Should we purposefully let things get worse to foment revolution?

[Marxizm]

Are you guys willing to purposefully let the country get worse and increase the power of the Aristocracy to further increase the chances of revolution? Do you guys oppose reforms so odds of a revolution increases? Im very curious what you guys think, is your guys main goal armed revolution? And am I really such a horrible person for not agreeing with that 100%? I understand I have tons to learn and am still very young and im not entirely opposed to the idea of revolution, I just always thought through Democratic Socialism we could reach Socialism through reforms rather than violence. I am under the impression Revolution is an option only if reform is impossible and striking is not working or being suppressed with violence. I know this is "RevLeft" but I am new here and am not entirely surely what your guys definition of "Revolution" is and under what circumstances will it be initiated and how do you guys plan to foment this revolution?

Dont misunderstand me, I am on your guys side im just very young and confused about this whole concept of Revolution vs Reform, Democratic Socialists vs Revolutionary Socialists etc. I am even willing to take a political test if you guys have one for me to show you guys I am a far left wing Socialist. I took a test on "politicaltest.net" and it labelled me a Trotskyist.

[Bala Perdida]

You might be thinking a little of this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

Also I personally don't see this revolution significantly brewing anywhere. I'm don't much care to start one. Still, 200 years of reformism in this country (USA) and nothing much to show for it. Also strikes have been isolated and suppressed violently. Especially social protests. So that breaking point moment all the reformists and pacifists are looking for, it's not coming it's already happening.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The odds of revolution don't increase with greater oppression. In fact, revolution is far more likely to occur when workers have seen that they have the power to change all of society, which workers learn as they participate in and win class conflicts.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Most on here would agree that violence will be necessary and socialism cannot be achieved by means of Reformism. With that being said, I don't think many on here want to see things get worse for a possibly better chance at Revolution in the unforeseeable future, we're already struggling as it is.


Also, that political test isn't very accurate, trots are full of shit

[Fourth Internationalist]

Also, that political test isn't very accurate, trots are full of shit

What do you mean by that? What does it have to do with some silly little internet quiz?

[BIXX]

What do you mean by that? What does it have to do with some silly little internet quiz?
The op said that they'd take a test to prove they were a far leftist. However, it labeled them as a trotskyist. So 2 things: 1, those tests are fucking stupid. 2, trotskyists suck.

On the topic at hand, when the social order inflicts violence on our bodies every day all day, why should we not use violence to attack it?

[Art Vandelay]

What do you mean by that? What does it have to do with some silly little internet quiz?

I wouldn't worry about it. I can count the amount of genuine communists on this site with my fingers.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The op said that they'd take a test to prove they were a far leftist. However, it labeled them as a trotskyist. So 2 things: 1, those tests are fucking stupid. 2, trotskyists suck.

Those quizzes are silly little things that aren't accurate, true, but comments about a specific tendency being "full of shit" or saying that they "suck" is unnecessary, unrelated to the subject of the thread, and about as unwarranted as saying the same thing about any other tendency.

[Blake's Baby]

'Aristocracy'? What is this, 1799?

The problem is not the 'aristocracy', it's global capitalism, and has been for a century or more.

There is something that you say that I completely agree with, and that's expressed in the slogan 'peaceably if we can, forcefully if we must', a slogan of the Chartists in England in the 18430s-40s. I entirely agree with that way of looking at it; but, as regards revolution, I think most of us think that we can't peaceably, an therfore we must forcefully. It's that simple, really. 'Reformism' has failed to lead to socialist society; capitalism has instead tightenedd its control over the whole planet. Of course there are some who think that Cuba/China/North Korea are 'socialist' but that can't be helped...

[Fourth Internationalist]

I wouldn't worry about it. I can count the amount of genuine communists on this site with my fingers.

Yeah, I don't really let it get to me at all. I just feel it's better to point it out even when things like that are said.

[Marxizm]

There is not a single industrialized country that doesnt have a welfare state, Capitalism has won in the economic sphere but Socialism has won in the Social sphere, all industrialized countries now have mixed economies, you cant pretend "reformist Socialism" has lost entirely, in many areas we have undoubtedly won. Tell me, do you see the Nordic Model as a Capitalist system of extreme exploitation? No? Well neither do I, and we should aim for something close to that and even better, we can do it through non-violent resistance. Dont confuse non-violence with non-violent RESISTANCE, the two are very different. Tell me, did MLK get what he wanted through reform and non-violent resistance, or through revolution? Well I think its a mix of both, we need both of us here the reformists and the revolutionaries, because the revolutionaries can scare those in power into accepting the reformists demands, just like L.B.J had to do with MLK, he knew either he could accept MLK's demands or risk people jumping on the more violent revolutionary path of Malcolm X, so they went with MLK demands instead but I dont think MLK could have done it without the Malcolm X types waiting on the side ready to strike if MLK was ignored.

[BIXX]

There is not a single industrialized country that doesnt have a welfare state, Capitalism has won in the economic sphere but Socialism has won in the Social sphere,

Gtfo

For real, capitalism is a totality, it consumes certain shit to make it appear nicer when really it is the same system that forces us to die in poverty despite the "welfare state" or any of that crap.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Reformism has won indeed, and it's goal is to enable global imperialism and super exploitation in oppressed countries by diverting workers away from revolutionary conclusions. Also, the demands of the Civil Rights Movement were won only because of black militants that were fighting for their rights. It is they, not the reformist leaders like MLK, who were able to place the fear of immense social uproar into the minds of the capitalists to get them to concede (a little bit) to the demands of blacks.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry Marxizm, but if you think social welfare programmes are what 'socialism' is about, you're unlikely to get much sense out of anyone here. We are, quite honestly, talking a different language.

