A Peaceful Socialism

[himmelblau]

So, what do you know about Eduard Bernstein? Yes, he was a revisionist, but we must not exclude him from our thoughts just because of this. He may provide an important stepping stone in our approach to the socialist cause. Here is his most well known quote:

"The Communist Manifesto was correct…but…we see the privileges of the capitalist bourgeoisie yielding…to democratic organizations…In my judgment…success lies in a steady [peaceful] advance…[rather]…than in…a catastrophic crash."

Fair enough, still potentially working within the capitalist system though. It sure would be very nice to believe that capitalism can be destroyed peacefully, but this is very unrealistic. However, does that truly mean that we must resort to some petty war as our first choice in achieving socialism? No.
Let me introduce myself. My name is Jon. I'm not a revolutionary. As far as I'm concerned, any sort of instigated war contradicts socialist and communist ideals. I'm not a complete social democrat though either. I see a bit of good in both will try my hardest to pacify. Karl Marx only observed that one day capitalism would outgrow itself and die. According to some of course, that isn't entirely true, because it all hinges on your interpretation. Karl Marx advocated a revolutionary platform to destroy capitalism through a two stage process, the first stage of course to reach socialism, and the second to evolve naturally into communism. Marx's teachings, well, his observations, depending on your viewpoint, have been used and abused by Stalin and Mao's brutal authoritarianism, earning socialism and communism a bad name in the public eye.
You may think through revolution we can snap our fingers and acheive communism? No. We can only hope for socialism in our lifetimes. However, that is not admitting defeat but purely being realistic. I don't think we can achieve communism by snapping fingers. My point is that the work of communists should use methods that will peacefully create socialism, which may one day lead to communism naturally. Our efforts should not just be designed to fighting capitalism by acts of definance, but winning elections and becoming a part of the system in order to break it down from the inside.
We will not win the public's hearts and minds with revolutionary rhetoric... we will not win their confidence with cowardly attacks on the current government. The most successful way of acheiving our goal is to step carefully, to advance with caution, to win power democratically and establish ourselves in the public consciousness.
We will need no revolution- our job will have been done, socialism will be born. It will be here, people will vote for us because we do still live in some semblance of a democracy.
Whenever capitalism is threatened, it resorts to violent methods to protect itself. This is an indisputable fact. We will at soe point have to defend ourselves if we wish to continue our quest for socialim.
Rewind to Britain in the 1980s. The Militant Tendency were a Trotskyist faction in the Labour party, and they won Merseyside in 84, fought against Thatcher's regime and refused to cut its council budgets. Basically, they were a revolutionary party, but they got into power democratically. However much or little we agree with Leon Trotsky and his followerd, they showed us a vital case in point. They only got shirty when their opponents did, in self defence. So what is the point of wanting a revolution when we can acheive part of Marx's first step by democratic means?
If we want to create socialism, we will have to be prepared to fight. Of coruse this is just an abstraction, as we are know where near such a situation in which we can run out into the streets, guns blazing, to declare a revolution.
What I am trying to say is we will have to defend ourselves in order to protect our gains because, ultimately, captialism will ALWAYS use violence to defend itself. We need to only use revolution when we need to, not as our first choice though, and to first and foremost be a peaceful politcal force. We must try and win our cause peacefully. If not, then resort to violence.

[Saint-Just]

Marx's teachings, well, his observations, depending on your viewpoint, have been used and abused by Stalin and Mao's brutal authoritarianism, earning socialism and communism a bad name in the public eye.

The bourgeoisie give every socialist a 'bad name in the public eye'. Regardless of what Mao and Stalin did the bourgeoisie were always going to discredit them because they were socialists. But, even if they do not criticise people such as Mao and Stalin there are many others ways in which the bourgeosie reinforces ideology. Bourgeoisie ideology is systemic in capitalist society; every organisation and institution reinforces it. The schools, the police, the legal system etc. Regardless of whether people think Mao and Stalin are bad people they think that socialist ideology is inherently wrong.

