Armchair Revolutionary

[Let's Get Free]

The capitalist system continues to refine its instruments and direct investment to areas more befitting to its perennial need for expansion. To relieve my aching frustration I think about how I could fix the world which I'm sure people on this website do to. But just thinking, discussing, marching or swimming in front of a boat achieves very little overall. I believe that all peaceful protests have been exhausted. The strike is not going to work either. The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons. We should use direct action for the struggle against the state. The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding. Why not do it???

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Agreed, except instead of random acts of violence, we ought to organize an effective fighting force capable of combating the state and carrying out socialization

[Manic Impressive]

The capitalist system continues to refine its instruments and direct investment to areas more befitting to its perennial need for expansion. To relieve my aching frustration I think about how I could fix the world which I'm sure people on this website do to. But just thinking, discussing, marching or swimming in front of a boat achieves very little overall. I believe that all peaceful protests have been exhausted. The strike is not going to work either. The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons. We should use direct action for the struggle against the state. The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding. Why not do it???
Carlos is that you? when did they let you out you old jackal?

[skitty]

"Why not do it?" Because you'll be squashed like a bug:(.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

"Why not do it?" Because you'll be squashed like a bug:(.

So what? The will to live is an absurdity, I advise you read Schopenhauer's essays on the will to live, I think he outlines a secular reason to why we shouldn't give a shit about survival

[Clarion]

The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons.Why do you wish to liberate a class you clearly hold in such disdain?


The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding.At which point does this actually achieve socialism?

Left-wing terrorist campaigns, conducted by small groups of a self appointed vanguard, have been tried before. The strategy was flawed. They turned off more workers than they attracted and they were alienated even from those who remained sympathetic by the very underground, guerilla nature of their campaign.

[Popular Front of Judea]

The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons.

So if we don't snap to attention and follow your banner we're useless automatons? Fuck you very much.

I would suggest that you study the 'illegalism' of the late 6os and early 70's -- and the fallout from it. What was actually accomplished outside of legitimizing state repression?

[skitty]

So what? The will to live is an absurdity, I advise you read Schopenhauer's essays on the will to live, I think he outlines a secular reason to why we shouldn't give a shit about survival

Thanks, I'll check out Schopenhauer. I'm getting buried in recommended reading! I was thinking about where Coup D'etat lives when I commented. What's the point in throwing your life away?

[l'Enfermé]

The capitalist system continues to refine its instruments and direct investment to areas more befitting to its perennial need for expansion. To relieve my aching frustration I think about how I could fix the world which I'm sure people on this website do to. But just thinking, discussing, marching or swimming in front of a boat achieves very little overall. I believe that all peaceful protests have been exhausted. The strike is not going to work either. The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons. We should use direct action for the struggle against the state. The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding. Why not do it???
How is running around like crazy people blowing things up going to achieve socialism? Socialism is not GTA.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why do you wish to liberate a class you clearly hold in such disdain?

At which point does this actually achieve socialism?

Left-wing terrorist campaigns, conducted by small groups of a self appointed vanguard, have been tried before. The strategy was flawed. They turned off more workers than they attracted and they were alienated even from those who remained sympathetic by the very underground, guerilla nature of their campaign.

First of all, the objective criteria exist in the current economic crisis. Lenin's Marxism and Insurrection makes it very clear that once the objective criteria arise, any delay in the revolutionary process is opportunism. This doesn't mean blowing up bridges, but it does mean that you ought to get your guns and bombs together so you can get ready for some real revolutionary work. Protip, real revolutionary work isn't individual terrorism

But even when the objective criteria doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that the effort is wasted. This is a map of the territory the Naxalite movement is active in, or exerts partial or complete control over

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/India_Red_Corridor_map.png/270px-India_Red_Corridor_map.png


So maybe we ought to stop waiting the "objective criteria" and start today. Eh comrade?

[Raúl Duke]

The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons. We should use direct action for the struggle against the state. The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding. Why not do it???


We should use direct action for the struggle against the state. The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding. Why not do it???

That's been done before, it was called "propaganda by deed" and didn't work much.
Although I'll admit I always wondered what would happened if an Operation Mayhem like group did blow up credit card and bank company's records and headquarters, stock exchanges, etc...


The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons.

Are you not a worker? When you see yourself a part, than there's really not much to be done. Either its liberation comes from its own hands, not a substitutionist group.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Thanks, I'll check out Schopenhauer. I'm getting buried in recommended reading! I was thinking about where Coup D'etat lives when I commented. What's the point in throwing your life away?

Here's the link
http://www.schopenhauervereinigung.com/articles/arthur-schopenhauer-on-the-affirmation-of-the-will-to-live/

Basically, he argues that the pursuit of human desires is redundant. He would look at thirst for example and ask you why you drank that water? "Because I was thirsty" But this begs the question, why are you interested ending thirst? Is it not pointless since after drinking you'll feel thirsty a minute later? More importantly, when you look at every desire you ever have had, wasn't the pain and suffering that was caused by it not being fufilled greater than the emotional reward? Isn't the very concept of desire a bit silly in of it's self, yes we all want things, but why do we want things when that very want creates more misery than actually achieving the end goal? Why is it that desire only leads to more desire and that there is no point at which we can simply satisfy our will and live in peace? Schopenhauer answers this question by postulating that we do indeed not "want" to desire, but rather that our will is something that operates indepedant of our wishes and imposes it's self upon us. This outlook is called determinism. Another concept that he formulated is that humans are drived by an anxiety that forces them forward called the "will to live". This is fear of dying. Schopenhauer argued that the very act of consciousness it's self is an unpleasant act and that logically speaking, since we feel more misery than pleasure then there must be something outside of reason that drives us to protect our lives. In essence, Schophenhaur said that the very "will to live" is the driving factor in humanity's misery and that annulling this desire is a liberatory act.