So; we'd mostly reject your conception of 'socialism' and argue that social welfare is a means for capitalism to keep the population healthy enough to work, educated enough to fulfill the roles that capitalism assigns in the productive and distributive processes, and keep the social peace enough to let capital continue to exploit us.

I mean, come on, countries like the UK, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands are monarchies, and very racist societies. There's not much 'socialist' about that.

They're also dismantling their welfare systems, so even if you're right that that's a reasonable definition of 'socialism', then it still hasn't 'won', it's currently losing.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Tell me, do you see the Nordic Model as a Capitalist system of extreme exploitation?

Yes. Yes I do actually.


Tell me, did MLK get what he wanted through reform and non-violent resistance, or through revolution?

MLK didn't get what he wanted, except maybe an end to de jure segregation. Nonetheless, non legally enforced segregation and oppression of minorities and workers continues




Seriously though, nobody's attacking you, there's no need to be so defensive.

[consuming negativity]

Are you guys willing to purposefully let the country get worse and increase the power of the Aristocracy to further increase the chances of revolution? Do you guys oppose reforms so odds of a revolution increases? Im very curious what you guys think, is your guys main goal armed revolution? And am I really such a horrible person for not agreeing with that 100%? I understand I have tons to learn and am still very young and im not entirely opposed to the idea of revolution, I just always thought through Democratic Socialism we could reach Socialism through reforms rather than violence. I am under the impression Revolution is an option only if reform is impossible and striking is not working or being suppressed with violence. I know this is "RevLeft" but I am new here and am not entirely surely what your guys definition of "Revolution" is and under what circumstances will it be initiated and how do you guys plan to foment this revolution?

Dont misunderstand me, I am on your guys side im just very young and confused about this whole concept of Revolution vs Reform, Democratic Socialists vs Revolutionary Socialists etc. I am even willing to take a political test if you guys have one for me to show you guys I am a far left wing Socialist. I took a test on "politicaltest.net" and it labelled me a Trotskyist.



Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.



But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm




this should probably be in learning.

[Futility Personified]

Letting things become worse used to seem quite appealing when I was younger, as to let them get better or worse wasn't exactly in my sphere of influence anyway and could hardly affect me while I was at school.

I read that good old Goebbel's quote about repeating lies the other day, and it put me in mind of how awfully potent climate change denial and racism are in the arsenal of reactionaries. Letting reactionary dogma completely entrench itself into the common consciousness of the world, and letting the stratification of society progress further is not going to enhance some abstract revolution in the future. It just means that there will be no base for the next generation of radicals to organize from. Maybe from the perspective of killing off the old, ineffective left (or old ineffective new left?) it seems appealing, but when all the right books are banned, when the internet has become completely sterilised and when the means of discourse are utterly controlled there isn't going to be a possibility of the future of the left to organize.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'm being one of those people who just reads the title of a thread and none of the discussion, yet responding.

It really doesn't matter if we make things "worse" (however that would even be measured) because the job of the state in class society is not to maintain peace but manage conflict. Conflict is always occurring, the trick is to latch onto it and push it as far as it will go.

[bcbm]

i dont know that 'we' have much of a say in this

[Hit The North]

^^^Yes, who is "we" and when do we get the power to change anything?

If the OP's question is, "Should we abstain from the class struggle and hope that the workers are crushed by capital?" Then the answer is obviously, "No."

The optimum conditions for revolution is a confident, organised working class confronting an insolvable economic crisis - at least one that is unsolvable in the framework of bourgeois society.

Of course, the two are connected. Every increase in the power of workers is a diminution of the power of capital. Capitalist crisis is inevitable but, as Lenin argued, it can always be overcome by making the proletariat pay for it - in plummeting wages and mass unemployment, etc. The more we can resist this, the harder it is for capital to recover.

[Subversive]

The odds of revolution don't increase with greater oppression. In fact, revolution is far more likely to occur when workers have seen that they have the power to change all of society, which workers learn as they participate in and win class conflicts.
That's not what Marx said:

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
Source: One of those speeches that is no longer online due to copyright issues.
But hey, the quote I'm using is still posted here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/

Anyway, this speech Marx gave 'On Free Trade' was actually his support of a 'Free Market' (now called neo-liberalism). He argued that a true Free Market would exploit the worker to the point that the worker MUST revolt ("to the extreme point") and that it would indeed inevitably foment a revolution.

He even states it directly that a Free Market would hasten the revolution.

So I'm not sure why you argue otherwise, as it says you're a Trotskyist. And I don't see any reason why Trots would disagree with Marx.

In any case, topic creator - that is an excellent question (unlike your other topic). The answer for me is: Yes and No.

I would approve this if there were not any other opportunities for revolution.
However, I would argue that current situations are already becoming ripe for revolution, and that we are going to have one soon. It is only a matter of time now.

You ask what is the definition for revolution.
A revolution is merely a fundamental change in social structure - For us, it is the abolishment of the Capitalist mode of Production - abolishing the ownership over the means of production; In casual terms, the Politicians who rule must step down entirely, all wealth must be redistributed, and a new Constitution based only on Needs, not some arbitrary concept of "Rights", must be formed.

This CAN indeed come about through peaceful resolve in some circumstances (Marx also stated this, as well). However, this requires that the Workers being united and class-conscious. They must be aware of the stakes that if they are to back down at all then they are only to surrender, and that they, as a whole, hold all true political power, all of the bargaining power, over the bourgeoisie.
Only then - only when the movement itself has come to fruition and the Workers unite under a single flag, standing together against the very face of oppression, can they peacefully resolve the conflict.

