To all you revolutionaries - why it wont work

[frankiegoestostoke]

Although a left winger myself, I do no beleive that a world or UK armed revolution is a possible means of acheiving socialism.

Firstly: These are all the things that could go wrong.

1) The revolutionaries loose, millions die for nothing.
2) The revolution degenerates into a nuclear war, extremely likely unless revolutions take place simultaneously in America and in the UK. The entire planet is exterminated.
3) The revolutionaries win, but inherit a world that has been completely and utterly devastated, millions have died.
4) The revolutionaries succeed, but the revolution degenerates into a quasi-facist dictatorship, and the working classes are royally f**ked (am I allowed to swear on this board?)

The chances of a revolution succeeding, in the face of all these odds, are extremely slim. The cost, if a revolution fails in any of the above ways, is massive.

Secondly: The historical argument

When a socialist revolution took place in Russia in October 1917 it was a disaster right from the very beginning. It was an undemocratic movement (elections to the constituent assembly clearly show this), and Lenin's domestic policies during his time in power were a disgrace. The Cheka was an arbitrary killing machine, and war communism helped cause a famine in the south in which five million people died. By 1923 the living conditions for the population, including the working classes, were as bad as they were under Nicholas II, the revolution acheived nothing, and it went on to degenerate further under Stalin.

Many have argued that the Russian revolution degenerated so quickly because of famine, and because of a failure of other revolutions (most notably the Spartacist rising) throughout the rest of Europe. Albiet these things were out of the Russian CP's control, but the same two factors are equally probable if a revolution took place today.

Thirdly: The peasants.

A strictly Marxist, or Leninist I should say, revolution has a flaw in that it alienates the peasant class, who, despite being the largest class on the planet, are branded as petty bougiose. A leninist world revolution should not happen because the peasants would end up suffering, just like they did following the October Revolution in Russia.

Finally: Throughout most of the western world the people have at least an illusion of democracy. Falling voter turn out numbers show people are loosing interest in politics as a whole. In the western world the people are not in a state where they are ever likely to rise up in arms. The Russian revolution was only made possible because of 300 years of Tsarism, that was opposed to even limited constitutional reform.

[Kez]

god damn clayheads!

only jokin! (from a former Crewey here)

Welcome to the board, dont mind the bellends, try to ignore them.

1) The revolutionaries loose, millions die for nothing.
-Well, then its important we organise properly, get our theory right, and so on. Would we say "we cant fight fascists in WW2 coz millions might die?" no.
2) The revolution degenerates into a nuclear war, extremely likely unless revolutions take place simultaneously in America and in the UK. The entire planet is exterminated.
-Nobody would nuke the workers, if they nuked us who would they have to exploit? nobody. They may assasinate leaders, but they cant kill the revolution
3) The revolutionaries win, but inherit a world that has been completely and utterly devastated, millions have died.
-Again, its a risk, but arent we heading that way anyway?
4) The revolutionaries succeed, but the revolution degenerates into a quasi-facist dictatorship, and the working classes are royally f**ked (am I allowed to swear on this board?)
-Well, the workers should always remain on top, maintain a strong democracy, and power should remain with teh workers, not with any bureacracy.

"When a socialist revolution took place in Russia in October 1917 it was a disaster right from the very beginning. It was an undemocratic movement (elections to the constituent assembly clearly show this), and Lenin's domestic policies during his time in power were a disgrace"
Well, the revolution was a popular movement, the workers pushed the revolution,can you get any more legitimate than this?

"The Cheka was an arbitrary killing machine, and war communism helped cause a famine in the south in which five million people died. By 1923 the living conditions for the population, including the working classes, were as bad as they were under Nicholas II, the revolution acheived nothing, and it went on to degenerate further under Stalin. "
-you must remember Lenin wanted the revolution in Germany,so that it could aid Russia, the revolution in germany failed, having awful sideeffects to the plans in Russia, leading to problems and the rise of the buyreacracy.

"A strictly Marxist, or Leninist I should say, revolution has a flaw in that it alienates the peasant class, who, despite being the largest class on the planet, are branded as petty bougiose. A leninist world revolution should not happen because the peasants would end up suffering, just like they did following the October Revolution in Russia."
I dont think thats strictly true, in anycase, what peasant class is there in Britain?
A revolution should combine both workers and peasants, not just one or the other

"Throughout most of the western world the people have at least an illusion of democracy. Falling voter turn out numbers show people are loosing interest in politics as a whole. In the western world the people are not in a state where they are ever likely to rise up in arms. The Russian revolution was only made possible because of 300 years of Tsarism, that was opposed to even limited constitutional reform."
-It is therefore our duty to explain properly the real democratic alternative. Remember the firefighters strikes? they were fucking pissed off, i would be talking to them, not even hinting of socialism, then suddenly one would say "first we get rid of our right wing trade union leaders,then blair, thenrevolution!" i was like, what the fuck!

when capitalism hits the fan, workers look for solutions, we have to be there to explain.

what you think?
what part of stoke u from?

