Simple Question

[Paradox]

Simple question: Revolution or Elections to achieve Socialism/Communism? One word answer, vote which you think will be successful. I'm curious to see how many support each idea.

Personally, I think revolution.

[Rockfan]

Revolution

[Latifa]

Revolution

Why did you not make a poll? :P

[antieverything]

I believe that a political movement must be the basis for social change--people must realize that democracy can mean more than they had ever imagined. Of course, the electoral system isn't meant to allow this sort of thinking so some level of violent revolution is necessary to ultimately cease state power. This revolution, however, must first be affirmed by a mandate from the people before it can seriously attempt to maintain power.

[Pawn Power]

revolution is the solution

[Guest1]

Revolution, obviously organized democratically and not by a minority.

[flyby]

all revolutions without exception have started first with a determined minority.

It is not like you get some magical 51% and then the revolution happens.

Often there are a solid minority (of millions) who want radical change, and a solid minority who wants the status quo, and a broad middle ground who vacilate and who the advanced revolutionary core needs to win over.

We have to *repolarize* society, and win over broad intermediate sections.

First, in many ways, we have to create a "revolutionary people" -- a solid core among the oppressed who consciously want revolutinary change, and are partisan to the leading revolutinary communist party.

This would be oppressed working class communities that become political base areas of the revolution.

And beyond them are broad sections of the people who are often discontent, but would need to be won over to the rev project.

Much of this is discussed in detail in the Draft Programme...

here: http://rwor.org/margorp/progtoc-e.htm

expecially this part: http://rwor.org/margorp/a-pw.htm

which discusses how revolutions inevitably start with a solid minority that wins over the middle ground in the course of struggle.

[antieverything]

First of all, fuck you Avakian cultists...I tried listening to his vaunted speeches but not only did he say nothing remotely intelligent or original ("even reactionaries can have 1/10th of a point"? What a moron!) but I couldn't get past his laughably pitiful voice. Sure, it isn't exactly politically correct but you can't really expect the masses to listen to a guy who sounds like a walking stereotype (the sort of person with a pocket-protector collection) and who looks equally absurd. I've also never heard anyone so adept at fitting such a small amount of content into hours and hours and hours of talking.

Moving on...we are far from a having a "commited minority of millions" in any industrialized country and even if such a group existed it would have somewhere between zero and no chance of actually siezing power. Modern counter-insurgency techniques have proven effective at squelching (even popular) insurgent movements worldwide and given the fearful nature of most Westerners we can expect to see a movement not based, at least initially, on a "legitimate" basis, ultimately hur the cause--possibly irrepairably so. Insurgent activity is likely to increase support for state repression...at least if the historical record is any guide.

Of course, it is a basic Marxist observation that the first step toward revolution in the United States is the establishment of a genuine, independent movement based in the communities most effected by capitalism (traditionally we would call this a "labor party" but in a modern capitalist nation this misses the point as an effective movement must draw support from people of all walks of life who envision a better world--it is another pretty basic observation that the "proletariat" doesn't really exist here in a true sense...an observation shared, incidentally, by you whacko Maoists).

Obviously, the sort of revolutionary model you are talking about has happened more than once...I think that's your point. Of course we all know what happened...if all the Maoist propaganda and apologetics have you confused I'll give you a hint: it starts with die.

[ComradeRed]

Depends, I think democracy is adequate for socialism, but not for communism. For communism, revolution is the answer. (Don't bother me about socialism becoming communism, it aint gonna happen that way)

[Djehuti]

Revolution. Smash democracy!

[Xanthor]

revolution

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

Revolution.......probably will happen (soon with the oncoming world depression) in several countries in the old East Bloc will go back plus pretty much all of Asia and S. America followed by countries in Western Europe like Germany and France and will just have a domino effect untill a revolution takes place in the U$.
Wishful thinking, mostly

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:58 AM
Revolution. Smash democracy!
You are extremely retarded.

