Is a Non-Violent Revolution Possible?

[Ares1214]

Basically the title, but could a communist revolution happen without violence and dictatorship?

When would the a revolution ever be in the interest of a large majority? If in communism there is no money, only the equal allocation of resources, then wouldn't around half the people be better off than they are now, and half the people be worse off?
So wouldn't there have to be violence, and likely a dictatorship or some form of totalitarian government to forcefully elevate the proletariat and bring the bourgeoisie down to size? Wouldn't their assets, businesses, homes, and wealth have to be confiscated?
Or is there some peaceful way of producing total equality?

[bropasaran]

I'm not a maxist, but one of the few among Marx' views that I could agree with is something that virtually no extant marxist tendency acceps- that in "democratic" states (parliamentary, election oligarchies) a non-violent revolution could be possible.

I don't agree with Marx' belief that universal suffrage could "be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation", I think that if a non-violent revolution is going to happen, it must firstly the case that a mass movement succeeds in fighting for reforms that would democratize the state, and that such a fight must necessarily include, if not consist of, direct action (such as protests).

How to democratize the state? Well, Marx in a programme written 3 year before his death had two unavoidable suggestions- replacement of the standing army with a general people's army; and decentralization and democratization of police. Along with those two, a third reform would seal the deal, as the programme of Gotha proposes- to introduce "direct legislation by the people".

If such reforms would be put into practice, that would, to use Marx' words- "convert the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it", and a non-violent replacement of capitalism with socialism could then be enacted.

[revani]

Basically the title, but could a communist revolution happen without violence and dictatorship?


Think of all the bourgeoise and their pawns (army and police). Would they give away their power to the proletariat (or the masses) without violence? Violent part of the revolution is started by the bourgeoise state itself. Revolutionaries merely defend themselves and free the means of production from these scums. They are our enemies, they are armed and they are more than willing to use their power to keep themselves in power. If they resort to violence, should we just watch our comrades get arrested and shot? Or, should we fight back?


When would the a revolution ever be in the interest of a large majority? If in communism there is no money, only the equal allocation of resources, then wouldn't around half the people be better off than they are now, and half the people be worse off?

Not half. I would say that more than 95% of the world population would be better off. The wealth in the earth is distributed in a very unbalanced way. Less than 10% of the world population owns more than %80 of the wealth. Wall street demonstrations had a slogan like "we are 99%". While this is not true when we think only about the proletariat, it should still provide us with some guidance in this subject.

To put it shortly, we are willing to not be violent if they are willing to give away all the means of production. But why should they be?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Basically the title, but could a communist revolution happen without violence and dictatorship?i don't think communism could be a dictatorship in any sense of the term. Is a USSR style political dictatorship necessary in order for people to create conditions for communism? Not in my view; even at best a coup, revolution at the top of society, or an electoral change at the top would be an incredibly ineffective and inefficient vehicle for working class self emancipation. That self-emancipation is what makes communism possible in my view.

Does it need to be violent? I think most people would rather it not become violent. But struggles like this have their own dynamics and ultimately violence probably isn't a choice all of our own. Even peaceful electoral gains have resulted in the ruling class taking violent legal action (declare an election null, tie things up in procedure, legal challenges, etc), and violent illegal action (armed thugs, fascist groups, military coups). So any militant, revolutionary or not, needs to be prepared for the possibility of needing collective or even induvidual self defense against both official and illegal repression.


When would the a revolution ever be in the interest of a large majority? If in communism there is no money, only the equal allocation of resources, then wouldn't around half the people be better off than they are now, and half the people be worse off? but this assumes the the ruling 1 percent who control the military and the economy would just step aside because of upholding the wishes of the majority. When has any ruling group ever stood aside and given over to the wishes of those they make their fortunes off the back of?


So wouldn't there have to be violence, and likely a dictatorship or some form of totalitarian government to forcefully elevate the proletariat and bring the bourgeoisie down to size? Wouldn't their assets, businesses, homes, and wealth have to be confiscated?
Or is there some peaceful way of producing total equality?siezing these things would be violent; it's violent in our towns today when banks send sheriffs to take people's homes, it's violent that people can be fired on a whim and have their lives turned upside down; it was violent when lands were enclosed to make private property in the first place, it was violent removing indigenous people to make way for capitalism and industry; it was violent when people were stolen and turned into slaves in the Americas, it was violent in the u.s. South when that slave-property was emancipated. But I don't think the violence of john brown, nat turner, or even the u.s. Occupation of the slave-areas is the same as violence inevitably at the heart of systems of exploitation like slavery or capitalism.

I don't romanticize or hope for any violence whatsoever, but I also don't think revolutions or violent class struggle by workers are an exception to some normal non-violence in society in a class sense. Capitalism is maintained through violence or the threat of it; it's just violence where workers are actually defending themselves or advancing their own interests - that's the exception.
This also doesn't mean any violent act is justified, some angry people breaking a store window to express their anger don't do much in terms of class struggle under most circumstances IMO. But the main thing is that even when we are peaceful, there will always be a threat of violence against radicals, workers, and the oppressed when we make any headway and sometimes this requires a counter force. Civil disobedience can be a useful tactic in some situations, but it wouldn't work, for example, for a militant picket line against violent thugs trying to bring in scabs. Civil disobedience couldn't have been used in tahrir when the pro-government thugs went into the square: they would have beat people until the crowds began to dispurse and then the official police and military would come in and "restore order" and that phase of the movement would have ended there.

[Loony Le Fist]

Basically the title, but could a communist revolution happen without violence and dictatorship?

Non-violent revolutions are definitely a possibility. That said, history has shown that once a system starts to threaten the establishment, they don't make things easy. It's important to have video recordings to demonstrate. Malcolm X said that self-defense is not violence, but intellegence.



When would the a revolution ever be in the interest of a large majority? If in communism there is no money, only the equal allocation of resources, then wouldn't around half the people be better off than they are now, and half the people be worse off?


Well more than half of the people would actually be better off. But your scenario doesn't necessarily have to be the only possibility. The elimination of money is pretty far off in the future, I believe. From what I understand, revolutionary change can occur gradually. After all, this is precisely what the right has done in the US.



So wouldn't there have to be violence, and likely a dictatorship or some form of totalitarian government to forcefully elevate the proletariat and bring the bourgeoisie down to size? Wouldn't their assets, businesses, homes, and wealth have to be confiscated?
Or is there some peaceful way of producing total equality?

The peaceful way is for workers to begin implementing democracy in their workplace through sit-down strikes. They only work, however, if people are willing to get arrested. Media must be present as well, to give these events the publicity they need to rouse copy-cat movements. As has been stated by others in this thread, there is likely to be violence. But that violence will most likely come from the adversary.

It isn't as if assets, businesses, homes and wealth have to confiscated by the state. That would actually be antithetical to what a workers revolution is all about. The key is workplace democracy, and building from that. It isn't as if we want to take away peoples stuff, we just want to give people a say over how their workplaces are managed. At least IMO.