He might have been a monarchist, but I think alot of his views on will are absolutly fascinating and important for any atheist looking for a secular "salvation" after death so to speak. The essay is short so you could probably read it in about 5-10 minutes

[Clarion]

First of all, the objective criteria exist in the current economic crisis. Lenin's Marxism and Insurrection makes it very clear that once the objective criteria arise, any delay in the revolutionary process is opportunism. This doesn't mean blowing up bridges, but it does mean that you ought to get your guns and bombs together so you can get ready for some real revolutionary work.

The conditions that exist today in the US (which is where the OP is based, although the point holds throughout the West) are that if you and the few people you can get together go out and start shooting and bombing then huge sections of the proletariat will be inspired to take up arms in the name of international communism.

Or not. Probably not.


Protip, real revolutionary work isn't individual terrorism

When a few individuals carry out acts of terrorism and call it "real revolutionary work" it is individual terrorism.


But even when the objective criteria doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that the effort is wasted. This is a map of the territory the Naxalite movement is active in, or exerts partial or complete control over

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/India_Red_Corridor_map.png/270px-India_Red_Corridor_map.png


So maybe we ought to stop waiting the "objective criteria" and start today. Eh comrade?

I can't be bothered to find a map of Al Qaeda operations but I'm sure you catch my drift. Reactionary peasant terrorists aren't inspiring me to grab my gun. Not unless they're lining up neatly infront of a wall, mind. . .

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I can't be bothered to find a map of Al Qaeda operations but I'm sure you catch my drift. Reactionary peasant terrorists aren't inspiring me to grab my gun. Not unless they're lining up neatly infront of a wall, mind. . .

Yea, fuck those reactionary peasants
http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Communist-Party-India-Maoist.jpg
See there love of capitalism
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRipNmEW4QOKGO3TZCrj82NwiwRVKex_ 5QmWiG5Izh4YlpBNwwhag
Those god damn peasantry trying to sabotage the revolution again.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoqoilwU-grrPx4auCQ8Rh2ZVnYUzLygzQ5HzQ_NorVuCS4Dgn

Seriously? You're going to mock revolutionaries that have fought and died in the real world just because of some dogmatic hatred of peasents? Are you being sarcastic or are you just an unfeeling sociopath?

[Thirsty Crow]

So what? The will to live is an absurdity, I advise you read Schopenhauer's essays on the will to live, I think he outlines a secular reason to why we shouldn't give a shit about survival
Great, just great. What we really need is idiotic martyrdom inspired by a godawful metaphysical system. A word of advice for anyone who might fall for this horseshit, don't waste your time or you might end up with a clear understanding that drinking water is futile. So you can go and blow shit up and go down in a hail of bullets. That will inspire people, no doubt.

[Art Vandelay]

Here's the link
http://www.schopenhauervereinigung.com/articles/arthur-schopenhauer-on-the-affirmation-of-the-will-to-live/

Basically, he argues that the pursuit of human desires is redundant. He would look at thirst for example and ask you why you drank that water? "Because I was thirsty" But this begs the question, why are you interested ending thirst? Is it not pointless since after drinking you'll feel thirsty a minute later? More importantly, when you look at every desire you ever have had, wasn't the pain and suffering that was caused by it not being fufilled greater than the emotional reward? Isn't the very concept of desire a bit silly in of it's self, yes we all want things, but why do we want things when that very want creates more misery than actually achieving the end goal? Why is it that desire only leads to more desire and that there is no point at which we can simply satisfy our will and live in peace? Schopenhauer answers this question by postulating that we do indeed not "want" to desire, but rather that our will is something that operates indepedant of our wishes and imposes it's self upon us. This outlook is called determinism. Another concept that he formulated is that humans are drived by an anxiety that forces them forward called the "will to live". This is fear of dying. Schopenhauer argued that the very act of consciousness it's self is an unpleasant act and that logically speaking, since we feel more misery than pleasure then there must be something outside of reason that drives us to protect our lives. In essence, Schophenhaur said that the very "will to live" is the driving factor in humanity's misery and that annulling this desire is a liberatory act.


He might have been a monarchist, but I think alot of his views on will are absolutly fascinating and important for any atheist looking for a secular "salvation" after death so to speak. The essay is short so you could probably read it in about 5-10 minutes

I read a bit about Schopenhauer when I was pretty suicidal, cause I had heard that he was a philosopher who was sympathetic to suicide.Thanks for the link, I've been meaning to read some of his work but had forgot about it, until seeing your post.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

First of all, I want to clarify what I meant. Alot of people think that I mean we should start armed insurrection tommorow and are therefore rightfully criticizing me. However, all I am saying is that we should take a more direct action oriented approach and we should prepare for an actual revolution. Alot of groups used the idea of insurrection as a way to procrastinate doing anything revolutionary until the perfect scenario, which will never, ever, happen. I simply think that we treat revolutionary work as actual preparation for a revolution instead of mere activism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why not do it???
So what's stopping you from getting out of your armchair and doing that?