The discrediting of Mao and Stalin only serves to dissuade people on the left from a particular form of leftism.


The Militant Tendency were a Trotskyist faction in the Labour party, and they won Merseyside in 84... Basically, they were a revolutionary party, but they got into power democratically.

I would suggest to you that they used undemocratic means to get into power. They operated in a clandestine manner very often having infiltrated the labour party and were ultimately expelled.

[RevolverNo9]

Perhaps incongruously I support the Socialist Party (the main residue of Militant Labour), and as you can see I have their wonderful web-site in my signature, while not apporoving of their Liverpool tenure. The Liverpool council was, as Chariman Mao mentioned, controlled by Militant members through internal party struggles by which they forced the regular Labour representitives out of office; the working classes of the city were atually pretty sick of them because they were, frankly, decadent. They frittered away council funds, brought on a huge amount of positive discrimination and apart from giving a knock to Thatcher I can't think of a great positive that the city took away with them.

Not to say that the entrist group did no good; their 3 MPs who drew average working wages are a good example. Imagine the huge effect on British politics such a small measure would have... if MPs could not draw a wage greater than their constituents' average. Their would be no comfort in politics as a career.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

If not trying to abolish the government, then there is no reason that you cannot use the system against itself. Actually, maybe the anarchists can form a party. Eventually, after enough publicity [which, inevitably will occur, as someone running for office in order to destroy that office will make a great story for pretty much any news source] they might get a decent amount of support. Indeed, with the economy and enviornment on their paths to shitland, sent off by the current unPresident of the Untied States of America, George W. Bush, dissent and malcontent amongst the lower classes shouldn't be too far off. I say, why not?

[VukBZ2005]

1
The Anarchists would not form a party because they would know that it would be
against their own interests. If that actually happened - Anarchism would cease to
be a class struggle theory because then it would have given in to the idea that
change could occur within the system - in fact it would mess up Anarchism
because Anarchist theory wishes to abolish Capitalism and the State - This
would be contradictory and would throw Anarchism out the "left" stratasphere.

2
Elections are fake anyway. It is used by the state to protect Capitalism from any
real change by by instilling the false image that the people can have a voice in the
way their government is run, when in reality - they are being tricked very clevery
by Capitalism and the state. You can not "work within" the system - you must work
outside the system in order to destroy it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by himmelblau
It will be here, people will vote for us because we do still live in some semblance of a democracy.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of modern reality.

A "semblance" of democracy is not a democracy; nothing like Liverpool is ever going to happen again. As we have already seen in the U.S., capitalist "elections" are easily stolen without consequence.

Which renders everything else you say irrelevant.

Sorry.

:redstar2000:

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

[himmelblau]

Heh, I may as well become a capitalist now then...

You're wrong. Just because you THINK it won't happen again doesn't mean it won't.

[redstar2000]

Heh, I may as well become a capitalist now then...

Yes, that's one option.

The other involves "breaking the rules" altogether...becoming a revolutionary.

A harsh choice, to be sure.

:redstar2000:

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

[himmelblau]

Well, like I said, I lie between the two camps. I'd rather do it peacefully than through an all out war, put it that way. Of course, the specific circumastances would be what decided the method.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Elections are fake anyway.

Even in a non-capitalist society?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by attributed to J.V. Stalin
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

Perhaps it won't be quite so bad in a post-capitalist democracy.

Nevertheless, criticisms can be made of using elections as a way of picking society's "decision-makers".

Democracy without Elections; Demarchy and Communism (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:27 PM

Elections are fake anyway.

Even in a non-capitalist society?
"Socialism" (State Beaucratic Capitalism) is still class society. In a Class-less,
state-less society there would be no leaders. Elections would be useless. Things
would be dicided by direct democracy or by democratic concensus.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:07 PM
Well, like I said, I lie between the two camps. I'd rather do it peacefully than through an all out war, put it that way. Of course, the specific circumastances would be what decided the method.
Then you are not even a real leftist at all. Any revolution that will bring an
end to class society, capitalism and the state is better for me. If you do
things through the system - you will become A part of that System.
Besides - the rich upper class would rig the elections or try to find some
way to the prevent the destruction of their system from the inside out.

