what kind of revolution

[revolutionary student]

Hi guys, I was just wondering how everyone thinks that the change to socialism will happen. Do people think that it will happen quickly in a military coup (violent revolution), or will it happen slowly with soicalist viewpoints slowly integrating themselves into the government.

Personally I think that it would of course be better to happen peacefully, but the current government would never allow it.

What are your thoughts?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Power concedes nothing without demand. I don't see the revolution being in any way peaceful. Call me a pessimist if you wish, but realistically you can't even go out and threaten to reform the current system (OWS) without the police kicking your ass. I can only imagine the response we'd get if we try to dismantle the whole thing. This won't be an easy fight, as we don't only have to combat the bourgeoisie, but also reactionaries such as religious fundamentalists, fascists, racists, and other undesirables. However, I am honestly convinced that the means justify the ends, be the means peaceful or otherwise.

[Offbeat]

Do people think that it will happen quickly in a military coup (violent revolution)
A military coup implies a takeover from above rather than a revolution of the working classes. I think it's quite likely to be violent to some extent, but military coup isn't the phrase I'd use.

or will it happen slowly with soicalist viewpoints slowly integrating themselves into the government. ?
That sounds like reformism which isn't what we're all about.

[The Jay]

Hi guys, I was just wondering how everyone thinks that the change to socialism will happen. Do people think that it will happen quickly in a military coup (violent revolution), or will it happen slowly with soicalist viewpoints slowly integrating themselves into the government.

Personally I think that it would of course be better to happen peacefully, but the current government would never allow it.

What are your thoughts?

A violent revolution is different from a military coup. A military coup means that the military takes power. A violent proletarian revolution is when the proletariat take power.

What you're describing as non-violent revolution is actually called reformism and is not in any way revolutionary.

The truth is that I don't know how the revolution will happen. You should learn more definitions btw :).

[marksist-leninist]

because of violent is only revolutionary political, social and class converter in our world history.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

RevLeft=Revolutionary Left.
Revolutionary, as in violent. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Peaceful revolution is a concept the bourgeoisie made up to take people's attention away from real revolutions that will really liberate them. It is bullshit.

[teflon_john]

oh quite peacefully, Agent Revolutionary Student. don't mind us!

[revolutionary student]

A violent revolution is different from a military coup. A military coup means that the military takes power. A violent proletarian revolution is when the proletariat take power.

What you're describing as non-violent revolution is actually called reformism and is not in any way revolutionary.

The truth is that I don't know how the revolution will happen. You should learn more definitions btw :).
I'm new to rev left. Hope to learn alot more. So if the working class take power this will probably happen as a result of civil war?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Every revolution is a violent one.
Do you think that the ruling class will give up their power without a fight?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The bourgeoisie would never allow their rule to be discarded in a peaceful manner; though I doubt a movement could gain enough strength to even come to that climax peacefully. So no, it is not likely to happen peacefully. This isn't to say that leftists are looking for bloodshed but that the capitalists would never step down.

[Deicide]

I believe in violence! I believe in blood and bloody revolution! Buckets of blood and the more blood the better! Long live violence!

Joking aside.. I would agree with Engels ''It would be desirable if this (peaceful revolution) could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it.'', the ruling class, however, will never allow it. They will immediately use violence to crush any attempts by the working class of subverting and overthrowing the current order of things.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Revolutions are always violent, even the "peaceful" ones. Like these liberals claiming the Egyptian revolution was peaceful. You kidding me? Did they watch it live like I did?

[Manic Impressive]

RevLeft=Revolutionary Left.
Revolutionary, as in violent. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Peaceful revolution is a concept the bourgeoisie made up to take people's attention away from real revolutions that will really liberate them. It is bullshit.
Marx was bourgeois? :ohmy:

Even though I'm from the only party who advocates attempting a peaceful revolution it's far from a yes or no question it's a maybe or no question. There is a chance even if a massive socialist majority was ready and demanding socialism world wide that capitalists might go on a suicide run starting a war which they would have no chance of winning or launch a nuke or whatever. The question should be is it possible not what do you think. No one can predict the future.

[The Jay]

I'm new to rev left. Hope to learn alot more. So if the working class take power this will probably happen as a result of civil war?

The means of production would be treated as communal property. Things would be more democratic, not less.

[Ostrinski]

As violently as possible.

Edit: Violence is any course of action that disrupts the general flow of the way things function.

