Can armed revolutions ever work?

[GoddamVegetarianCommie]

As a communist, I am regularly reminded of the fact that many communist revolutions historically have resulted in dictatorships. A big part of this problem comes down to Marx's idea of simultaneous revolutions; countries become isolated and even invaded by the US, and their leaders go mad. However, I think there are some deeper issues with armed revolution itself.
The best way to have a relatively bloodless revolution is for the armed forces to mutiny and join the rebels, as we saw in Egypt, but this often results in the army becoming the main strength of the revolution and a military dictatorship is formed. Clearing the army of potential counter-revolutionaries involves long, bloody military trials such as the ones in revolutionary Cuba. However, revolution without the help of the army would be all but impossible today owing to the army's high-tech weapons and surveillance equipment (Have find hiding out in the sierra when there are drones after you, Castro).
Secondly, the preliminary stage to a revolution is the arming of the workers, but this bears some similarity to the "Right to Bear Arms", which has resulted in America's huge crime rate, which in turn is used as a justification for the militarisation of the police.
Ideas anyone?

[MarxSchmarx]

Marx actually was rather skeptical of violent revolution in his time. The arguments haven't really changed, and it was and still is less about coordinating states than awakening proletariat power. Violent revolts by the few have never really worked in large part because the cart gets put before the horse

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The question of armed or violent revolution is a common one and one many people struggle with. It's not that communists want a violent revolution it's just that we recognise that the bourgeoisie won't give up their privilege without a struggle. Daily the capitalists maintain their property with violence, whether its cops massacring striking workers in South Africa or forced evictions from homes in Detroit, and putting a stop to this and creating a society without private property and classes won't come about by non-violent tactics alone (at the same time, dismissing non-violent tactics altogether is foolish). But I do think that the violence needed to shatter our chains is a completely different dimension than the violence the State needs to keep us imprisoned.

[Blake's Baby]

Every 'communist' revolution has ended in either quick bloodshed or slow bloodshed.

Why not? Every 'communist' revolution has failed. Is it inevitable? No, it's no more inevitable than saying 'every attempt at heavier than air flight has led to an experimental plane crashing, so heavier than air flight inevitably ends in planecrashes'.

There will be confrontations between the 'forces of order' and the working class. Of course they will be - they happen now in a non-revolutionary situation. There needs to be a thoroughgoing destruction of the state's ability to wage war against the working class and this seems to me to be most likely to come from a combination of two forms of attack by the working class.

The first is propaganda - the majority of soldiers are young working class people who join up to lead a more exciting life than they can see around them, and obviously in some places large numbers of soldiers are still drafted - by emphasising that soldiers are systematically lied to and are being used against the people they joined up to defend. The army is rarely used in cases of internal conflict, because the soldiers' sympathies are too often with the people they're sent against. The ruling class has to be either very sure of itself, or very desperate, to send the army against strikers, rioters and other forms of 'internal sedition'. We have to make sure that the army rots from within, so it can't be used effectively against us.

The second is what the working class does best - threaten capitalist production and distribution. If workers block roads and military convoys, sabotage or take over communication points, lock down transportation, cease production of armaments, block fuel deliveries etc then it starts to impede the state's ability to wage war on the population. This is where the working class has an advantage - we're the ones who know how things actually function and who do the work.

If it doesn't do these things no amount of hiding in the woods playing soldiers is going to help. The state will defeat 'rebels' in any stand-up-knock-down fight. If we think 'the revolution' is going to be like 1871, or even 1917, then we're all going to die. It's not about a straight fight between 'the state's army' and 'the workers' army'.

None of this applies to the police though. I'm sure, at any given time, there are a few police officers who still have a shred of decency left, but in the main they're as reactionary a group as any state could wish for. They won't be brought down from from within. They'll take a lot of physically beating.

[RedWorker]

Would you mind elaborating on how, in your view, much of the army is progressive yet the police is completely reactionary?

[Aurorus Ruber]

I have often wondered about this question myself. The sheer power of the US military and increasingly militarized police forces pose some formidable challenges for any contemporary revolutionary movement. One must also consider technological advances like drone warfare. How would ordinary people without military or technical expertise fight against aerial drones?

[Blake's Baby]

I didn't say the army was progressive. I said it was composed of young people from the working class, especially when its conscripted. Large amounts of soldiers (especially rank and file, I'm obviously I'm not talking officers here) join up in order to escape shitty lives of poverty and hopelessness. A life on the dole, or joining up, seeing the world and learning a trade? Too many working class kids fall for it. But I don't really blame them.

