would you support a Communist revolution? [Archive]

Fidel Castro

8th May 2004, 01:34

I must say I would support a communist revolution, I doubt I would be much use in fighting, but there is much more that a revolutionary can do to aid the cause, such as spreading propaganda, providing literature, helping with tactics, finding sources for arms etc etc.

how would you know? Surely you'd have to wait for a while, and see what direction it was taking?

This is a good point. Take the Cuban revolution for example, there was no suggestion between 1956-59 that the the 26th de Julio movement was communistic, certainly not openly so.

elbolao23

8th May 2004, 02:56

you are right , first fidel said that he was a socialista and then to gain attention he pronounced himself and the cuban people communist without their concern

BuyOurEverything

8th May 2004, 04:57

To gain attention? Not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

Anywho... as a communist, I would do whatever neccessary to assist the revolution, be that eating babies or sacrificing virgins to our glorious leader. It's all good.

Kez

8th May 2004, 08:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:46 AM
how would you know? Surely you'd have to wait for a while, and see what direction it was taking?
nope.

In a revolution the whole working class is involved in the decision making process, via the democratic processes thru the vanguard. Hence if the working class "wait" like idiots that you suggest, then it will give rise to conservative and rightwing members of the vanguard to take their foot off the pedal, and allow bastards like Stalin to take control. The working class must hold every official of the revolution to account, and support or get rid of them.

James

8th May 2004, 10:37

You mean in a communist revolution kamo. And that is a fair point, but my point was how do you know if a revolution is worth supporting. If you just support anything then you could in fact find yourself supporting a mini pol pot or something.

I'm interested as well in your theory that a revolution would wait to hear everyone's opinion before acting.

BOZG

8th May 2004, 11:55

James,

A revolution isn't some sort of process that happens detached from society. It's not something you can sit back and watch from a distant to see who's winning and is it worth supporting. It's a mass movement of people. It's the duty anyone who considers themselves a socialist, to actually intervene and take action to push a revolution in the direction they'd like to see rather than sit back and hope it travels in that direction.

Invader Zim

8th May 2004, 11:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:55 AM
James,

A revolution isn't some sort of process that happens detached from society. It's not something you can sit back and watch from a distant to see who's winning and is it worth supporting. It's a mass movement of people. It's the duty anyone who considers themselves a socialist, to actually intervene and take action to push a revolution in the direction they'd like to see rather than sit back and hope it travels in that direction.
Except not all socialists are revolutionary...

It's not something you can sit back and watch from a distant to see who's winning and is it worth supporting.

What about a "communist" coup?

BOZG

8th May 2004, 12:07

Enigma,

Yes I understand that and I meant to address it in the above post. In a revolutuionary situation, where there's a socialist mood and a possibility of socialism being implemented through revolutionary means, parliamentary socialists cannot possibility be opposed this, if they are to call themselves socialists. In such a case that they would oppose it, they are supporting the forces of counter-revolution and capitalism and should be crushed like such.

Communist coups are pretty much doomed to failure. They relegate the role the masses must play in establishing socialism on a (proleterian) democratic basis. In a situation where a communist junta comes to power, it's more than likely that the workers' of that country are not of a revolutionary consciousness, nevermind a socialist one.

SittingBull47

8th May 2004, 17:54

yes. Everybody could be useful in the revolution (because the revolution is for the people) as long as they're united. that's my opinion.
If ever we should see one in our lifetimes, then like many i'd love to be apart of the direct resistance. I would also like to muckrake and expose the enemy through journalism and writing.

refuse_resist

8th May 2004, 20:46

I'm for any movement or Revolution that's for working class solidarity

Pedro Alonso Lopez

8th May 2004, 21:14

Yes of course, I assume thats the aim of the majority of the board although I would be aware of how easily it coult be distorted in which case I guess I would have to fight to make sure it goes in the right direction, towards a socialist society.

Pawn Power

8th May 2004, 22:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:25 AM

In a revolution the whole working class is involved in the decision making process, via the democratic processes thru the vanguard. Hence if the working class "wait" like idiots that you suggest, then it will give rise to conservative and rightwing members of the vanguard to take their foot off the pedal, and allow bastards like Stalin to take control. The working class must hold every official of the revolution to account, and support or get rid of them.
i don't know about this, Marx said that during the revolution there would have to be a temporary proletarian dictatorship to take over the infustructure and gain control of the resorses and such, this cannot be done democratically during a chaotic revolution. This of course was the problem that other communist revolutions could not over come, they became stuck in the dictatorship form.
But maybe if the revolution was not as crazy and was somewhat organized you could run it democratically.

commieboy

8th May 2004, 22:39

i'd join and i'd fight, and i'd die for the cause

James

8th May 2004, 23:11

i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

Also, i wouldn't support a brit one, because it would be crushed straight away

Pawn Power

8th May 2004, 23:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

so what you are saying is that events happen the way they previously happened in history? that we cannot change the course of history, that we can only recreat the past?

the situation we are in needs change and i think it deserves a revolution and i would take the risk and join it

Funky Monk

8th May 2004, 23:26

I think a lot would depend on the circumstances preceeding the revolution.

