Can leftist goals be achieved peacefully?

[Loony]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

[Drosophila]

Perhaps, but if violence is necessary then it should be used.

[Omsk]

Communism is a dictatorship.


Absolutely not.You could for starters,learn what communism is,in theory.



Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution?


No.

[Regicollis]

A socialist society can only be achieved through a revolutionary process in which the current power structures are fundamentally rearranged. How violent this revolution will be depends on what opposition it will face. If the bourgeois class give up power when faced with a revolutionary and radical working class no violence will be needed.

One should not be put off by the prospect of violence. The alternative to revolutionary socialist violence is not bourgeois non-violence. Capitalism requires violence to be done on a daily basis to work.

The current capitalist system is dictatorial. A small, unelected bourgeois elite make all important decisions with no regard to the consequences for the common man. In the capitalist system democracy is a meaningless tribal ritual where the people are given elections but no choices since most politicians are in the pocket of Capital and even if they wanted change to happen they would not be allowed by our financial overlords.

In a communist society real democracy would be possible as the bourgeois class would have been abolished.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

Just ask and make threads about all kinds of topic, that's the best way to learn in this forum =)
Communism is not going to be achived without a revolution, maybe it has to be violence to achive communism, but after it's achived we'll live in a better world.

Communism is not dictatorship by a man, if that's what you ment, it's dictatorship of the proletariat(workers) =)

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.
Depends on what you mean by leftist goals. I don´t think it is possible to change society fundamentally without a revolution. That revolution would bring the transfer of economic and political power we need for that. That said; for me a revolution is not about bloodshed and arbitrary political terror.
In communism the citizens ought to be "pulling the strings". It is not about dictatorship. If you are thinking about "dictatorship of the proletariat"; that is not a dictatorship in the conventional sense but describes class rule in the transitional period (from capitalism).

[Sten]

Revolution simply indicates a sudden change in the existing system (as opposed to gradual change), with no implications on whether it's to be violent.
A revolution is necessary, but it won't necessarily be <i>bloody</i>.


Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.The word "Communism" can be used with three meanings:
1) Marxist socialism; Marx and Engels chose to use the adjective 'Communist' in the manifesto to distinguish their doctrine from the contemporary idea of socialism (that was utopian socialism).
2) the final stage of the revolutionary process (free association of individuals); a long term objective of a stateless, classless, socialist society shared by both Anarchists and Communists.

but most often, albeit incorrectly, it is used to mean
3) Leninism; a particular flavour of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin who led the first socialist revolution which was successful on a large scale (Russia, 1917 - resulting in the estabilishment of the USSR ... and of what are popularly called "Communist states").

[Comrade Samuel]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

First off there is no such thing as a stupid question comrade, you've come to the right place to learn. :)

For your first question: no, if you where to look at any communist reading from the 1800's to today they will all point to revolution as being the only way the oppressed working class can overthrow the bourgeoise. There are political parties however that disregard this fact and still attempt to achieve communism through means of election in modern western society (CPUSA, CPBG-ML and KPRF to name the biggest 3 I know of) but even if they had a snowball's chance in hell there is also the problem that most if not all members of thease parties know absolutely nothing about Marxism and are for that reason just a another corrupt bunch of politicians.

Your second question: that couldent be further from what it is supposed to be, when you hear people say "china, north korea and cuba are the last communist countries" it would be worth pointing out there is no such thing as a communist country and that they are only oppressive dictatorships that only hinder the world wide communist movement.

Hope this is of help and welcome to revleft!

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Peaceful revolution is a fantasy at best, the state is highly likely to use violence to in it's death throws. Even in the unlikely event the state does not use violence, the reactionary forces that uphold the state most certainly will.

Btw, Dictatorship of the Proletariat means Dictatorship by the Proletariat... it's not Dictatorship in the traditional sense, and only exists in the transitional post-revolutionary phase between capitalism and communism. There is no need for the DotP in Communism.

[Railyon]

Playing devil's advocate here; can communism ever be achieved?

So far all attempts have succumbed to the systemic dialectic of capitalism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

I guarantee we have seen dumber on this site.


Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

There needs to be a revolution to destroy the old bourgeois power structures that cannot be destroyed by just electing the right people into office. Yes, revolution doesn't necessarily have to be a violent one, but violence will probably occur nonetheless from one side or the other. The idea of some group of revolutionaries taking down the U.S. government in a military fashion is ridiculous in my opinion. I think that small acts of guerrilla warfare mixed in with a general strike is the right path to take, but there are other theories on this.


Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

Wrong. Communism is a classless and stateless society. All revolutionaries, whether anarcho-syndicalist, Trotskyist, Council Communist, Orthodox Leninist, DeLeonist, Marxist-Leninist, etc. etc. agree with this and reach to attain such a society. What varies is different views on how to attain such a society. I believe that society must pass through what was called by Marx as a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Unlike a traditional dictatorship, Marx viewed Capitalist democracy as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" because such a society was controlled by the capitalists and needed to be replaced with proletarian democracy, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat". This would not be a socialist society, because a state would still exist, but the means of production would be transferred to the workers, etc. I believe that this at this stage the workers would control society through democratic councils and the workplace through soviets, or workers councils.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932

[Per Levy]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

dont worry about that, this is the learning forum after all, thats the place to ask everything about whatever you want to know. so always ask away.


Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

a few things about this, i do think that every revolutionary leftists would be happy to have the end of capitalism "peacefully" the problem is why it cant is that the current ruling class, the bourgeoisie, wont go peacfully. the bourgeoisie has states and armys at its command to force through the status quo. a revolution is needed in order to break the power of the bourgeoisie.


Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

communism is a free, classless, moneyless, stateless society and not a dictatorship.

[Loony]

Communism is not dictatorship by a man, if that's what you ment, it's dictatorship of the proletariat(workers) =)



Your second question: that couldent be further from what it is supposed to be, when you hear people say "china, north korea and cuba are the last communist countries" it would be worth pointing out there is no such thing as a communist country and that they are only oppressive dictatorships that only hinder the world wide communist movement


Btw, Dictatorship of the Proletariat means Dictatorship by the Proletariat... it's not Dictatorship in the traditional sense, and only exists in the transitional post-revolutionary phase between capitalism and communism. There is no need for the DotP in Communism.

Thank you for pointing that out. And I think I may have put it in the wrong words. Communism is not a dictatorship by one person, but, as you say, a dictatorship of the Proletariat. Which is entirely why I support Marxism in the first place. I'm not sure what 'school' yet, but time will tell.

What I meant was the so-called Communist countries who have single dictators at the helm. For example, the people of Zimbabwe struggle on in poverty whilst Mr Mugabe lives in luxury and has overseas holidays.

How can TRUE Communism be implemented without a 'leader' (like Robert Mugabe, I'm just using him as an example) who benefits whilst the rest of the nation struggles on.

Or am I seeing this the wrong way? I'm sorry if I'm putting this the wrong way. I hope you can see what I mean by this.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

Never feel ashamed about asking questions. That is how people learn.


Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?.

Well, it all depends on what leftist goals you have. If you want to simply reform the capitalist system while still allowing the bourgeoisie to stay in power, then revolution is not for you. If you want to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat or if you want to destroy the state in general, then revolution is definitely for you. All I know is that anarchism and communism are in no way achievable without revolution. It is not necessarily as much about pure violence for the sake of violence (at least in the sense of Marxism) as it is about overthrowing the ruling class in order to construct a new society.


]Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

Communism is a stateless, moneyless, and classless global society based on the free association of all individuals. I think the confusion you have is with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not a dictatorship of one person or an oligarchy of a small elite, but a political system in which the proletariat (the working class) has all the political power. Even with vanguardism, which is the Leninist concept in which a group of the most politically active and class conscious members of the working class lead the proletariat into revolution and then protect its dictatorship from the restoration of capitalism, a political elite should not be holding supreme power. That is why there are workers' councils (Soviets) and things like that.

Here is Lenin's archive in the Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/index.htm)(which is a good website where you can learn everything you need to know about communism). Lenin's works can help you better understand Leninism and how the vanguard is not really meant to be a dictatorship of a small elite.

[The Idler]

If it involves democratically taking control of the state, then any violence will only be in self-defence.

[Revolution starts with U]

I am very new at this and trying to find my feet here, so I might ask some stupid questions.

Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

Marx said it like "the history of all hitherto human society is a history of class struggle."

Billy Joel put it like this; "we didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning."