But all that means that the army is unreliable. Easier to get it to go and kill 'them over there' to protect 'those back home'. More difficult to get it to kill 'those back home' to protect 'those back home'. Most soldiers are unwilling to shoot an old woman in the face if they think 'that could be my mam'. Soldiers have brothers and sisters and parents and nephews and nieces and even some friends, probably, who are workers. proper working class employed or unemployed workers - who will be the ones doing the revolutioning.

The police I would hazard is more often drawn from the petite-bourgeoisie. Sons of shopkeepers and whatnot. Brought up to believe in the 'rule of law' and 'the proper channels' and how 'them' are talking advantage of 'decent folk'. So, they have not just the normal reactionary mindset (eg national chauvinism) but a specially officious and petty one that already sees the working class as being semi-criminal (because poverty is a result of not working hard enough and then that means you're more or less stealing).

[Scheveningen]

The present social order has been founded by violent (bourgeois) revolutions, if proof was needed on whether they have ever been an effective means of change.

While the modern State's monopoly on violence and the technological advancements in weaponry make confrontation between revolutionaries and statist forces harder, the proletariat has a big advantage compared to past social classes because of its numbers and the ability to cause great disruption even before engaging in armed confrontation (strikes or sabotage in key sectors).

As to how it will be conducted, there has been plenty of speculation (one example (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/postsi/ratgeb02.html)), but it's hard and somewhat foolish coming up with 'blueprints' for a revolution.
countries become isolated and even invaded by the US, and their leaders go mad Socialism in one country isn't possible.
However, the increasing interdependence between national economies means that, today, a revolution in a country with a major economy could have catastrophic consequences for global capitalism. Moreover, with the speed of modern means of transportation and communication uprisings will spread more quickly than ever before and become more difficult to control.

Overall, I think any revolution today risks to cause more death because of disruption in food/water supply (hence the need for workers to take them over as soon as possible and introduce a system of free distribution of goods) or such than because of armed violence.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I didn't say the army was progressive. I said it was composed of young people from the working class, especially when its conscripted. Large amounts of soldiers (especially rank and file, I'm obviously I'm not talking officers here) join up in order to escape shitty lives of poverty and hopelessness. A life on the dole, or joining up, seeing the world and learning a trade? Too many working class kids fall for it. But I don't really blame them.

But all that means that the army is unreliable. Easier to get it to go and kill 'them over there' to protect 'those back home'. More difficult to get it to kill 'those back home' to protect 'those back home'. Most soldiers are unwilling to shoot an old woman in the face if they think 'that could be my mam'. Soldiers have brothers and sisters and parents and nephews and nieces and even some friends, probably, who are workers. proper working class employed or unemployed workers - who will be the ones doing the revolutioning.

The police I would hazard is more often drawn from the petite-bourgeoisie. Sons of shopkeepers and whatnot. Brought up to believe in the 'rule of law' and 'the proper channels' and how 'them' are talking advantage of 'decent folk'. So, they have not just the normal reactionary mindset (eg national chauvinism) but a specially officious and petty one that already sees the working class as being semi-criminal (because poverty is a result of not working hard enough and then that means you're more or less stealing).

I agree with all of this, and wanted to add something to it....

In the U.S., the American military has a large working class character (the majority of it anyway). The reason is because the military offers ALOT of incentives (primarily financial) to working class youths to join. They also actively target impoverished and working class areas for recruitment.

Also keep in mind that, in the U.S., the recruiters can legally lie to you about things like job flexibility to get you to join.

[Slavic]

Also keep in mind that, in the U.S., the recruiters can legally lie to you about things like job flexibility to get you to join.

Tell me about it, the job I got in the Air Force is only flexible if civilian airliners start flying with missiles.

I joined for the large signing bonus and school money; was able to milk the state for a bachelors degree for little to no money.

To follow what Blake's Baby said about the working class nature of the military. When I was training with active duty military, I've noticed that a great many of them joined for either: school money, steady source of income, or boredom. It was rare for me to find a straight up jingo but there are always a few.

Most of the personnel also stated that they were doing their 4 years and leaving which leads me to believe that most of the NCOs stay for the guaranteed 20 years pay and retirement. Once your in the military, the working conditions in the private sector seem so much more fragile and unforgiving. Those in the military are highly influenced by materialist needs and could be swayed by socialism.

I'm in a guard unit and I've found that its members tend to be more reactionary in nature that those found in active duty. At least in my shop, there is a plurality of state workers. Most are police with a few prison guards, EMTs, security guards etc. The full timers are also basically civilian defense contractors and are only military during drill weekends. So basically police and state workers with a few college students when they started advertising free tuition a few years ago.

[CommunistKid]

I would say a violent revolution would cause instability. you'd have to worry about someone taking advantage of the chaos and taking power, forming a personality cult, and doing absolutely un-communist things while claiming they're doing it "for the people" like many have in the past. taking power through a democratic system seems a lot more controllable and painless if it's available. If the country isn't democratic, I think armed revolution is good as a last resort, though.

