Political or bloody Revolution

[Rasta Sapian]

calling on all radicals and fellow left wingers!

option one: a democratic peacefull change of government to the left via socialist reform
ie political revolution

option two: a bloddy revolution through an uprising of the prolitariot a complete re education of society
ie an impirialist slaugter

r u moderate or radical

[dannie]

i would prefer revolution without blood, but if it is neccesary then bloody revolution it is, i don't think that's even a question, but, if it is a political revolution it must have the outcome of socialism and not some reformist state

[Hawker]

The only way to change a government is through a bloody revolution,history time and time again has shown us that.Do you think the capitalists will ever let us get into power fairly and without a fight,hell no!

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Option 1 if possible, 2 if necessary. However, in seeing the single party socialist state, the democratic cappies would eventually have to go...

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:20 PM
The only way to change a government is through a bloody revolution,history time and time again has shown us that.Do you think the capitalists will ever let us get into power fairly and without a fight,hell no!
Just persuade the working people to vote for the communist party. You claim to be a movement of the people, but the people dont support you

[Y2A]

This is ridiculous. Most of you live in middle-class neighborhoods and are here discussing a communist "revolution" against the United States. It is pathetic. Most of you don't even have the courage to pick up a gun let alone fight for a change in government.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 05:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 05:36 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:20 PM
The only way to change a government is through a bloody revolution,history time and time again has shown us that.Do you think the capitalists will ever let us get into power fairly and without a fight,hell no&#33;
Just persuade the working people to vote for the communist party. You claim to be a movement of the people, but the people dont support you [/b]
How many times has that happen?That everytime a communist party comes into power in a peaceful way they always abandon their communist beliefs,because the system makes it that way.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:37 PM
This is ridiculous. Most of you live in middle-class neighborhoods and are here discussing a communist "revolution" against the United States. It is pathetic. Most of you don&#39;t even have the courage to pick up a gun let alone fight for a change in government.
You presume too much.

[Bolshevika]

The only thing you can achieve with option 1 is petty reformism, the capitalists will not let go of power peacefully unless threatened by bigger capitalists who have interests in our nation.

Even if some genuine Marxist gets into power, what are the chances the foreign nations will let him stay? Anyone remember a man named Salvador Allende?

So the only logical answer is 2, the bourgeois will not go without force.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:37 PM
This is ridiculous. Most of you live in middle-class neighborhoods and are here discussing a communist "revolution" against the United States. It is pathetic. Most of you don&#39;t even have the courage to pick up a gun let alone fight for a change in government.
An incredibly presumptuous statement, but one I think it is possible to entertain for a moment or two.

The proletariat does not need Marxists acting in their absence during a revolution. The only role necessary for educated Marxists to play is that of the agitator, the spreader of revolutionary propaganda.

The proletariat will find victory with whatever means it deems necessary.

[John Galt]

And since they have not risen up for a communist uprising, it can be presumed that they dont support communism

[Loknar]

Oh I see, you guys are the &#39;intellectuals&#39; who will start everything and have the poor class do the grunt work for you. Hot damn you&#39;re courageous&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Alexander Pop]

This is ridiculous. Most of you live in middle-class neighborhoods and are here discussing a communist "revolution" against the United States. It is pathetic. Most of you don&#39;t even have the courage to pick up a gun let alone fight for a change in government.

I am for the peaceful thingy only because a post war country is hard to run stable. However the Y2A dude here underestimates us all I think.
I for one if there were a battle for this cause would be in the first line&#33;

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 10 2004, 09:24 PM

This is ridiculous. Most of you live in middle-class neighborhoods and are here discussing a communist "revolution" against the United States. It is pathetic. Most of you don&#39;t even have the courage to pick up a gun let alone fight for a change in government.

I am for the peaceful thingy only because a post war country is hard to run stable. However the Y2A dude here underestimates us all I think.
I for one if there were a battle for this cause would be in the first line&#33;
What bullshit.

If the people themselves uprose, you wouldnt need to fight. If you need to fight, it means that the people dont support you. You cant force equality onto people.

[Loknar]

so if you guys arent &#39;the people&#39; then who are you?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:28 PM
so if you guys arent &#39;the people&#39; then who are you?
They are the ones who get to control the people when its all over

[synthesis]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 09:12 PM
And since they have not risen up for a communist uprising, it can be presumed that they dont support communism
I&#39;ll keep it simple because I don&#39;t have a great deal of free time right now.

The proletarian revolution is a historical inevitability. It has been delayed by two things.

The first is social democracy. Legislature such as the minimum wage and union protection laws have placative effects in terms of proletarian agitation.

The second is imperialism. I will let the founder of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, speak for me on this one.