[himmelblau]

Don't start questioning my political views when you don't know me.

And you've obviously missed my point that instead of acting (or being) some kiddie communist and killing everyone straight away that we could actually try doing it peacefully first, and with the public's support. Now if doing what the public wants isn't leftist in your book then you're more of a kiddie communist than I first thought.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:56 PM
Don't start questioning my political views when you don't know me.

And you've obviously missed my point that instead of acting (or being) some kiddie communist and killing everyone straight away that we could actually try doing it peacefully first, and with the public's support. Now if doing what the public wants isn't leftist in your book then you're more of a kiddie communist than I first thought.
First - I did not miss your point. I am saying that your point does not matter
in the big picture. You believe that elections make a difference and that's
what i think is at the heart of what your point is. The truth is - if elections
make a difference do you think that capitalism would be such a system
that would be worth protecting? No - because people could then use
elections to their advantage and destroy it from the inside out and
basically - the rich upper class will not allow such a thing to happen
- they will outlaw elections althogether because it would eventually
mean the end of them as a class. You do not understand the true class
nature of elections in today's situation or today's material conditions.

Second - I'm not a "kiddie communist." im not a "socialist" - but a
Proletarianist. I call for a revolution that would remove capitalism,
the state, and class society by force. It may not seem "realistic"
in today's political situation - however, it will eventually become
possible for a revolution to happen. I also see that you view
revolution as something in which we kill everyone - no. We will
eliminate the rich upper class, and the structures that support
them by force. Peace in capitalist society seems like peace -
but it is not - there are always class confilcts that are occuring.
if i missed your point in this context - then i apologize. But i am
trying to make the facts clear.

Third - "Socialism" would not be accepted by the working class of the
advanced capitalist nations. They will see through your message and
will go against you and your party.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Originally posted by Communist [email protected] 31 2004, 09:56 PM
1
The Anarchists would not form a party because they would know that it would be against their own interests. If that actually happened - Anarchism would cease to be a class struggle theory because then it would have given in to the idea that change could occur within the system - in fact it would mess up Anarchism because Anarchist theory wishes to abolish Capitalism and the State - This would be contradictory and would throw Anarchism out the "left" stratasphere.


Remember "By any means neccessary"? Well I think this counts as "by any means" and seeing how the anarchist movement using any other methods, why NOT try working within the system to destroy it/abolish it? I think it might work.


2
Elections are fake anyway. It is used by the state to protect Capitalism from any
real change by by instilling the false image that the people can have a voice in the
way their government is run, when in reality - they are being tricked very clevery
by Capitalism and the state. You can not "work within" the system - you must work
outside the system in order to destroy it.

It is far more difficult to destroy the state from outside than inside. From inside you have more access to the things [information, resources] needed to destroy it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate Jujitsu
...why NOT try working within the system to destroy it/abolish it? I think it might work.

No, it will not work.

By working "within the system" you will be corrupted and eventually abandon any pretense of revolutionary change at all.

A recent example of this is the German Green Party.

:redstar2000:

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

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Then you are not even a real leftist at all.

And you are fanatical, dogmatic, and narrow minded.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

I have to agree with NWOG. I'm off to create a topic *****ing about this. Cheers.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:39 PM

Then you are not even a real leftist at all.

And you are fanatical, dogmatic, and narrow minded.
I'm not "fanatical", "dogmatic" and "narrow-minded" - the fact is that people
who want to input things that have no material basis into the "left" and are
not truly concurrent with the currents of the "left" are not leftists at all.

[Erin Go Braugh]

Am I the only one here who realizes that most societies hate communism and socialism? With revolution, we make more enemies. Sweden is an awesome place to live! Its democratic socialist! And also, we can't really have direct democracy. Or at least, not if you want to go through with Trotsky's ideas. Not everyone has a computer. Would the government provide the people with computers?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Erin Go Braugh
Am I the only one here who realizes that most societies hate communism and socialism? With revolution, we make more enemies.