[John Nada]

Would you mind elaborating on how, in your view, much of the army is progressive yet the police is completely reactionary?Perhaps the 5-0 is not totally reactionary, but pretty much. The difference is that the military's usually a temporary job, LE is a career for life.
One must also consider technological advances like drone warfare. How would ordinary people without military or technical expertise fight against aerial drones?Those drones are piloted by humans.
But all that means that the army is unreliable. Easier to get it to go and kill 'them over there' to protect 'those back home'. More difficult to get it to kill 'those back home' to protect 'those back home'. Most soldiers are unwilling to shoot an old woman in the face if they think 'that could be my mam'. Soldiers have brothers and sisters and parents and nephews and nieces and even some friends, probably, who are workers. proper working class employed or unemployed workers - who will be the ones doing the revolutioning.That's assuming the poor woman looks like she could be their mom. Bad news for oppressed minorities, who look more like the imperialist's current targets. :( From the Indian wars to Kent State, the troops have never shown any hesitation shooting "their own people".

However, you might have a point about their waving loyalty. Machiavelli said that professional mercenaries were unreliable compared to a citizen army. Maybe it might apply today?

[Prometeo liberado]

Every birth of something great comes with blood. There is nothing glorious nor noble about it, much like a woman giving birth. This is unfortunately what we are.

For now.

[Sewer Socialist]

This has been an interesting discussion.

I have to wonder, though, how there was so much motivation to fight such a bloody civil war in the United States.

[Ocean Seal]

If the bourgeoisie wants to give up its property, then idgaf about guns, but considering the likeliness of that, I'd say we may find use in them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you're going to differentiate between "armed revolutions" and "unarmed revolutions" (although I'd probably argue that even predominantly peaceful revolutions involved some peripheral violence or threat of violence), it's worth wondering if "unarmed revolutions" work. With every revolutionary movement it's worth critically analyzing 1) what the goals of the revolutionary movement were, to the best of our understanding, and 2) whether those goals were accomplished to any meaningful extent, and what the short and long term implications of the movement were.

In my opinion, though, when the social revolution gets swallowed entirely by some kind of military struggle, that's when meaningful goals are lost and the emancipatory politics of social revolution gets overcome by the hierarchical (and indefinite, as I believe history has shown) politics of the barracks. To me any handwringing about whether "The Revolution" will be violent or not is...I don't know. I don't understand it. Even if we accept that a seemingly superior military force could be routed by a lesser force, that really says nothing about political or social content. A relatively small guerrilla force can route a stronger enemy & accomplish it's political goals, but that says nothing about the group's politics or whether things ever really changed for the better...all that says is that the group made things ungovernable. That's relatively easy to do compared to what communists want.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I didn't say the army was progressive. I said it was composed of young people from the working class, especially when its conscripted. Large amounts of soldiers (especially rank and file, I'm obviously I'm not talking officers here) join up in order to escape shitty lives of poverty and hopelessness. A life on the dole, or joining up, seeing the world and learning a trade? Too many working class kids fall for it. But I don't really blame them.

But all that means that the army is unreliable. Easier to get it to go and kill 'them over there' to protect 'those back home'. More difficult to get it to kill 'those back home' to protect 'those back home'. Most soldiers are unwilling to shoot an old woman in the face if they think 'that could be my mam'. Soldiers have brothers and sisters and parents and nephews and nieces and even some friends, probably, who are workers. proper working class employed or unemployed workers - who will be the ones doing the revolutioning.

The police I would hazard is more often drawn from the petite-bourgeoisie. Sons of shopkeepers and whatnot. Brought up to believe in the 'rule of law' and 'the proper channels' and how 'them' are talking advantage of 'decent folk'. So, they have not just the normal reactionary mindset (eg national chauvinism) but a specially officious and petty one that already sees the working class as being semi-criminal (because poverty is a result of not working hard enough and then that means you're more or less stealing).

I could not agree more. My province makes up the largest amount of people from any province in the military. Hell even i thought about it when i was 18, flat broke, bored out of my mind, living for the bottle to drink my problems away and a life in a rural working class area on the dole where there is fuck all to do. The army does seem good compared to that when your young and know no better. Thankfully i realized that i have absolutely no nationalist tendencies when it comes to Canada as they have treated my island as nothing more then a colony to be exploited. So if i was ever going to pick up a gun in a war it would be a class war on my own island for starters.

I know plenty of guys younger then me who are in the army and have Socialist tendencies, hate the government and the way they where treated upon returning home or no political position at all. Hell a friend of mine came back from the Afghan war a Socialist as he realized that bourgeois individualism is a silly notion and he learned the importance of having comrades on your side to have your back. He also realized that the working class go to war for the bourgeois. This is true as i have yet to meet someone who went into the army and was anything above lower middle class.