[Ares1214]

Not half. I would say that more than 95% of the world population would be better off. The wealth in the earth is distributed in a very unbalanced way. Less than 10% of the world population owns more than %80 of the wealth. Wall street demonstrations had a slogan like "we are 99%". While this is not true when we think only about the proletariat, it should still provide us with some guidance in this subject.

I was generally referring to the US where the mean income falls at around the 60th percentile. So if everyone had an equal share of the wealth, the top 40% would be worse off, and the bottom 60% would be better off. I don't feel like the top 40% would ever go along with that willingly.


It isn't as if assets, businesses, homes and wealth have to confiscated by the state. That would actually be antithetical to what a workers revolution is all about. The key is workplace democracy, and building from that. It isn't as if we want to take away peoples stuff, we just want to give people a say over how their workplaces are managed. At least IMO.

Wouldn't that be fundamental to a communist state? The state would have to take from the haves and give to the have nots. Wouldn't that always involve taking some people's stuff away?

[Tenka]

The abolition of private property will involve people losing private property, yes. Sort of the point of proletarian self-emancipation is to wrest the means of production from the grasp of the exploiting class, at least in the first place.

edit: Workplace democracy is all fine and good, but legitimately impossible in the context of wage labour today. Any genuine action by the employed, on the behalf of their own class interests, quickly turns violent (even if this, at first, just involves scabs called in to replace problematic workers; scabs are made by structural violence).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Wouldn't that be fundamental to a communist state?
Communism and a state are mutually exclusive.

As for the larger question, of course a non-violent revolution is possible, but it's also very unlikely.

[Ares1214]

Communism and a state are mutually exclusive.

That may be idealistically true but that's the thrust of my question, how can communism be done without a state. In the US, the halfway line of wealth (assuming a communist system wouldn't increase or decrease GDP) would fall around the 60th percentile of population. So for the US, there isn't enough inequality for people to rally behind a communist revolution. In a country like Uganda and so on, the mean of wealth might fall around the 99th percentile, but then the problem is the highest 1% have all the means to put down any sort of dissent. So I don't see how a communist revolution is possible without a hostile takeover of the state, military, and police force, all 3 of which are incompatible with the communist philosophy.

To me it feels like no state sponsored violence and redistribution of wealth, no communism. Anywhere it has been tried demonstrates my point, you either have the Paris Commune which got crushed by the upper class, or you have the USSR, China, so on and so forth where it took a complete dictatorship and state sponsored violence to achieve some communist goals and agendas. There doesn't really seem to be a sweetspot where the proletariat have enough resources to successfully overthrow the upper class, but not so much where they are content with their lives.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it's better to frame this problem in a slightly different way.

Namely, the real question relates to the scale and magnitude of violence and its effect upon proletarian power. So, we can start with examining the conditions in which violence occurs.

The minimization of violence can only be achieved by a substantial hegemony of the working class, meaning that the ruling class at one point simply can't regain control and command over the repressive apparatus which either a) defects en masse to the side of the proletariat or b) simply refuses to fight, again en masse, perhaps out of intimidation (this of course presupposes a massively militant working class, and even good sections bearing arms).

Though, even then, and without going into the likelihood of such a scenario, it is far from likely that pockets of violent resistance would not be present. Therefore, I think it is reasonable, and necessary, to both expect and be prepared for violent clashes and repression of counter-revolution.

Now, as for the scenario itself, and bearing in mind that acute phases of social crisis are probably to serve as the focal point of working class development as a class, and in a radical direction - I don't think it is that likely that such an overpowering hegemony could be achieved that would substantially minimize necessary violence.

But it is also worthwhile to note that, at least in my opinion, the maximization of necessary violence represents, with its militarization of social and political life and possible outgrowth of substitutionist tendencies, a grave threat for the "healthy" development of the revolutionary transformation of society. Therefore, I'd say that minimizing necessary violence is actually an imperative.

This, however, is completely different from the political view that capitalism can somehow be voted out, presumably by referendum vote, which also implies a conception of political organizing as predominantly focused on the parliamentary terrain. Which indeed nowadays represents nothing but a democratic illusion.

On the other hand, even in this best case scenario we could very well talk about the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus. If I might use a visual metaphor, imagine two houses, one recently built and sturdy, the other old and decrepit. In the case of the former, the destructive power necessary would be of much greater magnitude (and the means would probably also be different) than in the case of the latter, which could be brought down by a few well placed blows.

But it is necessary to bring the house down, and not to let it stand.

EDIT: Forgot to add, there's a great article by Gilles Dauve, aka Jean Barrot, which discusses the issue of violence: http://libcom.org/library/class-war-in-barcelona-giles-dauve

[Remus Bleys]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/violence.htm heres a good article on what a lot of people forget to remember when it comes to violence.
Bordiga basically reminds everyone of the fact that in physics there is a "kinetic energy" (force due to an object being in motion) and "potential energy" (energy that is a result of its position, energy that contains within it a stored energy). In the Class Struggle, actual violence (kinetic energy) is used, and this is what most people think of when they say "violence" or "force." However, when the power of the Actual violence is well known and demonstrated, many people simply will follow through the orders, not really of their own free will and volition, but because they fear the actual force - this is violence in its potential form, and is just as violent, brutal, and repressive as violence in its actual form.
Proletarian Dictatorship, as the article states, will be "a highly authoritarian, totalitarian, and centralising act," because it will rip control of all property from the bourgeoisie, it will smash the current state machinery, it will do away with the capitalist mode of production, in short it will abolish the current state of things. Of course, there are those who will fight tooth and nail for the current state of things, and thus they must be subdued somehow. Thus, even if a bloodless revolution is achieved (which i find hard to believe considering the fact that actual violence will need to be used in order to establish the fear of potential violence), the revolution will very violent, as it will necessarily contain within itself a repressive and powerful state - if need be more terroristic than the current state - of which it will use as potential violence against those who would oppose the revolution.

[AmilcarCabral]

From a historical, not even from a specific marxist point of view. But from a point of view of the observation of all human history, changes can happen thru elections and some protests, riots etc. But radical changes like for example the great majority of low-wage blue collar workers like the workers of Wal Mart, Mcdonalds, delivery drivers, Dominos pizza workers, the workers of many other stores, the workers of airlines etc. won't see a change toward a middle class self-realized life thru elections, protests and reforms.

Maybe the fast food workers who are protesting for 15 dollars an hour of minimum wage might buy a few extra goodies, but their lives will be the same, dull, depressive, boring repetitive, without any pleasures, without movie theaters on weekends, without being able to study cool interesting sciences like astrrobiology, philosophy etc. without beauty and without motivation.

I think that the great majority of US citizens need a radical change as soon as possible toward a middle class life, like the life of doctors and lawyers. Because I think that the 15 dollars per hour of minimum wage won't give poor americans who live in alienated third world rural towns and who live repetitive dull lives a middle class full happy life.

Only a violent class-revolution can do that


.




Basically the title, but could a communist revolution happen without violence and dictatorship?