IF Marx was right, those opinions to which you refer will drastically change.

We are not discussing revolution made by a small group "next Thursday".

We are advocating revolution at such time that the vast majority of people demand the revolutionary transformation of society.

That might be 30 years from now, or 50 years, or 75 years, or whatever.

:redstar2000:

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

[Arnau]

I think the best we can do, especially seeing as we all call ourselves "leftists" is accept that we all share more or less the same final conception of an ideal society but we vary in the means of acheiving it.
I am not going to take strong sides on either side because that would mean rejecting another comrade's views and idea's to change the world. What we have to do is change society, and if we want to do that, we'd better start off by doing it together. All of the left, using all of its methods, not just one or the other. but a combination of all
[QUOTE]No, it will not work.

By working "within the system" you will be corrupted and eventually abandon any pretense of revolutionary change at all.

The Soviet Union was created by a revolution. It was a complete failure. The class system was just replaced by the Party elite. I wouldn't really call that revolutionary change. Nor would i call it Communist by any means.
Socialism through revolution has in many occasions been attempted. It can work. But fact is it hasn't. And it is important that we atleast look at why it didn't happen theoretically not just historically.
If there is a revolution, it would have to be done by all members of a certain society, because if not the socialist government put in place would be dealing with a non-revolutionary society, a violent revolution would serve to destroy capitalisms institutions and its structures. but no one will successfully pull that off unless everyone is willing to participate in its destruction.
What the left needs is popular support. With that, a revolution can take place. but to achieve that we should be prepared to use any measures possible. even the system's own "democracy".
Changing a society means changing the people in it. One's own mental liberation means the will to liberate others. And that won't happen until the others liberate themselves. A revolution followed by an imposed socialism won't sudenly liberate a whole society. If it tries to do so its means will be authoritarian and thus counter revolutionary like in the USSR.

We have to stop attacking each other's idea's for change, and instead try to merge them together with our own, all aimed at bit by bit gaining more freedom and less authority and revolutionizing the society in order to one day become free from the system that opresses minds and destroys life.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Arnau
We have to stop attacking each other's ideas for change, and instead try to merge them together with our own...

No, that won't do.

There's no way, for example, to "merge" evolution with "creationism"...it's a one or the other decision.

People who want to "work within the system" are simply cutting their own throats...that's history.

Revolution is "risky", I agree. It can turn sour in a hurry, no question about it.

But, it's a choice between certain defeat and a chance at victory.

That ought to be a "no-brainer".

:redstar2000:

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

[Arnau]

Of course merging evolution with creationism isn't going to happen. but a broad revolutionary left, is generally of atheist nature. Not all are Marxists, but the left had always been "materialist": Not believing in unscientific explanations of the facts.
However when i talk about merging theory's i mean to put together the different factionalized methods of realising the creation of a Communist society rather than sticking each to our own and not cooperating amognst each other to get to our similar goal, as leftists.
About cooperating with the system. If done using revolutionary aims, can prove to be effective. Revolution has its risks just like participating in bourgeouis democracy does. But as we can see none is ideal, but both are available, and being so should be used always to the advantage of the left as much as possible.
If the left doesn't vote and the right does, our struggle is only going to be made much harder on ourselves.
If the struggle takes place inside AND outside the system, chances of victory are no matter what going to be higher. But of course that is only considering the fact that both within the system and outside the system, the aim and the ideal remains REVOLUTIONARY from beginning to end.
No matter what some of us may say. There is no real way of leading a struggle completely free of the system. it is everywhere. Capitalism reigns as the means of production for all products we may consume, and the institutions live by are also part of the system.
What we can do is try our best to change it. However we still remain constituents of the system, and can only completely free ourselves from it once we've abolished it. Past revolutions have proven that rounding up some militia and taking the goverment simply won't abolish the system because it won't change the system-infested society. Just as complying with the sytem has proven counterrevolutionary. In both cases there has been little to no succes. By using the positive from each and getting rid of the negative and inneffective, we will indeed find ourselves a solution to finally change society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Arnau
About cooperating with the system. If done using revolutionary aims, can prove to be effective.

