Without nukes - who will defend the Revolution?

[MonsterMan]

This is my first OP, so let's see.:unsure:

Nuclear weapons - yes or no?

Let's say a country already has them, or can get them - then turns socialist - should they be kept or scrapped?

Who will protect the Socialist state without them?

My personal view is that they should be kept.

What is the consensus on the board?

[Q]

What good will they do exactly?

I mean, you're hardly going to nuke the big cities of the US in order to get the elite, are you? The nuclear weapon is inherently anti-proletarian.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is my first OP, so let's see.:unsure:

Nuclear weapons - yes or no?

Let's say a country already has them, or can get them - then turns socialist - should they be kept or scrapped?

Who will protect the Socialist state without them?

My personal view is that they should be kept.

What is the consensus on the board?

There is none. To me - ignoring the usual caveat about a "socialist state" not making any sense - it would be near-suicidal for a revolutionary state to scrap a possible deterrent against imperialist intervention.

[Speaks for the people]

This is my first OP, so let's see.:unsure:

Nuclear weapons - yes or no?

Let's say a country already has them, or can get them - then turns socialist - should they be kept or scrapped?

Who will protect the Socialist state without them?

My personal view is that they should be kept.

What is the consensus on the board?

This gets back to I think a much older question, of if one can even have socialism in just one (or a few) states. I am of course aware of the traditional Trotskyist position against that in a broad sense, and I even broadly agree with that perspective. But there is a practical matter that revolutions do happen someplace first, rather than everywhere at once, and presumably then also the practical question of how to survive long enough for the former to become the the latter. Unfortunately, I think it is in that survival question itself that most often revolutions fail or at least in part die before they can even be fully born. That broader question I also never found an entirely satisfactory answer to.

[Slavic]

There is none. To me - ignoring the usual caveat about a "socialist state" not making any sense - it would be near-suicidal for a revolutionary state to scrap a possible deterrent against imperialist intervention.

Im not sure I am reading this right. Are you saying that nuclear weapons should be retained as a deterrent against imperialist intervention?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Im not sure I am reading this right. Are you saying that nuclear weapons should be retained as a deterrent against imperialist intervention?

As a deterrent against intervention, as a weapon, whatever. It makes no sense for a revolutionary d.o.t.p. to scrap nuclear weapons.

[Illegalitarian]

True, the best way to win over large swaths of the working class during the revolutionary period would be to threaten the world with nukes

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

True, the best way to win over large swaths of the working class during the revolutionary period would be to threaten the world with nukes

This sort of pacifist argument can be used against any military action by a workers' state. I mean, yeah, the Bolsheviks fraternised with the Germans on the front lines, but when the Germans started advancing, the Bolsheviks shot back. And you don't "threaten the world" with nuclear bombs, that's the sort of sloppy thinking that has sadly become all to common when it comes to anything nuclear. It's not as if one nuclear bomb landing is going to destroy the planet.

[Illegalitarian]

No, it can't, because military action doesn't devastate large swaths of land and kill many innocents in its path. Or,it shouldn't

No one is going to nuke the bourgeois goddammit lmfao

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, it can't, because military action doesn't devastate large swaths of land and kill many innocents in its path.

No one is going to nuke the bourgeois goddammit lmfao

...erm, yes, military action does precisely that? I don't know what people think war is. War is organised butchering of human beings by other human beings. Most of the time the people being butchered are workers, even in a revolutionary war. We fight to split the imperialist armies, but in the meantime, we can't really abandon the defense of the revolution.

I mean, what, people think military action can be awesome (I know I've seen a lot of war-fetishist wankery on RL), but suddenly one method of killing humans is just too much? Really?

[consuming negativity]

you're assuming we're idiots

we're not idiots

we just don't see what we need nuclear stockpiles for

i'm 100% pro fusion technology and i'm not a hippie

i'm 100% pro research and science and technology

just, seriously, we really don't need to be able to level cities with the push of a button

it's just not required

in honesty, i can't even think of a situation for which it would be useful

[Zoroaster]

Nuclear weapons are pointless, and benefit no one. They should be dismantled as soon as possible.