When would the a revolution ever be in the interest of a large majority? If in communism there is no money, only the equal allocation of resources, then wouldn't around half the people be better off than they are now, and half the people be worse off?
So wouldn't there have to be violence, and likely a dictatorship or some form of totalitarian government to forcefully elevate the proletariat and bring the bourgeoisie down to size? Wouldn't their assets, businesses, homes, and wealth have to be confiscated?
Or is there some peaceful way of producing total equality?

[fgilbert2]

I think it's possible to envision a revolution where physical violence is the exception and not the rule, but it would take incredible sacrifice.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Is it a possibility?

Well, both Marx and Lenin said that such a thing was possible in advanced bourgeois democracies like the U.S. or England. Nothing is set in stone, of course. Marxism is a framework, not a schematic.

But don't think for a second that the ruling classes will go down quietly. A peaceful revolution may be possible, but the counterrevolution will be extremely violent. At that point, proletarian violence would be an act of self-defence.

Violence is not something I desire, and simple violence for violence's sake is abhorrent. But non-violent resistance and civil disobedience can only get you so far.

[BIXX]

I don't think it's possible. Civilization won't go down without a fight, capitalism won't go down without a fight, and any other dominant force won't go down without a fight.

[AmilcarCabral]

You are right, but the catch-22, the great impediment i see for poor people in USA (not the middle class), but only the poor because the middle classes are not living a desperate life under capitalism. But poor americans who are about 50% to 60% of the population of USA are too anti-violence, too rational, too legalists, too moralists and too pacifists. Even though guns and weapons are legal in USA and even though the USA is full of violent movies, violent video games. The american way of life is itself violent, the USA is full of violent sports, but however at the same time there is also too much anti-violence preaching in America thru churches, schools, work places, and specially too much anti-political-violence.

USA is a contradictory nation, there is a lot of pro-violence preaching and support of violence in USA in favor of wars, in favor of people owning guns, specially in rural Republican Party states, violent computer games, violent life, anti-social lifestyles. But even though americans are ready to use their guns to protect their houses and self-defense, but they are like too scared to use violence for political reasons.

I think that using weapons for political goals in USA is like a taboo. What a weird country USA is. You see crazy people like Adam Lanza walking into a place and killing a bunch of people. But what you never see in USA is angry americans using their weapons against the capitalist system.

So having said all this, it will be real hard to get the support of about 60% of 70% of USA population for a violent military revolution, because of the powerful taboo that exists in America against the use of weapons for political goals


.




I don't think it's possible. Civilization won't go down without a fight, capitalism won't go down without a fight, and any other dominant force won't go down without a fight.

[BIXX]

I think the USA needs to have more people forming alternative options to the system, meaning very in-your-face communes. This will allow people to see alternatives that are worth fighting for.

By in-your-face I mean not the tiny little almost hidden ones that exist now, but ones that exist in cities, or at least are far more common.

[Bala Perdida]

I think the USA needs to have more people forming alternative options to the system, meaning very in-your-face communes. This will allow people to see alternatives that are worth fighting for.

By in-your-face I mean not the tiny little almost hidden ones that exist now, but ones that exist in cities, or at least are far more common.How would such a commune survive? I've been trying to think of alternative methods of getting electricity, plumbing, internet, ect. The bourgeoisie basically have a stranglehold on the theoretical commune when it comes to that. I've been thinking that a revolution would result from a fired on protest turning to the occupation of a major city or something, that way an efficient commune could be started with popular support.
As for non-violence, I'm all for it. Let's try the non-violent approach, but as long as the authority has guns we should too. We'll just see what non-violence leads to then, and hope for the least blood shed.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That may be idealistically true but that's the thrust of my question, how can communism be done without a state.
It can't be IMO and I think this is where the discussion turns into annoying semantics about what communism is, what socialism is, what a state is, etc, etc. To reach communism, a stateless, moneyless, classless society Marxists propose that the revolutionary working class must overthrow the rule of the capitalist class and in it's wake set up a state which will defend the new rule of the working class in society. Once class antagonisms(because the capitalists don't just disappear, some will try and gain back what privileges they had through various means including violence) have abated and what you have is a system where people can plan production socially then there would not be a need for a state. Because the state is there because there are antagonisms in society which are just too large to be ignored like ones claim to private property. Now does it have to be violent? In the current situation I can't see how it wouldn't be violent.


In the US, the halfway line of wealth (assuming a communist system wouldn't increase or decrease GDP) would fall around the 60th percentile of population. So for the US, there isn't enough inequality for people to rally behind a communist revolution.The halfway line of wealth? Are you talking about average incomes here, of people making like $60,000 a year? The U.S. is the most unequal country amongst developed countries with a majority of it's citizens living one paycheck away from poverty(say if your kid falls from a tree and breaks their wrist). Child poverty last time I checked was somewhere around 1 in 4 children and like I said most people are living right on the edge. And Inequality itself doesn't mean people are going to be behind the idea of a communist revolution either, I've known many poor people who are militantly anti-communist. You look at regions throughout the world and you see people in poverty holding some of the most backwards views, accepting their fate of being cogs in the capitalists/landowners machine and viciously attacking people that speak out. A sad case of Stockholm Syndrome. I don't see how it wouldn't be beneficial even if you're not in deep poverty to have a communist revolution. I mean really who loves having no say in the workplace you're subsequently exploited in?


In a country like Uganda and so on, the mean of wealth might fall around the 99th percentile, but then the problem is the highest 1% have all the means to put down any sort of dissent.Except for 99% of the population and it's labor. You're looking at things too simply.


So I don't see how a communist revolution is possible without a hostile takeover of the state, military, and police force, all 3 of which are incompatible with the communist philosophy.It will not be a takeover but a smashing of the state, which can't be anything other than hostile.


To me it feels like no state sponsored violence and redistribution of wealth, no communism.Of course you have to redistribute the wealth to have communism which in itself is a violent act against the capitalist class.


Anywhere it has been tried demonstrates my point, you either have the Paris Commune which got crushed by the upper class, or you have the USSR, China, so on and so forth where it took a complete dictatorship and state sponsored violence to achieve some communist goals and agendas.And what was your point? That there would be violence?


There doesn't really seem to be a sweetspot where the proletariat have enough resources to successfully overthrow the upper class, but not so much where they are content with their lives.I think you're framing the issue in the completely wrong way. The issue isn't that the workers in any country don't have enough "resources". That's basically part of the territory of being a member of the proletariat, the only thing you have that will be able to sustain you and your family is going to be your ability to labor which you'll have to sell off to a capitalist who owns the means of production. That's central to what makes the bourgeoisie antagonistic to the proletariat. Working people anywhere are not going to be able to buy their way out of capitalism and into communism by getting enough resources together themselves. The aim of the communist revolution is to expropriate the resources that the capitalists have claim to, which in America are plentiful. The resources are there, what we need to do is build the opposition for the alternative.