The police have a much different mentality then soldiers do the fact that most coppers come from a Petite Bourgeois background does not help either. From what i have seen most people who grow up to be cops are people that where total assholes in school that nobody wanted anything to do with and their parents where usually more well off then many of the people who came from working class backgrounds. They were the crowd who usually had daddy buy them a nice new car to drive to school in.

I went to school with a few people who ended up joining the fucking Red Coats aka the RCMP and they all came from pretty much the same background. Their parents owned a small business, made money off rent and had that Petite bourgeois mentality of protecting private property and also being total miserable bastards when it comes to paying their employees wages. They are for the most paart the type who were bullied in school and are trying to get back at the world while hiding behind a badge and a gun or the type that were bullies and are now just bullies with a badge to do what they want. Many of them are also little more then petty criminals who shake down drug dealers and prostitutes to boost their wages so to speak.

I can't say i have ever met a cop that i liked (i have only met a few on social occasions mind you while the rest was when they where reading me my rights) while most people i know in the military are alright people. Cops seem to be in a totally different class of their own and many of them have a black and white perspective of right and wrong and fully believe in protecting private property from the people. They have that bourgeois morality instilled in them early on and this notion that the working class simply don't work hard enough. Cops sort of act as the vanguard of capitalist society as they are the ones defending the bourgeois despite their wages never letting them reach the level of being bourgeois. They also seem to have a chip on their shoulder against the world and are dumb as fuck. They know that society view them as outcasts yet they try and maintain this pseudo level of respectability that they are helping the people.

They don't lie when they say they are there to serve and protect but they don't say who they are there to serve and protect now do they? They serve and protect the bourgeois and as any working class person knows we are regarded with contempt by the police and criminal justice system. I hardly think it's a accident that the working class makes up the bulk of the prison population by a long shot and it's not just out of desperation that the working class have to resort to criminal activity to make ends meet. As they say rich people go to rehab or the good psychiatric wards while poor people go to prison.

Despite the war machine in America i think it would be highly unlikely that the army would slaughter it's own citizens if the revolution went off. As many of them would most likely have family members and friends involved in the revolution and are just less likely then the police to kill their own. Not to mention as we saw in the occupy movement there where soldiers involved in the protests. Soldiers and coppers also hate each other so that could be used to our advantage. If a revolution ever did go off in the US i would guess that there would be alot of mutiny within the army and no doubt many would refuse to fire on unarmed civilians in their own country. Unlike cops they don't seem to get off on it

[GoddamVegetarianCommie]

This thread has been interesting, but I'm still very undecided on the issues of arming the workers. The only way I can see that not leading to a gun-filled state like the US is if all arms are confiscated after the revolution, which is impractical to say the least. Ideas anyone?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

When haven't they worked? It's historical fact that thy indeed worked.

[Blake's Baby]

We're not living in a communist world, therefore they haven't worked.

Unless you mean bourgeois revolutions, obviously they worked, from the fact that France no longer has a king and whatnot.

[piet11111]

Would you mind elaborating on how, in your view, much of the army is progressive yet the police is completely reactionary?

Simple the day to day enemy of the police is the working masses that are guilty of crimes but just lacking the evidence to prove they are. The army however is trained to fight the foreign threat and are not trained to suppress the people from their own country. This is a problem for the capitalists as it was in china during Tienanmen square protests where they brought in troops from the otherside of the country and currently in the Ukraine where the regular troops are unwilling to slaughter their fellow Ukrainians. Sure the army can be very reactionary but they work by the illusion they are protecting their country and their fellow citizens.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

We're not living in a communist world, therefore they haven't worked.

Unless you mean bourgeois revolutions, obviously they worked, from the fact that France no longer has a king and whatnot.

That's silly, at one point the fSU did work as did China and others. Wouldn't the above be equivalent to saying democracy doesn't work because the Greek empire fell?

[Blake's Baby]

What on earth do you mean by democracy? I thought a goodly chunk of the world was living in democracies right now.

However, 'revolution' is not the same as 'system that comes about after a revolution'. What I said was that the bourgeois revolutions succeeded - because everywhere the bourgeoisie is in power so they must have done, the bourgeoisie obviously replaced the previous rulers in society - whereas, because the working class hasn't instituted a communist society, the proletarian revolutions of the early 20th necessarily failed. If they hadn't, we would be living in a communist society.

Are you really going to argue that point?

What do you think the 'point' of the revolution is Russia was? Was it a) the attempt to overthrow the Russian state and capitalist class during a world-wide revolutionary upsurge, or was it b) a coup against the Russian government?