The truth of this is in this: The Workers must unite knowing that if the bourgeoisie refuses to compromise and relinquish power that they are willing to fight a bloody and violent fight. The Workers must, absolutely, declare themselves the enemy of the State. That it must be declared that the Workers are in a War against the bourgeoisie government. That they will not back down, they will not surrender, and they will not compromise.
Figuratively, they must stare the devil in the face and not even blink.

Only with a true Declaration of War against the State will the State know that if it does not relinquish power than it will not just be the fate of the union at hand, it will be the lives of those Politicians who will die, it will be them who will be pulled into the street and murdered, it will be them, the Dignitary and the Lawyer, the Statesman and the Business-Owner, who are brutally beaten, their homes burned, and their lives completely destroyed. That, even if they escape, they will be followed and persecuted to the ends of the Earth.

The Politicians absolutely MUST be made to understand the results of their actions - That blood for blood will be paid: That for every worker who dies it will send 10 bureaucrats and politicians to their grave until there are no more. They must know this, no matter the result of peace-talks, or else the revolution defeats itself.

Only then, only at the risk of their very lives, will the bureaucrats know that peace is the only solution for them - so that they might keep their lives.
Thus, the Worker must be ready for violence, because it will be only the threat of that violence that will allow the Bourgeoisie to dismiss itself from power. They will give it over by absolutely no other means.
So, the riots and protests, the revolution, must be a violent one even if not a single drop of blood is ever spilled. Because the Worker must be prepared for that, because it may indeed come down to that.

Reformists are opposed to all of this. They are the movement which does not accept violence and even rejects it. Thus, they surrender themselves to the Capitalist. They are a movement without movement. They are a useless cause. Just people lost to the Capitalist system, delusioned to actually believe that things will change if they just 'believe hard enough'. Reformists are an enemy of the Revolution, because they trick people into believing that things can change - and then do absolutely nothing to change them.

[Rafiq]

That's not what Marx said:

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Anyway, this speech Marx gave 'On Free Trade' was actually his support of a 'Free Market' (now called neo-liberalism). He argued that a true Free Market would exploit the worker to the point that the worker MUST revolt ("to the extreme point") and that it would indeed inevitably foment a revolution.
.

The destruction of the "free trade system" as it is being utilized by Marx here in no way amounts to "lettings things get worse" in the sense of its pertinence to this discussion. If you want to define "letting things get worse" as solely being the exponential rise of the ability for the bourgeois class to fulfill its ends in retrospect to a previous order, your argument could have merit - but this would be a stupid qualification. The standards and quality of life before the acceleration of capitalist contradictions in no way was better in any meaningful sense of the word. The point Marx was making is that in retrospect to the old order of things, free trade was accelerating and making more obvious the contradiction between labor and capital: This is staunchly different from "allowing" or deriving hope from a general deterioration of standards of living, the rapid rise of unemployment and so on. Meanwhile, as it has been demonstrated historically, capitalist crises leads to the spontaneous subversion of what worker's sentiments might exist to the will of the petite bourgeoisie: Only Fascists should meet crises with confidence in the midst of an utterly disintegrated Left. Marx lived during a time where the antagonism was between the remnants of previous relations to production and the rising political bourgeoisie; It is beyond ridiculous to interpret this as a prediction that workers will spontaneously revolt as a result of "more exploitation" but that capitalist exploitation will exist completely and fully, thus free from the mystifying and obscuring remnants of previous social antagonisms waiting to die away. If Communism derives from the conditions of capitalism, then it can only make sense that the acceleration of capitalism's contradictions and the destruction of what was in effect the previous order of things would be met favorably (in retrospect to reactionary protectionism). Allowing things to get worse, within the context of the OP translates into a further deterioration of our political standards and conceding hegemony to the bourgeois class wherein "oppression" becomes more apparent. But oppression cannot be articulated as oppression if our standards of oppression change in coincidence with its rapid rise - humans do not 'naturally' really give a shit about these things in principle.

Which is precisely why Neoliberalism was not "good" if we look at the historic struggle holistically - it represented defeat in what was already a real existing struggle. The implications of this of course are not demands to return to the pre-neoliberal world, but for a new Communism derived from the conditions now in place, as a further substantiation of the conditions of neoliberal globalization. It is clear that the anti-globalization sentiments of the 1990's were (though not entirely) reactionary in character. During Marx's time, the rise of free trade did not correspond to the "weakening" of a pre-existing worker's movement as in the areas for which it concerned, the worker's movement either did not exist (because the social predispositions to its existence were weak or no present at all) or was growing rapidly in numbers.

As far as the OP is concerned, if it might be answered directly: No, even if we were magically in a position of power to "let" things deteriorate, absolutely not. It is a rather sickening form of logic wherein we have some abstract utopia and we're willing to sacrifice the conditions of existence in order for society to conform to it. If the working people could live with a decent standard of living, if capitalism could provide people with job security without infinitely continual assaults on the rights of the working people, wherein a favorable condition of wage-labor remained constant as an untouched variable in capitalist production, Communism would be an impossibility or at best completely pointless. This however is not the reality of the situation. It has been demonstrated countless times that when the working people are in a position of comfort, when they possess the upper hand economically and politically, the demands become unending and increase exponentially. The antagonism is more likely to accelerate when working people actually have breathing space to develop consciousness of their condition. Because in effect, capitalism is not static - it is a continual process wherein the gains and achievements of workers have to be perpetually safeguarded and would otherwise be assaulted - society is not articulated holistically by those who control society, rather society is merely composed of the summation of all of their individual and immediate interests. Often times people forget that a class struggle is not a tool wherein Communism is realized, Communism is a logical extension of the class struggle. Every gain, no matter how small, should be protected and elaborated, every opportunity seized and everything which in an immediate sense would benefit the working people should be commended. When push does come to shove, if it does, state dictatorship will be an immediate goal of the proletariat just as the eight hour work day was but only through the disciplined weaponization of the struggle. Only the intelligentsia are so privileged as to be able to holistically articulate the struggle in a long-term sense independent of immediate conditions or the intensity of the class struggle: Which is why they are important.