[Tim Cornelis]

First of all, the objective criteria exist in the current economic crisis. Lenin's Marxism and Insurrection makes it very clear that once the objective criteria arise, any delay in the revolutionary process is opportunism. This doesn't mean blowing up bridges, but it does mean that you ought to get your guns and bombs together so you can get ready for some real revolutionary work. Protip, real revolutionary work isn't individual terrorism

But even when the objective criteria doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that the effort is wasted. This is a map of the territory the Naxalite movement is active in, or exerts partial or complete control over

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/India_Red_Corridor_map.png/270px-India_Red_Corridor_map.png

So maybe we ought to stop waiting the "objective criteria" and start today. Eh comrade?

Activities in or even control over territory in itself doesn't prove any thing in relation to socialism. What is it they do in the territories they control? Have they set up agricultural, democratic cooperatives? Industrial syndicates? Popular assemblies? Restricted the market economy? And if not, why? Is it not their aim at all, do they not have the power to do so?

A social revolution is about changing the social relationships of society. Armed power should be utilised to defend this transformation of social relations, not precede it. Armed groups are always a minority of a class and hence seizing political power will always be done by a minority, a minority that is unable to emancipate the people top-down.


Yea, fuck those reactionary peasants
http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Communist-Party-India-Maoist.jpg
See there love of capitalism
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRipNmEW4QOKGO3TZCrj82NwiwRVKex_ 5QmWiG5Izh4YlpBNwwhag
Those god damn peasantry trying to sabotage the revolution again.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoqoilwU-grrPx4auCQ8Rh2ZVnYUzLygzQ5HzQ_NorVuCS4Dgn

Seriously? You're going to mock revolutionaries that have fought and died in the real world just because of some dogmatic hatred of peasents? Are you being sarcastic or are you just an unfeeling sociopath?

This doesn't prove anything either. I've seen plenty of reactionaries fly a hammer and sickle. Some time ago, I think it was ind_com posted a text by Naxalites regarding the caste system, I scanned over it and it looked pretty good until I came across advocacy of New Democracy. If this is representative of the Naxalites and I recall it correctly, then the aim of the Naxalites is the perpetuation of class society and class collaboration. Nor does the willingness to die and kill for something prove progress, that is merely an appeal to emotion.


First of all, I want to clarify what I meant. Alot of people think that I mean we should start armed insurrection tommorow and are therefore rightfully criticizing me. However, all I am saying is that we should take a more direct action oriented approach and we should prepare for an actual revolution. Alot of groups used the idea of insurrection as a way to procrastinate doing anything revolutionary until the perfect scenario, which will never, ever, happen. I simply think that we treat revolutionary work as actual preparation for a revolution instead of mere activism.

What do you mean by "direct action approach" and "preparing"? And what is doing something "revolutionary" in a non-revolutionary situation, is that even possible? What is "revolutionary work" and how does it prepare for a "revolution".
This hints at shooting guns without proper class-based action.

[Clarion]

Yea, fuck those reactionary peasants

Yeah, Pol Pot liked the colour red as well.


See there love of capitalism

I didn't say they loved capitalism. On the contrary, they hate it. They are reactionary anti-capitalists, they oppose the capitalist transformation of backwards rural India. The European aristocracy hated the rise of capitalism, as do the Taliban. Being anti-capitalists doesn't mean you're not a reactionary.


Seriously? You're going to mock revolutionaries that have fought and died in the real world just because of some dogmatic hatred of peasents? Are you being sarcastic or are you just an unfeeling sociopath?

It's not that their peasants, it's that they're reactionary murderers who are little better than the Taliban.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Activities in or even control over territory in itself doesn't prove any thing in relation to socialism. What is it they do in the territories they control? Have they set up agricultural, democratic cooperatives? Industrial syndicates? Popular assemblies? Restricted the market economy?


Yep. In addition to this, they also run parrelel school programs and provide health care for those who can't afford it.


A social revolution is about changing the social relationships of society. Armed power should be utilised to defend this transformation of social relations, not precede it. Armed groups are always a minority of a class and hence seizing political power will always be done by a minority, a minority that is unable to emancipate the people top-down.
Why not? As Borgida said, "It would be ridiculous to subordinate a revolution to a 100% acceptance or a 51% majority". And besides, it would be impossible to acheive victory over the state without a majority. If they win then it was because they won over the hearts and minds of the Indian proletariat, if they fail then they deserved to fail.



This doesn't prove anything either. I've seen plenty of reactionaries fly a hammer and sickle. Some time ago, I think it was ind_com posted a text by Naxalites regarding the caste system, I scanned over it and it looked pretty good until I came across advocacy of New Democracy. If this is representative of the Naxalites and I recall it correctly, then the aim of the Naxalites is the perpetuation of class society and class collaboration. Nor does the willingness to die and kill for something prove progress, that is merely an appeal to emotion.


Here's a document where they explain what they mean by New Democratic Revolution.