[Illegalitarian]

...erm, yes, military action does precisely that? I don't know what people think war is. War is organised butchering of human beings by other human beings. Most of the time the people being butchered are workers, even in a revolutionary war. We fight to split the imperialist armies, but in the meantime, we can't really abandon the defense of the revolution.

I mean, what, people think military action can be awesome (I know I've seen a lot of war-fetishist wankery on RL), but suddenly one method of killing humans is just too much? Really?

If you can't see the difference in defending the revolution against counter-revolutionary forces through military conflict and straight-up nuking an area that is, most likely, populated by innocent people, you're absolutely alone on this issue. And wrong.

[Creative Destruction]

I really don't know what kind of scenario 870 envisions where nuclear weapons would be of use in a war that is being waged by classes and not nations. The tactical purpose of a nuclear weapon was to scare a target nation into submission, not wage war generally. You're not going to scare a dispersed class in a world wide class war by nuking an area that might be more populated with counter-revolutionaries. That's completely insane.

[Illegalitarian]

Yeah that is pretty much what I wanted to say.

There is no "bourgeoistopia" that we can throw nukes at, any nuclear warfare would end in unneeded devastation that would kill more of the people fighting on our side than it would the people we're fighting, along with destroying infrastructure that will be absolutely vital to the management of a revolutionary and post-revolutionary society.


It seems as if 870 is taking Mao's position on the issue: It doesn't matter if we kill 3/4 of the planet to bring about socialism, as long as the remaining 25% are socialists when the mushroom clouds settle.

[Homo Songun]

It seems as if 870 is taking Mao's position on the issue: It doesn't matter if we kill 3/4 of the planet to bring about socialism, as long as the remaining 25% are socialists when the mushroom clouds settle.
Citation needed.

Here's a useful informatic from the BBC:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59306000/gif/_59306324_nuclear_weapons_464.gif

For myself, I can't take seriously any call for nuclear non-proliferation from the imperialist powers unless they were to eliminate say, half of their stockpiles as a good faith effort first... it is not like they wouldn't still have an overwhelming advantage numerically!

[The numbers for imperialist Russia in the above graphic are misleading AFAIK]

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.viceland.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/121-635x476.jpg

for the worker's bomb!

[MonsterMan]

What good will they do exactly?

I mean, you're hardly going to nuke the big cities of the US in order to get the elite, are you? The nuclear weapon is inherently anti-proletarian.

It will protect the country against imperialism - that's what it will do. M7777

Can you imagine Cuba being left alone with Soviet protection, for example. No way, it would have been invaded in the early 60's by the capitalists.

So, without nukes, who will you rely on for protection?

[Illegalitarian]

Citation needed.

Here's a useful informatic from the BBC:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59306000/gif/_59306324_nuclear_weapons_464.gif

For myself, I can't take seriously any call for nuclear non-proliferation from the imperialist powers unless they were to eliminate say, half of their stockpiles as a good faith effort first... it is not like they wouldn't still have an overwhelming advantage numerically!

[The numbers for imperialist Russia in the above graphic are misleading AFAIK]

"Let us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a little higher, it could be half ... I say that if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people again"