If it had the backing of the majority of the people, if it seemed just then it should be supported.

so what you are saying is that events happen the way they previously happened in history? that we cannot change the course of history, that we can only recreat the past?

What he is saying is that history is often cyclical. Although circumstances change a lot can be learned from how things have happened before

James

8th May 2004, 23:40

so what you are saying is that events happen the way they previously happened in history? that we cannot change the course of history, that we can only recreat the past?

the situation we are in needs change and i think it deserves a revolution and i would take the risk and join it

No. Don't be stupid.
i'd probably say no. History teaches (therefore, more often than not) us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

That is, alot of revolutions have ended with dictators - this is a strong argument in comparrison to an ideological one, becuase it has past examples to support it. Ideological arguments only have theory to act as support.

FM makes good points.

I think its bit of a silly question. If there was a communist revolution, which had mass popular support, and was not going to be taken over by some individuals - then yes, i think everyone would support it.

You have to define communism - people define it in different ways.

seen_che

9th May 2004, 09:40

IF the people wanted it and there wouldent be ONE leader in the revolution i would support ....but ill try to get people on my side and kinda go Gandhi on them...but that would onely work if the people wanted it and in many places they DO!!
The people R stronger then the leaders!!!!!

Peace out

James

9th May 2004, 10:03

Sparta had two kings - the idea was that they would keep each other in check. I suppose you could compare this to the principles of the US constitution of "checks and balances" and the division of power.
Maybe two leaders isn't a good idea though... some argue that it was due to two main leaders, that Chartism failed. Power struggles can be destructive.

Anyway, your "one leader" comment made me think of that.

Personally i think a leader or number of leaders will always emerge. I don't believe in the "spontanious mob" (or rather - support such a concept: think its rather dangerous)

Funky Monk

9th May 2004, 10:15

I am of the belief that leaders naturally rise and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Without leaders how would you organise policy? Who would propose moves and take the final descision?

The only serious way i could think of this would be a delegate system which is highlu impractical in a revolution.

Kez

9th May 2004, 15:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

Also, i wouldn't support a brit one, because it would be crushed straight away
Like a fucking coward.

Dont worry mate, the less u intervene in a revolution, the healthier it will be, we dont need your 19th century romantic ideals derailing the movement into supporting the tories.

The idealist

9th May 2004, 17:02

I'd support it. But it is important to know what you are fighting for, and what you are fighting against. James has a point. If a militant uprising was to take place in britain, the numbers would surely be to few to check the british army (for which I have great respect). In that case a more peaceful Ghandi stile uprising should take place in the form of major strikes and demonstrations.

In faschist and dictatorial countries however, armed uprising would be a necessity, but it is important to think of what the revolution would do to "the People". Because "The people" are not always the men and women taking up arms and fighting, it is also the children and other innocent people, who could be hurt by retaliatory attacks by the government and by the following breakdown of law and order. To prevent a fullscale civil war with all the tragedies it creates, perhaps assasinating the leader first (along with the rest of "the head of the snake"), and then moving in with the troops in the following turmoil. Thus a drawn out civil war is averted, and public opinion is better.

But I can see the points in both sides. I refer to Ché's explanation on how combat must change according to the political, military and topografical enviroment.

James

9th May 2004, 17:14

lol, okay kamo, you and all 1/2 of your friends take on the british state (and all its fun weapons) tomorrow.

I'll sit here and be a coward. I don't mind being so :)

Its a waste throwing such things away in britain. Look at chartism - they lost so much when they turned violent.

Kez

9th May 2004, 18:12

what the fuck? in a communsit revolution you are with the masses, and the masses overthrow capitalism, not me, not you, the masses with whom i'd be with till the end.

No doubt even with the masses youd still be on your fucking arse doing nothing.

Look at chartism, it serves as a great the chartist movement one in demonstrating the power of the working class. IT is our duty to learn from their mistakes, so that their deaths will not be in vain, but rather to furthering this generations struggle.