I was in the East End of London (a working-class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for &#39;bread&#33; bread&#33;&#39; and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism.... My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.
-Cecil Rhodes

[John Galt]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Jan 10 2004, 09:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Jan 10 2004, 09:50 PM)
John [email protected] 10 2004, 09:12 PM
And since they have not risen up for a communist uprising, it can be presumed that they dont support communism
I&#39;ll keep it simple because I don&#39;t have a great deal of free time right now.

The proletarian revolution is a historical inevitability. It has been delayed by two things.

The first is social democracy. Legislature such as the minimum wage and union protection laws have placative effects in terms of proletarian agitation.

The second is imperialism. I will let the founder of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, speak for me on this one.


I was in the East End of London (a working-class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for &#39;bread&#33; bread&#33;&#39; and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism.... My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.
-Cecil Rhodes [/b]
Holy shit&#33;

Something has never happened and shows no signs of happening, yet you claim its a "historical inenvitability"?&#33;

I could claim that its a historicial inevitability for us to turn the moon into vanilla pudding with equal proof backing me.

[Germanator]

Bloody revolution is doomed to fail. How do you expect to convince people that your way of doing things is less oppressive while you systematically cap off anyone sympathetic to the side you&#39;re against? This has happened all over Central/South America and Asia. These "communists" fight off an unpopular government and wind up being just as if not more oppressive than the regime they replaced.

Ghandi&#39;s way is best, in my opinion.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:22 PM
Oh I see, you guys are the &#39;intellectuals&#39; who will start everything and have the poor class do the grunt work for you. Hot damn you&#39;re courageous&#33;&#33;&#33;
This is capitalist hypocrisy at its finest. If we advocated enacting a revolution for the proletariat ourselves, your type would accuse us of forcing socialism on them. Pick one line and stick with it. And please - no straw men this time.

The obvious response, anyway, is that socialism itself does not bear any concrete reward for the intellectual except under Leninist circumstances. Proletarian emancipation must be derived from and only from proletarian dissatisfaction; otherwise, it is, in fact, the rule of the bourgeois intellectual.

Perhaps I worded the statement incorrectly. The only role that educated Marxists must play as educated Marxists is that of agitation. When the revolution is occuring, educated Marxists can and should assist the proletariat in revolution.

You are also operating on the incorrect assumption that revolution is necessarily violent. There is also political revolution, such as that which England experienced in the seventeenth century. The bourgeoisie needs the proletariat to exist. If the proletariat simply refuses to sell its labor, bourgeois institutions have become worthless.


They are the ones who get to control the people when its all over

Exactly what I&#39;m referring to in the first paragraph above.

[synthesis]

Something has never happened and shows no signs of happening, yet you claim its a "historical inenvitability"?&#33;

I could claim that its a historicial inevitability for us to turn the moon into vanilla pudding with equal proof backing me.

You really have no idea about what Marxism is, do you?

[John Galt]

There is no contradiction.

If you do a lenin-like revolution, you are forcing socialism on them. You would rather have a massive populist uprising, in the hope that you are rewarded by the rulers.

[synthesis]

If you do a lenin-like revolution, you are forcing socialism on them. You would rather have a massive populist uprising, in the hope that you are rewarded by the rulers.

I suppose you could call it a populist uprising, although it is more properly termed &#39;class war.&#39;

Anyway - define &#39;reward.&#39;

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:25 PM
1. I suppose you could call it a populist uprising, although it is more properly termed &#39;class war.&#39;

2. Anyway - define &#39;reward.&#39;
1. Whatever.

2. That which allows the one gaining the reward to obtain things produced. The amount of things produced that they may recive is the value that society places on their work, and the skill with which they do the work; society values rare excellences (doctor vs janitor) and helpful excellences (fireman vs factory worker)

[synthesis]

I was specifically referring to &#39;reward&#39; in the sense that you were using it in this thread. How, exactly, do you think we believe we will be rewarded by the proletarian state?

[Felicia]

The circumstances will always vary, therefore the methods of action will vary.

There is no straight forward answer.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:00 PM
I was specifically referring to &#39;reward&#39; in the sense that you were using it in this thread. How, exactly, do you think we believe we will be rewarded by the proletarian state?
In theory you are rewarded by food, clothing and other basic needs.

In practice you arent.

[synthesis]

You are not answering my question.

You said you believe that non-vanguardist Communists operate because we believe we will be rewarded by post-revolutionary society.

What rewards, specific to those agitating Communists, do you believe we will receive?

[Lardlad95]

Revolution is a last result.

I have faith in the ability of the people to learn the truth and create change peacefully

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:01 PM
Bloody revolution is doomed to fail. How do you expect to convince people that your way of doing things is less oppressive while you systematically cap off anyone sympathetic to the side you&#39;re against? This has happened all over Central/South America and Asia. These "communists" fight off an unpopular government and wind up being just as if not more oppressive than the regime they replaced.