[Subversive]

@Rafiq, why are you bringing 'living standards' and such into this?
You say it is a "stupid qualification" to only define this as the bourgoisie gaining more control and all that, but really that seems to be what everyone else is talking about. The OP refers to it as 'the aristocracy gaining more power'.

Sure, some living conditions for some people might change, but as you even suggest would it really be "better" in the old or new order?

You seem to be tacking on a serial deprivation of living-standards for reasons I don't really understand. You didn't really explain why this is necessary as part of the definition, or why only looking at bourgeois control is "a stupid qualification". So why is that, exactly?

[Marxizm]

That's not what Marx said:

Source: One of those speeches that is no longer online due to copyright issues.
But hey, the quote I'm using is still posted here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/

Anyway, this speech Marx gave 'On Free Trade' was actually his support of a 'Free Market' (now called neo-liberalism). He argued that a true Free Market would exploit the worker to the point that the worker MUST revolt ("to the extreme point") and that it would indeed inevitably foment a revolution.

He even states it directly that a Free Market would hasten the revolution.

So I'm not sure why you argue otherwise, as it says you're a Trotskyist. And I don't see any reason why Trots would disagree with Marx.

In any case, topic creator - that is an excellent question (unlike your other topic). The answer for me is: Yes and No.

I would approve this if there were not any other opportunities for revolution.
However, I would argue that current situations are already becoming ripe for revolution, and that we are going to have one soon. It is only a matter of time now.

You ask what is the definition for revolution.
A revolution is merely a fundamental change in social structure - For us, it is the abolishment of the Capitalist mode of Production - abolishing the ownership over the means of production; In casual terms, the Politicians who rule must step down entirely, all wealth must be redistributed, and a new Constitution based only on Needs, not some arbitrary concept of "Rights", must be formed.

This CAN indeed come about through peaceful resolve in some circumstances (Marx also stated this, as well). However, this requires that the Workers being united and class-conscious. They must be aware of the stakes that if they are to back down at all then they are only to surrender, and that they, as a whole, hold all true political power, all of the bargaining power, over the bourgeoisie.
Only then - only when the movement itself has come to fruition and the Workers unite under a single flag, standing together against the very face of oppression, can they peacefully resolve the conflict.

The truth of this is in this: The Workers must unite knowing that if the bourgeoisie refuses to compromise and relinquish power that they are willing to fight a bloody and violent fight. The Workers must, absolutely, declare themselves the enemy of the State. That it must be declared that the Workers are in a War against the bourgeoisie government. That they will not back down, they will not surrender, and they will not compromise.
Figuratively, they must stare the devil in the face and not even blink.

Only with a true Declaration of War against the State will the State know that if it does not relinquish power than it will not just be the fate of the union at hand, it will be the lives of those Politicians who will die, it will be them who will be pulled into the street and murdered, it will be them, the Dignitary and the Lawyer, the Statesman and the Business-Owner, who are brutally beaten, their homes burned, and their lives completely destroyed. That, even if they escape, they will be followed and persecuted to the ends of the Earth.

The Politicians absolutely MUST be made to understand the results of their actions - That blood for blood will be paid: That for every worker who dies it will send 10 bureaucrats and politicians to their grave until there are no more. They must know this, no matter the result of peace-talks, or else the revolution defeats itself.

Only then, only at the risk of their very lives, will the bureaucrats know that peace is the only solution for them - so that they might keep their lives.
Thus, the Worker must be ready for violence, because it will be only the threat of that violence that will allow the Bourgeoisie to dismiss itself from power. They will give it over by absolutely no other means.
So, the riots and protests, the revolution, must be a violent one even if not a single drop of blood is ever spilled. Because the Worker must be prepared for that, because it may indeed come down to that.

Reformists are opposed to all of this. They are the movement which does not accept violence and even rejects it. Thus, they surrender themselves to the Capitalist. They are a movement without movement. They are a useless cause. Just people lost to the Capitalist system, delusioned to actually believe that things will change if they just 'believe hard enough'. Reformists are an enemy of the Revolution, because they trick people into believing that things can change - and then do absolutely nothing to change them.

You think reformers have done "absolutely nothing to change them"? The least you could do is be intellectually honest and admit they are trying to help and have made some gains, to say otherwise is a outright lie. I see the argument that reforms are used to pacify the proletariat, but why does it pacify them? BECAUSE IT HELPED! It these reforms made absolutely NO change as you suggest, than it wouldnt pacify anybody it would make them more angry and likely to revolt for being lied to, but the fact is these reforms DO help which is exactly why they are pacified. What you are suggesting with this whole "Revolution" path would be incredibly violent and most people are too worried about their kids to jump into a battle like that, you cant hate them for being reformists, disagree with them sure but they are still on your fucking side.

Tell me, did it take a Socialist revolution to end slavery, Jim Crow, child labor, and indentured servitude? Or was it reforms that ended this?

[Fourth Internationalist]

You think reformers have done "absolutely nothing to change them"? The least you could do is be intellectually honest and admit they are trying to help and have made some gains, to say otherwise is a outright lie. I see the argument that reforms are used to pacify the proletariat, but why does it pacify them? BECAUSE IT HELPED! It these reforms made absolutely NO change as you suggest, than it wouldnt pacify anybody it would make them more angry and likely to revolt for being lied to, but the fact is these reforms DO help which is exactly why they are pacified. What you are suggesting with this whole "Revolution" path would be incredibly violent and most people are too worried about their kids to jump into a battle like that, you cant hate them for being reformists, disagree with them sure but they are still on your fucking side.