No, it's never accomplished anything.

What happens is that when people decide to "work within the system", they must immediately give up all aspirations (at least openly) to revolutionary change...they must "trim their language" so as to "fit in" to the system and be thought "responsible".

They think to themselves, "I'll be publicly harmless until I work my way up into a position of influence...then I'll really put it to the bastards."

Years pass. Habits of thought take form. By the time these former "lefties" actually reach those "positions of influence", it is psychologically impossible for them to even think of something revolutionary, much less do anything like that.

They've been trained (with their own eager cooperation) to be lap-dogs of the existing system.

They can still yap about injustice (now and then)...but they are unable to say or do anything of substance.

They are pathetic!


If the left doesn't vote and the right does, our struggle is only going to be made much harder on ourselves.

Nope. It won't make any difference at all.

Around six million Germans voted communist in the elections of 1932...and they still ended up with Hitler.


If the struggle takes place inside AND outside the system, chances of victory are no matter what going to be higher.

No, lower. Any resource devoted to "inside" work is not only wasted but sends a message that actually hurts us -- we'd be telling people that the system "can be salvaged"...thus delaying the revolution.


There is no real way of leading a struggle completely free of the system.

No doubt our enemies will exert themselves to get their hooks into anything we try to do. It's part of the struggle.

Our responsibility is to present a face of intransigent opposition...to flatly refuse the bribes (financial or otherwise) that are offered.

We are not interested in a "working relationship" with our masters to "improve the system"...our goal is to destroy both the system and its masters, period.

That's what revolutionaries do.

:redstar2000:

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

[Famepollution]

You may think through revolution we can snap our fingers and acheive communism? No. We can only hope for socialism in our lifetimes. However, that is not admitting defeat but purely being realistic. I don't think we can achieve communism by snapping fingers. My point is that the work of communists should use methods that will peacefully create socialism, which may one day lead to communism naturally. Our efforts should not just be designed to fighting capitalism by acts of definance, but winning elections and becoming a part of the system in order to break it down from the inside.
We will not win the public's hearts and minds with revolutionary rhetoric... we will not win their confidence with cowardly attacks on the current government. The most successful way of acheiving our goal is to step carefully, to advance with caution, to win power democratically and establish ourselves in the public consciousness.

You My friend paint a horrible view of Socialism. A socialism that doesnt lead to communism in a life time would be just horrid. A state that would have that much power would never lead to communism. Its My conviction that a socialist state would have to be MAJORLY limited and decentralized to actually evolve into a communist society. A world of millions of Paris communes could more easily evolve into communism rather then a world of 4 USSRs

the public will not except Revolutionary rhetoric now but later when capitalism is in its death bed, yes. Its happened before and It will happen again.




We need to only use revolution when we need to, not as our first choice though, and to first and foremost be a peaceful politcal force. We must try and win our cause peacefully. If not, then resort to violence.

look at the democratic socialist party. Have they done anything major to lead us towards a classless society? No, we're still in a brutal capitalist regime and all democratic means have done nothing at all but waste time.


f not trying to abolish the government, then there is no reason that you cannot use the system against itself. Actually, maybe the anarchists can form a party. Eventually, after enough publicity [which, inevitably will occur, as someone running for office in order to destroy that office will make a great story for pretty much any news source] they might get a decent amount of support. Indeed, with the economy and enviornment on their paths to shitland, sent off by the current unPresident of the Untied States of America, George W. Bush, dissent and malcontent amongst the lower classes shouldn't be too far off. I say, why not?

Bakunin said it best. "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself"

Power currupts. And if you want to abolish a class system you cannot become an authoritarian ruler in that class system



You're wrong. Just because you THINK it won't happen again doesn't mean it won't.

well true... But Reformism has had a pretty crappy track record on getting to communism or even socialism. Im no fan of bolshevism but atleast they disposed of the Czar.




