedMarxist]

Sorry, I got a little carried away.


No-one in their right minds believes they'll say this or the same about Marxism-Leninism or Council Communism or whatever, either.

I was making a point. I meant that the proletariat or anybody really will not just become Communists if they continue to see this current system as the only system.

I became a Communist after much reading on the subject. Do you expect a large chunk of specifically American workers to read their Marx and decide for themselves whether or not they like Communism?


No, because the workers who overthrow capitalism and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat won't be communists, nor will they refer to the revolution as having been communist in nature.

Communism will simply come about through the organic self-activity of the workers, actively pursuing their material interests.

So Communism will just kind of happen regardless of the fact that the people who orchestrated the revolt have no idea what the ideology even is?

I mean ya, I understand what you're saying, but...the reason I agree with the party concept of Leninism is simply because the organization displayed by the party and agitation and propaganda pieces delivered by the party CAN switch public opinion over to Communist thought-look at the Greek KOE and their efforts in Greece to bring about revolution(not to be confused with the reformist KKE)

[thefinalmarch]

Sorry, I got a little carried away.
Admittedly, I was also out of line.


I was making a point. I meant that the proletariat or anybody really will not just become Communists if they continue to see this current system as the only system.

I became a Communist after much reading on the subject. Do you expect a large chunk of specifically American workers to read their Marx and decide for themselves whether or not they like Communism?
I am of the view that the great majority of the working class will never subscribe to Anarchism, Marxism, or their derivatives.


In the first place, those who will overthrow the capitalist system will not do so because they consider themselves 'socialists' or any derivative of said term. They will do so because the capitalist system cannot provide what they believe it is supposed to, and because they will understand their role in the economic movement of their society.
So the label means nothing. The action everything.

[...]

Finally, the negative associations made between the 'radical left' and atrocities committed by dictators are not going to be destroyed. They need to be overcome by an evolutionary process of the radical left - not by fighting back against history because we know all-to-well that you cannot fight history.

- August


So Communism will just kind of happen regardless of the fact that the people who orchestrated the revolt have no idea what the ideology even is?
Of course.

“…the Communists know only too well … that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” – Engels

Revolution is the outcome of political and economic conditions in the real, material world. Once workers gained class consciousness (a fundamental awareness of their position within class society -- or, alternatively, the definition given by AugustWest in the above quoted text: understanding of their role in the economic movement of society) through their struggles, history provides us with evidence that they have taken to attempting to seize political power and to establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat (by the way of establishing their own institutions of working class government - e.g. workers' councils), as well as attempting to overthrow the capitalist mode of production itself by reorganising production so that it is subordinate to the workers' struggle at hand, in the process removing the capitalist classes from any effective control over the means of production, and also abolishing wage labour, capital, and value to certain extents.

There have been numerous instances in history when the working class arguably began to develop a dictatorship of the proletariat by seizing political power through workers' councils or other similar bodies (Russia, Hungary, Iran, etc. This is a very brief list and I'm certain I've missed other examples, including some really obvious ones).

Besides, ideology is a reflection of the conditions present in the material world -- the material world and the conditions present within are not the product of ideology. This is Materialism 101. To put this into the current context: revolution is not the result of the great mass of workers consciously subscribing to Marxism -- it is a reaction to the political and economic conditions of the working class at a given moment.

I share the view of the Greek communist group Ta Paidia Tis Galarias which sees communism "as a practical necessity stemming from the concrete, daily struggles of the proletariat within and against it".


I mean ya, I understand what you're saying, but...the reason I agree with the party concept of Leninism is simply because the organization displayed by the party and agitation and propaganda pieces delivered by the party CAN switch public opinion over to Communist thought-look at the Greek KOE and their efforts in Greece to bring about revolution(not to be confused with the reformist KKE)
Click here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2190676&postcount=5) for an explanation of my view of the party. I still feel it needs to be updated and elaborated upon.

[cheguvera]

unfortunately there is no demand for russian style communism or chinese style socialism these days.so called leaders who guided these countries had not impressed the world.
capitalism is flourishing, not because it is the best option, but there is no other alternative available.anarchism is getting more attention than socialism even in the first world.Capitalism or socialism has not done any service in third world where i was brought up.Both of them have failed in thirld world.Even democracy has become a joke due to corruption among politicians.

[RedMarxist]

"Democracy" does not exist, even in America to an extent. Or...it used to exist.

I'd argue for quite some time following the American Revolution, that representative democracy did indeed flourish. But, overtime as the need to acquire more capital increased and money began to become a large factor in political campaigns, democracy was and is being slowly subverted.

I mean just look at all the bullshit laws being put in place to stop the spread of true democracy in America(in Nashville where I used to live they made it illegal to camp/assemble in large groups in the city now!). This proves my notion that democracy, or what's left of it, is dead.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


In the household that I'm raised in, my parents believe that you *have to be* rich to run for office. What the-!

Since when did democracy devolve into rich people running against other rich people in the interest of rich American citizens...oh wait...

Ya pretty much that is what became of representative democracy, and is pretty much a result of trying to combine democratic principles with the never ending Capitalist search for profit/idolization of profit.


Both of them have failed in thirld world.Even democracy has become a joke due to corruption among politicians. Corruption also became a problem under the Soviet Union. If it be democratic or autocratic, you are basically putting in the hands of a few officials the ability to run the nation how they want. It doesn't matter whether they were voted into office or not, once they get to the oval office they have all the power.

A big flaw of entrusting state power in the hands of a few "elected" or autocratic leaders or representatives.

Which is why I do sympathize with Anarchism, it's just I don't see it likely to overthrow Capitalism anytime soon. It's disorganized, without much of a plan, and consists of quite a bit of cop-on-citizen violence.

Or at least that is what it always seems to turn out to be like.

I mean, ya I admire its closer-to-real-Socialism approach, but I will never call myself one.

[Mitja]

VUig0lFHDDw
There were some attemps of anarchist state like in spanish civil war ( very popular).

but humans are still to stupid to work in an anarchistic state.

im currently writing an political idea that mixes socialism communism and anarchist to one place. will release it soon here on revleft

[thefinalmarch]

but humans are still to stupid to work in an anarchistic state.
what the fuck am I reading

[Mitja]

what the fuck am I reading
sorry for my eanglish i meant
that humans cant work in a state that is anarchistic.
We arent ready for such political idea

[EvilRedGuy]

Why not?

[cheguvera]

im currently writing an political idea that mixes socialism communism and anarchist to one place. will release it soon here on revleft
cant wait to read it.pls send me a pm when it is posted.:)

[ZeroNowhere]

im currently writing an political idea that mixes socialism communism and anarchist to one place. will release it soon here on revleft
I can't wait.

[socialistjustin]

sorry for my eanglish i meant
that humans cant work in a state that is anarchistic.
We arent ready for such political idea

I think the point was that there is no state in anarchism.