Tell me, did it take a Socialist revolution to end slavery, Jim Crow, child labor, and indentured servitude? Or was it reforms that ended this?

To quote myself earlier that has to do with such issues,


Reformism has won indeed, and it's goal is to enable global imperialism and super exploitation in oppressed countries by diverting workers away from revolutionary conclusions. Also, the demands of the Civil Rights Movement were won only because of black militants that were fighting for their rights. It is they, not the reformist leaders like MLK, who were able to place the fear of immense social uproar into the minds of the capitalists to get them to concede (a little bit) to the demands of blacks.

Reformist leaderships of the struggles of the working class and oppressed have a long history of selling out short to the bourgeoisie and oppressors. It is the threat and pressure of mass social uprisings by the masses that causes the bourgeoisie and oppressors to concede just enough to people's demands to eliminate such great threats. Strike actions, etc are often cut short by union leadership trying to get a deal with employers as fast as possible. It is the militant workers throughout the history of labor struggle that have made progress, not reformist leaders.

[Rafiq]

Tell me, did it take a Socialist revolution to end slavery, Jim Crow, child labor, and indentured servitude?

No, but it certainly took oceans of blood unprecedented in American history. What you forget is that things like child labor weren't abolished because of "reformers" but because of the external pressure of revolutionaries. Such is the history of all great "reforms". It is fear that claims concessions, and nothing more.

[John Nada]

You think reformers have done "absolutely nothing to change them"? The least you could do is be intellectually honest and admit they are trying to help and have made some gains, to say otherwise is a outright lie.Any gains from reform can, were and will be reversed.
I see the argument that reforms are used to pacify the proletariat, but why does it pacify them? BECAUSE IT HELPED! It these reforms made absolutely NO change as you suggest, than it wouldnt pacify anybody it would make them more angry and likely to revolt for being lied to, but the fact is these reforms DO help which is exactly why they are pacified.Who did it pacify? Did it pacify the Vietnamese, Koreans, Congolese, Chileans, ect.? Did it pacify the oppressed minorities in the US, who fill up the prisons and only have a fraction of the wealth of White Americans. You're think from a American? centric position. While the Americans got the "Grand Society" reforms(half-assed and temporary), people of those nations were being killed en mass.
What you are suggesting with this whole "Revolution" path would be incredibly violent and most people are too worried about their kids to jump into a battle like that, you cant hate them for being reformists, disagree with them sure but they are still on your fucking side.I understand why someone would want a revolution to be as peaceful as possible. No one but sociopaths likes violence. I could sympathize with someone who doesn't want war, and is willing to avoid it when possible.

But the fact is people's kids are getting killed, and, for the most part, there isn't a revolution going on. Killed by the millions, with even more being maimed.

The US killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. They're planning on killing even more in Syria and Iraq now!

In Honduras, the US overthrew a social democratic president, Manuel Zelaya, who tried reform. Now people are getting killed at a rate even higher than Iraq! The American bourgeoisie pushed for "Special Economic Zones" that lets them buy up land without the permission of the people on it, and they can rule it like a king.

In Mexico, the US arms the police and military to "fight crime" when many of them are perpetrating it! They recently killed over 40 leftist students. They haven't found their bodies yet, but they keep finding more victims.

In the US itself, hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of people(disproportionately oppressed minorities and the poor) are being killed by the police in the streets. And what is the reformist solution? "Vote Democrat."
Tell me, did it take a Socialist revolution to end slavery, Jim Crow, child labor, and indentured servitude? Or was it reforms that ended this?It took insurrections by people like Nat Turner and John Brown, and a bloody Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands, to end slavery. It took riots and direct action, by groups like the Black Panthers, AIM and the Weather Underground in the 60's and 70's to partial undo Jim Crown. It took mass strikes and armed revolt by Unions and Socialists to end child labor and even get halfway decent working conditions. It's not like what they teach you in school.

[Subversive]

You think reformers have done "absolutely nothing to change them"? The least you could do is be intellectually honest and admit they are trying to help and have made some gains, to say otherwise is a outright lie. I see the argument that reforms are used to pacify the proletariat, but why does it pacify them? BECAUSE IT HELPED! It these reforms made absolutely NO change as you suggest, than it wouldnt pacify anybody it would make them more angry and likely to revolt for being lied to, but the fact is these reforms DO help which is exactly why they are pacified.
It helped WHAT exactly?
Does giving a starving child a loaf help them? Sure. It helps them live to starve again tomorrow.
Does it help them to get more bread tomorrow? Absolutely not. They are still going to starve each and every day they do not get a loaf of bread.

Now, you might pacify the people with a taste of freedom, but they will still starve for freedom the next day and every day after that.
When someone is bound by a shackles and a chain, it won't matter if you add a few more links to their chain. What they want is to be free of the chains, not a longer chain.

And how many people have died, or been punished, just to get these loaves of bread, to get these longer chains? You generalize these reforms as if they just happen overnight or something. It is ignorant.

Do you understand what I am saying?
Reformists are just a bunch of people who want longer chains.
Reforms are just links to add to the chain.

No one in the Reformist movement is actually looking to break these shackles or to be free.

Do the reforms help to pacify people? Yes. A starving child still needs a loaf of bread.
Do the reforms help to create change? No. A starving child with a loaf of bread is still going to starve again tomorrow.

The revolution is about one thing, and only one thing:
The realization that we do not want a loaf of bread, we want the whole factory.
That we do not want longer chains, we want to be free of them.
That we do not want reforms of the system, we want the system reformed.

