Revolution Question

[Hiphop4love]

Hey all,
Hope you're doing well!

I was thinking about this today and wanted all of your thoughts. There are so many ideologies and opinions among humans regarding politics, religion, etc. If there were to be a revolution, wouldn't all of the people need to "be on the same page", regarding where to go next? If a government was overthrown, would people of differing ideologies try to fill the power vacuum and establish a system based on their beliefs, leading to further conflict and division of the people? Let's say that a revolution took place by a large group, composed of people with differing left revolutionary ideas, they might be divided. There would also possibly be then those who oppose the revolution and have ideas of their own. There could also be still a majority and minority group. How would everyone be represented, work together and get along if they're divided???

In Libya and Iraq, for example, where governments have recently been toppled (both situations different), conflict is still destroying the countries. I know the West had a presence in both and pushed for democracies there, which could of played into more conflict, yet regardless, the People are divided ideologically and also sadly, by ethnicity (civil war).

Sorry for the long post...Thoughts??

Peace!

[The Idler]

Well you're more honest than a lot of leftists. World Socialists have always maintained people with different political objectives will be divided by this if they seek to capture political power.
Only once a significant majority (not necessarily half plus one) want the same object will there be the potential for socialism.
Unfortunately, expressing this simple fact opens you up for a barrage of criticism including accusations of sectarianism, abstract propagandism, ignorance of the class struggle etc. Those critics cry 'we want unity', Engels had something to say about this. Weekly Worker even think division is what is holding socialism back.
The only people crying for political unity in Libya and Iraq are those that want a class (divided) peace.

[Red Shaker]

Revolution for communism is not possible unless you first win a large number of workers to the vision of the new society and agreement to work together for it. To do this you must have a mass revolutionary party. What a mass revolutionary party looks like is a question that needs to be answered. We know that the vanguard party of Lenin did not work out very well nor did the mass electoral parties of the Second International. Based on these experiences, the concept of a mass revolutionary party fighting for communism has developed.

[Skyhilist]

Whatever the majority wants during revolution should be what happens. The point of tendencies is that they're different ideas on how to achieve revolution. If a certainy strategy has won over a large percentage of people and has revolutionary potential than we should wholeheartedly support it even if we have disagreements (while still making our own viewpoints still clear at the same time), so long as revolutionary factions aren't attacking us for having slightly different views. To go against something with legitimate revolution potential only weakens revolutionary fervor. This is why I think there should be things like international agreements amongst different socialists around the globe that if one group within the agreement has a shot at revolution, the others will help.

[Ritzy Cat]

The main theme of communism is abolition of private property - as Marx says it in the Manifesto. This includes the means of production, bourgeois property, etc.

I think that once that goal is achieved through revolution, regardless of the method it was done, they have already cured the most deadly disease of capitalism.

I think all the tendencies will come together in some sort of council/discussion, or at least representatives of varying ideas (devoid of the capitalist influences that create bourgeois democracies) to sort of hash out some sort of plan for the future in regards to what they should do to "wither" away the state, destroy it, leave it for a bit then destroy it, whatever everyone seems to agree on, as a result of mixed ideological tendencies coming together to incorporate a larger plan as a whole.

I'm sure if a proletarian revolution were to happen, as the situation evolves it would become more apparent which "tenets" of certain tendencies better apply to its scenario.

I doubt there would be like the nation divided as a pie - The "Marxist-Leninists" owning this piece, the "Trotskyists" own this piece, and the "Libertarian Socialists" own this one, and only one would win the glory of having their religious ideals followed by the proletarian masses, or they all spend the next decade battling it out on the streets.

In the end, everyone who associated itself with the revolutionary struggle will discuss with one another - what is working, and what is not working. From there, the natural ingenuity of a large group will lead itself in the right direction.

The common enemy is defeated, so long the Communists ensure that this threat is defeated and prevent it from rising up again (unlike the Paris Commune!), they will have the time to construct the new system, as a result of the conferencing of varying leftist tendencies.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hey all,
Hope you're doing well!

I was thinking about this today and wanted all of your thoughts. There are so many ideologies and opinions among humans regarding politics, religion, etc. If there were to be a revolution, wouldn't all of the people need to "be on the same page", regarding where to go next? If a government was overthrown, would people of differing ideologies try to fill the power vacuum and establish a system based on their beliefs, leading to further conflict and division of the people? Let's say that a revolution took place by a large group, composed of people with differing left revolutionary ideas, they might be divided. There would also possibly be then those who oppose the revolution and have ideas of their own. There could also be still a majority and minority group. How would everyone be represented, work together and get along if they're divided???

In Libya and Iraq, for example, where governments have recently been toppled (both situations different), conflict is still destroying the countries. I know the West had a presence in both and pushed for democracies there, which could of played into more conflict, yet regardless, the People are divided ideologically and also sadly, by ethnicity (civil war).

Sorry for the long post...Thoughts??

Peace!

A revolution won't occur simply because a large amount of the working class have decided that Marxism, after studying it, is right and should be applied. A party of vanguard workers, who are well-knowledged on Marxism, are going to try to convince fellow workers for the need for revolution and for socialism. This means the entire working class doesn't have to be on the same page at first, but later on it is the job of communists, the vanguard workers, to try to bring not just an abstract "change" but to fight with the rest of our class to put our class into power (the dictatorship of the proletariat). By then, we need to have had a majority of our class supporting socialist ideas and demands.

A party will have to ensure an organizational model of democratic centralism to make sure that the will of the majority of the party is carried out and so that the party remains in a central direction towards socialism. Those who deviate too far from the party and defy democratic centralist principles will have to be removed, and those who are openly fighting for counter-revolution would have to be stopped by force.