http://books.google.com/books?id=5NsMWCHDStQC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22Let+us+imagine+how+many+people+would+die+if+ war+breaks+out.+There+are+2.7+billion+people+in+th e+world,+and+a+third+could+be+lost.+If+it+is+a+lit tle+higher,+it+could+be+half+...+I+say+that+if+the +worst+came+to+the+worst+and+one-half+dies,+there+will+still+be+one-half+left,+but+imperialism+would+be+razed+to+the+g round+and+the+whole+world+would+become+socialist.+ After+a+few+years+there+would+be+2.7+billion+peopl e+again%22&source=bl&ots=AmZ6QrC66u&sig=5ye3Pb5Hi0lMZ2Gi-0UfdpkPrkk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BBpXVJO5K8uCsQSyjoKYCA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Let%20us%20imagine%20how%20many%20people%20wo uld%20die%20if%20war%20breaks%20out.%20There%20are %202.7%20billion%20people%20in%20the%20world%2C%20 and%20a%20third%20could%20be%20lost.%20If%20it%20i s%20a%20little%20higher%2C%20it%20could%20be%20hal f%20...%20I%20say%20that%20if%20the%20worst%20came %20to%20the%20worst%20and%20one-half%20dies%2C%20there%20will%20still%20be%20one-half%20left%2C%20but%20imperialism%20would%20be%20 razed%20to%20the%20ground%20and%20the%20whole%20wo rld%20would%20become%20socialist.%20After%20a%20fe w%20years%20there%20would%20be%202.7%20billion%20p eople%20again%22&f=false

[MonsterMan]

I agree that nukes are vile weapons, but who will stop the enemies of the revolution from taking over?

[Q]

It will protect the country against imperialism - that's what it will do. M7777

Can you imagine Cuba being left alone with Soviet protection, for example. No way, it would have been invaded in the early 60's by the capitalists.
I will never rely on the MAD principle for protection.


So, without nukes, who will you rely on for protection?
Universal education in the use of (advanced) weaponry and workers militias were classic Marxist programmatical points for a very real reason.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't see how nuclear weapons protect anyone. Nuclear fallout shelters and other precautions? Sure. But you're not going to make anyone safer by making sure you can kill a bunch of innocent people too.

[Creative Destruction]

It will protect the country against imperialism - that's what it will do. M7777

Can you imagine Cuba being left alone with Soviet protection, for example. No way, it would have been invaded in the early 60's by the capitalists.

So, without nukes, who will you rely on for protection?

You want to instigate a nationalist nuclear war rather than try to instigate an international class war? I thought we dropped this insane cold war bullshit two decades ago.

[ChangeAndChance]

You want to instigate a nationalist nuclear war rather than try to instigate an international class war? I thought we dropped this insane cold war bullshit two decades ago.

He's a Marxist-Leninist who almost certainly believes in "socialism in one country". What did you expect?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you can't see the difference in defending the revolution against counter-revolutionary forces through military conflict and straight-up nuking an area that is, most likely, populated by innocent people, you're absolutely alone on this issue. And wrong.

Alright, serious question, do you realise what "military conflict" entails?

In the period of the Civil War in Russia, it entailed artillery, chemical warfare, primitive bombers and so on. These could and would kill civilians as well as enemy troops. Generally, trying to tweak war so that no civilians die is a fool's errand. That is part of the reason why we oppose bourgeois war.

In the present, we have improved artillery, improved chemical warfare, bombers, cruise missiles and so on. Do you think that in a revolutionary war fought with modern technology civilians would be safe?

People have this weird idea a revolutionary war is about killing the bourgeoisie. That's simply nonsense.

(As for the impact of things like nuclear weapons on class consciousness and the ability to split the imperialist conscript armies, just recall that the Bolsheviks used poison gas, utterly leveled Yaroslavl and much of Moscow with artillery and so on - and still had the majority of the working class on their side.)

If a revolutionary d.o.t.p. were to scrap its nuclear weapons, what is supposed to hold the imperialists back from using nuclear weapons themselves? People here, it seems, have more faith in imperialists than in socialists.

[John Nada]

I'd like a world without nukes, but if a DotP was established in a major country the bourgeois countries wouldn't hesitate to nuke them if needed.

I was thinking, did nuclear weapons give the "peaceful co-existence" and "peaceful evolution to socialism" advocates more leverage against a revolutionary line?

[Sasha]

if it needs nukes for protection it wasnt a revolution to begin with..

[John Nada]

if it needs nukes for protection it wasnt a revolution to begin with..

No, if it needed nukes it WAS a revolution. Keyword being "was" in past tense. Not much left afterwards.

[Sasha]

No, if it needed nukes it WAS a revolution. Keyword being "was" in past tense. Not much left afterwards.

long live the eternal leader Mad Max and uphold the proletarian state of Thunderdome!