[Ares1214]

But poor americans who are about 50% to 60% of the population of USA are too anti-violence, too rational, too legalists, too moralists and too pacifists.

Poor Americans make up 50-60% of the population? Being below the median or mean annual income certainly does not make you poor. In fact if you want to talk about poor, I'd find it hard to talk about more than the bottom quintile or so, and even then they get highly subsidized by the government. Even worse, the bottom quintile of the US lives far better lives than the top quintile of many other countries, even semi developed ones such as India. I don't feel like people in the US are anti-violence at all, but the main reason so many people aren't communists is because realistically, their lives are too good to really care, or at least in their minds. The overwhelming majority of American identify as "middle class", the poor think they are middle class, the rich think they are middle class, everyone has a mentality that they are well off, nothing more.


Maybe the fast food workers who are protesting for 15 dollars an hour of minimum wage might buy a few extra goodies, but their lives will be the same, dull, depressive, boring repetitive, without any pleasures, without movie theaters on weekends, without being able to study cool interesting sciences like astrrobiology, philosophy etc. without beauty and without motivation.

I think that the great majority of US citizens need a radical change as soon as possible toward a middle class life, like the life of doctors and lawyers. Because I think that the 15 dollars per hour of minimum wage won't give poor americans who live in alienated third world rural towns and who live repetitive dull lives a middle class full happy life.

Once again, I think you have a grave misunderstanding of how things are. First off, if fast food workers are protesting for a raise to $15 an hour they are basically protesting for the paychecks that were going to all the workers who got fired because of the raise to be distributing amongst them, along with some increases to the cost of living in the long run, but short run wouldn't be a massive deal.

Also, what makes you think that these people have a "dull depressing lifestyle"? People at minimum wage jobs generally aren't there to stay, it's likely that they are a college student working part time taking those very classes that you said, going to the movies, and then moving on to a better job.


I think that the great majority of US citizens need a radical change as soon as possible toward a middle class life, like the life of doctors and lawyers.

Despite what people may think, not everyone can be in the middle class, at least in the current system, and while communism aims for that, it hasn't worked out so well to this point. Unfortunately, people will always be poor, they will have to do jobs that nobody else wants to, live paycheck to paycheck, and probably not be able to afford most of the amenities of life. But that lifestyle isn't permanent. I think a lot of the posts here are completely ignoring income mobility. People move up in life, get better jobs, make more money, gain more skills. 4% of the people in the lowest percentile end up in the highest percentile 10 years down the line, and while that may not sound like a lot, that's like one person out of a class room of people has the typical "rags to riches story". 40-50% reach a higher quintile in 10 years, and 8% of the highest quintile fall to a lower one over 10 years. I'm not claiming that these stats couldn't be better, but what's more tempting, the American Dream, or communism, a system few Americans even understand and the majority hate.

[human strike]

Often forms of struggle that people describe as "non-violent" I think are actually very violent. To seriously disrupt the everyday running and flows of capital is a form of violence - this can be achieved through actions like strikes and occupations, that are rarely perceived as violent. At the same time I think it's a hindrance to think of things in this dichotomy of violent vs. non-violent. Once we accept that really there's no such thing as effective non-violent direct action or non-violent revolution, we can begin to think in terms of what's effective, what works and what doesn't. Violence vs. non-violence obscures struggle and conceals the fact that our violence is very different from their violence; we can't treat self-defence as qualitatively the same as oppressive violence - it's simply not the same.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

In fact if you want to talk about poor, I'd find it hard to talk about more than the bottom quintile or so, and even then they get highly subsidized by the government. Even worse, the bottom quintile of the US lives far better lives than the top quintile of many other countries, even semi developed ones such as India.Typical right-wing talking point, our poor people are richer than their poor people. You know India is home to the most billionaires? They build mansions that are 20+ stories, just like poverty stricken Americans right?


I don't feel like people in the US are anti-violence at all, but the main reason so many people aren't communists is because realistically, their lives are too good to really care, or at least in their minds.Is that why Americans are reportedly amongst the most unhappy people in the developed world, why mental illness like depression is sky high, why prescription meds have increased by 400 percent since 1994? Even with the wealth everybody seems to be moping around. Dissatisfaction with our government are at record highs too.


The overwhelming majority of American identify as "middle class", the poor think they are middle class, the rich think they are middle class, everyone has a mentality that they are well off, nothing more.The overwhelming majority aka 44 percent of the population? http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4681334
And maybe it's because we're continually lied to and told we're middle class if we have a roof over our head and a refrigerator. Kind of like the stuff you said above, come on poor people in America aren't really poor! You keep telling people that and then wonder why so many would believe it! People are increasingly seeing the reality of the situation though.



Once again, I think you have a grave misunderstanding of how things are. First off, if fast food workers are protesting for a raise to $15 an hour they are basically protesting for the paychecks that were going to all the workers who got fired because of the raise to be distributing amongst them, along with some increases to the cost of living in the long run, but short run wouldn't be a massive deal.What are you talking about, fired workers? You think McDonalds couldn't pay it's employees $15/hour without having to lay off workers? Wouldn't be a big deal in the short/long run to someone who isn't living off of $8/hour but it means thousands of more dollars a year for those it will actually effect, which I think they'll take as a big deal. Not only money wise but respect wise. When I went from minimum wage to $12/hour I was ecstatic.


Also, what makes you think that these people have a "dull depressing lifestyle"? People at minimum wage jobs generally aren't there to stay, it's likely that they are a college student working part time taking those very classes that you said, going to the movies, and then moving on to a better job.The median age of a fast-food worker is 29 and for females(who make up 65% of fast food workers) it's 32...




Despite what people may think, not everyone can be in the middle class, at least in the current system, and while communism aims for that, it hasn't worked out so well to this point.This is a straw man, communists don't fight for everybody to be middle class, that distinction itself is worthless in our eyes and shouldn't be used.


Unfortunately, people will always be poor, they will have to do jobs that nobody else wants to, live paycheck to paycheck, and probably not be able to afford most of the amenities of life.Says Ares, ruler of the universe?


But that lifestyle isn't permanent. I think a lot of the posts here are completely ignoring income mobility. People move up in life, get better jobs, make more money, gain more skills.Because it's seen as a joke because the numbers aren't on your side. Mobility among classes is least likely to happen in America of all countries and that's only increasing as the economy is more and more centralized in the hands of the rich. 4% may sound like a small number because relative to 96% of people it's a tiny amount of people! If only that's what they taught in school. Lined 100 kids up and said 4 of you are going to end up ruling the other 96 students instead of lying to all the kids.


I'm not claiming that these stats couldn't be better, but what's more tempting, the American Dream, or communism, a system few Americans even understand and the majority hate.What's more tempting? Having a system where there's a 4% chance I'll rule over my people like a king or communism? Well once I understood communism, communism was so much the easier choice, but thanks for making that decision easier.

[Ares1214]

Typical right-wing talking point, our poor people are richer than their poor people. You know India is home to the most billionaires? They build mansions that are 20+ stories, just like poverty stricken Americans right?