If it was a coup, then it worked. A new group came to power in place of the old group, and managed Russian capitalism and foreign policy for 70 years or so.

If it was the Russian part of the world revolution, then it failed, in much the same way as building a wall is not the same as building a house. The wall went as far as it could, but without the rest of the house, it might qualify as 'some building work' but in no way qualifies as a house. Likewise, isolated in Russia, the revolution could in no way move towards the construction of communism - it quickly died, or 'failed' as I said earlier. It was never intended to be stuck in Russia alone. To say that it 'succeeded in Russia' is to fundamentally misunderstand what the revolution is.

[Sewer Socialist]

This has been an interesting discussion.

I have to wonder, though, how there was so much motivation to fight such a bloody civil war in the United States.

Anyone?

I wonder if the posts-needing-to-get-approved thing tends to bury what I write.

[Blake's Baby]

Two opposing groups of capitalists realised that their opposing aims could no longer be contained in the same state. As they were in control of the media (not that there were many 'mass media' of course, but there were newspapers) ther viewpoints were dominant. I doubt there was much of a movement saying 'not our fight, both sides are slave-owners'. And really, from a Marxist point of view at least, the Union could be regarded as progressive.

But essentially, tribalism whipped up by the cheerleaders of the bourgeoisie - that's what usually motivates people to civil war.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Those drones are piloted by humans.

Perhaps, but actually fighting a drone with the kind of weapons available to the average person seems like a formidable challenge. One cannot reasonably expect to hit a drone with say, an improvised Molotov cocktail, after all.

[Slavic]

Perhaps, but actually fighting a drone with the kind of weapons available to the average person seems like a formidable challenge. One cannot reasonably expect to hit a drone with say, an improvised Molotov cocktail, after all.

Hit them at their base or shoot them down. Your basically fighting an aircraft and are faced with the same disadvantages that such combat provides.

If you really want to fight drones then I'd suggest you get your Vegas comrades tooled up to take Nellis

[Sewer Socialist]

Two opposing groups of capitalists realised that their opposing aims could no longer be contained in the same state. As they were in control of the media (not that there were many 'mass media' of course, but there were newspapers) ther viewpoints were dominant. I doubt there was much of a movement saying 'not our fight, both sides are slave-owners'. And really, from a Marxist point of view at least, the Union could be regarded as progressive.

But essentially, tribalism whipped up by the cheerleaders of the bourgeoisie - that's what usually motivates people to civil war.

That makes sense. But for these reasons - bourgeois motivation, cheerleading - isn't that also going to keep armies from class consciousness? Or even more so, since there is no bourgeoisie siding with proletarian revolution?

[John Nada]

This thread has been interesting, but I'm still very undecided on the issues of arming the workers. The only way I can see that not leading to a gun-filled state like the US is if all arms are confiscated after the revolution, which is impractical to say the least. Ideas anyone?I'd say the bigger problem is disarming the old state first, rather than the workers. They probably need them.
If it was the Russian part of the world revolution, then it failed, in much the same way as building a wall is not the same as building a house. The wall went as far as it could, but without the rest of the house, it might qualify as 'some building work' but in no way qualifies as a house. Likewise, isolated in Russia, the revolution could in no way move towards the construction of communism - it quickly died, or 'failed' as I said earlier. It was never intended to be stuck in Russia alone. To say that it 'succeeded in Russia' is to fundamentally misunderstand what the revolution is.I'd say it's more like a house. The house was built, but the floor plan was flawed. Then a neighborhood was built according to a bad site plan based around first house's floor plan. Already on a bad foundation, the houses fell.

Is it that revolutions themselves fail, or are coups, restorations and counter-revolutions successful too?
Two opposing groups of capitalists realised that their opposing aims could no longer be contained in the same state. As they were in control of the media (not that there were many 'mass media' of course, but there were newspapers) ther viewpoints were dominant.There was a strong, militant abolitionist movement, and also a violent pro-slavery movement. Each had vested material interests in their side. I doubt the bourgeois abolitionist needed much convincing free blacks that slavery is bad.
I doubt there was much of a movement saying 'not our fight, both sides are slave-owners'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperhead_%28politics%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_American_Civil_War The Apaches fought both sides, and the Sioux were fighting the Union, but not for the Confederacy.
And really, from a Marxist point of view at least, the Union could be regarded as progressive.I'd say a union victory was objectively progressive overall, thought the treatment of the Native Americans was not.
But essentially, tribalism whipped up by the cheerleaders of the bourgeoisie - that's what usually motivates people to civil war.I'd say material conditions, from which ideas and conflict arise.

[Blake's Baby]

....I'd say it's more like a house. The house was built, but the floor plan was flawed. Then a neighborhood was built according to a bad site plan based around first house's floor plan. Already on a bad foundation, the houses fell...