It's possible to achieve working class rule peacefully. Why don't you go tell the ruling class to lay down their arms and surrender?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

As has been said before, the bourgeoisie will never give up power peacefully, so it is impossible to take it away from them peacefully.

[Manic Impressive]

As has been said before, the bourgeoisie will never give up power peacefully, so it is impossible to take it away from them peacefully.
Can you lend me your crystal ball some time? It must be great to be able to see into the future and know things so definitely. Have you got any actual scientific evidence to back up your claim or is it simply empty rhetoric and opinion as is the case with most of your posts?

[Drosophila]

Can you lend me your crystal ball some time? It must be great to be able to see into the future and know things so definitely. Have you got any actual scientific evidence to back up your claim or is it simply empty rhetoric and opinion as is the case with most of your posts?

Oh the hostility!

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Can you lend me your crystal ball some time? It must be great to be able to see into the future and know things so definitely. Have you got any actual scientific evidence to back up your claim or is it simply empty rhetoric and opinion as is the case with most of your posts?

I can't really lend you my crystal ball until next week because it's up my ass and I can't reach it. Yeah, and being able to see into the future is pretty fucking sweet.

[Comrade Samuel]

Can you lend me your crystal ball some time? It must be great to be able to see into the future and know things so definitely. Have you got any actual scientific evidence to back up your claim or is it simply empty rhetoric and opinion as is the case with most of your posts?

Or it could be a case of common sense, here I'll just send you a list of the 100 wealthiest people on earth and you ask them really nicely to redistribute it and hand over the means of production and then you can tell me how that goes.

[Manic Impressive]

I tell you what you 3 are the greatest evidence of the need for a vanguard I have ever seen. Of course you'd be on the outside looking in. No one is able to supply any logical reason why if a tiny minority of the bourgeoisie would try fighting the rest of the planet if they were demanding revolution?
How did India gain independence from Britain? It wasn't a violent struggle. It was the THREAT of violence. That's all we should need the threat of violence, if they know they can't win then why would they fight a losing battle? They might launch nukes and destroy the world, I don't discount that as a possibility, but it's unlikely. Things aren't black and white it depends on the circumstances.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I tell you what you 3 are the greatest evidence of the need for a vanguard I have ever seen. Of course you'd be on the outside looking in. No one is able to supply any logical reason why if a tiny minority of the bourgeoisie would try fighting the rest of the planet if they were demanding revolution?
How did India gain independence from Britain? It wasn't a violent struggle. It was the THREAT of violence. That's all we should need the threat of violence, if they know they can't win then why would they fight a losing battle? They might launch nukes and destroy the world, I don't discount that as a possibility, but it's unlikely. Things aren't black and white it depends on the circumstances.

The simple threat of violence can overthrow the most powerful ruling class in all of history, the bourgeoisie? *Writes this shit down in a notebook* Sounds real fucking legit.

[JAM]

Violence is an intrinsic aspect of the revolution. Is a part of it and must be used. If you don't use it than it will be used against you. Look at the Paris Commune for instance. They didn't use violent methods and ended up violently crushed.

[Manic Impressive]

see you can't answer me can you? not using actual logic but by using your closed minded opinions. You're not a shit poster because of your politics, there are some great Marxist-Leninists on here. You're a shit poster because you can't think for yourself. Here's something you need to learn, your second hand opinions don't mean shit.

[NormalG]

I tell you what you 3 are the greatest evidence of the need for a vanguard I have ever seen. Of course you'd be on the outside looking in. No one is able to supply any logical reason why if a tiny minority of the bourgeoisie would try fighting the rest of the planet if they were demanding revolution?
How did India gain independence from Britain? It wasn't a violent struggle. It was the THREAT of violence. That's all we should need the threat of violence, if they know they can't win then why would they fight a losing battle? They might launch nukes and destroy the world, I don't discount that as a possibility, but it's unlikely. Things aren't black and white it depends on the circumstances.


Imperialism changing faces gave the illusion that India, one of the most impoverished places on the planet, gained independence. No REAL changes have ever been made without the use of violence. Nobody will ever just peacefully hand over everything they have, if they feel they are entitled. Violence is inevitable.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

see you can't answer me can you? not using actual logic but by using your closed minded opinions. You're not a shit poster because of your politics, there are some great Marxist-Leninists on here. You're a shit poster because you can't think for yourself. Here's something you need to learn, your second hand opinions don't mean shit.