That's why they're annual median household income is less than $2000. The fact that they have the most billionaires is irrelevant when an overwhelming amount of their population if poorer than the poorest Americans. That's not a right wing point, I'm not a Republican, that's just fact.


Is that why Americans are reportedly amongst the most unhappy people in the developed world, why mental illness like depression is sky high, why prescription meds have increased by 400 percent since 1994? Even with the wealth everybody seems to be moping around. Dissatisfaction with our government are at record highs too.

Finland is ranked in the top 10 countries in many "happiness" measures and also ranks in the top 20 for annual suicides. I've learned to ignore "happiness" surveys. I was also talking about financial well-being, since I'm fairly sure communism isn't the panacea to depression, unhappiness, and dissatisfaction. My point was that people in America are, on the whole, simply too wealthy at the moment to really desire change. I'm not saying that they never will, or that communism is bad, it just takes conditions far worse than in the US right now to really gain a massive following. IE, Russia post WW1, China post WW2, so on.


The overwhelming majority aka 44 percent of the population?
And maybe it's because we're continually lied to and told we're middle class if we have a roof over our head and a refrigerator. Kind of like the stuff you said above, come on poor people in America aren't really poor! You keep telling people that and then wonder why so many would believe it! People are increasingly seeing the reality of the situation though.

You refuted my point then explains why it happens, that just seems contradictory. Although I have very different information claiming that about 85% of Americans identify as either "lower middle class" "middle class" or "upper middle class".


What are you talking about, fired workers? You think McDonalds couldn't pay it's employees $15/hour without having to lay off workers? Wouldn't be a big deal in the short/long run to someone who isn't living off of $8/hour but it means thousands of more dollars a year for those it will actually effect, which I think they'll take as a big deal. Not only money wise but respect wise. When I went from minimum wage to $12/hour I was ecstatic.

How naive you are if you think that McDonald's is okay with cutting their profit margin like that. You are asking if they could? OF COURSE. I never said they couldn't. I was simply saying that they won't cut profit margins, therefore something has to give. And raising prices generally isn't popular, so that generally means firing people. Even the CBO estimated that the raise to $10.10 in minimum wage would cause a net loss of up to 1 million jobs. It's simple economics, supply and demand. And I doubt getting fired is great for respect and self esteem.


The median age of a fast-food worker is 29 and for females(who make up 65% of fast food workers) it's 32...

I don't know where you got those statistics, but I'm just going to assume that they are out there somewhere. My statistics say 24 years old though, so there is clearly a discrepancy. Either way, it is misleading because some pieces of data include jobs that are paid based on an hourly wage as "minimum wage" jobs. For example, when people think of "minimum wage", they think of a fast food worker making $8 an hour, not a secretary making $32 an hour. So when you are talking about employee's at or below minimum wage, IE fast food, waitresses, so on, 50% of them are between the ages of 16 and 24.


This is a straw man, communists don't fight for everybody to be middle class, that distinction itself is worthless in our eyes and shouldn't be used.

No I suppose you are right considering bourgeoisie is a direct translation to "middle class". Regardless, the goal of communism is to level the playing field completely, everyone gets an equal allocation of resources (although I have heard arguments over equal allocation and allocation based on needs, but the latter can fall apart quite quickly). That would essentially be making everyone "middle class" as they are today. Arguing semantics and claiming logical fallacies doesn't change the point of my argument.


Says Ares, ruler of the universe?

God of War actually.


Because it's seen as a joke because the numbers aren't on your side. Mobility among classes is least likely to happen in America of all countries and that's only increasing as the economy is more and more centralized in the hands of the rich. 4% may sound like a small number because relative to 96% of people it's a tiny amount of people! If only that's what they taught in school. Lined 100 kids up and said 4 of you are going to end up ruling the other 96 students instead of lying to all the kids.

Such a strange perception you have. Being middle class isn't being ruled by the upper class, neither is being upper middle or lower upper class. That's basically like going to a school from a dirt poor neighborhood and saying "in 10 years, a few of you will be incredibly successful people". What is the alternative in communism? "In 10 years, all of you will be homogeneous in the resources allocated to you by the central planning committee".

However, I do agree, income mobility in the US is not what it should be, yet despite that fact, it's still there. One very misleading thing about the statistic of "the US has very low income mobility" is that we have a much more right skewed distribution of income. It's easy for Denmark to have such good income mobility when moving from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile is like moving from $15,000 to $70,000 a year, where as in the US it would be something like $20,000 to $100,000 a year.


What's more tempting? Having a system where there's a 4% chance I'll rule over my people like a king or communism? Well once I understood communism, communism was so much the easier choice, but thanks for making that decision easier.

Then please explain to me why that choice is so clear, I'm about as open minded as it gets.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That's why they're annual median household income is less than $2000. The fact that they have the most billionaires is irrelevant when an overwhelming amount of their population if poorer than the poorest Americans. That's not a right wing point, I'm not a Republican, that's just fact.You said that America's poor live better than India's rich. That's not a fact. India faces a lot of poverty, about a third of the worlds impoverished live there. Most of it being rural poverty(although urban poverty is also huge with the worlds largest slums), I'd guess a majority of those people are not proletarians. That being said, how is it a negative argument against communism? There has always been uneven development and poverty has always been relative to the society you live in. Back when capitalism was beginning to challenge feudalism would you have accepted their argument that at least you weren't living in a small tribe having to fight everyday just to get food? Of course not, because capitalism is the superior system over feudalism.


My point was that people in America are, on the whole, simply too wealthy at the moment to really desire change.And I think you're wrong. Socialism and communism are both terms that people are becoming more and more familiar and comfortable with, especially among the youth(who are always accused of being spoiled) and wealth is more and more being centralized, less of that wealth is coming to workers every day.


You refuted my point then explains why it happens, that just seems contradictory. Although I have very different information claiming that about 85% of Americans identify as either "lower middle class" "middle class" or "upper middle class".Okay...I refute your point and then explain why it happened in the first place because it's true that a majority of Americans did believe so but(as I pointed out) are starting to see through it. And even if it's true what does it mean? That some people have false consciousness, that they believe the lies? I actually had this exact conversation with my step-brother today who constantly asks me if we're lower-middle class or in poverty. So some people have these views. What that means is more people need a dose of reality instead of bourgoeis propaganda that tells them as long as they're not living under a bridge they're not in poverty. Which is to say people need to stop believing the views you're trying to perpetuate here. If you don't think communism is bad, that it's actually good or progressive, why would you knowingly try to perpetuate this viewpoint?


How naive you are if you think that McDonald's is okay with cutting their profit margin like that.You think I don't know this? The thing about class struggle is it means you have to fight the other side. I used to work at McDonald's, I know they wouldn't ever raise my wage if there wasn't a struggle to.


You are asking if they could? OF COURSE.And is this not the basis of the struggle? We know that they could, it's entirely possible for them to. And remember the fact that in America the average CEO is paid $7,000/hour. Restructuring where that money goes would definitely be on the table. If on average I cost my company $56,000 a day, why wouldn't it be?


