If the revolution happened today, what issue(s) would need to be prioritized most?

[Skyhilist]

Obviously issues like environmental destruction, economic discrimination, racism, sexism, etc. all need to be dealt with. However, one common opinion is that while all of them need to be addressed, some are more urgent than others. For example, suppose everyone needs a resource to (say, for example a rare earth metal, although that's hypothetical and it could be many things) to live relatively well, but extracting that resource has a huge environmental toll and is economically damaging using current technology. Do you prioritize extraction of that resource for people or the environment? Obviously technology should be improved to make the process more eco-friendly, but in the mean time, how are things to be prioritized? I'm curious to hear what people think about this.

EDIT: You can choose more than one option. Also looks like I put speciesism twice, sorry about that. If you vote for it, just vote for it both times (it obviously wont count for double but will show what percentage actually voted for it that way).

[motion denied]

Impossible to know.

[Skyhilist]

Impossible to know.

Agreed because we don't know what the conditions will be in the future when/if the revolution happens. But I'm talking about hypothetically if it happened today.

[Skyhilist]

Btw, if a mod wouldn't mind somehow editing out the 'speciesism' option of the 2 with the lower number of votes, that'd be great, thanks. Again, sorry about that, didn't mean to put it down twice.

[IBleedRed]

I don't see how anybody could think anything takes priority over "people lacking certain needs" and "environmental destruction".

What the hell is specieism, by the way?

[Skyhilist]

I don't see how anybody could think anything takes priority over "people lacking certain needs" and "environmental destruction".

What the hell is specieism, by the way?

The idea that non-human (sentient) species are things to be used/exploited as commodities and below humans basically, although there are of course varying definitions. People have different views on it on here, that's why I included it. But please, lets not turn this into a debate about veganism or anything, it's irksome when my threads are derailed lol. Anyways, I also chose both of the things you said, although I think specific actions ought to vary on a case by case basis depending on circumstances, levels of severity, etc.

[Ember Catching]

The fulfillment of the proletarian historical mission; the violent establishment of revolutionary dictatorship to overthrow all the present conditions of production.

The proletarian movement cannot tailor reality to conform to any ideals.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Other than the immediate task of forming the worker's councils, the first thing will be getting necessities to the people who need it....specifically food. This will be an important test for the revolution, because if the people can't eat then the people will be angry.

However, if you can provide enough food for the people, it will help the revolution go a lot smoother in the long run.

[Skyhilist]

It's important to note also I think that usually fighting all of these things at once and prioritizing them equally wouldn't directly conflict. I think obviously that would be best whenever possible. But of course, there are odd situations here and there.
For example, here's another one: There is a debate going on in Australia right now. Aboriginal people there have hunted Dugongs for awhile from what I understand to the point where it's claimed that it's "a part of the culture" (much like the claim Inuits make with seal hunting). However, Dugongs are endangered, largely due to these hunters. So there's controversy over whether they should be allowed to be hunted by Aboriginals there "as part of their native culture", or whether it should be stopped. I think it should obviously be put to an end, especially due to the endangered status of these animals, but whether Aboriginals could hunt them or not you could make an argument for either "perpetuation of environmental destruction" or "forced Westernization upon natives and institutional racism."

[IBleedRed]

It's important to note also I think that usually fighting all of these things at once and prioritizing them equally wouldn't directly conflict. I think obviously that would be best whenever possible. But of course, there are odd situations here and there.
For example, here's another one: There is a debate going on in Australia right now. Aboriginal people there have hunted Dugongs for awhile from what I understand to the point where it's claimed that it's "a part of the culture" (much like the claim Inuits make with seal hunting). However, Dugongs are endangered, largely due to these hunters. So there's controversy over whether they should be allowed to be hunted by Aboriginals there "as part of their native culture", or whether it should be stopped. I think it should obviously be put to an end, especially due to the endangered status of these animals, but whether Aboriginals could hunt them or not you could make an argument for either "perpetuation of environmental destruction" or "forced Westernization upon natives and institutional racism."

We have to be careful with how we approach uncontacted tribes or those that are on the periphery of civilization. It is important not to romanticize them and not to defend their less agreeable practices, even if you feel that it makes us "racist".

I don't have a problem with meat-eating or hunting myself (for food, not for sport), so I don't care about the dugongs. But it would be a shame for them to go extinct. Maybe you can have a quota system in place or get some into zoos.