It is not about pleasing or pacifying the man today to be 'a little better off' for tomorrow.
It is about the world, right now, where I am simply just 'me'. A world where I don't need to worry about being 'a little better off', but that I am simply just 'better'.

Reformism is just an excuse to live with your chains. A justification for why you starve.


What you are suggesting with this whole "Revolution" path would be incredibly violent and most people are too worried about their kids to jump into a battle like that, you cant hate them for being reformists, disagree with them sure but they are still on your fucking side.
What I propose is not violence, but the threat of violence.

Reformism is not peaceful - because the people are still oppressed. That 'feeling better' feeling of Reformism only lasts for a little while until you realize the true injustices of Capitalism - like if your kid is sick and dying in the hospital, and there are treatments - but you can't afford them.

You think people can't be violent just because they have kids? Ignorance.
It is for those kids which we will become the most violent!
The Bourgeoisie has not just been oppressing us, but our families. Our families are in the same circumstances that we are in, as individuals.
You think they won't fight? It is naive. What are people willing to die for if not their families?
It is ridiculous to believe that people will fight for anything less than a family!

People who use their families as an excuse not to do what is right are people unwilling to admit that they are afraid to fight. That they are afraid to act. That they are pitiful Reformists. People willing to give up the chance at being free tomorrow in exchange for a longer chain for themselves and their children. People who believe that someday their children will grow up without shackles because their chains will be so long; People who never realize the irony of this.

You go ahead and make those excuses, friend.
You certainly do not need freedom in your life. And the Capitalists are more than happy to give you a slightly longer chain in exchange for your unending complacence during a revolution.

What I propose is much less violent than Reformism. The Reformist allowance for continued starvation, continued executions, continued persecution, continued imperialism, continued assassinations, all indefinitely.
What I propose is a Revolution based on strategy, not tactlessness.
A revolution which outweighs the offer of the bourgeoisie and their crude political tricks. They offer blood for blood, but we will offer something else: Freedom for Freedom. Our freedom for their freedom.
The Bourgeoisie are usually savvy business-men and lawyers. Exchanges are generally their life's work. They will accept this because they will understand all of their other options: And none of them will be good.

And that is the key difference between the Revolutionary and the Reformist.
While the Reformist undermines the revolution by providing them with good options all in their favor, the Revolutionary undermines the bourgeoisie by providing them with options only in the Peoples' favor. So the result is, inevitably, "the lesser of the two evils". So the Revolution will approach the Bourgeoisie with an offer: 'Peace or Violence?'
... And they will choose Peace.

What the ignorant Reformist has never understood: The Worker is the one who holds all of the bargaining power during a Revolution.

This is the only way that you will get your 'Peaceful Revolution'. And it requires that the Reformists be seen for what they really are: Traitors.

[Vogel]

With 100 million to half the population of the US poor, I'd say Capitalism is pretty bad right now. I think the US is also the most prime nation on the planet for a revolutionary change to a new economic system. The problem is that there is no tension. MLK created tension in the CVM. He was about to in the Poor Peoples campaign. We lack tension in our societies. Or at least a means to use what tension exists as a force for massive change.
The question that should be asked is how do we bring this tension to the front? I personally like MLK's Nonviolent Direct Action strategy. The US has all the infrastructure needed- soup kitchens, churches, organizations like Bridgetown(based in Portland, Oregon), larger groups still- to gather the poor and homeless, and go marching to city capitals, through town main streets, to state capitals, to DC. But no entity taking direct action, creating tension.
BTW, the means create the ends, so I say nonviolent direct action.

[Subversive]

But no entity taking direct action, creating tension.
BTW, the means create the ends, so I say nonviolent direct action.
The problem with these sort of nonviolence movements is that they are inherently reformist.
They almost always seek to resolve one-issue in society and one-issue alone. When they don't focus on one-issue they usually don't go anywhere, either because they can't build momentum (because people are less-likely to join a movement with several demands, since they may not agree with all of them), or they just can't enforce their political power due to the fact they divide the power behind each demand by the number of their demands.

I'd be behind such a movement that essentially pushed a single demand and then another and another until the government caved in to all demands, or a large one that had many demands regarding Socialism, but I don't see these movements being done anytime soon. The issues just aren't prevalent enough. The closest we got was probably MLK and a few others: But, of course, they all got assassinated.

I'll also point out that while there aren't any 'large' movements in the US right now, there have been many smaller movements, like Occupy and the Anti-Police Riots.

[Creative Destruction]

i dont know that 'we' have much of a say in this

This is what I was going to say. If "we" means "revolutionary leftists," then nothing is going to happen at our purpose. We don't have that kind of influence.

[Vogel]

The problem with these sort of nonviolence movements is that they are inherently reformist.
They almost always seek to resolve one-issue in society and one-issue alone. When they don't focus on one-issue they usually don't go anywhere, either because they can't build momentum (because people are less-likely to join a movement with several demands, since they may not agree with all of them), or they just can't enforce their political power due to the fact they divide the power behind each demand by the number of their demands.

I'd be behind such a movement that essentially pushed a single demand and then another and another until the government caved in to all demands, or a large one that had many demands regarding Socialism, but I don't see these movements being done anytime soon. The issues just aren't prevalent enough. The closest we got was probably MLK and a few others: But, of course, they all got assassinated.

I'll also point out that while there aren't any 'large' movements in the US right now, there have been many smaller movements, like Occupy and the Anti-Police Riots.

Right as usual. But even single issue campaigns can be wildly successful. I can imagine if we revamped the Poor Peoples Campaign. We have the potential manpower and organizations. The goal wouldn't just end there. Upon increasing the tension, we draw in support, and reorganize. Imagine if the ACLU and AFLCIO and other left groups partnered in a coalition in politics? We could begin taking back the US, and it worked in Greece. But that is still a dream.