Thank you for the information. I just came back from crying into my pillow. You are correct, I cannot think for myself. I have to stop reading Karl Marx. As a matter of fact, I have to stop reading in general. I might gain some second-hand opinions.

[Manic Impressive]

No that's just another opinion. Lets say you have an apple and there are 20 big guys who want to take that apple from you and share it amongst themselves. What do you do?

Do you fight them because you think you are entitled to that apple?

Or do you agree to share it with them because you know that you have no chance of winning against them in a fight?

In a situation where they are completely outnumbered why would they fight? By your logic the fighting wouldn't stop until every single last one of them was dead. Because why would they stop fighting if they felt they were entitled to something? It's not logical

[Comrade Samuel]

see you can't answer me can you? not using actual logic but by using your closed minded opinions. You're not a shit poster because of your politics, there are some great Marxist-Leninists on here. You're a shit poster because you can't think for yourself. Here's something you need to learn, your second hand opinions don't mean shit.

First of all that's just being unnessiarly antagonistic and your going to tell us that the threat of violence wins revolutions then maybe it's worth pointing out revleft isent a forum for terrorists. There's no doubt in my mind that the world isent black and white and that people ARE in fact different but there is no scientific evidence that explicitly states communism will ever be achieved at all and you want to argue that we are not taking a "scientific" approach to speculating by what means it will be? In Marxism everything is about speculation and theory we will never know for absolute certan if the ruling class will just give in peacefully but just take a secound to look at what everybody on this site says, many have debated with capitalists about this kind of thing and what do you think they say? Most often something like this:"we worked hard for this money nobody can just take it from us" Does that sound like somebody who will willingly submit if and when the communist revolution comes to pass? Perhaps circumstances will change and there is always the black sheep of the bunch but in all likelihood Marx and the 100's of other communist thinkers where right and our doubts are not based on nothing.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

What I meant was the so-called Communist countries who have single dictators at the helm. For example, the people of Zimbabwe struggle on in poverty whilst Mr Mugabe lives in luxury and has overseas holidays.
Zimbabwe is a capitalist country. Mugabe´s rule in the country is the outcome of national liberation struggle but not a proletarian revolution.

How can TRUE Communism be implemented without a 'leader' (like Robert Mugabe, I'm just using him as an example) who benefits whilst the rest of the nation struggles on.

Or am I seeing this the wrong way? I'm sorry if I'm putting this the wrong way. I hope you can see what I mean by this.

IMO you are not seeing this the wrong way. I think the most important part in avoiding that the sort of leader/party dictatorship you speak of is the active involvement of the working classes in abolishing capitalism and restructuring society for their own needs and interests. Most of those regimes in the 20th century didn´t even come to power following a proletarian revolution anyway.

[Manic Impressive]

There's no doubt in my mind that the world isent black and white and that people ARE in fact different but there is no scientific evidence that explicitly states communism will ever be achieved at all and you want to argue that we are not taking a "scientific" approach to speculating by what means it will be? Marxism everything is about speculation and theory we will never know for absolute certan if the ruling class will just give in peacefully but just take a secound to look at what everybody on this site says, many have debated with capitalists about this kind of thing and what do you think they say? Most often something like this:"we worked hard for this money nobody can just take it from us" Does that sound like somebody who will willingly submit if and when the communist revolution comes to pass? Perhaps circumstances will change and there is always the black sheep of the bunch but in all likelihood Marx and the 100's of other communist thinkers where right and our doubts are not based on nothing. Marxism is a science, it's using scientific data to explain how events in history have been the cause of latter events. We can then apply that to future events to formulate theories about how things happen. The rest of it is just agreeing with me. Some people said something was impossible I said prove it. They obviously couldn't which is pretty much their modus operandi.

[Comrade Samuel]

Marxism is a science, it's using scientific data to explain how events in history have been the cause of latter events. We can then apply that to future events to formulate theories about how things happen. The rest of it is just agreeing with me. Some people said something was impossible I said prove it. They obviously couldn't which is pretty much their modus operandi.