The idealist

9th May 2004, 18:27

But so far I have never seen "The masses" I have seen familys, bachelors, children and girls, but i have never seen "The masses". Our ideas may be the right ones, but we are not as many as we should be.
Personally I can't see an average family guy going out on the street yelling communist slogans, however true. The thing is, half of the people you meet on the street are only troubled by their own local politics. Otherwise why are you talking to us over the net and not the people next door?

It is us, the students, the people who pride ourselves on that we are still learning, that we are flexible and adapable to the new world we live in, that we are the potential leaders of this world. We do not have the simple and foundationless beliefs of the old. We must think new, and by adapting ourselves to the world we live in, but without losing our values and morals, we can also change it. By blindly believing in a cause we accomplish nothing, but by standing together side by side and aiding each other in society, we can reach the top, and from there we can preach the words of socialisme, communisme, but above all else of peace and co-operation between religions and cultures. May they never again be enemies.

James

9th May 2004, 18:55

kamo deerist; a british revolution is HIGHLY unlikely. It failed when we had extreme economic and political hardship.
If there was a revolution tomorrow; it would be a minority attempt. It wouldn't be like BornofZap descirbes. If it was as described, then yes of course i would support it - as everyone would.
But this ain't going to happen is it.

If socialist appeal boys took the streets tomorrow, trying to "over throw" the local government, they would simply all be arrested. Period!
It would be doomed to failure right from the start. Thats what chartism teaches us old boy. Sad as it may be - thats the reality.

Or would it be armed?

Kez

9th May 2004, 19:42

Bellend.

Get rid of that patronising tone if you wnat to continue debate.

As communist we work for a masses organisation to overthrow capitalism. In fact im repeating myself. read the post you ****.

Idealist, we have to win the people over, and intervene when they look for alternative solutions, eg during strikes.

This is basic stuff guys...

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 19:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:42 PM
Bellend.

Get rid of that patronising tone if you wnat to continue debate.

As communist we work for a masses organisation to overthrow capitalism. In fact im repeating myself. read the post you ****.

Idealist, we have to win the people over, and intervene when they look for alternative solutions, eg during strikes.

This is basic stuff guys...
You throw insults at people, they will throw them back - simple stuff. Hypocritical of you to even mention it considering your witch hunting tendencies

Instead of getting angry, which has got you nowhere so far, try patronising him back: it's funnier too. :rolleyes: :D

BOZG

9th May 2004, 19:55

Social democrats deserve to be witch hunted DaCuban.

Kez

9th May 2004, 19:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:53 PM
Instead of getting angry, which has got you nowhere so far, try patronising him back: it's funnier too. :rolleyes: :D
i would, if i had the time or gave a shit.

Funky Monk

9th May 2004, 20:01

Or had the wit

The idealist

9th May 2004, 20:07

Nice remarks guys, but keep the happy smileys running. We wouldn't want anyone to think this is anything else than casual sparring betwen equals. Nobody should diss anybody because of their opinions.

Kez, recruiting others is also our goal, but we cannot rely on that alone.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 20:17

Social democrats deserve to be witch hunted DaCuban

Then this is somewhere that you and I differ radically: I cannot abide the idea of witch hunting anyone - let alone those who are near as damnit on the same side as you.

By my eyes, that would make you a traitor, but I'm almost certainly alone there :rolleyes:

Nice remarks guys, but keep the happy smileys running. We wouldn't want anyone to think this is anything else than casual sparring betwen equals. Nobody should diss anybody because of their opinions

YAY! :D A sane person joins our discussion. ;) I think you're onto a lost cause here mate :rolleyes: You only need to look at the number of one-liner replies to deduce that.

BOZG

9th May 2004, 20:26

DaCuban,

I was joking. But I do feel like kicking most of the social democrats in the face.

DaCuBaN

9th May 2004, 20:32

:( My apologies for jumping on you: there seems to be an increasingly hostile element appearing on these boards :angry:

FFR: emote! :D :P

The idealist

9th May 2004, 20:53

Lets get back on track here.

"Would you support a communist revolution"

Now I hate to answer a question with a question, but I want to ask these questions.

1) Are we talking a worldspanning revolution?

2) what sort? Violent or non violent?

3) 1st, 2nd or 3rd world country?

Any ideas?