[redstar2000]

The revolutionaries lose, millions die for nothing.

People always die...immortality remains to be achieved.

Most insurrections do lose...that's the chance that we take.

Remember that if we do nothing, the existing system will also continue to "kill millions"...for profit.


The revolution degenerates into a nuclear war, extremely likely unless revolutions take place simultaneously in America and in the UK. The entire planet is exterminated.

An imperialist power that uses nuclear weapons against a proletarian revolution in an advanced capitalist country faces the probability of retaliation in kind.

The experience of the "cold war" says they won't do it...it's too risky.


The revolutionaries win, but inherit a world that has been completely and utterly devastated, millions have died.

I think you've been watching too many dystopian movies; the massive proletarian uprising in February 1917 involved very little actual destruction. Lenin's coup of October 1917 involved even less.

Civil wars that follow revolutions are indeed very destructive of both lives and property...it's a good idea to avoid those if at all possible.

But the aftermath of a proletarian revolution in an advanced capitalist country leaves very few people able or even willing to engage in a counter-revolutionary civil war. Where would the soldiers come from? Who would enlist under the banner of the old ruling class?


The revolutionaries succeed, but the revolution degenerates into a quasi-fascist dictatorship, and the working classes are royally f**ked (am I allowed to swear on this board?)

Yes, you are allowed to use any words you like on this board as long as they are not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

The nature of post-revolutionary society depends first of all on the means of production current at the time; Lenin's Russia turned into a despotism because that was suitable for the Russian level of economic development...especially after the devastation of the civil war had thrown them back to 1875 (or so) economically.

But one should not overlook the ideological factor; outside of State and Revolution, there was nothing in Lenin's theory or practice to suggest that he ever intended to allow the Russian working class to "run the show". What happened after October 1917 was not a "degeneration" but the systematic application of Leninist theory. In his view, his party's total domination of political life was "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

And that's been the general view of Leninists ever since (although there are some strains of Trotskyism that favor a multi-party system for their "workers' state").

The "central role" of the party and its leadership is at the very core of Leninism.


A strictly Marxist, or Leninist I should say, revolution has a flaw in that it alienates the peasant class, who, despite being the largest class on the planet, are branded as petty bourgeois.

The Leninist-Maoist variant solves that difficulty by making the peasantry the "revolutionary class".

It's interesting that you mention the peasantry as being "the largest class on the planet". I recently came across an interesting bit of trivia about that.

Sometime in 2007 or thereabouts, somewhere in the world, some young peasant is going to pick up and move to one of the shanty-towns surrounding some third-world mega-city. No one will notice, but s/he is going to be the one who will make the world's population 50% urban; 50% rural.

In absolute numbers, the world peasantry will begin to decline around 2020.

As soon as 2100 if not earlier, the urban working class may well be the majority class on this planet!

It's been a long time coming.


Throughout most of the western world the people have at least an illusion of democracy. Falling voter turn out numbers show people are losing interest in politics as a whole.

That's one way to look at it. I think falling voter turnout shows that working people are losing interest in the illusion of politics that bourgeois "democracy" offers.

They know that no matter who they vote for, things will just get worse anyway.

Since there is no revolutionary communist movement to offer the alternative of real politics, people turn to other things. Wouldn't you?


The Russian revolution was only made possible because of 300 years of Tsarism, that was opposed to even limited constitutional reform.

No, that's entirely wrong. Russia's unsuccessful participation in World War I caused its economy to collapse. The working class overthrow the Czarist despotism because that system effectively ceased to function in an organized way.

It is highly probable -- though not certain -- that successful revolutions require the independent collapse of the old order.

------------------

I think this thread would be suitable for the Theory forum.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[RidiculousRhinoceros]

Although a left winger myself, I do no beleive that a world or UK armed revolution is a possible means of acheiving socialism.

I agree armed revolution in most cases is awfully counter productive. Plus it often puts in power a leader that does not represent the working class. The best way for this revolution to occur is of course Democracy. I'd support armed conflicts for democracy. It's democracy we have to fight for. If the working class is the majority class and socialism benefits them most, then the relization of democracy would be the rise of socialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Democracy gets us nowhere.

[Kez]

hows that then?

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 25 2004, 09:39 AM--> (NoXion @ Jun 25 2004, 09:39 AM)Democracy gets us nowhere.[/b]


Originally posted by Karl [email protected]
Democracy is the road to socialism


Lenin
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.

Karl and Vlad's opinions nothwithstanding, I must disagree, NoXion; democracy is in the people's interests. And if we are in the people's interests, we are democratic.

[Nas]

dont worry, young revolutionary , the revolution will be combined with a movement*, many people will still die though but it wont be a fatal war like you have read about Lenin and the Reds of Russia

and yes, there is a possability that we might loose but thats the risk that we are willing to take



* i mean a type of revolution/evolution

[The Feral Underclass]

I think NoXion is refering to bourgeois democracy. Parliments and bourgeois elections etc etc etc.