[Sasha]

Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-MadMaxism?

[Lord Testicles]

My personal view is that they should be kept.

What is the consensus on the board?

I think nuclear bombs should be kept because they have a peaceful application (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29) which is what I think we should be using them for.

E3Lxx2VAYi8


For the people who are arguing that we need nuclear bombs to protect the revolution, if you are so sure that the reactionaries are ready to use nuclear weapons against us then what makes you think they'll wait until you've gotten a hold of one of their stockpiles or managed to make your own before they decide to use them?

This twisted idea of recreating the cold war with both sides pointing missiles at each other is pure fantasy. If they're going to use those kids of weapons then they're sure as fuck going to use them before you have the ability to retaliate in kind and not after.

[John Nada]

Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-MadMaxism?The quickest path to primitive communism!
I think nuclear bombs should be kept because they have a peaceful application which is what I think we should be using them for.Fuck defending SiOC. With this technology we can have socialism in one galaxy!:lol: Try blockading that, bourgeoisie!
For the people who are arguing that we need nuclear bombs to protect the revolution, if you are so sure that the reactionaries are ready to use nuclear weapons against us then what makes you think they'll wait until you've gotten a hold of one of their stockpiles or managed to make your own before they decide to use them?I wasn't think about a nuke-free country making new ones. If anything the focus should be on missile defense systems. If anything the threat of nuclear war might have given the social democrats more credibility. It did have the US flipping out over Cuba.

I just wonder, what the fuck would they'd do with the already made nukes if a revolution happened in a country that already has nukes? Destroy them to eliminate the possibility of nuclear winter, but risk ending up like Iraq or Libya? Or keep them as a deterrent but risk a new cold war or worse? Maybe use them up for socialist construction in outer space like Skinz suggested?:grin:

[Creative Destruction]

The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't established in a country. Jesus Christ, people.

[Lord Testicles]

Fuck defending SiOC. With this technology we can have socialism in one galaxy!:lol:

Socialism in one galaxy is a much more realistic possibility than socialism in one country.


I wasn't think about a nuke-free country making new ones. If anything the focus should be on missile defense systems. If anything the threat of nuclear war might have given the social democrats more credibility. It did have the US flipping out over Cuba.

I just wonder, what the fuck would they'd do with the already made nukes if a revolution happened in a country that already has nukes? Destroy them to eliminate the possibility of nuclear winter, but risk ending up like Iraq or Libya? Or keep them as a deterrent but risk a new cold war or worse? Maybe use them up for socialist construction in outer space like Skinz suggested? :lol:

I wasn't talking about a nuke-free country building new ones. Let me put it another way: If a revolution happened in a country with nuclear weapons and you propose that the forces of reaction would use nuclear weapons to defeat the revolution, then what makes you so confident that they'd allow you to get into a position where you can decide what to do with said weapons? Why wouldn't the country in questions use those nukes to annihilate you long before you got your hands on them?

[Illegalitarian]

Alright, serious question, do you realise what "military conflict" entails?

In the period of the Civil War in Russia, it entailed artillery, chemical warfare, primitive bombers and so on. These could and would kill civilians as well as enemy troops. Generally, trying to tweak war so that no civilians die is a fool's errand. That is part of the reason why we oppose bourgeois war.

In the present, we have improved artillery, improved chemical warfare, bombers, cruise missiles and so on. Do you think that in a revolutionary war fought with modern technology civilians would be safe?

People have this weird idea a revolutionary war is about killing the bourgeoisie. That's simply nonsense.

(As for the impact of things like nuclear weapons on class consciousness and the ability to split the imperialist conscript armies, just recall that the Bolsheviks used poison gas, utterly leveled Yaroslavl and much of Moscow with artillery and so on - and still had the majority of the working class on their side.)

If a revolutionary d.o.t.p. were to scrap its nuclear weapons, what is supposed to hold the imperialists back from using nuclear weapons themselves? People here, it seems, have more faith in imperialists than in socialists.