Funky Monk

9th May 2004, 20:59

I think the bottom line to this debate is that it depends on the circumstances. I think everyone here is willing to play a role in a revolution given the correct circumstances although most have reservations about concievable methods of revolution.

apathy maybe

10th May 2004, 01:34

Only trouble is gee wizz, I think that I would be shot, by the 'vanguard'. While I would support any truely communist revolution (thinking that any move to the left is good), I am afraid that, as James says, it would be doomed to failure. Even if the existing government was overthrown and a 'dictatorship' of the people was set up, it would probably be ruled by only a few people, who would then set about purging the revolution. And people who are smart, who think for themselfs, who dare to believe that maybe it would be better if we had an election now. These are the people who die in purges. And I would almost gaurentee that the purges would happen. Unless we had a popular revolution, which seems unlikly at the present time.

Kez

10th May 2004, 08:33

why can people not distinguish between a revolution (by the masses) and a coup (by the few)?

if its a revolution, then the vanguard is held fully accountable...

James

10th May 2004, 15:27

1) Are we talking a worldspanning revolution?

In which case, no i wouldn't support it in Britain;
A) it wouldn't have the rooted support required, if it simply happened tomorrow.
B) it would be crushed - waste of LIFE and brains; and confidence.

2) what sort? Violent or non violent?

Violent couldn't work in britain.

James

10th May 2004, 15:27

EDIT: double post

elijahcraig

10th May 2004, 20:29

Of course I would support it. I'd join the revolution and fight to the death.

How old are you?

so what you are saying is that events happen the way they previously happened in history? that we cannot change the course of history, that we can only recreat the past?

And considering the economic conditions of the world are much different today, revolution may very well end in another scenario. Not the ideal visions we have on this board, but maybe something much better than today.

The Cuban revolution did not end in dictatorship.

Personally I can't see an average family guy going out on the street yelling communist slogans, however true.

You must live in the Imperialist Rich US. “Family guys” and even priests are always on the streets in the third world shouting “communist slogans.”

1) Are we talking a worldspanning revolution?

2) what sort? Violent or non violent?

3) 1st, 2nd or 3rd world country?

1. There’s no such thing.
2. Violent and non-violence are necessary to all revolutions.
3. Why does it matter?

WhoWillFight

10th May 2004, 20:36

The idealist

10th May 2004, 21:02

Ok, maybe drastic means would be necessary for countries like the US. The Us would definately be the "last castle". In third world countries with their corrupt dictators, armed conflict would be necessary.

In some countries violent fighting would not create sympathy for the cause. quite the contrary.

Invader Zim

10th May 2004, 21:36

Originally posted by Kez+May 9 2004, 03:41 PM--> (Kez @ May 9 2004, 03:41 PM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

Also, i wouldn't support a brit one, because it would be crushed straight away
Like a fucking coward.

Dont worry mate, the less u intervene in a revolution, the healthier it will be, we dont need your 19th century romantic ideals derailing the movement into supporting the tories. [/b]
LOL coming from one who inteds to vote for Blairs party, that is a truly remarkable statement.

Kez

10th May 2004, 22:14

Originally posted by Enigma+May 10 2004, 09:36 PM--> (Enigma @ May 10 2004, 09:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:41 PM

[email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

Also, i wouldn't support a brit one, because it would be crushed straight away
Like a fucking coward.

Dont worry mate, the less u intervene in a revolution, the healthier it will be, we dont need your 19th century romantic ideals derailing the movement into supporting the tories.
LOL coming from one who inteds to vote for Blairs party, that is a truly remarkable statement. [/b]
from someone who has no understanding of how mass organisations work, that is a typical response, well done.

Invader Zim

10th May 2004, 22:16

Originally posted by Kez+May 10 2004, 10:14 PM--> (Kez @ May 10 2004, 10:14 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:41 PM

[email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

Also, i wouldn't support a brit one, because it would be crushed straight away
Like a fucking coward.

Dont worry mate, the less u intervene in a revolution, the healthier it will be, we dont need your 19th century romantic ideals derailing the movement into supporting the tories.
LOL coming from one who inteds to vote for Blairs party, that is a truly remarkable statement.
from someone who has no understanding of how mass organisations work, that is a typical response, well done. [/b]
Thats a very bold statement, considering you dont even know me, your a pillock well done.

Kez

10th May 2004, 22:19

Originally posted by Enigma+May 10 2004, 10:16 PM--> (Enigma @ May 10 2004, 10:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:41 PM

[email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

Also, i wouldn't support a brit one, because it would be crushed straight away
Like a fucking coward.