At any rate, means determine the ends. If you let conditions fester, socially, I imagine a bigger backlash would be more likely. Do you want a French Revolution? Just dig up more of the tension that is already leaking out of the ground.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Are you guys willing to purposefully let the country get worse
The revolutionary Left as it presently exists in most of the places we live doesn't really have the power to affect that scenario one way or the other. Also, a worsening situation isn't a guarantee that the masses will become radicalized. Indeed, it could lead to an explosion of reactionary ideas.

[revnoon]

There is not a single industrialized country that doesnt have a welfare state, Capitalism has won in the economic sphere but Socialism has won in the Social sphere, all industrialized countries now have mixed economies, you cant pretend "reformist Socialism" has lost entirely, in many areas we have undoubtedly won.


The welfare state in any countries in word even the Nordic countries being the most best of best welfare state are a tug of war all the time to keep it that way.There is an opposing force all the time to move more to the right.

The upper class and elite pay hardly nothing in tax money where the working class foot the bill for most things.

Most capitalists are well on way setting up factories and labor sweat jobs in Asia because working class demand higher wages just enough to buy a modest house.:ohmy::ohmy: Yet the capitalists and CEO's have whopping billion dollars in their bank account and living in their mansion home and private jet. Well Chinese people work 12 to 16 hours in day and come to their small apartment that more likely have to share with roommate if they are young.

Every so often the capitalism system causes these ups and downs. The past 30 years the US had three recession causing massive of job loss every where and government high debt. Well the capitalists and CEO's never use their money to help the problem,:cursing: but just go for bankruptcy yes bankruptcy if people are not buying their product and do massive job lay offs.

Not to say all jobs leaving your city and going to Asia and now you have no job. Yes no job!! Well they exploit people there.

[John Nada]

Right as usual. But even single issue campaigns can be wildly successful. I can imagine if we revamped the Poor Peoples Campaign. We have the potential manpower and organizations. The goal wouldn't just end there. Upon increasing the tension, we draw in support, and reorganize. Imagine if the ACLU and AFLCIO and other left groups partnered in a coalition in politics? We could begin taking back the US, and it worked in Greece. But that is still a dream.The Poor People's campaign never got the chance it should have, thanks to MLK's assasination and COINTELPRO. ACLU and AFL-CIO aren't socialist, and the current "left" groups are pathetic.Greece hasn't yet had a revolution, and we can't "take back" what we never had(a world without oppresion), and probably never existed in the first place(ie an idealized social democracy in the 50's-70's, only for White abled hetero cis-male Christians).
At any rate, means determine the ends. If you let conditions fester, socially, I imagine a bigger backlash would be more likely. Do you want a French Revolution? Just dig up more of the tension that is already leaking out of the ground.Letting things fester means no attempt at fighting capitalism. I want a new Revolution that will make the French and Russian Revolutions look like child's play. That's my dream.:blushing:
Are you guys willing to purposefully let the country get worse.Not everyone here is a guy. More than half of the world is female. And us guys and gal don't have to purposefully let the country, or the world, get worse. The bourgeoisie(capitalists) are doing a great job at that themselves.
The revolutionary Left as it presently exists in most of the places we live doesn't really have the power to affect that scenario one way or the other. Also, a worsening situation isn't a guarantee that the masses will become radicalized. Indeed, it could lead to an explosion of reactionary ideas.At some point situations will get worse. Something needs to be done to counter the reactionary ideologies that also have the "wait for the shit to hit the fan" theory.
The upper class and elite pay hardly nothing in tax money where the working class foot the bill for most things.On top of that they take a big cut from all the worker's labor. Just look at any job and see how much you and you're co-workers are paid vs. the surplus.
Every so often the capitalism system causes these ups and downs. The past 30 years the US had three recession causing massive of job loss every where and government high debt. Well the capitalists and CEO's never use their money to help the problem, but just go for bankruptcy yes bankruptcy if people are not buying their product and do massive job lay offs.As Engels said, history moves in zig-zags. Seems like every ten years there's a recession, and it'll likely stay that way under capitalism.

[Rudolf]

Tell me, did it take a Socialist revolution to end slavery, Jim Crow, child labor, and indentured servitude? Or was it reforms that ended this?


Er... im pretty sure a socialist revolution is necessary to end child labour. It hasn't ended, capitalism was built on the backs of children and it is maintained on the backs of children. Now i know you'd come up with some nonsense that it's illegal in various countries, that it's barely practiced in some, but capitalism is global, the distribution chains are global. Almost 1 in 4 kids in the poorest countries are engaged in hazardous work.




Anyway, as for the thread's general topic things getting worse does not lead the way to capitalism's overthrow an organised and strong workers movement is the only option.

Further, i don't think reforms pacify the working class, winning battles really can and does egg you on to bigger struggles. What pacifies the class is pushing activity through "the proper channels". What we need is unmediated class struggle.

[Bala Perdida]

Tell me, did it take a Socialist revolution to end slavery, Jim Crow, child labor, and indentured servitude? Or was it reforms that ended this?
As I'm sure other people said, non of these things ended with reform and basically all of them still exist. Better is not over and trying to 'better' things is basically stepping towards political degeneracy.

Also, what you said about reforms not working and making people angry, that's already happened too. Look at the number of people that lost faith in the political system after Obama proved to be the same shit. There's countless examples.

This is a revolutionary forum, arguing for reforms is pointless when by signing up here as part of the 'rev-left' you're stating that you want the overthrow of the political system. Not the rearrangement of it.

[Monkeyboy]

I would argue that revolution can only happen when matters are real bad. If we look at history which I believe is cyclic. There's has to be enough fuel for the spark to cause a fire.