I am by no means agreeing with you, only achnolageing the parts of what you say that aren't completely wrong. Marxism is a science and science is about theories constantly changing and being replaced by new ones when old ones fail but it's also about not disregaurding old ones until they can be proven wrong. I'm not saying peaceful revolution is impossible I'm saying it is VERY UNLIKELY and that can be proven by testimony from many people here and by the theories of Marx and various other revolutionaries.What your saying is "you cant prove I'm not actualy a giant bird from space, so I guess I MUST be a giant bird from space" your looking at this as though it where way more simple than it is

[#FF0000]

Is it possible for leftist goals to be achieved without a revolution? Can this not be achieved without violence?

Only if the ruling class doesn't use violence to maintain capitalism. There's no reason at all to believe that they wouldn't. Bosses would hire gunmen (e.g. the Pinkertons) to shoot workers for going on strike.


Communism is a dictatorship. Those in power pull all the strings at the expense of the citizen.

Nope. Communism aims for the destruction of "power" itself.

[Misanthrope]

Nope. The state is an institution of class oppression. Capitalism is coercive and enforced violently. Violent revolution is working class self defense and way over due.

[rednordman]

I would say yes, but the world is seemingly full of dickheads so sadly no.:(

[Manic Impressive]

I am by no means agreeing with you, only achnolageing the parts of what you say that aren't completely wrong. Marxism is a science and science is about theories constantly changing and being replaced by new ones when old ones fail but it's also about not disregaurding old ones until they can be proven wrong. I'm not saying peaceful revolution is impossible I'm saying it is VERY UNLIKELY and that can be proven by testimony from many people here and by the theories of Marx and various other revolutionaries.What your saying is "you cant prove I'm not actualy a giant bird from space, so I guess I MUST be a giant bird from space" your looking at this as though it where way more simple than it is
Good that's exactly what I'm saying it's possible. I was arguing against people who were using absolutes. i.e. "it is impossible". When you jumped to their defence. If they think it is impossible then the burden of proof is on them.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Just to make myself clear; Loony. We don´t need leaders to attain out goals. Leaders are overrated. What we need is a proletariat acting as a class-for-itself. I think we also need a communist party to assist the class in it´s struggle, but that party must be very different from those top-down bureaucratic monstrosities most "communist" parties today are. The party is just a tool for the class.

[Zav]

It is possible to achieve Communism through reform, but it is slow and the bourgeoisie is unlikely to simply fade away. If it did, it would be SLOW, as in centuries.
It is also possible to achieve it through relatively peaceful revolution. If the bourgeoisie finds that the whole of society is against them, they'll probably run for their lives. Unfortunately, this would require global proletarian consciousness to be achieved in a short period of time so that the bourges would not have time to use their militaries on the prolie protesters.
A third way to achieve Communism is to establish it in small simple settings and gradually expand it. This can be done through voluntarism in the form of free food programs, free clinics, free schools, and the like, or through communes.
The fourth way is a violent and sudden overthrow of the State and Capitalism by the Proles, but this causes mass confusion and there is no guarantee that Communism would arise from it.
The fifth way is the fourth way led by a Party, however this does not exactly have the best track record.
All of them can work. Which one is best depends on the situation at hand. I think that in most places option three is the best choice, hence the obvious bias toward it. In especially totalitarian areas, say Nazi Germany, option four might be necessary.

[#FF0000]

It is possible to achieve Communism through reform, but it is slow

I totally disagree. Doing so through reform would mean the state itself would be enacting policies to install communism. I think the idea of this is ludicrous and pretty much completely the opposite of what the state in any society is meant to do, but also, even if installing communism from above like this, with the working class just acting as usual over centuries, was even remotely possible, it'd be akin to throwing a ball to someone who isn't looking. The working class wouldn't be at all prepared to take the reins

edit: christ is it even possible to write a more disjointed run-on bullshit sentence than this post

[ed miliband]

I totally disagree. Doing so through reform would mean the state itself would be enacting policies to install communism. I think the idea of this is ludicrous and pretty much completely the opposite of what the state in any society is meant to do, but also, even if installing communism from above like this, with the working class just acting as usual over centuries, was even remotely possible, it'd be akin to throwing a ball to someone who isn't looking. The working class wouldn't be at all prepared to take the reins

agreed - accept inasmuch as we don't want the working class to "take the reins" but for the working class to destroy itself