[Ember Catching]

the immediate task of forming the worker's councils
Yes, if you fetishize workers' councils in abstraction from their historical context and consider revolution a question of organizational form rather than a question of historical socioeconomic content — a content which can only be expressed by the one communist Party — then of course this appears as a priority.


if the people can't eat then the people will be angry.
The great irony in a democratist's fear of upsetting the toiling masses is not lost on me.

[Skyhilist]

We have to be careful with how we approach uncontacted tribes or those that are on the periphery of civilization. It is important not to romanticize them and not to defend their less agreeable practices, even if you feel that it makes us "racist".

Yeah I'm personally not of the opinion that it constitutes racism to put an end to slaughter of Dugongs, just trying to provide an example where no matter what the decision someone might be of the opinion that some type of discrimination is being ignored (although, again, I don't see it as racism personally).


Maybe you can have a quota system in place or get some into zoos.

There's already too few of them to have much of a reasonable 'quota' system, since even smaller takes can adversely impact their populations. Also, assurance populations in captivity wouldn't do much good if the creatures couldn't serve their ecological purpose in the wild without being hunted, although I appreciate what you're getting at - assurance populations are often very necessary.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Btw, if a mod wouldn't mind somehow editing out the 'speciesism' option of the 2 with the lower number of votes, that'd be great, thanks. Again, sorry about that, didn't mean to put it down twice.

OK

[Sea]

Where is the "Stalin vs. Trotsky" option?

[consuming negativity]

They're all interconnected and you can't really have one without the other.

For example: if everybody needs access to resources, that means everybody, including trans* persons, women, people who live in Asia, and people in wheel chairs. And in order to get all of those people those resources (especially in the long term), you're going to have to fix the factory farm bullshit and stop destroying the environment that we need to live in. In fact, most of that will be taken care of simply by getting rid of the corporations who do all of that shit.

The idea that we can have a real left-wing revolution that is still exclusionary and still attain what we want to attain is ridiculous anyway. How are you supposed to have a classless society in which X group of people is a minority? This is another one of those questions that seems to be looking for a problem or a reason to get people arguing about something that we don't need to argue about.

[Tim Cornelis]

I voted other because I didn't see 'People lacking certain necessities'. The foremost objective is developing presently underdeveloped regions as sustainable as possible. Provide housing, foodstuffs, sanitation, and some basic healthcare. The underused application of mass recycling as a source for raw materials as a sort of "aboveground mines" need to implemented as fast as possible for the purposes of material development, social well-being, and ecological sustainability.

[piet11111]

What the hell is specieism, by the way?

People "discriminating" against animals.
animals are people too they would say.

I voted for people lacking necessity's (i assume this means access to medicine and clean drinking water and shelter) and environmental destruction.
Another thing i would prioritize even above that is the survival of the revolution against counter revolutionary elements.

The forms of discrimination are important to fight but i think that with the end of the capitalist system a lot of that would diminish anyway since the proles are no longer competing against one another.
And that public opinion would be far less tolerant of such things then it is today.

[SovietCommie]

Why is classism of all things not on the list?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think food, water, shelter, medical aid, etc. would be the first issues that would be need to be addressed the most, post-class war.

[BIXX]

Why is classism of all things not on the list?

I assume because with the abolition of classes there cannot be classism.

I voted the bottom two options, because all issues need to be attacked as much as possible, I don't feel that any of them can come without the other.

[reb]

Smashing the state, obviously, and putting all of those who are to reassert it into shallow graves. Good bye, stalinists!

The only way to solve these problems listed is through communism, unless you think that you can reform capitalism, but why would you be here if you did?

[Sea]

Smashing the state, obviously, and putting all of those who are to reassert it into shallow graves. Good bye, stalinists!Adieu, reb! It's been good knowing you. ^_^
The only way to solve these problems listed is through communism, unless you think that you can reform capitalism, but why would you be here if you did?...And you can't realistically achieve communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat. Tell me more about how this is reformist.

[reb]

Adieu, reb! It's been good knowing you. ^_^...And you can't realistically achieve communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat. Tell me more about how this is reformist.

You're missing a word here, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. It's not a state as in the way that bourgeois social-democrats, otherwise known as stalinists, imagine it. And give me a fucking break. If stalinists had their way they would be suppressing everyone who disagreed with them, and this is a historical occurrence. A historical occurrence that lead to... and this might come as a shock... capitalism, plain old capitalism.