[Skyhilist]

That's right, don't deviate too far from the party or you'll be removed. Now repeat after me: "the party's views are my views. The party tells me what is right. The party is always right. There is nothing but the party."

[Fourth Internationalist]

That's right, don't deviate too far from the party or you'll be removed. Now repeat after me: "the party's views are my views. The party tells me what is right. The party is always right. There is nothing but the party."

So you wouldn't remove a person from an anarchist organization if their views were too out of line with your organization's view? Anyone who wants to join can join, and/or once a member always a member? How absurd that would be! All parties and political organizations have a political ideology they follow, and it is one they all expect their members to adhere to if they choose to be a part of that party or political organization.

[Skyhilist]

There's a different between an "anarchist group" and a "revolutionary" party. An anarchist group is for anarchists. A revolution doesn't stem from from singular, fixed, centralized belief system. The revolution must be undertaken by the working class collectively, you don't just "kick someone out" of the revolution just because they're not you're flavor of radical and don't fall in line with some arrogant "revolutionary" party's official views. THAT would be absurd. Besides having official party positions that people can't deviate from if they want to he a part of the revolution sounds like some type of awful cult.

[Fourth Internationalist]

There's a different between an "anarchist group" and a "revolutionary" party. An anarchist group is for anarchists. A revolution doesn't stem from from singular, fixed, centralized belief system. The revolution must be undertaken by the working class collectively, you don't just "kick someone out" of the revolution just because they're not you're flavor of radical and don't fall in line with some arrogant "revolutionary" party's official views. THAT would be absurd. Besides having official party positions that people can't deviate from if they want to he a part of the revolution sounds like some type of awful cult.

..and a political party is for a certain group of people with common political beliefs, regardless of whether or not it advocates revolution. I have only talked about political parties, which (whether or not you like it) are not all-encompassing, just like your anarchist group. This party discipline is only as arrogant as your organization's discipline. Its ideological adherence (political positions) would be just as "cultish" as your organization's adherence and political positions would be. I'm not sure where you get this idea that removing someone from a party means they don't fight in an ongoing revolution. Perhaps they would be fighting for different goals than what that party wished to get to, but fighting in it nonetheless (and perhaps now as a member of another group). I'm still unsure of how you got to your nonsensical conclusions about what I am supposedly saying. Your need to espouse how libertarian you are by opposing the evil party discipline while justifying your own "non-party"-organization's discipline is unnecessary and hypocritical.

Now, this has taken me forever to write on my phone, which is even more tiresome at 1:30 AM. Further replies I will have to respond to in the morning.

[Skyhilist]

Your original post isn't referring to some organization of a specific tendency (e.g. Anarchist), it's referring to the vanguard party, as in the party that controls in a one party state. So essentially if you're a different types of radical from the type that the party running the state is, you're "removed". So in other words, if you're not a trot you don't get to be a part of the "official" or "central" movement conceived by some vanguard party. Imagine if all the trot admins on revleft somehow just removed all the other admins for not being trots and said "oh you'll fight for revolution in other ways, you're not a part f the official revleft admin team anymore because you deviate from Trotskyism." It'd be stupid. Just like saying "oh sorry, participation in our one (vanguard) party state is for party card holders only. You shouldn't have strayed from the party dogma."

Also, I really couldn't care less how long it takes you to type what on your phone, so I don't see why you're complaining.

[Radio Spartacus]

Actually, a revolution does come from a set of fixed central beliefs. Communism is not shapeless and waiting to be molded by "the people", communism is a specific thing. If a communist party could not exclude one based on not being a proper communist, what use are they?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Your original post isn't referring to some organization of a specific tendency (e.g. Anarchist), it's referring to the vanguard party, as in the party that controls in a one party state.

Except that's not what a vanguard party is. Your whole complaint here is based on a mischaracterization of what a vanguard party is. Marx explains the concept of the vanguard party in the Communist Manifesto, albeit without the modern term used to describe it. It is simply the most theoretically advanced workers (the vanguard) organized into a political party.

"The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

That's it!

All parties and political organizations have a political program that its members are supposed to adhere to. Deviating from said principles is grounds for expulsion. This isn't something new nor an evil authoritarian Leninist single-party concept. Anarchist groups, like Marxist groups/parties, do it too.


Also, I really couldn't care less how long it takes you to type what on your phone, so I don't see why you're complaining.

I just said it so that if I didn't reply soon it was just because I'm waiting for the morning. It was hardly complaining and didn't really require any sort of response.

[#FF0000]

All parties and political organizations have a political program that its members are supposed to adhere to. Deviating from said principles is grounds for expulsion. This isn't something new nor an evil authoritarian Leninist single-party concept. Anarchist groups, like Marxist groups/parties, do it too.

So there is no room for dissent, then?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So there is no room for dissent, then?

To a certain degree there usually is, like through the formation of factions or debate over certain issues. Obviously if one dissents so far away from the political line of a party or group and can be considered no longer ideologically compatible with the party's/group's principles, then expulsion would be warranted.

[Art Vandelay]

To a certain degree there usually is, like through the formation of factions or debate over certain issues. Obviously if one dissents so far away from the political line of a party or group and can be considered no longer ideologically compatible with the party's/group's principles, then expulsion would be warranted.

Not only would it be warranted, but would anyone seriously argue against such a measure? This isn't to say that we should cause unnecessary splits, as has continuously happened throughout the history of the Trotskyist movement, but that there are certain political disagreements (over important aspects of tactics/theory/history/etc), which make splits necessary at times (not sure why this, in and of itself, is seen as a bad thing). I think a good example of how a party should handle internal dissent, would be the SWP in the lead up to WWII.