[Arnau]

I reckon! Communism is the the last stop. Classless and Stateless. How will we get there? Revolution or Democratically. Well Communism is revolutionary but can happen Bourgeouis Democratically. Revolution is risky because it puts in place a new socialist system, but not everyone in the country which has gone through this revolution will support the socialist system. So revolution isn't so easy either.

There's a lot of condititioning in both. Revoltion - Democracy. Practice and theory show that none is ideal and will work flawlessly

So both are important but the answer finds itself right in between the two.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Aviakan :lol:

Just kidding. Revolution supported by a vast and organized majority is obviously the answer.

[antieverything]

Revolution supported by a vast and organized majority is obviously the answer.
Hah, a vast Left-wing conspiracy perhaps?

[bolshevik butcher]

Well surely that depends on the situation, it varies from country to country. In a country with no democracy revolution is more liikely, but in other countries it maybe easier if the masses are gradually won over.

[T_SP]

Elect Socialist Councillors are a good way to help spread Socialist ideas

[RevolverNo9]

Elect Socialist Councillors are a good way to help spread Socialist ideas
Especially ones in Coventry!


all revolutions without exception have started first with a determined minority.

Well quite, and one of the main reasons why none of them have succeeded.


I think that is very important still to build socialist politics in the parliamentary arena as an important step towards revolution.

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

Revolution

depends on the country and situation but ..yeah

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jan 5 2005, 04:55 PM
Revolution supported by a vast and organized majority is obviously the answer.
Yes! What he said. International revolution> dictatorship of the proletariot (AKA socialism)> communism.

[seraphim]

Revoloution. Political systems can become stagnant and revoloution is needed for change.

[eQuaLiTy]

Mental revolution then Global Revolution.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

Elimination

Why, Die Walk Down

A whole race Genocide,
Taken away all of our pride,
A whole race Genocide,
Taken away, Watch Them all fall down.

Revolution, the only solution,
The armed response of an entire nation,
Revolution, the only solution,
We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.

Recognition, Restoration, Reparation,
Recognition, Restoration, Reparation,
Watch them all fall down.

SYSTEM OF A DOWN

REVOLUTION, THE ONLY SOLUTION, IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

[Cal]

Revolution supported by a vast and organized majority is obviously the answer

why would you need a revolution?

oh and to answer the original question elections

[Zingu]

Revolution, "Democracy" currently is a perverted and corrupt tool of the ruling class; with their electoral and parlimental crap reformist Socialism is getting nowhere; time for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

[antieverything]

Good to see the next generation of radicals is intelligent and articulate--most of all well versed in how to make a compelling argument. <_<

[CommoditiesAretheOpiumofPeople]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:39 AM
Revolution.......probably will happen (soon with the oncoming world depression) in several countries in the old East Bloc will go back
Go back to what exactly? they don&#39;t know what true communism is because it was never given to them, and now in contrast to the west, many countries in the Eastern bloc cannot compete against market power, so they&#39;ve got systems where education is harder to come by. Without the kind of real education leftists talk about all the time, the eastern bloc, indeed lots of countries will never reform.

[Ligeia]

Thats intresting..I think he meant:come back to the socialism they knew.
They cannot compete but the western companies take their workers from the east,from there.The thing with the education is quite right,since in the socialist time you hadnt to pay for it and had more opportunities,"It was more there for the people",uses my father to say who studied at this times in the eastern bloc,so if many of the old think that way,they maybe pass this thoughts to their children but..well...who knows,
In my opinion:revolution
but first all should be tried by peaceful means and if nothing works then...

[Son of the Revolution]

Revolution. &#39;Democracy&#39; as it is is a lie. Its rigged so that you need money to get power, so even parties who claim to be left wing often depend upon the support of right-wingers who influence their policies. Peaceful methods should be used whenever possible, utilizing such methods as strikes, pickets, boycotts, marches etc., with violent revolution as an absolute last resort.

[slightlyleft7_26]

I believe that a mix between revolution and progressive nationalism(Changing the government and uniting a state by means of educating the masses) is they key...while the basis of my idea is revolution ....the masses must be educated and understanding of the revolution for it to work permanently...