Am I the only one here who realizes that most societies hate communism and socialism? With revolution, we make more enemies.

Most people who i talk to who hate "communism" dont know shit about communism. Most people who i tell them the true definition think it sounds nice but it is too impractical but they will change their mind once the Capitalism goes to hell. With a revolution, we will eleminate all class enemies.

[Arnau]

We all speak of "revolution" and of "democracy"; as rigidly defined words.
I agree with redstar that the system has a way of molding those that enter its authoritative institutions and forming counterrevolutionaries of them, no matter how left-wing they start off.
In practice it has and is happening. But by saying that the entrance of a revolutionary in the system will only bring his destruction, is like saying that there is no way revolutonaries can exist at all. Because we were all brought up IN the system and we remain revolutionaries in mentality.
It can be considered a waste of time because it is a slow process. but if done successfully, remaining revolutionary. can and will destroy the system.
if that doesn't happen, the dreaded "reform" will, if left wing, like it or not, facilitate revolutionary struggle outside the system, which is the legitimate and important of struggles. Power does corrupt, but in the case that a true revolutionary did enter the system, his, or the party's aims, being to destroy the system, must remain so. Its a large mental effort but a revolution first need support and then action. The system's governemental institutions can be used to attain support and perhaps even to begin the revolution.

An example in practice is the Chilean revolution of Allende. Of course the fascists eventually put it down by brutal force. But this revolution that occured through the system, was no less revolutionary then the multitude of others that were attempted outside of it. The trouble is how many support you and who supports you

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Arnau
An example in practice is the Chilean revolution of Allende. Of course the fascists eventually put it down by brutal force. But this revolution that occurred through the system, was no less revolutionary then the multitude of others that were attempted outside of it.

Yes, it was very much less revolutionary...in fact, Allende's government was not revolutionary at all.

He was a left-bourgeois reformer -- a Chilean version of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He had no intention whatsoever of changing the class nature of Chilean society, anymore than FDR wanted to change the class nature of American society.

The same thing is true today of the "Bolivarian Revolution" in Venezuela...its purpose is to rescue capitalism, not replace it.


The system's governmental institutions can be used to attain support and perhaps even to begin the revolution.

That is wishful thinking...it's never happened and never will.

:redstar2000:

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

[Rage Against the Right]

An example of the results of factioning within a revolution, one side for peaceful takeover and one side for militant, is the Cuban revolution. The urban July 26th movement was, although eventually practising terrorism, an organization that wanted an election to get into power. While Che was bent on bringing it around through violence. Although the July 26th movement was not socialist, it was still part of the revolution.

"We are advocating revolution at such time that the vast majority of people demand the revolutionary transformation of society.

That might be 30 years from now, or 50 years, or 75 years, or whatever."

I think it's possible that now is the time of revolution, and because of our manipulating burgeoise, the blinders are pulled on the general public. I can see us waiting until things are to destroyed to be fixed! What say ye to that?

Also, how the hell do work that damn quote button!?

[Arnau]

[I][QUOTE]That is wishful thinking...it's never happened and never will.

Expecting that a world whos inhabiting societies are going to rise up simultaneously and execute a full-blown communist revolution, and then succeed in constructing a revolutionary socialist society. Can be considered wishful thinking in one form or another.
Saying that something will never happen is a way of putting strict limits on the possibilities of revolutionizing a capitalist society into a communist one: Quest which should be as broad as possible, given the situation of the world, and the humans inhabiting it today. I perfectly agree that no capitalist governmental institution has carried a strong, firm message of revolutionary socialism, but in the long run revolutions haven't done much about it either.

Im not saying one is good and correct to be used in attaining socialism, and the other is completely flawed and will never happen . All I am saying is that there is more than just one way of changing things for the better, including to completely revolutionize them.

Revolution is ideal, almost immaculate in the theory, and in practice can be so, but only under very developed and worked at circumstances. Attaining those circumstances is of course the problem.