I find that impossible to accept. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky ever considered that Russia could build a communist society on its own. So, no, it's not 'a house'. Just something that might become part of a house when the rest of the working class worldwide builds the rest of the house.

I'm not saying it wasn't as good a wall as it could be. But 'the Russian revolution' couldn't overthrow international capitalism.


...I'd say material conditions, from which ideas and conflict arise.

The question wasn't about the economic roots of the conflict, it was about what motivated people to fight. Poor farmers in Northern states didn't think 'I'll fight for the Union because I will be financially better off'.

[Ocean Seal]

I didn't say the army was progressive. I said it was composed of young people from the working class, especially when its conscripted. Large amounts of soldiers (especially rank and file, I'm obviously I'm not talking officers here) join up in order to escape shitty lives of poverty and hopelessness. A life on the dole, or joining up, seeing the world and learning a trade? Too many working class kids fall for it. But I don't really blame them.

But all that means that the army is unreliable. Easier to get it to go and kill 'them over there' to protect 'those back home'. More difficult to get it to kill 'those back home' to protect 'those back home'. Most soldiers are unwilling to shoot an old woman in the face if they think 'that could be my mam'. Soldiers have brothers and sisters and parents and nephews and nieces and even some friends, probably, who are workers. proper working class employed or unemployed workers - who will be the ones doing the revolutioning.

The police I would hazard is more often drawn from the petite-bourgeoisie. Sons of shopkeepers and whatnot. Brought up to believe in the 'rule of law' and 'the proper channels' and how 'them' are talking advantage of 'decent folk'. So, they have not just the normal reactionary mindset (eg national chauvinism) but a specially officious and petty one that already sees the working class as being semi-criminal (because poverty is a result of not working hard enough and then that means you're more or less stealing).
Actually your argument about the army is without basis bar conscription. Its not about living on the dole or seeing the world, its about national pride and protecting empire much like many who join the police do it for rule of law. The wealthiest 20% are over-represented in the army, and each subsequent quintile is less and less represented.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you mean that the wealth profile (I hardly need to say wealth isn't class, and quintiles aren't very useful - the bottom, second-bottom and middle quintiles are all 'the working class' and I'd be surprised if the second-top didn't contain many workers too) of the army isn't the same as society as a whole? Never said it was.

Or are you claiming that there are more rich people in the army than poor people? That I'd find surprising.

[Slavic]

Actually your argument about the army is without basis bar conscription. Its not about living on the dole or seeing the world, its about national pride and protecting empire much like many who join the police do it for rule of law. The wealthiest 20% are over-represented in the army, and each subsequent quintile is less and less represented.

Do you actually have a statistic for this or are.just pulling it out of your ass?
I'm in the military and most of mykcoworkers joined for school or economic reasons. Hardly any joined for solely jingoist reasons.

[John Nada]

I find that impossible to accept. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky ever considered that Russia could build a communist society on its own. So, no, it's not 'a house'. Just something that might become part of a house when the rest of the working class worldwide builds the rest of the house.After WWII over 1/4 of the world lived under "socialist construction". It wasn't in one country after that. It spread about as quick as the bourgeois revolutions did after the US and French Revolution. SU was the first house in the village, the rest(China, DDR, Poland, DPRK, Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Mongolia)and later, various revolutions afterward, were built with the same faulty plan, all with a poor foundation. The village never grew into a city and fell into decay.
I'm not saying it wasn't as good a wall as it could be. But 'the Russian revolution' couldn't overthrow international capitalism.That would've required the rest of the world to help build the city(communism), with a strong structure and a world community. Hopefully, with modern technology and advance knowledge, we'll do it right the next time.:)
The question wasn't about the economic roots of the conflict, it was about what motivated people to fight. Poor farmers in Northern states didn't think 'I'll fight for the Union because I will be financially better off'.There were moral reasons derived from Christianity, patriotism, regionalism, the enlightenment and republicanism, as well as empathy. However, there was a contradiction between the poor farmers, who themselves may have been indentured servants or just immigrated to the US, and the southern slave owners. The poor farmer wanted homesteads for their family to work. The slave owners wanted new land in the territories reserved for large plantations.
Do you actually have a statistic for this or are.just pulling it out of your ass? I'm in the military and most of mykcoworkers joined for school or economic reasons. Hardly any joined for solely jingoist reasons.All the vets I've know joined for the reasons you mentioned or were drafted. Surprisingly, I could've sworn someone posted on here something that showed higher income groups were overrepresented. Not sure.:confused:

[Blake's Baby]

After WWII over 1/4 of the world lived under "socialist construction". It wasn't in one country after that. It spread about as quick as the bourgeois revolutions did after the US and French Revolution. SU was the first house in the village, the rest(China, DDR, Poland, DPRK, Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Mongolia)and later, various revolutions afterward, were built with the same faulty plan, all with a poor foundation. The village never grew into a city and fell into decay. That would've required the rest of the world to help build the city(communism), with a strong structure and a world community...