You think this only because you're universalizing the experience of the Russian revolution and think that a global revolution would resemble conventional warfare. The entire premise of your argument is based on a completely fallacious marxist-leninist gun porn fantasy of proletarian helicopters and super awesome explosions and fighter jets like some sort of Soviet Rambo movie, and that's just unsubstantiated crap to be frank

[John Nada]

The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't established in a country. Jesus Christ, people.But there will be an area that was a country or many countries that the DotP first takes hold. It's only when the forces of reaction are no longer relevant that the state withers away. Because, there's no more classes, no more state.
Socialism in one galaxy is a much more realistic possibility than socialism in one country.What about socialism in one space colony? An anti-Rapture.

Actually I think it's kind of sad that the technology exists for interstellar travel, but is held back due to the fact nuclear technologies gauged towards genocide.
I wasn't talking about a nuke-free country building new ones. Let me put it another way: If a revolution happened in a country with nuclear weapons and you propose that the forces of reaction would use nuclear weapons to defeat the revolution, then what makes you so confident that they'd allow you to get into a position where you can decide what to do with said weapons? Why wouldn't the country in questions use those nukes to annihilate you long before you got your hands on them?Exactly. The ball would be in the reactionaries court. That's what I was getting at. What could you do about this?

[Lord Testicles]

What about socialism in one space colony? An anti-Rapture.

I'd prefer socialism in one Dyson sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere). That would be some cool shit.


Actually I think it's kind of sad that the technology exists for interstellar travel, but is held back due to the fact nuclear technologies gauged towards genocide.

It is sad.


Exactly. The ball would be in the reactionaries court. That's what I was getting at. What could you do about this?

I think in that scenario all you would be able to do is die in a nuclear fire. Otherwise, yes you will probably need a deterrent but if you are in a position where you are in a stalemate long enough for it to evolve into a cold war type scenario then I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the "revolution" is probably already done for.

[Slavic]

You think this only because you're universalizing the experience of the Russian revolution and think that a global revolution would resemble conventional warfare. The entire premise of your argument is based on a completely fallacious marxist-leninist gun porn fantasy of proletarian helicopters and super awesome explosions and fighter jets like some sort of Soviet Rambo movie, and that's just unsubstantiated crap to be frank

Not to mention the Russian Revolution failed. If they had nuclear weapons, it would have failed as well except with hundreds of thousands more deaths.

And to echo as others have said. The US and Israel have both bombed nuclear facilities and killed nuclear scientists in other bourgeoisie states in order to stop weapon development. Not to mention that both nations have postured to forcibly secure nuclear weapons in armed countries if they become unstable/uncooperative ala Pakistan.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You think this only because you're universalizing the experience of the Russian revolution and think that a global revolution would resemble conventional warfare. The entire premise of your argument is based on a completely fallacious marxist-leninist gun porn fantasy of proletarian helicopters and super awesome explosions and fighter jets like some sort of Soviet Rambo movie, and that's just unsubstantiated crap to be frank

No, I would say that, unlike people who imagine we can have nice wars where civilians don't die in droves, I am well aware of what war entails. War is organised butchery. At the same time, civil war and imperialist intervention are inevitable during the revolution. If neither happens, the "revolution" has obviously not challenged the rule of the bourgeoisie (or the bourgeoisie has just folded up and collapsed globally, doubtlessly courtesy of some fairy godmother).


I wasn't talking about a nuke-free country building new ones. Let me put it another way: If a revolution happened in a country with nuclear weapons and you propose that the forces of reaction would use nuclear weapons to defeat the revolution, then what makes you so confident that they'd allow you to get into a position where you can decide what to do with said weapons? Why wouldn't the country in questions use those nukes to annihilate you long before you got your hands on them?

This sort of argument can be used against anything - "well why wouldn't the reaction use the air force against you before you 'got your hands on' an air force?" Because the seizure of state power is the point where a revolutionary movement becomes a real and immediate threat to global capitalism. That is why the Entente didn't send soldiers into Russia or Hungary until the pro-Entente governments (well the Karoly government tried to be pro-Entente, bless it, but the Entente wouldn't hear of it) had been overthrown.