Zizek on the matter
H97abQulc2E

[Positivist]

We would be wise not to strike first with violence during the initial stages of the revolution. Protestors cracked down on violently are heroes, protestors who act violently are terrorists. The key would be to build a large, disruptive enough movement that the system would simply have to concede or crackdown, and in cracking down draw more and more people into the opposition. Media misinformation will always threaten the movement, and this is the best way to fight it.

[Kosakk]

Hard to say. I'd always preferred a non-violent one. But looking back at history, that's not gonna happen.

I don't want a group of punks arming themselves, proclaiming to be some kind of "vangaurd of the masses" and carry out terrorist attacks. That will just alienate people.

Let the government fire the first bullets, if they want a war, they'll get one

[A Revolutionary Tool]

As violently as possible.

Edit: Violence is any course of action that disrupts the general flow of the way things function.

Zizek on the matter
H97abQulc2E
36 seconds in, da fok?

[bcbm]

the thing the revolution will be most comparable to is a dinner party

[pluckedflowers]

As has been pointed out, one does not simply walk into Mordor the ruling classes will not relinquish their power out of the kindness of their own hearts. On the other hand, by this point in history I think we have sufficient evidence to concern us about the prospects of success for a revolution based primarily on physical force. So I'm going go with "I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does, either."

[eyeheartlenin]

I think Lenin even uses the expression, "violent revolution," explicitly, at least a couple of times in my fave book, State and Revolution, so it must be true, ¿verdad?

I concur with the consensus in this thread, that, given the nature of the exploiting class, pacifism is excluded.

[Ostrinski]

Violence is used to uphold the system, therefore violence must be employed to destroy it.

[pluckedflowers]

Violence is used to uphold the system, therefore violence must be employed to destroy it.

I don't think violence can be ruled out, but it must be said: Tanks, drones, and fighter jets are used to uphold the system, so we can only hope your logic doesn't follow.

[#FF0000]

dude they beat the shit out of grad students who protest march ironically what do you think will happen once workers are an actual threat

[Bostana]

Workers on Strike is a good way to keep the Government and the Bourgeoisie on their toes and submit to some of the Workers demands, but it will only prove that the Worker will not be willing to resort to drastic measures to fight for their freedom. A "Violent" Revolution will be necessary in the terms of kicking out the old corrupt Capitalistic Government. And destroying the Bourgeois in order to liberate and free the Proletariat and Peasant.

[hatzel]

Neither.

[Ostrinski]

I don't think violence can be ruled out, but it must be said: Tanks, drones, and fighter jets are used to uphold the system, so we can only hope your logic doesn't follow.You think nonviolent tactics will hold up better against tanks and planes than violent tactics?

[CommieTroll]

Trying to implement a revolutionary takeover by the working class through the use of non-violent means could be potentially useful when orchestrating the overthrow of the ruling class but reformism is unwanted. The revolution is inevitable, be it today, tomorrow or 100 years from now (which is a realistic outcome), the working class needs to be emancipated in hopefully the most convenient way possible. We must be realistic, it wouldn't be very rational for the bourgeois to hand over power easily, it would betray their class interests, it goes against their nature. The workers revolution must be defended from opportunism, liberalism and reactionary tendencies from all classes. So I genuinely do think a violent workers revolution is inevitable.

[TrotskistMarx]

Hi, you are right. The good thing about this forum REVLEFT as opposed to many other debate discussion forums of progressives and leftists such as http://www.commondreams.org http://www.truthdig.com http://www.alternet.org and many many other progressive leftist discussion news websites, debate bloggers and websites where people read progressive alternative news and at the same many people participate giving ideas just like this website on how to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism. Is that there are more realist-leftists in this forum site, than in other sites.

For some reason i can't explain, there are too many pacifists, anti-fighting, anti-war, anti-violence leftists in the internet. USA is a contradictory nation, it is nation with lots of violent movies, with a violent US Armed Forces, with pro-gun laws, pro-gun lobbies. But at the same time it is also a nation with an extreme propanganda of moralism, legalism, and pacifism in both the right-wing and the left-wing.

In fact there are many american families that celebrate weddings with lemonade and juice, because to them alcoholic drinks are evil and immoral.

Having said all this, what I mean related to how to overthrow the capitalist US government. Is that there too many anti-violence leftists in USA. And that is not KARLMARXIST at all. In fact there is an article in http://www.marxists.org of an interview of KARL MARX and The Chicago Tribune where Karl Marx literally said that in this world there is no change without blood, there is no change without assasinations, and there is no change without violence.

HERE IS THE INTERVIEW OF KARL MARX AND THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, IN WHICH KARL MARX SAID THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THIS WORLD WITHOUT VIOLENCE !!