Changing the metaphor doesn't change the point of the metaphor.

Communist society is by necessity worldwide. The world working class didn't overthrow capitalism, and therefore, there was no house built. What was built in Russia was not a house, or a communist society. To do so was impossible in Russia or any other collection of countries (none of which had proletarian revolutions).

[The Modern Prometheus]

Changing the metaphor doesn't change the point of the metaphor.

Communist society is by necessity worldwide. The world working class didn't overthrow capitalism, and therefore, there was no house built. What was built in Russia was not a house, or a communist society. To do so was impossible in Russia or any other collection of countries (none of which had proletarian revolutions).

Russia was indeed a poor place for a Proletariat revolution anyway as they where basically a semi feudal society. Wealth has to be created in the first place in order for it to be redistributed and yeah Russia was lacking in more ways then one as Lenin himself more or less admitted. If the revolution in Germany which was at the time a fairly advanced Capitalist society had succeeded then maybe things would have turned out different but who knows really.

[Blake's Baby]

It doesn't matter.

No place is 'good' for socialist revolution if it's isolated. No country can build socialism alone. It's either 'whole world' or 'not at all'. The first country to 'go' doesn't matter. It's always wrong.

[John Nada]

Changing the metaphor doesn't change the point of the metaphor.What I meant is that build socialism isn't just one house with a wall and roof that needs to be built, but a city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plans_%28drawings%29 There's more to construction than just walls and a roof. Fuck up any part and it all comes crashing down. More than a wall, but not one built to last.
Communist society is by necessity worldwide. The world working class didn't overthrow capitalism, and therefore, there was no house built. What was built in Russia was not a house, or a communist society. To do so was impossible in Russia or any other collection of countries (none of which had proletarian revolutions).Never said they achieved socialism/communism, I agree it needs to be global, and the character of the others is a another topic.
Russia was indeed a poor place for a Proletariat revolution anyway as they where basically a semi feudal society. Wealth has to be created in the first place in order for it to be redistributed and yeah Russia was lacking in more ways then one as Lenin himself more or less admitted. If the revolution in Germany which was at the time a fairly advanced Capitalist society had succeeded then maybe things would have turned out different but who knows really. Hence, my metaphor for a house on a weak foundation. Victory in even Germany might not have guaranteed success. Russia was attacked by over a dozen countries during the civil war. Even after the armistice that ended WWI, some felt the war should have continued into Germany in retaliation for the damage they did in France.
It doesn't matter.

No place is 'good' for socialist revolution if it's isolated. No country can build socialism alone. It's either 'whole world' or 'not at all'. The first country to 'go' doesn't matter. It's always wrong.Does this mean no steps towards socialism should be taken if a revolution breaks out in one place, till it spreads to the rest of the world? That they should maintain current capitalist class relations? Doesn't that kind of put the world into a big "prisoner's dilemma"?

[RedMaterialist]

As a communist, I am regularly reminded of the fact that many communist revolutions historically have resulted in dictatorships.

Isn't that the point of a communist, or rather a socialist, revolution? To end in a dictatorship of the working class?

In the 20th century successful socialist revolutions: 1. Russia, 1917, 2. China, 1945, 3. Vietnam, 1975, 4. Cuba, 1959, 5. Angola and South Africa, 1990.

You may believe that these revolutions degenerated into a state-capitalism, but the fact remains that the revolutions over-turned the existing order at that time.

[RedMaterialist]

It doesn't matter.

No place is 'good' for socialist revolution if it's isolated. No country can build socialism alone. It's either 'whole world' or 'not at all'. The first country to 'go' doesn't matter. It's always wrong.

This doesn't mean that socialists should reject a socialist revolution because it begins in one country. The entire point of Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune was that it could have succeeded. Besides, how is it possible for a world revolution to begin all at the same time?

And, the phrase "the whole world or not at all" is highly idealist and anti-materialist. It's like saying that a species must develop all at once over the entire world or not at all. A revolution will develop unevenly, in some places violently, some less violent depending on the conditions of each particular society. There won't be a specific time or place when someone can say that now, today, the world revolution can begin. And, not only that, but a world revolution can degenerate into a world counter-revolution. It's a constant struggle, a constant dialectic, as it were.

[Chomskyan]

I don't think so. Power always needs to be exercised on something. If the Bourgeoisie are deposed, they'll turn their guns elsewhere.