Two Stages of the Indian Revolution
The semi-colonial and semi-feudal character of the Indian society points out that the first task of the Indian revolution is to transform the semi-colonial, semi-feudal society into an independent, self-reliant, democratic society by solving the two fundamental contradictions of the present indian society, and then to build a socialist society so as to advance towards realising the Communist society. Hence the Indian revolution has to be carried out in two stages: the new democratic stage and the socialist stage. This is because, in India, bourgeois democratic revolution has not been completed as in the West.

The first stage of the Indian revolution can be victoriously completed only under the leadership of the proletariat. In the present era, no other class or party, except the working class and a genuine communist party as its vanguard, can lead the New Democratic Revolution to its final victory. This is due to the fact that in the present era, and particularly after the Great October Revolution, no bourgeoisie of any country is in a position to carry out a thorough-going national democratic revolution out of fear of the working class continuing the revolution to its consummation to socialism. Hence the bourgeoisie compromises with imperialism and lacks the will to wage a thoroughgoing revolution against feudalism by mobilising the peasantry. It stands opposed to the oppressed masses.

Hence, to lead the peasantry towards the New Democratic Revolution is the most important task of working class leadership. The working class of India cannot emancipate itself without uniting with the peasantry who constitute the overwhelming majority of the population in semi-colonial and semi-feudal India and who are being exploited and oppressed for ages.

It is only by organizing and leading the peasantry in the agrarian revolution and national democratic revolution that the working class can give leadership to the revolution, can open wide the path of their own liberation from wage-slavery by liberating the peasantry from the exploitation, plunder and depression of imperialism an their running dogs - the feudal lords and the comprador capitalists. And it is in this way that they can lead the revolution and it is this path of socialism which alone can emancipate the working class from the system of wage-slavery. The chief tasks of the first stage of the revolution in India are to overthrow the three main enemies of the Indian people-imperialism (and the comprador bureaucrat capitalism that is generated by imperialism) and feudalism in order to establish a new democratic India.

The national and democratic revolution, directed against the main enemies of the revolution - imperialism and their lackeys the big bourgeoisie and feudalism, though are the two different kinds of basic tasks in the entire process of Indian revolution or the People’s Democratic Revolution, one cannot be separated from the other. As the imperialist and their comprador lackeys, the Indian big bourgeoisie, are the main supporters and protectors of feudalism, the struggle for the overthrow of imperialism and the struggle to uproot feudalism are interrelated to each other. Judging conversely, as the Indian society is mainly dependent on feudalism, protected under the wings of imperialism and their comprador lackeys - the comprador capitalists, so the struggle to uproot this moribund feudalism and the struggle to annihilate imperialism and the comprador bureaucrat capitalism generated by it, are inseparable from each other. So, the two fundamental tasks of the national revolution and the democratic revolution are at once distinct and interwoven. It is wrong to regard the national revolution and the democratic revolution as two entirely different stages of the revolution. The main content of the new democratic revolution is the agrarian revolution.

The task of the second stage is to establish a socialist society by carrying forward the revolution to its consummation. The first stage is the pre-condition for the second. Only by fulfilling the tasks of the People’s Democratic Revolution in India we can lay the basis for the Socialist Revolution. People’s democracy is an inseparable part of Socialism, an inseparable part of the world socialist revolution. It is wrong to forget the inseparable relationship between People’s Democracy and Socialism. It is equally wrong and harmful to confuse the two stages and to think of reaching Socialism in a single leap.

No intervening stage of bourgeois dictatorship will come between the stages of New Democracy and Socialism.



CHAPTER-5

Basic Tasks of People’s Democracy

The aim of the New Democratic Revolution is to smash the semi-colonial, semi-feudal politics, economics and culture and to establish new democratic politics, economics and culture. Only by way of accomplishing this goal, the doors for the all-embracing development of the Indian society can be opened, the poverty and misery of the people can be redressed, and the political, economic, and cultural basis for a socialist society be laid down. The struggle for people’s democracy is the struggle of all the ant-imperialist and anti-feudal politics, economics and culture against the counter-revolutionary semi-colonial, semi-feudal politics, economics and culture. The struggle for people’s democracy is the struggle of all the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people on the basis of worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the working class exerted through its vanguard, the Communist Party, against imperialism, CBB and feudalism. This is a struggle between revolution and counter-revolution.

The People’s Democratic Politics

The central task of the NDR is to establish the people’s democratic state by overthrowing the present semi-colonial, semi-feudal state machinery through armed struggle. The people’s democratic state means the state of the democratic dictatorship of the all the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal forces, on the basis of worker-peasant alliance, under the leadership of the proletariat, and is a particular embryonic form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The people’s democratic state ensures all types of freedom, rights and democracy for the vast masses of the toiling masses, and also try to ensure the participation of the vast masses of the people in the day-to-day administrative work by adopting appropriate methods, defends the people’s interests at all times, while at the same time it exercises dictatorship over the reactionary forces-imperialists, comprador big bourgeoisie, big landlords and all their hangers-on who constitute a small minority.

To build up a united front of the people i.e. a united front for armed struggle, under the leadership of the working class, exercised through the Communist Party, against imperialism, the CBB and feudalism, and to establish the people’s democratic dictatorship under working class leadership is the central task of the New Democratic Revolution. This will forge close international unity.