I was simply saying that they won't cut profit margins, therefore something has to give. And raising prices generally isn't popular, so that generally means firing people.That is if an offensive isn't mounted which protects their employment. McDonalds estimated it would need to raise prices by 17% to cover losses if the lowest crews wages was raised to $15/hour. In other words that McDouble will now cost $1.17 instead of 99¢. I think consumers, with all this wealth you keep talking about, could suck it up. And the people who are actually going to stress about an extra 17¢ on their McChickens because of their financial issues are probably not going to trip when their wages go up by $7. But this is why trade union struggles in and of themselves are not revolutionary in nature(though they can turn in that direction), the power still lies primarily in the hands of those who own the property and does not sufficiently challenge their claim to the property.


I don't know where you got those statistics, but I'm just going to assume that they are out there somewhere.I've seen it a few places, to double check I found that information on Mother Jones.


Either way, it is misleading because some pieces of data include jobs that are paid based on an hourly wage as "minimum wage" jobs. For example, when people think of "minimum wage", they think of a fast food worker making $8 an hour, not a secretary making $32 an hour. So when you are talking about employee's at or below minimum wage, IE fast food, waitresses, so on, 50% of them are between the ages of 16 and 24.Except for the fact that I clearly stated fast food workers, not minimum wage workers. But there are even companies, like Walmart(the largest employer in the U.S.), who pride themselves in hiring older people at minimum wage. But minimum wage, it's just for young people yay!


No I suppose you are right considering bourgeoisie is a direct translation to "middle class".Yeah, which originated back in the times when the capitalist class was the middle class and above them stood the nobility, the kings and queens and religious figures. Now when we speak of bourgoeisie like Bill Gates, they're clearly not "middle class" in the way it's used today by people like you and capitalists. The majority of the working class is considered middle class therefore bourgoeis, which would by your standards make the communists goal of making the working class "bourgoeis" already reached. It's fun playing with words isn't it?


Regardless, the goal of communism is to level the playing field completely, everyone gets an equal allocation of resources (although I have heard arguments over equal allocation and allocation based on needs, but the latter can fall apart quite quickly). That would essentially be making everyone "middle class" as they are today. Arguing semantics and claiming logical fallacies doesn't change the point of my argument.The logical fallacy is made when you call everybody being equal "middle class" because for there to be a middle there has to be a upper and lower class. Communism abolishes all classes. When there's one class of people it becomes utterly redundant to say there are any classes, it would be classless.

But furthermore it's objectionable from a Marxist perspective because the "middle class" as it's used today does not distinguish who owns the property, who owns the means of production, who owns the land, or who labors for capital. It encompasses and lumps together all classes of people, even lumpen proletarian elements if they're successful enough. The small business owner in America is in the same middle class as the worker, families that farm land are said to be in the same class as the working class, etc, etc. For Marxists(and most anarchists I've run into) our position is that class is dependent on your relations to the means of production, to the means in which you have to make a living. If I go to a farmer and say I'd like to work on your almond farm we're coming at this question from fundamentally different perspectives based on our class whereas people like you and many others would say what class differences, you're both middle class.


Such a strange perception you have. Being middle class isn't being ruled by the upper class, neither is being upper middle or lower upper class.Really? So the working class isn't ruled by the capitalist class when we're most likely born into life with little to no property, fed and clothed by our parents who spend their days working for a capitalist so that they could feed us, clothe us, put a house over our head, and then when we reach a certain age we're thrust into the world with what little money we have(if any) and just expected to live. Well how do you do that? You have no capital yourself, the only thing you have is labor-power to sell to someone else. Someone else who will control to the best of their ability your movements(which can get down to controlling the simplest flick of the wrist), what you say, how you say it, will force you to smile if they want, all with threat that if you don't follow their orders you will be denied the ability to sustain your life. To add insult to injury anything you work hard to create, to extract from the Earth, etc, etc, goes straight to them. They are masters of the situation, masters of our fates if we allow them to be. For compensation for all that you've done in helping them gain "their" riches, "their" profits, you'll be given a small pittance.


That's basically like going to a school from a dirt poor neighborhood and saying "in 10 years, a few of you will be incredibly successful people".Yes, you forget to add the part that's relevant to the other 96% though...again. Funny how you keep forgetting that part that's completely relevant to the vast majority of them.


What is the alternative in communism? "In 10 years, all of you will be homogeneous in the resources allocated to you by the central planning committee".More like in ten years none of you will be hungry like in capitalism when there is plentiful, none of you will be homeless like in capitalism while homes are empty, and to top it off you won't have to be ruled by the four douchebags in your class and you'll actually have a equal say in your work and in your communities. Sorry to those four children though. You're going to be just as lowly as them!

You belong in OI in my opinion, not here in the learning section.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A few thoughts, some of which have been touched on already:

First, what constitutes violence is a matter of serious contestation. The methods generally accepted to be peaceful within mainstream liberal discourse, for example, are by and large premised on tremendous systemic violence, and serve to legitimate white supremacist, colonial/imperialist, etc. structures. Can so-called "violent" means which undermine the legitimacy and functioning of such structures really be understood as such?

Secondly, with regards the violence of "revolution" I think it tends to be greatly overstated - compared to the body-count of the continuing functioning of capital, what is a few (or even a few hundred) lynched CEOs and dead cops? But, that said, I think that speaks to the limit. A revolution that becomes a conventional war is bound to carry with it terrible consequences.

Though flawed in many respects, in this regard, I think The Coming Insurrection is right on:


Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary. Against the army, the only victory is political.


There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary: it’s a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary. An insurrection is more about taking up arms and maintaining an “armed presence” than it is about armed struggle. We need to distinguish clearly between being armed and the use of arms. Weapons are a constant in revolutionary situations, but their use is infrequent and rarely decisive at key turning points: August 10th 1792, March 18th 1871, October 1917. When power is in the gutter, it’s enough to walk over it.


Because of the distance that separates us from them, weapons have taken on a kind of double character of fascination and disgust that can be overcome only by handling them. An authentic pacifism cannot mean refusing weapons, but only refusing to use them. Pacifism without being able to fire a shot is nothing but the theoretical formulation of impotence. Such a priori pacifism is a kind of preventive disarmament, a pure police operation. In reality, the question of pacifism is serious only for those who have the ability to open fire. In this case, pacifism becomes a sign of power, since it’s only in an extreme position of strength that we are freed from the need to fire.


From a strategic point of view, indirect, asymmetrical action seems the most effective kind, the one best suited to our time: you don’t attack an occupying army frontally. That said, the prospect of Iraq-style urban guerilla warfare, dragging on with no possibility of taking the offensive, is more to be feared than to be desired. The militarization of civil war is the defeat of insurrection. The Reds had their victory in 1921, but the Russian Revolution was already lost.