The circumstances we are faced with today are, to start off far from that, and the "brave" few that sympathise with revolutionary leftism (leave out the almost extinct revolutionaries); say they only do so in theory and claim that in practice it will never happen. This is for the few who dare even sympathise with communist ideas. Get them to become active and join a revolution? If it can be done. Please show me how. But beating about the fact that there is one and only one way to change society is most probably going to reduce the chances of their conversion. Let alone the rest of the rotten world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Rage Against the Right+--> (Rage Against the Right)Also, how the hell do work that damn quote button!?[/b]

I find it easiest to avoid the buttons altogether and just type in the code as needed.

Type "["quote"]" and then copy and paste whatever it is that you want to quote, and then type "["/quote"]" (without the quotation marks).

If you want to mention the member's name, type "["quote=Username"]" at the beginning of the quote.

A curiosity of bb code that I've never grasped: why didn't the authors just make it and instead of spelling out the word???

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


Arnau
Expecting that a world whose inhabiting societies are going to rise up simultaneously and execute a full-blown communist revolution, and then succeed in constructing a revolutionary socialist society. Can be considered wishful thinking in one form or another.

Yes, you are right, that would indeed be wishful thinking.

What I would expect, at best, is roughly simultaneous proletarian revolutions in western Europe. Not in "the whole world".

Anyone who wants to wait until "the whole world" is "ready for communism" is going to have a very long wait.


Saying that something will never happen is a way of putting strict limits on the possibilities of revolutionizing a capitalist society into a communist one.

True...but reality is what it is. I already explained the material/psychological reasons why trying to change the system "from within" doesn't work and can't work.

"Will power" can't do anything about those reasons; they're "built in" to the system itself.


...but in the long run revolutions haven't done much about it either.

Also true...but something that also has a materialist explanation that's independent of human will-power.

You cannot create a communist society in a backward country that's only begun the transition to capitalism. If you try, you just get a bloody mess like Pol Pot's Cambodia.

What happens instead is that you create "socialism"...a kind of "capitalism without capitalists". And that, in turn, naturally evolves into modern capitalism itself.

Leninists in general and Maoists in particular think that that is not "inevitable"...that a strong party with a great leader and a "revolutionary line" can stop that from happening.

But I think they are wrong; the party will become corrupted, the great leader will die of old age, and the "line" will become more and more pro-capitalist as time passes because of material conditions.


All I am saying is that there is more than just one way of changing things for the better, including to completely revolutionize them.

That's a significantly different argument than what you've been saying up to this point.

"Can" things be "changed for the better" in late capitalist societies without revolution?

In my opinion, probably not. A class society, like a person, becomes "stiff and creaky" with old age...it becomes less and less "flexible" and able to "adapt" to new circumstances. Its responses become deeply habitual and ingrained.

When capitalism was still young, it was possible to have "an age of reform" in which things did change for the better in significant ways. (Look at Venezuela...they are having their "age of reform" right now.)

It was not "peaceful change" -- there were a lot of violent struggles to get those reforms. But it was possible, short of revolution, to get them.

I think for North America and Europe, an "age of reform" is no longer possible.

From here on out, things are going to get worse and worse...until there is a proletarian revolution.


If it can be done. Please show me how.

There's no "magic" involved; it is grunt work. One person convinces two people who convince four people who convince eight people, etc., etc., etc.

Eventually, you have hundreds convincing thousands convincing millions.

And, before the revolution, you are constantly trying to encourage people to resist the despotism of capital in any way that seems practical.

It's a "long march"...but if Marx was right about the way capitalism itself functions, then we'll get there.

:redstar2000:

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

[Famepollution]

There's no "magic" involved; it is grunt work. One person convinces two people who convince four people who convince eight people, etc., etc., etc.

Eventually, you have hundreds convincing thousands convincing millions.

And, before the revolution, you are constantly trying to encourage people to resist the despotism of capital in any way that seems practical.

It's a "long march"...but if Marx was right about the way capitalism itself functions, then we'll get there.