People’s Democratic Economy

The main task of people’s democratic economy is to pave the way for the economic and social development of the country and to lay the basis for socialist economy by overthrowing the semi-colonial and semi-feudal economy. It is the economy of a society that is in transition from capitalism to socialism under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the proletariat.

All the industries, banks and other enterprises of the imperialists and the CBB will be expropriated and turned over to the New Democratic State; all the land of the landlords will be expropriated and distributed to the poor and landless peasants; the exploitation of the peasantry by the usurers/moneylenders and traders/merchants will be put to an end thereby releasing the initiative and the potentialities of the peasantry. Voluntary co-operatives will be set up and state trading will control the life of the country’s economy. Capitalist production that has no control over public life i.e. of national capital will be allowed but will be under state restriction and regulation. However, it is the people’s democratic State that will play the principal role in industry and commerce and will control the economic lifelines of the country. This will facilitate not only the building of the people’s democratic economy, but also pave the way for the socialist economy. In this connection the rich experiences of socialist china under the leadership of comrade mao will be taken as the guide.

To overthrow the moribund feudalism and to accomplish the agrarian revolution, to expropriate the imperialist and comprador-bureaucrat capital and transform them into the property of the new democratic state, and thus, to open wide the path of the progress and development of the Indian economy and society by establishing the control and authority of the people’s democratic state over the economy of the country-such is the essence of the New Democratic Economy. The development of the people’s democratic economy will lay the basis for the socialist economy.

People’s Democratic Culture

The task at the present stage of the revolution in the cultural front is the establishment of new democratic culture i.e., a scientific, democratic and mass culture, by uprooting the semi-colonial, semi-feudal culture along with the modern revisionist ideology. The people’s democratic culture is an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal culture. It is an heir to all the secular, genuine democratic, and scientific aspects of the rich cultural heritage of the oppressed masses that are passed on by history.

It is impossible to arm the people ideologically, make them conscious and organise them for the people’s war without the widest propaganda of people’s democratic culture based on Maoism. As Mao said: "In overthrowing a political power the first and regular task is to work in on the ideological front and to create public opinion." To overthrow the exploiting classes and their state machinery, the first and foremost task throughout the course of the new democratic revolution is to wage ideological struggle and create public opinion in favour of agrarian revolutionary war and the protracted people’s war.

Mao says, revisionism is the main danger. Modern revisionism is one of the chief enemies of MLM and the people’s democratic ideology and revolution. the anti-imperialist anti-feudal revolutionary culture of the people cannot be established without fighting against modern revisionism. in this respect MLM is the strongest weapon in the fight against modern revisionism.

Besides, in India, feudal thinking is deep-rooted and is manifested in many ways, particularly in casteist, biases against religious minorities, religious narrow mindedness, communalism, untouchability, patriarchy, and numerous other forms. The Party must educate the masses against all such anti-democratic values and cultures and replace them with those based on equality, self-respect, secularism, dignity of labour and a proletarian class view-point.

For the success of the Indian revolution the anti-imperialist and antifeudal cultural front has to be organised and constantly strengthened. The people’s democratic culture will be an inseparable part of the general antiimperialist, anti-feudal revolutionary people’s democratic front. One of the tasks of this cultural front is to educate the workers, peasants and the toiling masses about the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal agrarian revolutionary struggle and the protracted people’s war.

The people’s democratic state will take up the task of wiping out the imperialist and feudal culture from all spheres of social science like economics, politics, philosophy, military science, history, literature etc., and in their place, establish the people’s democratic culture.





So bascially, they are referring mostly to political democracy and the fact that the bourgeois are incapable of carrying out a bourgeois revolution and that this task can only be carried out by the proletariat. As the article says

"No intervening stage of bourgeois dictatorship will come between the stages of New Democracy and Socialism."

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yeah, Pol Pot liked the colour red as well.

Actually, while the Communist party of India (Maoist) was a member of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, the RIM's theoretical journal produced a very scathing criticism of the pol pot regime. I'd recommend it personally.

http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm


I didn't say they loved capitalism. On the contrary, they hate it. They are reactionary anti-capitalists, they oppose the capitalist transformation of backwards rural India. The European aristocracy hated the rise of capitalism, as do the Taliban. Being anti-capitalists doesn't mean you're not a reactionary.

Almost every Maoist document states a desire to eliminate the remaint of feudalism. So I don't see what point you are making

It's not that their peasants, it's that they're reactionary murderers who are little better than the Taliban.

Nothing to back this statement up, revolution is a bloody act, it is the mass murder of one class at the hand of another, and that is only in an idealistic world. If they commit a human rights abuse, then I will point to the fact that the Indian state has committed two.

"They (Naxals) are not terrorists because they don't resort to irresponsible acts of terror by planting bombs on streets. Naxals are fighters who fight for their rights. They don't harass the common man and the poor."
- Om Puri ..

[Geiseric]

Yep. In addition to this, they also run parrelel school programs and provide health care for those who can't afford it.

Why not? As Borgida said, "It would be ridiculous to subordinate a revolution to a 100% acceptance or a 51% majority". And besides, it would be impossible to acheive victory over the state without a majority. If they win then it was because they won over the hearts and minds of the Indian proletariat, if they fail then they deserved to fail.