And what do you mean "we propose" that nuclear weapons would be used? We are talking about the same bandit bourgeoisie that used nuclear weapons on Japan pretty much in order to intimidate the Soviet Union.

So what do you propose, that we let them use nuclear weapons because, why exactly? Because the world would burn otherwise? No matter - if we can't establish socialism it will burn anyway. The general moods on this thread reminds me of the (admittedly very sick and tired) Mandel admitting he would rather see the world in imperialist hands than a nuclear war.

[Creative Destruction]

But there will be an area that was a country or many countries that the DotP first takes hold. It's only when the forces of reaction are no longer relevant that the state withers away. Because, there's no more classes, no more state.

The dictatorship of the proletariat needs to be a world-wide event. As such, it's dependent on the proletariat being a united force against the bourgeoisie. You think it would be a good idea for the places where the revolution begins to take hold to nuke the places where it hasn't -- where there still needs to be a measure of class solidarity? I'm sure that would curry favor with proletarians in those areas in a hot minute! I mean, good lord. That is some shit strategy right there.

The nuclear bomb, again, was a device used to put nations -- irrespective of classes -- in submission. A class war isn't going to be the bourgeoisie all huddled in a specific area for you to wipe them all out. They will be dispersed and there will inevitably be proletarians among them. It's just incredibly dumb across the board. A class war isn't a war of national boundaries. I really think this dumb bullshit is just an extension of the SOIC crap. Like, the movement has been boiled down by a bunch of Cold War revivalists who have hurt feelings and fevered dreams of nuking The Bourgeoisie as if they are going to be confined in one area of the world. This is about as stupid as the South Will Rise Again jackasses in the Southern U.S.

[Lord Testicles]

This sort of argument can be used against anything - "well why wouldn't the reaction use the air force against you before you 'got your hands on' an air force?"

It can but an air force isn't comparable to a nuclear weapon, so I don't think we should be too worried about the odd conventional air strike.



So what do you propose, that we let them use nuclear weapons because, why exactly? Because the world would burn otherwise?

No, how do you propose that we stop them using them?

[John Nada]

The dictatorship of the proletariat needs to be a world-wide event. As such, it's dependent on the proletariat being a united force against the bourgeoisie. You think it would be a good idea for the places where the revolution begins to take hold to nuke the places where it hasn't -- where there still needs to be a measure of class solidarity? I'm sure that would curry favor with proletarians in those areas in a hot minute! I mean, good lord. That is some shit strategy right there.What?:confused: You're attacking a strawman. I never said to nuke places that the revolution has yet to spread to.
The nuclear bomb, again, was a device used to put nations -- irrespective of classes -- in submission. A class war isn't going to be the bourgeoisie all huddled in a specific area for you to wipe them all out. They will be dispersed and there will inevitably be proletarians among them. It's just incredibly dumb across the board. A class war isn't a war of national boundaries. I really think this dumb bullshit is just an extension of the SOIC crap. Like, the movement has been boiled down by a bunch of Cold War revivalists who have hurt feelings and fevered dreams of nuking The Bourgeoisie as if they are going to be confined in one area of the world. This is about as stupid as the South Will Rise Again jackasses in the Southern U.S.I can barely understand what you're arguing about.

There will be areas yet to be liberated. I don't want to nuke them, and I don't want the liberated areas to get nuked. What I'm worried about is the liberated areas getting nuke by desperate governments. Which is likely what they'd do if the DotP didn't recognize their imaginary lines, and why it's got to be a global revolution. But this is a problem. You can't build socialism in isolation, yet it must win worldwide. Much of that world is ruled by nuclear powers, like it or not.

The global revolution won't occur simultaneously. The proletariat won't simultaneously overthrow their governments all at once. One will fall right after another in all likelihood, but it's absurd to think it's going to be some quick well choreographed event. There will be different levels of opposition, depending on the strength of the proletariat or the weakness of the bourgeoisie. It could take a week, a year or a decade. Considering how long something like a strike or protest lasts, it'll take at least that long at best.