This isn't my opinion either, authority corrupts people's minds. The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates this.

[Skyhilist]

Not only can armed revolution work, it's literally the only type of revolution (violence-wise) that can work. When workers seize the means of production and the bourgeois send the police, troops, and other hired mercenaries to reclaim production from the working class, how do you expect to resolve that without violence? We're obviously going to have to defend ourselves.

[RedMaterialist]

Not only can armed revolution work, it's literally the only type of revolution (violence-wise) that can work. When workers seize the means of production and the bourgeois send the police, troops, and other hired mercenaries to reclaim production from the working class, how do you expect to resolve that without violence? We're obviously going to have to defend ourselves.

But first we need the theoretical preparation of the working class. They must learn the reason why they are fighting, learn the theoretical structure of exploitation and how is has historically developed. Further, the families of the working class must also be made aware of the fascist and counter-revolutionary character of the capitalist class who will be trying to wipe out every trace of the working class.

The guerilla tactics of Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap must be studied and learnt.

We must always have the support of the people, never steal form the people and never rape or abuse their women.

The enemy can only be attacked where they are weakest and only when we can win. Giap used this tactic to defeat the French and Americans in Vietnam. Only rarely can large scale military battles be considered. And most importantly, it is absolute that the fighters understand that this is first and foremost a political battle.

[Brutus]

I don't think so. Power always needs to be exercised on something. If the Bourgeoisie are deposed, they'll turn their guns elsewhere.

The bourgeoisie will turn their guns on us, yes. Once neutralised, why does the working class need to wield power? The roots of the state are in class society: once everyone has the same relation to the means of production, there are no classes; the state lacks it's roots and so it dies.


This isn't my opinion either, authority corrupts people's minds. The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates this.

Most of the guards were uneasy about the abuse there and didn't take part in it. The only one who took it seriously was the "John Wayne" guy, who was displaying demand characteristics- hardly a good example of authority corrupting since it can easily be disproved by anyone with a basic understanding ajd knowledge of Zimbardo's experiment.

[RedMaterialist]

The bourgeoisie will turn their guns on us, yes. Once neutralised, why does the working class need to wield power? The roots of the state are in class society: once everyone has the same relation to the means of production, there are no classes; the state lacks it's roots and so it dies.

It is very important to keep in mind that the bourgeoisie can regroup with help from enemy states and conduct counter-revolutionary actions similar to those in the Russian Civil War and in the American contra death squads in Central America. WWII could be an example of a murderous counter-revolutionary war conducted by Hitler. The bourgeois must not only be neutralized but must also be suppressed over time to ensure that it, the bourgeois class can never regenerate into an economic or social force. When that time is reached then the classless society will slowly arise.

[Blake's Baby]

This doesn't mean that socialists should reject a socialist revolution because it begins in one country. The entire point of Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune was that it could have succeeded. Besides, how is it possible for a world revolution to begin all at the same time?...

And who said that it should?

You know, I get the feeling that some people think I just pull metaphors out of my arse instead of thinking about them.

'Building houses is impossible because one must be able to build walls and roofs all at the same time and how are you going to do that, eh?!?!?'

Imagine you and some colleagues are starting to build a wall. No matter how good the wall is, it can never be a house. In order to be build a house, other walls must be built, and then a roof must be put on. The roof cannot be put on until all the walls are in place.

A revolution in one state is the equivalent of starting to build a wall.


...And, the phrase "the whole world or not at all" is highly idealist and anti-materialist. It's like saying that a species must develop all at once over the entire world or not at all...

It's more like saying, if you're cooking dinner, you need to do it all in the same place and at the same time, instead of some of it yesterday, some of it next week, and some of it 16,000km away, but never mind.



... A revolution will develop unevenly, in some places violently, some less violent depending on the conditions of each particular society. There won't be a specific time or place when someone can say that now, today, the world revolution can begin. And, not only that, but a world revolution can degenerate into a world counter-revolution. It's a constant struggle, a constant dialectic, as it were.

Well, obviously. I'm not talking about starting. I'm talking about completing. You think the roof can go on the house before we have the walls up. It can't. You think we can build a communist society before the revolution is completed. We can't.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Contemporary Communism must be "global" because we live in an interconnected, global economy. The reason you can't have "regional" socialism is because it must trade with capitalist states to sustain its existence, as every "Communist" state up until today has done. This requires it to conform to the norms of bourgeois political economy.

As for the issue of an armed revolution, a revolution won't succeed if the other side has a monopoly on arms. The need to arm a revolution is proportional to the arms of the counterrevolutionaries, and the violence of a revolution will likewise be proportional to the violence of counterrevolutionaries. Aside from that, the dangers of armed political action must be recognized if there is any hope for revolutionaries to make serious use of it.