Here's a document where they explain what they mean by New Democratic Revolution.



So bascially, they are referring mostly to political democracy and the fact that the bourgeois are incapable of carrying out a bourgeois revolution and that this task can only be carried out by the proletariat. As the article says

"No intervening stage of bourgeois dictatorship will come between the stages of New Democracy and Socialism."

What you're describing is perminant revolution you know, stagism was a menshevik concept used to subordinate the CPC to the KMT In the 20's.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What you're describing is perminant revolution you know, stagism was a menshevik concept used to subordinate the CPC to the KMT In the 20's.
I am not describing anything, I am merely quoting one of their documents


Mao was accused of being a Trotskyism by Kim Il Sung. I don't mind if it is permanent revolution It is all semantics to me. If the Naxals were Left Communists, Trotskists, or Marxist-Leninists, I'd support them all the same.

[Clarion]

Actually, while the Communist party of India (Maoist) was a member of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, the RIM's theoretical journal produced a very scathing criticism of the pol pot regime. I'd recommend it personally.

http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issu...lPot_eng25.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting they were sympathetic to the Khmer Rouge, just that appropriating communist symbolism doesn't mean squat.


Almost every Maoist document states a desire to eliminate the remaint of feudalism. So I don't see what point you are making

Reactionary anti-capitalism isn't limited to feudalists. Luddites were proletarian and yet still reactionary. The Naxalites are the peasant version.


it is the mass murder of one class at the hand of another

Expropriation of one class at the hands of another. Don't drag the rest of us into you're mass murder fantasies.


Nothing to back this statement up, revolution is a bloody act, it is the mass murder of one class at the hand of another, and that is only in an idealistic world. If they commit a human rights abuse, then I will point to the fact that the Indian state has committed two.

"They (Naxals) are not terrorists because they don't resort to irresponsible acts of terror by planting bombs on streets. Naxals are fighters who fight for their rights. They don't harass the common man and the poor."
- Om Puri ..

Bollocks. The Naxals murder construction workers working on infrastructure projects, they plant landmines which kill local workers and peasants alike, they abduct young girls from occupied villages to use as comfort women. Their crimes are well documented. I suggest looking into them before you praise them next time.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Expropriation of one class at the hands of another. Don't drag the rest of us into you're mass murder fantasies.

Reactionary peasant terrorists aren't inspiring me to grab my gun. Not unless they're lining up neatly infront of a wall, mind. . .I'm getting mixed messages

[Comrade Samuel]

As much as I hate idyll sitting by as capitalism continues to destory our planet and ruin the lives of millions- I also don't want my IP being traced and a low buzzing noise being the last thing I hear so I'll pass on your call to action.

As every climax requires build up, the revolution requires more class conscious workers to eventually carry it out. Baby steps OP, baby steps.

[Ostrinski]

I want revolution for a better and more fulfilling existence for myself and for my fellow human beings. Somehow and for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on deliberately putting myself and other workers in a scenario where we are likely to be killed or thrown in prison under circumstances where we know without a doubt such action is nothing but futile does not satisfy the criteria or standards for "better and more fulfilling existence for myself and for my fellow human beings."

We fight for revolution to enhance our human experience, not to put it in mortal danger in the name of some silly revolutionary hardman paternalist posturing condescension.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Revolutionaries of every stripe have often prophecised that violent acts like the OP describes would somehow shock the masses into action or make the state see the error of it's ways...has this ever really 'worked'?

[Clarion]

I'm getting mixed messages

Tuché.

Though mine was a joke, YABM actually seemed to be suggesting socialist revolution is about murdering all the property owners.

[Thirsty Crow]

Revolutionaries of every stripe have often prophecised that violent acts like the OP describes would somehow shock the masses into action or make the state see the error of it's ways...has this ever really 'worked'?
Nope. And conditions prevailing today are less favourable for this intended effect, so that basically you'd end up with minority action substituting itself for the activity of the class (see the reference to mindless automatons in OP) which could only result in either a coup d'etat (see OP's username :lol:) or in a bloodbath and repression.

And unlike what some argue here, martyrdom is useless.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Most people have a distaste for violence, they find it icky, so in light of this fact I think that we'll have to trick our way into power somehow, then we'll be able to exterminate our enemies. :drool:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Good luck with that OP. I'm sure civil war will be the most popular, bloodless and likely to succeed against the propagandist, war machine of the bourgeois state.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I seriously do wonder about the mental sanity of some people on the left. I'm not sure whether to put this civil war fetish down to either youthful inexperience or a general abandon of one's mental logic in favour of some sort of reckless abandon, hurtling towards self-obliteration as some sort of heroic deed.

Idiocy is not, has never been and will never be heroic. Capitalism is here to stay for a while, get used to it and come up with a better strategy than 'HURRR BURN STUFF SHOOT THINGS BLOW SHIT UP HURR', please!

[Thirsty Crow]

I seriously do wonder about the mental sanity of some people on the left. I'm not sure whether to put this civil war fetish down to either youthful inexperience or a general abandon of one's mental logic in favour of some sort of reckless abandon, hurtling towards self-obliteration as some sort of heroic deed.

I'd tone this rhetoric of mental health down if I were you, frankly.