[Illegalitarian]

No, I would say that, unlike people who imagine we can have nice wars where civilians don't die in droves, I am well aware of what war entails. War is organised butchery. At the same time, civil war and imperialist intervention are inevitable during the revolution. If neither happens, the "revolution" has obviously not challenged the rule of the bourgeoisie (or the bourgeoisie has just folded up and collapsed globally, doubtlessly courtesy of some fairy godmother).


Again with idealistic October Roadism.. civil war, imperialist intervention, this is all such deterministic romanticism with no real basis in Marxism or reality.


I suppose you also think a little bald man has to take a train ride into a nation before it can experience revolution too

[Sinister Intents]

Again with idealistic October Roadism.. civil war, imperialist intervention, this is all such deterministic romanticism with no real basis in Marxism or reality.


I suppose you also think a little bald man has to take a train ride into a nation before it can experience revolution too

It did in the case of Russia a bit, but the anarchists abd other social revolutionists paved the way for the October revolution months prior.

[Illegalitarian]

But in the case of Russia

Trots and left-coms have this tendency to universalize the experience of the Russians, as if a successful working class revolution will necessarily be an exact recreation of the Russian revolution, which of course leads to them sitting around doing a lot of nothing, waiting for their October road to appear to them out of the mist so they can storm the winter palace with their fellow peasants.

As Lenin said:


"Experience has proved that, on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done."

Which is true, but not the extent lazy leninists would like to think.

[John Nada]

Again with idealistic October Roadism.. civil war, imperialist intervention, this is all such deterministic romanticism with no real basis in Marxism or reality.


I suppose you also think a little bald man has to take a train ride into a nation before it can experience revolution tooHistorical Materialism says the revolution will be won after a declaration is written on a French ship called Grandmother, which then sets up a foco after a long march, wins the support of a small group of exploited revolutionaries who get massacred in a protracted battle of Yorktown, seizing the Winter Versailles Congress from fascist-imperialist after winning the popular vote of soldiers. Oh, and a few nukes go off.

[Illegalitarian]

At least 3000 anarchis- I mean agents of the white menace must be ruthlessly murdered for making very basic and easily meetable demands before the giant lock appears and the key of revolution unlocks the door of socialismo in one global cenre with Croatian characteristics

[MonsterMan]

I will never rely on the MAD principle for protection.


Universal education in the use of (advanced) weaponry and workers militias were classic Marxist programmatical points for a very real reason.

not much good if you achieve that but other countries prefer the capitalist / colonial method.

how will your education save you then?

[MonsterMan]

I don't see how nuclear weapons protect anyone. Nuclear fallout shelters and other precautions? Sure. But you're not going to make anyone safer by making sure you can kill a bunch of innocent people too.

MAD works!

[MonsterMan]

You want to instigate a nationalist nuclear war rather than try to instigate an international class war? I thought we dropped this insane cold war bullshit two decades ago.

sounds good in theory, and one day perhaps, but for the here and now - I prefer real power to protect the revolution - not theories of Trotsky

[MonsterMan]

if it needs nukes for protection it wasnt a revolution to begin with..

complete nonsense - because what if the capitalist countries decided to bash the revolution

The mighty reign of the Soviet Union would not have lasted more than a few years were it not for Stalin's nuclear deterrent - same could be said for China, Cuba and Vietnam

Can you really see Reagan just letting the Communist countries and ideologies spreading without the fear of MAD - no way!

[consuming negativity]

did that really require four posts

[MonsterMan]

10 posts would have been better - as most of you deserve a reply, alas, space is limited;)

[John Nada]

complete nonsense - because what if the capitalist countries decided to bash the revolutionDecide to bash? Will "bash" more like it.
The mighty reign of the Soviet Union would not have lasted more than a few years were it not for Stalin's nuclear deterrent - same could be said for China, Cuba and VietnamSo Stalin shouldn't have gotten nukes, otherwise they would have died and got replaced with communism like they were suppose to. If anything US nuking Japan put their goal of world revolution on hold.
Can you really see Reagan just letting the Communist countries and ideologies spreading without the fear of MAD - no way!No, and with MAD he wasn't letting communism spread, which would entail having no countries. No such thing as "a communist country".