Exactly, I have been doing that for the past month or so In my Ap Euro Class (Industrial revolution/Russian Revolution= Marx bad) and English (Animal farm). Through my efforts i have convinced atleast one person that communism is a good idea.

:D Im quite proud of my self for this victory especially since i live in the Bible Belt :D

[Arnau]

[/QUOTE]Anyone who wants to wait until "the whole world" is "ready for communism" is going to have a very long wait.

Fair enough but from the moment that alot if it is ready, how and what do we do with the rest that are not and will not be ready for Communism? How do we ultimately rid ourselves of the right wing? Sure we could pull off a revolution and either killemall or "educate" them, effort which will require high levels of authoritarianism.

The idea of convincing one then the other. I could not agree more about it being the most legitimate of all in revolutionizing a society. But we can't forget that all the while we remain in the system and working for it, though not always with it.

In the while that we are leading this double life of promoting revolution and living and working in the system. Wouldn't it also be convenient to physically change things inside the system, to facilitate our struggle? seeing as it is where most of our lives are set. and seeing as our lives are all we have.

The establishment of communes could take us straight to the communist in a smaller picture, within our lifetime, and can serve as a strong, centre for revolutionary education. However the commune would not be self subsistent and would need outside help: Help from the dreaded system. The system won't give us help but will rather aim to destroy us, the world population lives and works within the system. If our aim is to convert them, but to tell them to wait until there are enough converted in order to be free, why shouldn't they be able to start changing their own situation and their own lives within the system. Is that such a revolutionary crime? Working "with the system" in order to change it.

Of course Socialism won't come about JUST using that method, i perfectly agree that the system suffocates the revolution. But it exists and it's our lives that are in it. Can't we use it to change them at all? Sure you can say its a waste of time. But isn't working in this society then a complete waste of time too?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Arnau
How do we ultimately rid ourselves of the right wing?

That probably cannot be done prior to the revolution itself...at which time many of them will flee the country with whatever portable wealth they can manage.

Here again, we must look for a materialist explanation.

In capitalist societies, as the concentration of great wealth grows over time, it exerts a "pull" -- like gravity -- on the whole political spectrum.

Radical parties tend to become liberal; liberal parties tend to become conservative; and conservative parties tend to become fascist. It's usually a slow process...taking decades to become apparent.

A politician once said that money is "the mother's milk" of (bourgeois) politics and people are consequently "pulled" towards the sources of money.

The only force that counters that pull is revolutionary upheaval by very large numbers of ordinary people...in the months leading up to the revolution (with a great many strikes, demonstrations, perhaps even mutinies taking place), parties can sometimes be "pulled to the left".

But that's obviously an abnormal state of affairs; normally parties are pulled towards the right.


But we can't forget that all the while we remain in the system and working for it, though not always with it.

If we are sensible, we do as little work for our masters and as much for ourselves as we can get away with.


In the while that we are leading this double life of promoting revolution and living and working in the system, wouldn't it also be convenient to physically change things inside the system, to facilitate our struggle? Seeing as it is where most of our lives are set. And seeing as our lives are all we have.

No doubt it would "be convenient"...but why should it be permitted?

When you are "at work", you are under the power of some boss. It's not in his interests to let you "use the system" for your interests.

The only "change" that he's interested in is one that would make things better for him and worse for you.


The establishment of communes could take us straight to the communist in a smaller picture, within our lifetime, and can serve as a strong, centre for revolutionary education.

So it would seem...but experiences have proven disappointing. They either don't work at all or, if they do work, end up getting converted into ordinary capitalist enterprises.


Is that such a revolutionary crime? Working "with the system" in order to change it.

The "crime" is that you've told people a lie -- you've told them to undertake a certain series of activities that "will change the system" when, in fact, nothing of significance will change.

It would be like me selling you a car...without an engine.


But isn't working in this society then a complete waste of time too?

Well...yes it is. Unfortunately, we must eat...and there are few reliable ways of obtaining money without working for it.

Believe me, I've looked...hard!

:redstar2000:

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