It seems to me that this is rather understandable. On one hand, you've got your radicals who may invest psychologically as well into this set of ideas and who conceive their self around this, so it is no wonder that a low level of struggle, the general lack of understanding and the passivity of the majority of workers could be more than frustrating (isn't this another factor in this politics of substitution?).

[Rational Radical]

Lol i feel you coup de'tat, we all go through that phase where we simply can't take anymore of the bullshit that the world is throwing at us and wan't to stop by any means necessary but let's think about the potential risks here: more demonization of communists/socialists,political repression and alienating ourselves from the working class who will perceive us as violent terrorists. So although, i can sympathize with these feelings,you need to think logically and practically in order for a workers revolution to actually commence one day.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First of all, the objective criteria exist in the current economic crisis. Lenin's Marxism and Insurrection makes it very clear that once the objective criteria arise, any delay in the revolutionary process is opportunism. This doesn't mean blowing up bridges, but it does mean that you ought to get your guns and bombs together so you can get ready for some real revolutionary work. Protip, real revolutionary work isn't individual terrorism

But even when the objective criteria doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that the effort is wasted. This is a map of the territory the Naxalite movement is active in, or exerts partial or complete control over

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/India_Red_Corridor_map.png/270px-India_Red_Corridor_map.png


So maybe we ought to stop waiting the "objective criteria" and start today. Eh comrade?

The "objective chriteria" was reached as soon as capitalism became a dominant system. The objective chriteria is exploitation of a class that can take power itself. What's missing is the subjective chriteria, i.e. a revolutionary self-consious working class (or at least a good deal of class consiousness with a strong revolutionary worker's movement minority with real links to the larger class). IMO any action has to be seen in relation to that and attempting to create a better subjective class situation that can rise to the objective situation.

Small groups of revolutionaries taking up arms when there is not a large radical working class movement does nothing for the "subjective situation" - nothing positive anyway. It doesn't help workers organize themselves or learn how to exhert class power. It shows how some people can use direct force for something - but is that something workers don't know? Workers can do that, Tim McVeigh can do that, it isn't "class power" and it doesn't put workers in a better position to run things. Training an army might be necissary at some point, but training an army only allows workers to learn combat strategy, it doesn't help workers become better able to run society.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'd tone this rhetoric of mental health down if I were you, frankly.

It seems to me that this is rather understandable. On one hand, you've got your radicals who may invest psychologically as well into this set of ideas and who conceive their self around this, so it is no wonder that a low level of struggle, the general lack of understanding and the passivity of the majority of workers could be more than frustrating (isn't this another factor in this politics of substitution?).

You're right, sorry.

Though I do think that, people who - in the face of frustration - resort to such angry, illogical responses are the sorts of people I wouldn't trust to be in any position of responsibility.

So rather, instead of questioning their mental sanity, I do question their personal characteristics. There shouldn't be this anger and resentment at the relative passivity of other workers and, if there is, then that points to either a character default or the wrong strategic path being pursued.

[Thirsty Crow]

Though I do think that, people who - in the face of frustration - resort to such angry, illogical responses are the sorts of people I wouldn't trust to be in any position of responsibility.
Yeah, sure, that should go without saying.


So rather, instead of questioning their mental sanity, I do question their personal characteristics. There shouldn't be this anger and resentment at the relative passivity of other workers and, if there is, then that points to either a character default or the wrong strategic path being pursued.
I also think it is necessary to question comrade's personal characteristics, if you can be careful enough and not fall for empty psyhologizing.
But I wouldn't draw hard conclusions from this frustration and anger. As I've said, I can sympathize with that, but it is important to rationally address this problem and see whether it's chronic or merely acute, figuratively speaking.

[Let's Get Free]

Most people have a distaste for violence, they find it icky,

I disagree. People support violence all the time. They support war, prisons, police brutality, etc. Plus, I dont think violence necessarily alienates people. With anarchists of the past, bombs were thrown, fascists were shot, industrialists were stabbed, politicians were assassinated and police were attacked, often with massive support and even participation from non-anarchist poor people. Violent acts, by themselves, do not necessarily alienate people. Voting alienates people — ask the more than half of Americans who don’t vote. Protests alienate the people — ask the vast majority who don’t attend.


so in light of this fact I think that we'll have to trick our way into power somehow, then we'll be able to exterminate our enemies. :drool:

We need direct militant action to inspire the masses into action. We have to be fully armed in order to agitate the slumbering masses. We need a spray paint can in one hand in order to raise their consciousness and a lighter in the other in order to burn an American flag. We should look to the anarchists of the 19th century, the Naxalites, the Weathermen, the Black Bloc, and the writings of Bonano and Tiquin as a guideline for our revolutionary struggle.

[bcbm]

The capitalist system continues to refine its instruments and direct investment to areas more befitting to its perennial need for expansion. To relieve my aching frustration I think about how I could fix the world which I'm sure people on this website do to. But just thinking, discussing, marching or swimming in front of a boat achieves very little overall. I believe that all peaceful protests have been exhausted. The strike is not going to work either. The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons. We should use direct action for the struggle against the state. The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding. Why not do it???

you should probably give up the 'achieve socialism' part of your plan and focus on the robbing and blowing stuff up aspect. read about the bonnot gang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnot_Gang) and some renzo novatore (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-toward-the-creative-nothing) to get your illegalist juices flowing. maybe a little stirner (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html) too.

also accept you are going to be machine gunned to death in a relatively short span of time

[Tim Cornelis]

Yep. In addition to this, they also run parrelel school programs and provide health care for those who can't afford it.

