can we justify revolution?

[Crazy_Diamond]

I hate the corporations that control everything, but I don't think I could go to war to dismantle them. Except for the occasional friendly fist-fight with friends or a rugby match, I am a pacifist. I believe anarchy would benefit humanity in many ways, but I don't know if it can be achieved without making matters worse.

The war would not only be against the capitalist machine, but also against the many blissfully ignorant people who make the machine run. Most of the people in America, where I reside, have worked hard to achieve middle-class(not to be confused with spoiled rich ****s whose mommies and daddies give them everything they ever need). I cannot see the exploited middle class admitting to having wasted their lives for the man and joining our cause.

We can try to educate them, but our resources pale to those of our adversaries, and republicans are very organized and clever.

For our side to win we would need the mass support of the common person, and the standard of living in America is too good to convince most people of the atrocity of the system. It would just be a long and bloody war, that I doubt we could win, and if we did win we all know how Russia and China turned out, the same thing could happen to us.

I know the problem of the system, but I just need to know that tearing it down would indeed be a benefit to us all.

[redstar2000]

I know the problem of the system, but I just need to know that tearing it down would indeed be a benefit to us all.

Actually, it's rather likely that you don't know the "problem" of the system first-hand...few of us do.

Very few Americans are still alive who remember what the system looks like when it doesn't work -- I'm speaking here if the "great depression".

Not even the poorest of us at Che-Lives "go hungry", live "on the streets", walk miles and miles looking for a job, etc.

There was no revolution in the 1930s, but there was a hell of a lot of resistance to capitalism...including a couple of general strikes, many factory occupations, etc.

In other words, as long as capitalism "works" for most people, most people will not be interested in revolution. When it stops working, revolution will start to make sense.

Meanwhile, even now there are some people for whom the system "doesn't work" or works very poorly. Those are the people we need to talk to now.

:redstar2000:

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Crazy Diamond that is exactly one of the problems I had with the die hard revolutionaries here when I started. I though fair enough smashing the machine, but would you smash your grandparents and parents working the machine?

For me communism has some roots if not many in utilitarianism. Like redstar said at the moment many people don't care. I woud not feel that i had a mandate to carry out action. I don't know if you are more democratic socialist, but it seems they will never get anywhere. Or whether or not they should. I guess it depends on the kind of new world you want, I mean what we have now wasn't achieved without people getting their hands dirty. I guess it depends on how dominating achieving the aftermath of revolution is in terms of a moral agenda.

[Djehuti]

Why should we justify the revolution?



I hate the corporations that control everything, but I don't think I could go to war to dismantle them.

A revolution is not about dismantling the powerful cooperations (even if that will happen).



Except for the occasional friendly fist-fight with friends or a rugby match, I am a pacifist.

But...why?



The war would not only be against the capitalist machine, but also against the many blissfully ignorant people who make the machine run.

Yes, the war is against the proletarians. But also by the proletarians, and for the proletarians, so to speak. The revolution is the movement in which the proletarians cease to be proletarians, and organized themselfs as a class.
The communists will not do the revolution - the proletarians will.



Most of the people in America, where I reside, have worked hard to achieve middle-class(not to be confused with spoiled rich ****s whose mommies and daddies give them everything they ever need). I cannot see the exploited middle class admitting to having wasted their lives for the man and joining our cause.


The so called "middle class" is not really a class so the term is wrong, but I understand who you mean. Yeah, I guess that many of them have worked hard to get there (most of the poor have probably worked just as hard, and not got anywere), but that does not really mather. Well, those among the proletarians that have recieved privileges of different kinds, higher wages, power over other proletarians, etc. And some of them might even side with the bourgeoisie in class conflicts dou to this. And we might even be forced to fight them (and i dont mean like shooting their heads of), and so must be. But most of the so called "middle class" will realize, that even if we have differences, even if they are like "above" most of us, there is till more that unites then differs.




For our side to win we would need the mass support of the common person,

Nay, we should not get the common person to suport us. It is we, that should support the common person. We should help them in their every day struggle against capitalism (it is there, even if many dont see it), not them helping us in our struggle against capitalism, and for communism.



and the standard of living in America is too good to convince most people of the atrocity of the system.