SOURCE OF KARL MARX INTERVIEW WITH CHICAGO TRIBUNE: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?”

KARL MARX: No great movement has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed. The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon Bonaparte captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination. It is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.

And indeed, the USA is full of revolutionary violent movies, and revolutionary violent books and literature. But for some reason I can't explain americans tend to view those films and books as "hobbies" but not as knowledge weapons.

So the point I want to convey is that I think that the only way to install a socialist dictatorship of the workers in The White House is with a violent revolution.


.


Power concedes nothing without demand. I don't see the revolution being in any way peaceful. Call me a pessimist if you wish, but realistically you can't even go out and threaten to reform the current system (OWS) without the police kicking your ass. I can only imagine the response we'd get if we try to dismantle the whole thing. This won't be an easy fight, as we don't only have to combat the bourgeoisie, but also reactionaries such as religious fundamentalists, fascists, racists, and other undesirables. However, I am honestly convinced that the means justify the ends, be the means peaceful or otherwise.

[pluckedflowers]

You think nonviolent tactics will hold up better against tanks and planes than violent tactics?

No, but if we're up against the full military force of the ruling classes I don't really see what kind of violence we could muster that would be effective. I'm just saying I'm not sure we actually have an answer to the problems posed by revolution in the present conjuncture.

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friends, in USA the english language has been twisted, destroyed and many words have lost their real meanings. For example in USA hating something or somebody, means an intention to kill that person or to do something evil to that which you hate. Violence also has been use as a crime. But the truth that in this world there are many violent things that do not necessarily mean that they are criminal activities. For example professional baseball might be violent. Football is a violent sport. Even professional car racing and cycling. Heck, even following a strict diet has some form of violence as hunger pangs.

And indeed all radical changes are painful and violent, but not violent in the sense as a serial cold killer, but violence in that it causes pain, because pain and suffering are part of all radical changes. Even losing a lot of weight requires pain, hunger and suffering.

Thanks


.




RevLeft=Revolutionary Left.
Revolutionary, as in violent. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Peaceful revolution is a concept the bourgeoisie made up to take people's attention away from real revolutions that will really liberate them. It is bullshit.

[zonmoy]

Every revolution is a violent one.
Do you think that the ruling class will give up their power without a fight?

If they see that they will not win a fight then they will work to coopt the revolution from within, partly by getting their military servants to join the revolution so they can use them to coopt it like in Egypt, other cases they will use other methods to coopt whatever revolutions that are attempted.

[#FF0000]

No, but if we're up against the full military force of the ruling classes I don't really see what kind of violence we could muster that would be effective. I'm just saying I'm not sure we actually have an answer to the problems posed by revolution in the present conjuncture.

This is totally true. I think, though, that we're at a point where governments feel pressured to pull punches, you know? Especially if it were to come to operations on home soil, and especially in the west where people talk a big game about democracy and human rights.

But yeah. The state could obliterate a worker's uprising unless it was in profound disarray.

[Ostrinski]

We should just get our hands on some nuclear weapons

[#FF0000]

probably one of the most irresponsible posts i've ever seen well done

[WanderingCactus]

My problem with the revolution=violence mentality isn't that I disagree with it (I think it's correct, naturally) but that some tend to turn it into something... Uh... Stupid. There's a lot of obnoxious violence fetishism among the revolutionary left crowd, which if you ask me, is just as bad as pacifism and such.

[honest john's firing squad]

profound disarray.
And this is where tactics such as workers refusing to manufacture and distribute ammunition and refusing to process and distribute fuel, etc. come in. It's up to our class to use our labor as a weapon against state forces when the time arises.

Although the recent plan by the UK government, for example, to have soldiers drive petrol tankers in the case of a nationwide truck drivers' strike is a bit concerning.

[Rusty Shackleford]

to be honest, its very likely that it can happen though peaceful action. the more people protest, the more the bourgeoisie realize they are just plain wrong.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

to be honest, its very likely that it can happen though peaceful action. the more people protest, the more the bourgeoisie realize they are just plain wrong.

Are you joking? Where is the laughing face at the end of your post?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Are you joking? Where is the laughing face at the end of your post?
im dead serious. it shocking how the only thing you 'revolutionaries' care about is killing! and you call yourselves leftists!

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

im dead serious. it shocking how the only thing you 'revolutionaries' care about is killing! and you call yourselves leftists!

