Seizing power

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

During revolutionary times it seems to me that the best way to seize power is through general strikes, workplace occupations etc because the wealth of the bourgeoisie is depend on the proletariat's willingness to work. I'm sure that all will agree on this. However this leads me to question the effectiveness of traditional armed struggle as practiced through pitched battles or guerilla armies etc. Presumably its waged because that in certain regimes the political freedom to organise the proletariat does not exist or because the economy is primarily peasant based thus making proletarian action largely redundant or because armed struggle is made neccessary in the face of imperialist aggression such as that in the early days of Soviet Russia. I'm sure there's some kind of a historical and theoretical debate to be had here so I just thought I'd share my thoughts.

[Sixiang]

In the case of the recent armed struggles in Peru, the Philippines, Nepal, India, and Turkey, the proletariat in the cities seized power in that sort of unionized method while the peasants and rural workers engaged in guerrilla warfare to seize property and land from landlords and the state.

[Rooster]

You were more right with the first part of your post. Power being taken by a small military group can be nothing more than a coup. Revolution can only be accomplished by the proletariat acting as a class and taking on capital using it's class tools. General strikes, occupations, unionising, etc, teaches the proletariat to act, makes it class conscious.

[Die Neue Zeit]

General strikes, occupations, unionising, etc, teaches the proletariat to act, makes it class conscious.

General strikes don't make the working class as a whole class conscious. Occupations contributed because political themes were raised from the outset.