[Ares1214]

You said that America's poor live better than India's rich. That's not a fact. India faces a lot of poverty, about a third of the worlds impoverished live there. Most of it being rural poverty(although urban poverty is also huge with the worlds largest slums), I'd guess a majority of those people are not proletarians. That being said, how is it a negative argument against communism? There has always been uneven development and poverty has always been relative to the society you live in. Back when capitalism was beginning to challenge feudalism would you have accepted their argument that at least you weren't living in a small tribe having to fight everyday just to get food? Of course not, because capitalism is the superior system over feudalism.

I said the bottom quintile of Americans live much better than the upper quintiles of many countries, including India. Stop putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying that the poorest American lives better than the richest Indian. I also was not using that as an argument against communism, just that poverty in the US is much less severe than worldwide poverty, so the rest of what you are saying is irrelevant.


And I think you're wrong. Socialism and communism are both terms that people are becoming more and more familiar and comfortable with, especially among the youth(who are always accused of being spoiled) and wealth is more and more being centralized, less of that wealth is coming to workers every day.

Notice I said "at the moment". The same applies to many other terms such as libertarianism, doesn't mean that it is going to be adopted in the future.


Okay...I refute your point and then explain why it happened in the first place because it's true that a majority of Americans did believe so but(as I pointed out) are starting to see through it. And even if it's true what does it mean? That some people have false consciousness, that they believe the lies? I actually had this exact conversation with my step-brother today who constantly asks me if we're lower-middle class or in poverty. So some people have these views. What that means is more people need a dose of reality instead of bourgoeis propaganda that tells them as long as they're not living under a bridge they're not in poverty. Which is to say people need to stop believing the views you're trying to perpetuate here. If you don't think communism is bad, that it's actually good or progressive, why would you knowingly try to perpetuate this viewpoint?

Because I'm actually trying to discuss my question where as you are going off topic and getting personal. I'm saying a non-violent revolution in the US seems unlikely because most Americans feel they are well off or middle class. Class consciousness is nowhere close to where it would need to be for a communist revolution, in my opinion at least.


And is this not the basis of the struggle? We know that they could, it's entirely possible for them to. And remember the fact that in America the average CEO is paid $7,000/hour. Restructuring where that money goes would definitely be on the table. If on average I cost my company $56,000 a day, why wouldn't it be?

What does people getting paid more than others prove? I hate it when income inequality is viewed so negatively. Income mobility is what truly matters. It's not that there's a lower class that makes me dislike our current economy, it's that it's growing too hard to advance yourself in society.


That is if an offensive isn't mounted which protects their employment. McDonalds estimated it would need to raise prices by 17% to cover losses if the lowest crews wages was raised to $15/hour. In other words that McDouble will now cost $1.17 instead of 99¢. I think consumers, with all this wealth you keep talking about, could suck it up. And the people who are actually going to stress about an extra 17¢ on their McChickens because of their financial issues are probably not going to trip when their wages go up by $7. But this is why trade union struggles in and of themselves are not revolutionary in nature(though they can turn in that direction), the power still lies primarily in the hands of those who own the property and does not sufficiently challenge their claim to the property.

If an offensive needs to be mounted I suppose that answers my question about the possibility of non-violent solutions. Also, I've seen that statistic before and it has been proven wrong and has been edited on sites like Forbes and Huffington Post. Regardless, think of it on a large scale. If McDonald's now has to pay an extra $50 million a year for the increased wage, that $50 million has to come from somewhere. They likely won't increase prices because they have to stay competitive with the rest of the market and prices are sticky, so they will very likely fire enough people to make up the difference, and maybe cut some costs here and there. It happens all the time, it's regular old downsizing.


Really? So the working class isn't ruled by the capitalist class when we're most likely born into life with little to no property, fed and clothed by our parents who spend their days working for a capitalist so that they could feed us, clothe us, put a house over our head, and then when we reach a certain age we're thrust into the world with what little money we have(if any) and just expected to live. Well how do you do that? You have no capital yourself, the only thing you have is labor-power to sell to someone else. Someone else who will control to the best of their ability your movements(which can get down to controlling the simplest flick of the wrist), what you say, how you say it, will force you to smile if they want, all with threat that if you don't follow their orders you will be denied the ability to sustain your life. To add insult to injury anything you work hard to create, to extract from the Earth, etc, etc, goes straight to them. They are masters of the situation, masters of our fates if we allow them to be. For compensation for all that you've done in helping them gain "their" riches, "their" profits, you'll be given a small pittance.

What kind of appeal to emotion is this? I certainly hope we are born into life with little or no property or capital, the idea of babies being born with cars and houses seems a little frightening. Our parents would feed and cloth us in any economic system, so that is entirely irrelevant to capitalism. You keep making random points that are simply gross dramatizations or irrelevant to capitalism. You act like if you are born poor you stay poor forever, and if you are born rich you are a king forever. I have no idea where you get this from, but I wanted to hear why you are so in favor of communism, and a gross misrepresentation of capitalism doesn't quite do it for me. As I said, I'm trying to learn, what makes communism so appealing to people? I'm not some Republican trying to troll you.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I said the bottom quintile of Americans live much better than the upper quintiles of many countries, including India. Stop putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying that the poorest American lives better than the richest Indian. I also was not using that as an argument against communism, just that poverty in the US is much less severe than worldwide poverty, so the rest of what you are saying is irrelevant.Except for it completely matters. We measure poverty relative to people in our society, not compared to rural poverty in India. All you're saying is Americans today should feel so much better about their situations if they're not living in those conditions when relative to the people in our society many millions still live in squalor and insecurity about basic needs that everyone in our society should have given the amount of development.




Notice I said "at the moment". The same applies to many other terms such as libertarianism, doesn't mean that it is going to be adopted in the future.And earlier you said it was impossible, meaning at the moment it's unpopular but even if it was popular in the future it would be in vain. We're not forming barricades and shooting at police now are we, obviously we understand that the revolution isn't on the table at the moment.


Because I'm actually trying to discuss my question where as you are going off topic and getting personal.I've only been responding to things you yourself brought up, maybe you shouldn't stray away so far from the topic. Sorry though, next time I want to concede that what you said had even a hint of credibility I will remember how much my personal stories just bore you.


I'm saying a non-violent revolution in the US seems unlikely because most Americans feel they are well off or middle class. Class consciousness is nowhere close to where it would need to be for a communist revolution, in my opinion at least.And I'm merely pointing out that if we want to change these perceptions(as the numbers have been showing they are)you are being completely counterproductive by advancing these arguments. If it's a problem of false consciousness, of feeling "well off" even though most people are just barely grinding on, and are obviously feeling like shit then you should be one to expose it. But you don't seem to be coming at it from this perspective, it seems like you suggest this is how it should be, that it's correct. Which brings up why you're here and not instead posting in Opposing Ideologies.




What does people getting paid more than others prove? I hate it when income inequality is viewed so negatively.Who's the one appealing to emotions now? Oh does my dislike of income inequality anger you? I wonder how much you make.