[amusing foibles]

Revolution; you can&#39;t build a new system if your power comes from the old.

Also, since the ruling class, well, rules , it makes sense to think that the power base of government would be the last to give in to any kind of popular movement as they scramble to hold on to what&#39;s left, and "radical reforms" (ha) could only be democratically voted in if there was a large popular movement.

[October Revolution]

Revolution yeh because then you can rebuild the state completely without old parts of the capitalistic democracy or whatever was in power before still exisitng.

A poll would have been alot easier.

[Quixotic]

revolution

[sickdiscobiscuit]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1] How are you going to vote socialism/communism in a democratic system? when the masses want change revolution will happen. personally i don&#39;t think communism or socialism will work on the national scale. what needs to happen is small revolutions. if people live together communally and socially then there will be more and more. think communes. small communist societies. if you prove that it would work, all those on the fence and the weaker leftists would do it. You will never get anything accomplished within our system that is truly corrupt and the most undemocratic of any political systems.


Love, Matty

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Putchism.
I intend to violently seize the state machinery, and use the coercive and brutal tools thereof to force an authentic and functioning democratic and decentralized society on the undeveloped masses. If you don&#39;t like it, I&#39;ll have you shot.

[Commie Rat]

all of us need to untie all socilaists, maoists, leninists, marxists any one at all who has a inkling of leftists we can sort out our petty grivances later

[commiecrusader]

revolution.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:22 PM

Revolution supported by a vast and organized majority is obviously the answer.
Hah, a vast Left-wing conspiracy perhaps?
Sorry man, had forgot all about this thread.

We would go around towns spread books of Aviakan, hang posters and shout really cool words like "revolutionary" and - POP&#33; - before you know it, we got ourself a communist society. Nevermind that it failed in all the 20 ct efforts.

On a more serious note. We would built up a horizontal, self-managed, democratic workers movement through unions and when we are at a strength strong enough to win, we will overthrow the state. Destroy every piece of authority and then continue our peacefull lives.

[jolie rouge]

REVOLUTION,l the government will not understand unless we start getting violent, they think we are mindless sheep to be led by them, fed by them, and well, yeah. i could rant more but im too damn lazy. comuno-Anarchism

[RedStarOverChina]

Election. "democracy is the road to socialism." ---Karl Marx

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I do not know in what context that is written. But elections have no use to us. They are a rich mans popularity contest.

[RedStarOverChina]

But elections have no use to us. They are a rich mans popularity contest.


True. But i dont think we have another choice. a revolution would be a certain failure.

The US democracy is nothing but hypocricy. It is not the "road to socialism" described by Marx. I think wht i meant to say is that, America can only obtain socialism when America obtains true democracy (at least a better democratic system).

[enigma2517]

What makes elections such a legimate front for democracy?

If a majority does exist that wants (and makes) a change, then thats democracy enough for me.

The current system cannot give us any meaningful ways to bring about this change, in fact, the only thing it can do is help prevent it.

Its simply the wrong tool for the job.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 09:26 PM

But elections have no use to us. They are a rich mans popularity contest.


True. But i dont think we have another choice. a revolution would be a certain failure.


Yes, we have. Organizing towards the revolution and building up the structures of our post-capitalist world.

[shadows]

Revolutions employ phrases, but phrasology is not revolution. The vanguard expresses the working class as a class, i.e., a whole, in its analysis and thrust, within contexts defined by struggle. With changes in the class (its relations to the means of production), so the vanguard itself changes (or the potential of a vanguard).

[Socialist_Smurf]

i Revolucion &#33;

[KuliNeMeL]

dunno :&#092;

[highway star]

Revolution&#33;&#33;
And, RedStarOverChina... Yes democracy is the road to socialism but not bourgeois democracy. We must use proleterian democracy on the road to set up it on whole world...

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

Revolution.

[KuliNeMeL]

i dont support any kind of killing, even if its for &#39;freedom&#39;. unless its some kind of fashist dictator that u cant overcome democraticly... like stalin or hitler...


"Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted."

Ernesto &#39;che&#39; Guevara - Guerrilla Warfare

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Democratically if possible. If enough people get on board, nothing can really stop it, whereas revolution is violent and destroys. It causes production problems, it causes many unpleasant disruptions in people&#39;s lives which in turn may cause problems for any sort of power base.

"A violent revolution breeds a violent society ..."
- Fidel Castro (ironically)

[rebelyell4]

Revolution....i dont see it happening any other way

[Ell Carino]

Revolution for real&#33;&#33;&#33; I can&#39;t seen it happening without force.

[alex d kid]

A relvolution is absoulutly vital in order to bring socialism to the world. If there was an ellection it wouldn&#39;t have worked and for one simple reason: there are too many powerful capitalists in the world that would&#39;ve used corruption to bring their best interest foreward.

[redstar2000]

Resistance leading towards revolution.

And absolutely no wallowing in bourgeois electoral ceremonies -- lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

So what would happen after a revolution. You all say different things. Socialism, anarchism, communism... Who is going to decide? What makes any of you confident enough in the masses to have a revolution. Let us say there is a revolution in america ten years from now. Why wouldn&#39;t another country invade during america&#39;s weakest hour?

[Ramshaw is all]

A majority revolution is necessary in countries with corrupt leadership. However, revolution is simply not possible in stable countries, as you will not gather a majority support. To destroy the infrastructure in a &#39;succesful&#39; country is stupidity. A better route to working communism would be through elections and majority opinium. This is what Marx always said. It is happening, gradually, for example Spain recently elected a socialist government, world opinium is changing. The US is getting left behind.

[Roses in the Hospital]

A better route to working communism would be through elections and majority opinium. This is what Marx always said

What Marx didn&#39;t take into account is the ways in which voting and the electoral system could be corrupted. As Emma Goldman said "If voting changed anything they&#39;d make it illegal." Bourgois Democracy can give us short term benefits, as seems to be happening in Venesuala, but in the long run Revolution is the only way forward, whether it is from above or below is another issue. But, the capatalist system can only sustain its self for a finite time, eventually, be it in ten years or a thousand the Capatalist syestem will have to make way for something else...

[Faceless]

I&#39;ve got a better idea:

Its not your choice, wankers&#33;

which one is preferable? Obviously bourgeois elections leading to the intellegent movement of the bourgeoisie to the sidelines. Remember when the Heath government was brought down in Britain by the miner&#39;s union? The bourgeois elections are designed to work for the bourgeoisie dont inevitably do so. Only one thing is certain, that capitalism will fall. When it does so will the proletariat try to take power by revolution or bourgeois elections (interesting how somehow democracy has figured in peoples answers; success in either is a great success for democracy). None of you know, dont pretend you do. It may infact be a combination of the two. Elections may be shown to be fraudlulent forcing the bourgeoisie to become overtly dictatatorial which may in turn provoke revolution, peaceful or otherwise.

I for one dont expect to rely on one exclusively.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Revolution is the only way.

But, we have also seen that leaders elected in bourgeoisie democracy, like Salvador Allende and Hugo Chávez can play an important temporary role, which we should not underestimate. They can even assist and speed up revolution in other countries.

However, we should not expect, or have high hopes that bourgeoisie democracy will lead to socialism. Such an idea is idealistic.

[Ele'ill]

However, we should not expect, or have high hopes that bourgeoisie democracy will lead to socialism. Such an idea is idealistic.

Assuming anything is idealistic.

[Ramshaw is all]

A better route to working communism would be through elections and majority opinium. This is what Marx always said



What Marx didn&#39;t take into account is the ways in which voting and the electoral system could be corrupted. As Emma Goldman said "If voting changed anything they&#39;d make it illegal." Bourgois Democracy can give us short term benefits, as seems to be happening in Venesuala, but in the long run Revolution is the only way forward, whether it is from above or below is another issue. But, the capatalist system can only sustain its self for a finite time, eventually, be it in ten years or a thousand the Capatalist syestem will have to make way for something else...