Haha, you got me.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Haha, you got me.
you think im joking. :glare:

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

LOL! We don't think about killing, we jus acknoweledge "Every Communist Must Accept the Truth: 'Political Power grows out of the Barrel of the Gun'." And "To Destroy the gun, one must pick up the gun" Mao.
Not that i advocate ultr-leftist terrorist attacks against capitalists or politicians, no, i advocate being prepared for bourgeois state violence and repression once the workers take over their factories.

[#FF0000]

to be honest, its very likely that it can happen though peaceful action. the more people protest, the more the bourgeoisie realize they are just plain wrong.

Man, I don't know. Either people are legitimately more skeptical of the use of force (in front of cameras, on home soil), or we just haven't seen it in a long time. I once thought that peaceful tactics could be used to great effect but I've been reading some history on the worker's struggles in the United States (Dynamite by Louis Adamic is a great book btw) and I'm just so taken aback by the brazen, lethal force used against literally starving people that I just don't know if things are so different now that the police, the army, the state would just stay their hand if their trigger fingers felt the itch.


And this is where tactics such as workers refusing to manufacture and distribute ammunition and refusing to process and distribute fuel, etc. come in. It's up to our class to use our labor as a weapon against state forces when the time arises.

Although the recent plan by the UK government, for example, to have soldiers drive petrol tankers in the case of a nationwide truck drivers' strike is a bit concerning.

I also wonder about like winning over the police and soldiers? I am generally (read: always 24/7/365) a very "fuck the pigs" sort of person but I read an article today about how cops in the NYPD have the regular ol' working class folks who say "we fucking hate you" but then deal with 'the moneyed elite' in the upper east side who just treat them like dirt, you know?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

One of the first steps of the revolution must be the inconsequential disarmament of the Bourgeois armed forces. To quote a poster put up in the Bavarian Soviet Republic 1919: "Everyone who does not hand in unassigned weapons will be shot!"
Violence is horrible, revolutions are consequentially ultra-horrible.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbulO_FB2ZI

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Man, I don't know. Either people are legitimately more skeptical of the use of force (in front of cameras, on home soil), or we just haven't seen it in a long time. I once thought that peaceful tactics could be used to great effect but I've been reading some history on the worker's struggles in the United States (Dynamite by Louis Adamic is a great book btw) and I'm just so taken aback by the brazen, lethal force used against literally starving people that I just don't know if things are so different now that the police, the army, the state would just stay their hand if their trigger fingers felt the itch.



I also wonder about like winning over the police and soldiers? I am generally (read: always 24/7/365) a very "fuck the pigs" sort of person but I read an article today about how cops in the NYPD have the regular ol' working class folks who say "we fucking hate you" but then deal with 'the moneyed elite' in the upper east side who just treat them like dirt, you know?

This is interesting. Can you give me the author of the book?

[#FF0000]

This is interesting. Can you give me the author of the book?

The entire title is:

Dynamite: The Story Of Class Violence in America

by Louis Adamic.

[honest john's firing squad]

I also wonder about like winning over the police and soldiers? I am generally (read: always 24/7/365) a very "fuck the pigs" sort of person but I read an article today about how cops in the NYPD have the regular ol' working class folks who say "we fucking hate you" but then deal with 'the moneyed elite' in the upper east side who just treat them like dirt, you know?
I'm not too sure there are many cases of cops joining the side of revolutions throughout history. I hear there was some stuff about the Bavarian(?) police force taking the side of the revolutionaries in Germany, but the German revolution probably isn't the best example of, well, anything tbh.

[Anarpest]

Hi guys, I was just wondering how everyone thinks that the change to socialism will happen. Do people think that it will happen quickly in a military coup (violent revolution), or will it happen slowly with soicalist viewpoints slowly integrating themselves into the government.

Where? When?

[hatzel]

I'm not too sure there are many cases of cops joining the side of revolutions throughout history.

Probably not as cops, but people are people, morale is morale and when 'your' side is going down there's a fair chance you'll jump ship. A bit like when those army pilot guys are all 'well the guy barking all the orders definitely said I was supposed to go on some bombing raid thing buuuuut there's always the possibility of just not doing that yeah fuck this I'm taking this shit to Malta!' For example. And there may well come a point during an uprising when individual cops figure it's better to duck out than to keep listening to Superintendent Butthole. When the situation becomes such that the overthrow of the state is (or feels) inevitable, the complete loss of morale amongst the rank and file will probably result in some proper Red Sea shit going on in police lines. That's a topical reference, by the way, the parting of the Red Sea, all that stuff. Or at least an ever-dwindling number of boots on the streets. Whether the refusal to continue serving the state counts as 'joining the side of revolutions' is debatable, and I'm not sure how many of these former cops would actively join the revolutionaries, rather than simply ceasing all activity...well...