[Sea]

You're missing a word here, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.That was implicit.
It's not a state as in the way that bourgeois social-democrats, [...] imagine it.No shit.
otherwise known as stalinistsThis is the part I want you to splain to me. The political programmes of 'stalinists' and social-democrats are very different, but obviously you don't agree. What are the major similarities that you perceive?
And give me a fucking break. If stalinists had their way they would be suppressing everyone who disagreed with them, and this is a historical occurrence. A historical occurrence that lead to... and this might come as a shock... capitalism, plain old capitalism.What makes you think this? Stalinists just fetishize Stalin as if he were a god. If Stalin said it or did it, they will uphold it for that reason alone, not because it's really correct, or even because they actually think it was. This alone puts them against social-democrats. Also, Stalin's views were in contradiction with one another once in a while. His main theoretical contributions are just where he worked out some point of Leninism in greater detail, such as the national question, the Chinese question, etc. In reality, Stalinism as an -ism doesn't differ from Leninism, and the occultism of Stalinists is mostly not relevant to their political positions, let alone what they would do in practice. What makes you think Stalinists would be especially suppressive? They try to make it seem as if Stalin himself wasn't oppressive in any excessive way (obviously excepting the productive types of suppression that all Leninists worth their weight in lead uphold, such as terrorism against the bourgeoisie as a class, the supression of bourgeois elements in society, etc). You may have a point if Stalinists upheld Stalin's suppressive actions, but in reality they just delude themselves into thinking it never happened in order to make Stalin fit their views, which oppose such suppression. Otherwise they would not make claim that Stalin wasn't supressive. It's not like the WN New Orleans protocols where they desire horrible spupressions while claiming they don't for public image. Stalinists bend the historical reality of Stalin to fit their politics, which otherwise may or may not be quite sensible, instead of bending their politics to fit the historical reality of Stalin. If Stalinists supported "bad" suppression, that would imply they don't believe in the Soviet propaganda from that era which claims that Stalin was benevolent. This violates one of the basic principles of Stalinism -- that Pravda and Izvestia were always right. Remember Furr's book, "Khrushchev Lied"? The fact that Stalinists go to such lengths to rebut the fact that Stalin's USSR was suppressive is further evidence for their disdain of repression. Furthermore, capitalism was never fully eliminated in the USSR. Therefore, Stalin's actions could not have lead to it. It was already there. Suppression cannot cause capitalism, poopbrain. Obviously throughout this whole post I'm pretty much identifying the Stalin-era USSR with Stalin himself, which is fallacious. I'm only doing it so I can stoop to your level and show you why you're wrong without having to go to the effort of correcting you like a schoolboy every time you mention Stalin's name.

edit: It's super duper hilarious how you say you would be "putting all of those who are to reassert [the state] into shallow graves" while decrying fans of Stalin because they would be "suppressing everyone who disagreed with them" all the while admitting that a DOTP is needed! You're starting to sound like on of them darn Stalinists -- claiming you don't want a state, and all the while supporting a super-oppressive one!

[barbelo]

Obviously the colonization/terraforming of Mars and Moon, leaving all the poor illiterate people on Earth a la the movie Elysium, to drown in their own stupidity and trash.

EDIT: needless to say that the Mars Underground community- and underground is too be taken literally not as a metaphor- will be anarchist, white, and we'll spend our full time practicing zazen meditation or growing flowers.

[A Psychological Symphony]

Is this after the bougousie fall or after the inevitable tendency war to follow?

[AnaRchic]

The kind of social revolution I believe is needed would be a very long drawn out process that would have to overturn and replace almost all of existing society. With that caveat in mind, obviously making sure people have access to their basic needs is of primary importance.

The revolution must first of all establish cooperative free associations, bonds of human solidarity and mutual aid, that can serve as the infrastructure through which all people can produce according to their abilities and consume according to their needs.

This means that workers must take direct control of their industries, and citizens must take direct control of their communities. The free associations of labor and the free associations of communities must also freely associate together, coordinating production according to the real needs and desires of human beings. This will not all happen overnight but it must be the primary and immediate aim of the social revolution.

Having overthrown the state and expropriated the capitalists, having established a non-hierarchical infrastructure of voluntary and cooperative associations, and having successfully coordinated productive resources and capacity to meet human need, our attention must immediately turn to the serious environmental issues we face.

From this point onward our goal must be the coordination of production with the dual-aim of satisfying human needs and desires, and creating and maintaining an ecological balance. Human civilization will need to be reintegrated into the natural world in a sustainable way, whereby we can leave the world better off than we found it, every generation.

There are in my mind three primary guiding values that should serve as our compass throughout the social revolution; individual freedom, human liberation from material need, and ecological sustainability.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I don't know...I'd hate to have that job; helping to prioritise what should be done first. Assume that a meeting will be held, votes cast, dicussion leads to solution...yeah, I don't presume to know what should come first.