I dont see high standards as a problem, rather as the opposite.
Instead of screaming out "more bread!" and get silence when that is recieved, we now scream out "We want everything!", and wont settle before that is refcieved.

And we should not really convince them, class counciousness is achieved in the class struggle, we should rather focus on developing and spreading the all day struggles of the proletarians.



It would just be a long and bloody war, that I doubt we could win,


Nay, I dont really believe in like big battles between the bourgeoise and the proletarians, with tanks and stuff. Remember, if we are united....then we allready have won. Remember, that the proletarians allready controlls everything, its just that we just have not realised it yet.



and if we did win we all know how Russia and China turned out, the same thing could happen to us.


Nay, we know bether now. Atleast I think so.

[apathy maybe]

Beware the Vanguard my friends. It is silent and subtle and changes form often. While it showed that it could make mistakes, it learns from them, but it's aim is dubious.

There are some reasons for a "revolution" (whatever that is) but it is not likely until we do have an educated mass on our side. the violence (if any) would hopefully come at or near the end.

But why destroy when you can build your community with in the structure that all ready exists?
Co-ops and communes can work with in the capitalist society, but still provide the means of control for the worker. Factories can be run on cooperative means. And as the people (as a mass) see that we are on the whole happier then they may start to think.

Also if you can't work at a co-op, you can always work less. Just don't consume as much. If you don't have to pay of a second car or house, why you don't have to work as much. If everybody realised that they didn't need the second car, why they might all stop working as much. Then were would capitalism be? The capitalists would be competing for scarce labour rather then vice versa.

[Djehuti]

A capitalism ruled by the workers is to prefere before a capitalism ruled by capitalists, or the state, etc. But it is still a capitalism. It is not a solution to some of our most fundamental problems. Take controll of your factories, that is needed and that is great. But dont imagine that the struggle will be won just because the workers rule capitalism. They most destroy it to. Destroy value, that is very important. Value must be destroyed!

[socialistfuture]

it is not just capitalism - it is how we relate to each other - how we view the world.
what is the point of the revolution - the aim of it? if it for a communist elite to be in power? is it to destroy power? u can still have state corporations and communist factories that are undemocratic. revolution is about taking back what has been stolen from you - celebrating life and many things.
you could still have war and pollution under communism - we need to view the earth in a different way - it is the source of life and should be highly valued. would there be communist police? would there be communist secret police and army and all the capitalist things but just with new names? we need a fundamental change in thinking as well as lifestyle.
well thats my 2 cents.

also would there be no money? how would things work.

[Essential Insignificance]

what is the point of the revolution - the aim of it?

The abolishment of private property; and subsequently to thus, all of the connected absurdities and oppressions waged against the majority of mankind, by the ruling elite.


if it for a communist elite to be in power?

No!

Real communists, are not concerned with such trivial and purposeless personal endeavors and distinctions of ascendancy and imperium.

However, in the course of history both "pre" and "post" Marx and Engel's there have been "myriad" doctrines, that state "explicitly" and "substantiate" that theoretical and practical political (in the interest's of the proletarian) movements should be guided by a revolutionary vanguard party.


is it to destroy power?

Yes -- the power and supremacy of capital.



you could still have war and pollution under communism - we need to view the earth in a different way - it is the source of life and should be highly valued.

The word "could", here is the operative word. Philosophically, anything could happen. The possibility of something, as that of the present enquiry happening is vastly improbable, however.

You would most certainly -- not -- in a communist world have war; but, it would be of no surprise, to expect lowly incorporated skirmishes, in the "early days".

As for pollution; well, it would be, at the present time, manifestly unintelligible for any one to suggest the "abolition" of population. But, I think, it would be significantly reduced -- in a communist world.



would there be communist police?would there be communist secret police and army and all the capitalist things but just with new names? we need a fundamental change in thinking as well as lifestyle.

I wouldn't think so; not in the sense, of the present day "machines" of subjugation.

There well be, however, police "specialist" -- such as there is in present day conditions.



also would there be no money? how would things work.

By the equal and equivalent exchange of communally and socially manufactured products.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- Karl Marx