Dont worry mate, the less u intervene in a revolution, the healthier it will be, we dont need your 19th century romantic ideals derailing the movement into supporting the tories.
LOL coming from one who inteds to vote for Blairs party, that is a truly remarkable statement.
from someone who has no understanding of how mass organisations work, that is a typical response, well done.
Thats a very bold statement, considering you dont even know me, your a pillock well done. [/b]
well, on this point i know you well enough to make my statement, in that you dont unnderstand why i would vote for the Labour Party and why i am an LP member also.

James

10th May 2004, 22:21

James and Idealist what do you mean by a revolution that is not violent?

You can't expect the Capitalists to hand over the keys to their factories and step aside.

Capitalism is worldwide- you can buy shares in companies on the other side of the world and profit from the sweat and toil of people you will never meet in a country you will never see(to paraphrase Connolly) and the leeches will not stop sucking the blood of the working class until we rise worldwide and rip them from us. There will be no bloodless Revolution. The spark will probably not be in Britain, or anywhere in Europe and I think we would never expect anything in the U$ it's more probable to be in the Third world somewhere.

We have to keep the faith and gain more people to our cause by simply talking to them and telling them our ideas.

I simply said violent couldn't work in England. And it couldn't.

Okay, "try this for size".

I wake up tomorrow to sounds of stones being thrown at my window. I get up and see kamo is outside, armed, with 5 rather odd looking chaps (probably the People's Front of the Revolutionary Committee Vanguard Association... or something), also armed.
He shouts;
"james! the revolution has begun!"
What do i do?
Well i go downstairs, phone the police, then go back to bed.

Why?

Well kamo and his boyfriends then strut down into town, and within 5 minutes the police have either A) arrested them all B) shot them all.

Do you really think you could take over like that? The state would kick your ass i'm afriad.

Anyway; what do you think a revolution is? Define it please.

Kez

10th May 2004, 22:23

this is what pisses me off

i have clearly stated that a revolution is only a revolution when it has the masses, therefore it would not be me and 5 others you fucking ****, read the fucking posts you bellend. Aright? or is that to hard for you? nobhead

James

10th May 2004, 22:24

Kamo thinks voting for New Labour is revolutionary
Or something - i don't know, i'm confused by all these terms. Alas, i too obviously do not understand the mass org... mass organ... whatever kamo said.

Invader Zim

10th May 2004, 22:24

Originally posted by Kez+May 10 2004, 10:19 PM--> (Kez @ May 10 2004, 10:19 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:41 PM

[email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM
i'd probably say no. History teaches us that communist revolutions usually end with a dictator.

Also, i wouldn't support a brit one, because it would be crushed straight away
Like a fucking coward.

Dont worry mate, the less u intervene in a revolution, the healthier it will be, we dont need your 19th century romantic ideals derailing the movement into supporting the tories.
LOL coming from one who inteds to vote for Blairs party, that is a truly remarkable statement.
from someone who has no understanding of how mass organisations work, that is a typical response, well done.
Thats a very bold statement, considering you dont even know me, your a pillock well done.
well, on this point i know you well enough to make my statement, in that you dont unnderstand why i would vote for the Labour Party and why i am an LP member also. [/b]
I understand, atleast from what you have imparted over the internet.

You support labour because you think that it can be "won back", you clearly fail to realise it was not, and never will be anything more than what it is now, a capitalist party appealing to workers. it never can be the spring of eternal hope you wish it to be, and I doubt it ever has been.

Unless of course you do understand and fully, in which case you have sympathies with wolves dressed as lambs.

Either way you are a sorry individual, and will vote to see Blair in a third term of office.

Kez

10th May 2004, 22:26

read a book then,

i recommend "Left Wing communism, an infantile disorder"

when uve read it, come back and discuss

Kez

10th May 2004, 22:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:24 PM
You support labour because you think that it can be "won back", you clearly fail to realise it was not, and never will be anything more than what it is now, a capitalist party appealing to workers. it never can be the spring of eternal hope you wish it to be, and I doubt it ever has been.

Unless of course you do understand and fully, in which case you have sympathies with wolves dressed as lambs.

Either way you are a sorry individual, and will vote to see Blair in a third term of office.
Nope, i dont intend to win it back, you are wrong again, heres a medal

it is not a capitalist party, wrong again, heres another medal

Id rather see Blair in power with Labour than Howard and the backing of the CBI, which do you want?

Louis Pio

10th May 2004, 22:32

The point is that workers have always moved through their traditional organisations and that's what we need to realise.
We certainly wont get a revolution by "intellectuals" telling people that they should join this or that little sect who have proclaimed themselves the "new gloroius party".
In Britain the TU's still have influence in the labour party and that's actually quite crucial. Even the communist party realised the need for also working inside Labour.