My association with revolutions is that they rarely end up into something better.

It is not that unlikely to me that we'll be seeing a breeding ground, in the first world, of opposing movements taking shape. No elite in history has had the change to rule forever, and so our capitalist elite won't. What will spawn as a counter culture I wonder about. It might even be possible it is - somewhat - religious in nature, such as the Christians which opposed the Romans.

For societal change, it seems better to let the current system crumble than to let it explode because of the chaos that would occur.

[Subversive]

I would argue that revolution can only happen when matters are real bad. If we look at history which I believe is cyclic. There's has to be enough fuel for the spark to cause a fire.
History is not "cyclic". That's a bit silly to think. What you probably mean is 'history tends to repeat itself', in terms of social relationships and such. In that you'd possibly be right, certain groups of people tend to make the same mistakes as the people who came before them. History cannot be "cyclic" though, as that would imply the 'cycles' never end or never change, but they do as we can plainly see. History can therefore be seen more like a spiral or a wave. Things go up and then they go down and then they go up again.

In terms of revolution, it would also very likely be incorrect to suggest that revolutions have historically never began when things were not "real bad". What exactly is "real bad"? This is mostly subjective, and the only objectivity it possesses is relative. So there is no real way to measure 'real bad'. What we can define, however, is that the people are oppressed in their social-relationship and that eventually these conflicts grow and cause revolutions. There are indeed events which can speed up the issue, 'foment a revolution', such as adding on to the oppression - but other times this can also go 'too far' and oppress them to the point most people live in too much fear to revolt.

So what is the inevitable conclusion? There are no primary circumstances that can be considered "ripe for revolution". There are many different kinds of circumstances, instead. Some of them can, and will, result in revolution meanwhile others will result in reform or political-conversion.

In other words: It all depends. But one thing we do know is that the situation does not have to be "real bad" necessarily.



My association with revolutions is that they rarely end up into something better.
"Better" is another subjective word, but historically speaking we actually can probably say that most revolutions end up with something "better", if by "better" you mean a more progressive system distributing power closer to the people rather than an elite few.
So, again, you would probably be incorrect unless by "better" you mean something entirely different.

I only suppose you're not a Marxist from this comment, either? Any Marxist who has read and understood their literature would accept Marx's interpretation of history, or else they are not really a Marxist, are they?
So are you Anarchist, or something else? Why do you not accept Marxist interpretation of history?



It is not that unlikely to me that we'll be seeing a breeding ground, in the first world, of opposing movements taking shape. No elite in history has had the change to rule forever, and so our capitalist elite won't. What will spawn as a counter culture I wonder about. It might even be possible it is - somewhat - religious in nature, such as the Christians which opposed the Romans.
You're correct that the resulting revolutions that may come about in the future may not be Socialist revolutions. However, if we are talking about the defeat of the "capitalist elite" as you suggested, then it can actually be nothing other than a Socialist revolution. And in such a Socialist revolution there is no reasoning to think that this would be "religious in nature" as Socialism mostly implies countering State-religious influence. Furthermore, it is this State-religious influence which is a large part of strength of the State used to oppress the Workers. They are using religion as a means to oppress people and objectify various classes of people into even more segregated groups. Therefore a revolutionary force will counter religious-oppression as a means of furthering the revolution.



For societal change, it seems better to let the current system crumble than to let it explode because of the chaos that would occur.
That is meaningless rhetoric.
What is the difference between a system 'crumbling' and one 'exploding', and how would one imply less chaos than the other? Even if you meant something different by these your analogy still fails due to the fact that both acts, crumbling and exploding, both create "chaos". It would, again, be very subjective to simply choose one and suggest it creates more "chaos" than the other.

[Monkeyboy]

I think I was using improper words.

It might have been better to say that history repeats itself. What I mean is that there have been different rulers, there is a moment when these are toppled by revolutions, who become the new rulers and later in time another revolution topples these. That might be a simplified vision not true to reality.

Those who opposed the Roman empire ended up creating the church, and feudalism, which became likewise oppressive in nature, and those were later followed by rebellions. It resulted in protestantism, the French revolution and in Russia communism - which I understand wasn't real communism.

Power closer to a few, yes, that I would say is better. And no I'm not a Marxist. My own theory is that elite are followed by elites. That is cyclic no? But in general things are improving. Progress is being made but I do not believe that capitalism will neccessary result in communism.

I was wrong on the destruction of a system. The fall of the Soviet Empire resulted in as much chaos as the fall of governments in the Arab world have done. But in my defense that wasn't what I had in mind, rather increased stress in the system that requires reforms.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If we were able to control the state of social breakdown in society, there would be no need to make changes to the social system.

These sorts of questions are fantasy and things that we have no control over. I think anybody who advocates this sort of policy really has little exposure to, or empathy for, genuine pain and suffering.

[The Red Star Rising]

Purposefully allowing for the increase of misery is both repugnant and if it were really in our power, it would also be within our power to eliminate misery and the Capitalist system. In addition, miserable conditions without heightened class consciousness to go with them tends to result in far right reactionary movements popping up out of the corpse of the prior body politic alongside far left revolutionary movements. If simply shit living conditions were enough Capitalism would have probably been extinguished decades ago.

[Stirnerian]

What's being discussed in this thread is an idea called accelerationism.

It's generally a fantasy born out of frustration than any real practical theorizing. Anyone who had the power to accelerate the problems of capitalism would, by definition, have the power also to mitigate those problems.

No such person or collective exists, because the issues we have with capitalism are inherent and intractable.

Capitalists themselves couldn't even accelerate them if they wanted to. They scarcely understand, let alone have power over, the system they administer.