Ghandi&#39;s way is best, in my opinion.
Ghandi never really changed anything,he only changed India from a colony to a vassal of the British Empire,India never really gained full independence,if you want full independence,a bloody revolution is the only option.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:45 AM
You are not answering my question.

You said you believe that non-vanguardist Communists operate because we believe we will be rewarded by post-revolutionary society.

What rewards, specific to those agitating Communists, do you believe we will receive?
Ahhh, those rewards. I was confused because im debating in many threads at once, with the same words.

Good communist members of the revolution get to be part of the ruling class.

[synthesis]

Good communist members of the revolution get to be part of the ruling class.

Well, that&#39;s true, actually. In a real proletarian revolution, the ruling class is the proletariat. Therefore, in a sense - yes, educated Marxists do become part of the ruling class. ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Bloody revolution is unfortantly inevitable. It would be nice to think that the ruling class will role over and hand over power to us but it isnt going to happen.

The world revolution is also misleading. The revolution would only come about when the workers were attacked and had to defend themselves.

[Comrade of Cuba]

Some countries will reform to a communist state, but in most of the countries a revolution is necessary

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:36 AM

Good communist members of the revolution get to be part of the ruling class.

Well, that&#39;s true, actually. In a real proletarian revolution, the ruling class is the proletariat. Therefore, in a sense - yes, educated Marxists do become part of the ruling class. ;)
Any communist country needs a huge beaucracy to assign goods to people.

[LSD]

Any communist country needs a huge beaucracy to assign goods to people.


This has been covered many, many times. but no it doesn&#39;t.

You are assuming coupon-communism:

A state portioning out resources to its population.

While this is certainly a brand of communism, it is not by far the only one.


In a true communist society, there would be no need of assignation, rather everything the society has would belong to everyone. Now this only works in small collectives, but then again that&#39;s the point.

[synthesis]

Any communist country needs a huge beaucracy to assign goods to people.

In the past, many socialist countries have required large states for the distribution of resources, as well as more unsavory things. These were vanguardist countries - essentially classic oligarchies with socialist rhetoric.

While socialist oligarchies have historically been much better to their citizens than dictatorships based on racism or capitalism, it is hardly the only way socialism can be instituted. In fact, they essentially defy Marxism in their inability to produce suitable goods for the citizenry.

You will say that is idealistic, and I would agree that it is idealistic for the Third World countries. However, Marxism was really designed for industrialized countries - and at that, countries that had industrialized to the point where enough of the proletariat had fallen into unemployment due to the state of advanced production technology that they would be willing to revolt against the capitalist state and assume control.

With industrial technology in such an advanced state of automation, people only need to work long enough to make sure everyone gets their basic needs. Since the entire labor pool is employed, this would probably only work out to a few hours a week or so.

The rest of one&#39;s free time can be devoted to pursuing happiness. In the words of Marx:
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:40 PM


With industrial technology in such an advanced state of automation, people only need to work long enough to make sure everyone gets their basic needs. Since the entire labor pool is employed, this would probably only work out to a few hours a week or so.
So communism is a theory of machines, not people?

I highly doubt Marx had any idea that machines could be doing so much

[synthesis]

Rephrase your question, please. It is too vague.

[Alexander Pop]

I don&#39;t see the point of this debate.... it can go forever and still no conclusion will come to be&#33;

I say that communism is destined to come upon the whole planet one day.... only the people are not yet ready for it..... maybe a WWIII is what they need to get to their sences.... so we should just wait for the capis to kill off each-other and the set-up a communist government upon the whole planet and there.... that should do it :)

No... I&#39;m serious&#33;

[Rasta Sapian]

Hypothetical this is, ah ha ah ha.

For the Dominant Capitalist Country to Go Communist would take a major class war, another american revolution, it might be similar to mao&#39;s impirialist slaughter in China, durning their revolution. oh yes, it would be very bloody&#33;&#33; :ph34r:

With America&#39;s gap between the rich and poor widening very quickley. It is possible that exploited workers ( the prolitariot ) could unite, and a new party could arise, with the right motivation and mainstream support, America could move closer toward a socialist republic, c&#39;est possible mon amie&#39;s. Or maybe a cout de taut&#33;
Bush in a giotine, wow&#33; thats a thought&#33;

It&#39;s not about blood anyway, its about Utopia, peace on earth, one class for all people&#33;

p.s. the socialist leaders would not be aristocraic rulers, that is why they would be socialist leaders, to act like an oligarchy would not be benificial in utopia&#33;

the fat cats would all be sent to work on a marijuana farm, and proscribed medical doses, later evaluated and re-educated to see if they could join our neveau socialist utopia&#33; :P