Income mobility is what truly matters.And you provided info showing that a tiny 4% of the poor make it big and that maybe half of them make it to the "middle class" aka, slightly better payed workers and the petite bourgoeis. I remember when my family went from poor to "middle class". Oh how life was so much better![/sarcasm]Oh but there I go boring you again being personal, I'm sorry.

It's not that there's a lower class that makes me dislike our current economy, it's that it's growing too hard to advance yourself in society.Why have a lower class in the first place? So they could do all the dirty work upper class folk just don't have the sensibilities for? I mean it would just be wrong to ask a doctor to mop the floor wouldn't it, that's janitor work!


If an offensive needs to be mounted I suppose that answers my question about the possibility of non-violent solutions.Well I wasn't speaking of an actual physical battle here, more along the lines of the workers movement needs to go on the offensive, it's been unorganized and defensive for far too long. Though I have already answered your question regarding if a non-violent revolution is possible.

Also, I've seen that statistic before and it has been proven wrong and has been edited on sites like Forbes and Huffington Post. Regardless, think of it on a large scale. If McDonald's now has to pay an extra $50 million a year for the increased wage, that $50 million has to come from somewhere. They likely won't increase prices because they have to stay competitive with the rest of the market and prices are sticky, so they will very likely fire enough people to make up the difference, and maybe cut some costs here and there. It happens all the time, it's regular old downsizing.Yeah yeah, I've heard the argument before, which is why I said if workers want to make gains like this they'd have to go on the offensive. Corporations such as McDonalds(especially McDonalds actually)are sitting on the biggest piles of cash yet we're led to believe that they just can't raise wages and that if they do they're going to just have to lay workers off en masse or something. What a strong workers movement can do is say that it's bullshit, that workers aren't going to take hit after hit as they continue to get richer and richer off our labor. This is why McDonald's and all companies just like it need to be put under control of the working class as soon as possible, no more of this bullshit of having to negotiate with these people making $7,000/hour so people don't have to live on poverty wages.


What kind of appeal to emotion is this?This wasn't an appeal to emotions, this is the reality millions face in this country daily, the vicious cycle the majority of people face under the rule of the capitalist class.


I certainly hope we are born into life with little or no property or capital, the idea of babies being born with cars and houses seems a little frightening.So you don't believe in inheritance do you? Being born into money is a hell of a lot different than being born into a family with little.


Our parents would feed and cloth us in any economic system, so that is entirely irrelevant to capitalism. You keep making random points that are simply gross dramatizations or irrelevant to capitalism.Well you conveniently miss the part where the parents have to get these things for you via working for a capitalist. And the cycle continues...Gross dramatizations, ha, have you ever worked fast food yourself? Every move you make can be micromanaged.


You act like if you are born poor you stay poor forever, and if you are born rich you are a king forever. I have no idea where you get this from, but I wanted to hear why you are so in favor of communism, and a gross misrepresentation of capitalism doesn't quite do it for me. As I said, I'm trying to learn, what makes communism so appealing to people? I'm not some Republican trying to troll you.Well if you're born poor statistics provided by you seem to show that by a very wide margin you will never be king, at most you'll upgrade to desk jockey. To me that's what it seems like you said when you pointed out 96% of people born into poverty will not become an enormously wealthy capitalist. But here you are changing the topic again. First it was is non-violent revolution possible, then you went off topic and told me to stay on topic, and now you're asking why communism looks so much more appealing than capitalism to me.

[Firebrand]

OK first of all according to Marxist analysis "middle class" as it is understood by the modern media is not an actual thing. It lumps together the white collar working class with some segments of the petit bourgeoisie, two classes with entirely different relations to the mode of production. Therefore the term middle class is extremely unhelpful to anyone working towards a communist revolution. Middle class is a term the bourgeoisie use to try and prevent a large segment of the working class from realizing they are part of the oppressed class not the oppressors. It is a reactionary term and as marxists we shouldn't use it.

Secondly, wealth alone is not a measure of oppression. There is more to being oppressed than how much stuff you have and to try and reduce it to the ownership of commodities is to sign up to the ideology we claim to want to abolish. The question is this, do you control your own life, your own labour, or do you live your life by someone else's orders. Yes "there's children starving in Africa"TM but saying that means that better off workers have no right to complain is to hand victory to the people who really benefit from the situation. Yes we do have the right to complain, in fact we have a responsibility to complain. For everyone who isn't in a position to complain, for everyone who is too afraid.

The media has taught the working class of the first world to be ashamed that they are in a position of strength won by the blood and sacrifice of their grandparents, and now they use that as a justification to take away everything that has been won. They use shame to paralyse the strongest segment of the working class so that any rebellion is less likely to succeed. A comparatively well off worker is a poor worker's best potential ally not their enemy.

There is no way any revolution can ever be non-violent. The question is whether we will let the violence be one sided or fight to protect ourselves and our comrades.

Hopes for a peaceful revolution are sweet in principle but in practice are a dangerous sort of utopianism, that could leave revolutionaries vulnerable to a state that has far fewer scruples that they would like to believe. We know what governments do to peaceful protesters, what do you think they will do to peaceful revolutionaries that are a genuine threat to the system. (hint they won't be writing letters to the times)

[DasFapital]

Revolution should be as peaceful as possible but there ultimately will be some violence. Property will have to be seized and redistributed and class enemies suppressed. I doubt those whose living comes from owning the means of production are just going to give it up without a fight.

[AmilcarCabral]

That idea is good, but we have to be realists, in the Machiavellic sense, I mean that what the oppressed need to do first is something Tony Montana said in the movie Scarface: "First you gotta get the power". And it's true, without power, the oppressed won't be able to liberate themselves. I mean state-power, government-power, the military-power of the government. Because if leftists in USA build alternative cities, or do any thing outside of government-power, the current capitalist-government-power that exists in America will crush the leftist alternative cities.

I think that the first goal of leftists should be to seize state-power and then after seizing state-power leftists can do any thing they want from a possition of power. That's why isolated protests like the immigration reform bill, the occupy movement, the anti-war protests and the other isolated protests do nos succeed. I think that the left of USA should concentrate first on party-building, on building a big leftist party with the goal of seizing state power first. Instead of wasting so much energies on protests that will never overthrow The Democratic Party and The Republican Party from state power

.



I think the USA needs to have more people forming alternative options to the system, meaning very in-your-face communes. This will allow people to see alternatives that are worth fighting for.

By in-your-face I mean not the tiny little almost hidden ones that exist now, but ones that exist in cities, or at least are far more common.

[Ritzy Cat]

Not really. I want a peaceful revolution, that would be ideal for all peoples and all communists.

Revolution itself though is not ideal for any bourgeoisie, and if their means of "living" are threatened, the states in turn will of course respond as reactionaries.

Non-Violent revolution is simply not possible. Unless we infiltrate all the governments with commies and SURPRISE

[aristos]

That some heads will roll is inevitable. How few depends on how well the revolutionary vanguard is organised. If it is not organised at all the heads rolling will be those of the would-be revolutionaries.