[#FF0000]

it seems like, historically, soldiers are more likely to join a revolution than cops ever are. probs because conscription and required service has been so popular in so many places so soldiers aren't really there because they want to be there.

Meanwhile cops join up and get a badge and authority and respect. I dunno but I think a rookie cops gets better treatment than a grunt.

Also probably helps that police forces have often just deputized scabs and shit in the past to swell their ranks.

[Anderson]

Transition to socialism cannot be peaceful as we are talking about defeating the ruling class by the working class.

However, this does not imply use of violence to build the revolutionary movement and class consciousness.

The working class will increase its power and organizational preparedness guided by its most advanced sections (vanguard/party) and when the class is strong enough there will be mass class action to snatch power.:)

[Luís Henrique]

Revolution is the slow, gradual, pacific, build up of a violent uprising.

And then the slow, gradual, and pacific reordering of society, made possible by the violent uprising.

Luís Henrique

[x359594]

...by this point in history I think we have sufficient evidence to concern us about the prospects of success for a revolution based primarily on physical force. So I'm going go with "I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does, either."

It seems to me that there's no absolute certainty. Some degree of violence seems probable. For example, although the collapse of the Soviet Union was largely peaceful it was accompanied by small out breaks of violence. (I know that some regard the implosion of the USSR as counter-revolution, and then the question becomes, why did it take place with so little resistance?)

[Mr. Natural]

Damn! Yet another poll in which I didn't have a choice I could vote for.

I'm with such posters as Positivist, Anderson, and Luis Henrique who pointed to a revolutionary mixture of non-violence and violence, but who emphasized the revolution would start "peacefully" and respond to events from there. There's a maxim from the civil rights movement in the US (I forget its author): "We'll be as nonviolent as we can be, as violent as we must be."

I believe violence as a tactic in the opening organizational process is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Violence is unethical unless compelled (self-defence) and counterproductively creates social splits and chaos inimical to organizing.
2. The other side has a monopoly of violent means.
3. The American public is turned off by violence coming from the left. Forget American imperialism and its invasions and predator drones--smash a window and we're the bad guys and gals. A revolutionary movement is a political movement, and we must engage, not enrage, the American people.
4. For the above reasons, persons advocating violence will tend to be idiots or agents.

I apologize to those who do not live in the US for my blatant American chauvinism.

My red-green, in-the-belly-of-the-beast best.

[sanpal]

No one can predict the future.
There is a sense in these words.

In my opinion revolution is a revolutionary change of modes of production (the capitalist MOP on the communist MOP) and REV LEFT is meaning for me above all an act of the revolutionary change of society in political-economic aspect.
I know that it is not possible to exchange the capitalist MOP (monetary economy) on the communist MOP (moneyless economy) gradually, by reform. Such way causes deformed "economy" a la Duhring (duhringism = stalinism). It is what happened in the former USSR. It needs revolutionary act namely: STOP the monetary system and GO the moneyless system. It is what left-communists talk about. But left-communists are wrong in another point, they wish this revolutionary act would be for the whole society simultaneously. But it is not possible as well. It is utopian position, not better than duhringism = stalinism. It inevitably will cause chaos in economy, strong bourgeois counteraction to revolutionary actions and eventually will lead to civil war.

The most acceptable variant is given by us, revolutionary marxists : through the transition period named by Marx as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The economic model we promote is "multi-economy" i.e. economy which consist of three economic sectors : 1) the State-capitalist sector (monetary economy) 2) traditional capitalist sector (monetary economy) and 3) communist sector (moneyless economy). It is supposed that the communist sector will be developed through the transition period till the scale of the whole society and accordingly the traditional capitalist sector and State-capitalist sector will be diminished till almost zero measuring as consequence of dialectical competition. Since self-management is being practiced in communist sector, it will lead to less State governing and hence the State will wither away.

It is assumed that the model of transition period of such sort will allow more peaceful scenario of the Proletarian Revolution.

[Doflamingo]

Just ignore all of these replies. The revolution will be very peaceful. There will be puppydogs, ice cream, and flowers everywhere. The bourgeoisie will step down from their position of power and share their money with everyone. It'll be a good 'ol happy hugfest.

[fabian]

There is no such thing as a peacefull revolution. The question is only who will initiate conflict, the people moving towards freedom, or the opressors guarding their corrupt system. Being that I think that NAP is a fundament of anything good, I'm for the second option.

But, IMO, the most important revolution is mental/ moral revolution.

People starting to think rationally and starting to look down upon exploitative relations.