I was thinking, the neutron bomb was called the capitalist bomb by the Soviets, because it killed the people while leaving the property intact. Could there be a communist bomb that destroys property while leaving the people intact?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I agree with Q and some Trotskyist comrades, up to a certain point only though. The political movements of the working class should always call for the abolition of violence and especially such powerful means of violence as nuclear weapons.

If a revolution were to happen in two, three or four countries in Europe, and nuclear weapons were to fall into the hands of them, a strong campaign for a UN session on the abolition or at least abstinence of all nations' nuclear and chemical weapons stockpiles should be initiated. Why? If not out of any humanistic moral consideration, then at least from a tactical military viewpoint that the strongest capitalist nations of Russia, USA, China have more of them than a socialist Europe could.

If on the other hand the world proletarian revolution survives but is once again isolated to only a few territories and the bourgeoisie fancy another world war, all resources would have to be utilized by the socialist states to ensure their survival and keep alight a flame of hope for the whole of humanity on this little planet.

[Blake's Baby]

The dictatorship of the proletariat needs to be a world-wide event...

... I really think this dumb bullshit is just an extension of the SOIC crap...

I think you're confusing the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat with socialist society. Of course the revolutionary dictatorship is territorially-limited, it's what the proletariat is doing while it is wresting control from the bourgeoisie. Do you seriously think that it will happen simultaneously? That workers all across the globe will be able to co-ordinate revolutionary action all at the same time, that proceeds equally-smoothly in all territories?

I think it's inevitable that there will be areas that go 'first'. I can't see how this couldn't be the case. And unfortunately, I think there's a good chance that Barcelona or Manchester or Detroit might be nuked when it happens.

Whether it's a good idea or not to threaten retaliation... I can't see that the dictatorship threatening to nuke Seville or Oxford or Boston is any real use. What sort of threat is it? The bourgeoisie knows that any nuclear strike by a proletarian power will kill more workers than bourgeois (many times over). I know Durruti said we do not fear the ruins, but really, class war in a nuclear wasteland is not how I think we should be starting to build a new society. I fear the bourgeoisie will be happier burning the world around us than giving up control though.

[Creative Destruction]

sounds good in theory, and one day perhaps, but for the here and now - I prefer real power to protect the revolution - not theories of Trotsky

who said anything about trotsky

[Blake's Baby]

who said anything about trotsky

Well, exactly. Trotsky never advocated simultaneous revolution in all countries, he preferred the idea that the working class should take power in one territory first, because it could, and wait for the rest of the world to catch up.

Whereas rednoise wants to delay the revolution everywhere until everywhere has 'caught up' before even beginning.

Pretty much the opposite of what Trotsky said. Get your facts right MonsterMan.

[Illegalitarian]

I think that the working class, in the event of a revolution, should definitely try and acquire control of these weapons.

Revolution will not all happen at once everywhere in the world simultaneously, as Blake pointed out. It will likely start somewhere in the east and start spreading from there, and if it does, the dotp in that region will be treated as an imperialist aggressor and it is very likely that the bourgeois could use nuclear weapons against such a movement.

So it's our duty, I think, to try and shut such action down asap

[Homo Songun]

It seems as if 870 is taking Mao's position on the issue: It doesn't matter if we kill 3/4 of the planet to bring about socialism, as long as the remaining 25% are socialists when the mushroom clouds settle.

Citation needed.

"Let us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a little higher, it could be half ... I say that if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people again"

fuckin' lol

(not that war isn't horrible)

[Illegalitarian]

That doesn't really make it much better does it?

I generally agree with him, but this was in the context of nuclear war, which is clearly worse than people simply dying due to the realities of revolution, which is not the same thing.