I couldn't find anything about this. I could only find the Naxalites organise people's courts, tax businesses, and blow up stuff.


Why not? As Borgida said, "It would be ridiculous to subordinate a revolution to a 100% acceptance or a 51% majority". And besides, it would be impossible to acheive victory over the state without a majority. If they win then it was because they won over the hearts and minds of the Indian proletariat, if they fail then they deserved to fail.
"

What do you mean by "victory over the state?"


First of all, I want to clarify what I meant. Alot of people think that I mean we should start armed insurrection tommorow and are therefore rightfully criticizing me. However, all I am saying is that we should take a more direct action oriented approach and we should prepare for an actual revolution. Alot of groups used the idea of insurrection as a way to procrastinate doing anything revolutionary until the perfect scenario, which will never, ever, happen. I simply think that we treat revolutionary work as actual preparation for a revolution instead of mere activism.

What do you mean by "direct action approach" and "preparing"? And what is doing something "revolutionary" in a non-revolutionary situation, is that even possible? What is "revolutionary work" and how does it prepare for a "revolution".
This hints at shooting guns without proper class-based action.



I disagree. People support violence all the time. They support war, prisons, police brutality, etc.

People support institutionalised bourgeois violence.


Plus, I dont think violence necessarily alienates people. With anarchists of the past, bombs were thrown, fascists were shot, industrialists were stabbed, politicians were assassinated and police were attacked, often with massive support and even participation from non-anarchist poor people.

Mass support existed in spite or irrespective of that violence and preceded it.


Violent acts, by themselves, do not necessarily alienate people. Voting alienates people — ask the more than half of Americans who don’t vote. Protests alienate the people — ask the vast majority who don’t attend.

Anti-state violence alienates the people — ask the vast majority who don't engage in it.


We need direct militant action to inspire the masses into action.

We need to educate them about why action is necessary, we need to organise them in preperation of action, we need to agitate them into action.

You think someone like your mother or father (assuming they are something of a liberal or social-democrat) see anarchists shooting the secretary of defence and all of a suddenly have an epiphany turning them from liberals into communists recognising the need for proletarian internationalism, self-emancipation, the abolition of the state, formation of free associations of equal individuals and producers, and class warfare. No that has never happened.


We have to be fully armed in order to agitate the slumbering masses. We need a spray paint can in one hand in order to raise their consciousness and a lighter in the other in order to burn an American flag. We should look to the anarchists of the 19th century, the Naxalites, the Weathermen, the Black Bloc, and the writings of Bonano and Tiquin as a guideline for our revolutionary struggle.

At this point I can't tell whether you are trolling or not.

[Thirsty Crow]

We need direct militant action to inspire the masses into action. We have to be fully armed in order to agitate the slumbering masses.
We need to stop positioning ourselves as the military head of a sleeping monster that is "the masses", which only leads to a repudiation of anarchist politics and straight into substitutionism of one kind or another. At best. At worst, as bcbm says, enjoy the life of a romanticized rebel going down in a blaze of imagined glory.

And maybe most of all, we need to stop relieving our boredom and frustration with 19th century nostalgia and role playing. Or the 20th century one, it depends on your color of choice.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Far be it for me to try to dissuade the OP or any one reading this thread from taking the illegaliste path. Do know this: if you are an American the odds are far more higher that you will end up in a federal prison as the victim of an FBI sting than of becoming a revolutionary martyr going down in a hail of bullets.

[Art Vandelay]

Far be it for me to try to dissuade the OP or any one reading this thread from taking the illegaliste path. Do know this: if you are an American the odds are far more higher that you will end up in a federal prison as the victim of an FBI sting than of becoming a revolutionary martyr going down in a hail of bullets.

With the size of the repressive intelligence agency today in the U.S. I honestly have no idea how any illegalist would ever get away with their crimes.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Keeping your distance from enthusiastic new recruits with heavy-duty connections would probably be a good start ...


With the size of the repressive intelligence agency today in the U.S. I honestly have no idea how any illegalist would ever get away with their crimes.

[Zukunftsmusik]

The capitalist system continues to refine its instruments and direct investment to areas more befitting to its perennial need for expansion. To relieve my aching frustration I think about how I could fix the world which I'm sure people on this website do to. But just thinking, discussing, marching or swimming in front of a boat achieves very little overall. I believe that all peaceful protests have been exhausted. The strike is not going to work either. The workers only comply with their bosses and do not rebel, they are passive and useless automatons. We should use direct action for the struggle against the state. The only way we can achieve socialism is illegalism. We'd rob shops, burn down offices and blow up cars all to show our disgust with the system. It would give the cause wider attention and understanding. Why not do it???

Don't do something - talk! We don't want workers to run around like blind chickens, doing something for the sake of doing something. If we want to liberate ourselves from class society, how do we know what is the best way? To find the best strategy, we need to find out what is the real problem at hand. To find what the real problems are, we need to "talk" - peer through the sheets of ideology covering the cold truth about our society. We need to attack capitalism both theoretically and practically. If we don't know what the problem is, theoretically, how will you know what to do?