Alright, fair enough, some elections are corrupt, but personally i dont believe the UK elections are corrupt. I cant see a revolution happening in a stable country(refering to the UK). I dont think the majority would ever back a revolution.

[October Revolution]

The majority of people may not take part in a revolution because they are too set in their own lives or they feel they would make very little difference. If the state was stable yet people beleived they were being opressed rather badly then a revolution could happen rather easliy and may well be better than working through the democratic route.

The majority may see a revolution as a better way of getting a less oppressive system into power and so they would rebel but the cause would have to be something different from the established parties or thoughts within a state.

eventhough in an established state it is alot less likely in somewhere such as Africa or South America.

[Roses in the Hospital]

I cant see a revolution happening in a stable country(refering to the UK).

Think about Thatcherite Britain. Their were a lot of people pissed off with things. Actions such as the miner&#39;s strike were seen by many as an attempt to topple the government. Obviously this is a long way from Russia of 1917, but it does show that when people have it bad enough they will unite for a political goal outside of the democratic process, ie. the prelimenary stages of revolutionary thinking...

Obviously, democracy does have its usess, though really it can only give us short term benifits. If we&#39;re thinking in terms of Marxist Communism, the only way we&#39;re going to achieve it is through revoution of one sort or another. The best bourgois democracy can do is pave the way.
More moderate forms of Socialism are, however, another question. History has shown that the electoral system can quite easily produce a range of left leaning societies, though not to the extent which would appeal to the general readership of this board. That&#39;s not to say that said, societies aren&#39;t worthwhile, they&#39;re just not what a lot of leftists would be hoping for...

[October Revolution]

Yes i agree if people have it bad enough revolution can happpen anywhere including the US and UK. Eventhough it is much less likely in these more econamically developed countries simply because the system the revolutionaries have to contend against is much stronger. A revol in these states if it is ever to happen will occur during a time of weakness either economically or socially.

As for these weak socialist states they may develop into proper hardline socialist soceities yet the mere fact they were created from a bourgeois state means this is unlikey. It seems that the only truly effective way to establish socialism is through revolution not democracy.

[Ramshaw is all]

No and yes, mostly no

[Ramshaw is all]

The reason I believe revolution is not the answer is not that I dont support revolution, it&#39;s just that I dont think it is ever going to happen, in the UK at least. A reasonably fair electoral system prevents an unrepresentative party from getting into power, therefore, as long as the elected party dont sway to far from what they were elected for, revolution will not gain majority support, and therefore will not occur. (I may have made up the word unrepresentative, but I think you know what I mean)

[Iepilei]

I think many believe "revolution" to be an armed conflict. A civil war, so to speak. I really don&#39;t think that will be the case.

I personally think that the transition will occur with a "revolution" of thought. A change in ideas and concepts of modern society; possibly after a great catastrophe. I don&#39;t think there will be armed insurrection simply because of a heightened distaste for capitalism.

I believe the distaste will arrive when capitalism eventually bites the people in the butt and fails, once again. However, I believe, this next time will not be as "light" as the Great Depression.

[RedStarOverChina]

Revolution&#33;&#33;
And, RedStarOverChina... Yes democracy is the road to socialism but not bourgeois democracy. We must use proleterian democracy on the road to set up it on whole world...


I know. Im sick and tired of western democracy for its hypocricy. Only a government that attempts to inform, other than mislead its people deserves the title of democracy.

"Democracy is the breeding ground for communism"--Chilean dictator Pinochet.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:47 PM
I think many believe "revolution" to be an armed conflict. A civil war, so to speak. I really don&#39;t think that will be the case.


Yes i agree even though a revol could occur by fighting means this is only likely in places such as South America. Because the UK etc. is more controlled and systematic than the less developed countries a violent revol is unlikely but not impossible. If new thoughts and belifs are brought to the fore front of soceity many people may choose these ideas and try to change/reform the system they live under. Maybe through the democratic system first but then surpassing it to reform the nation. This would be a revolution but not one of violence.

:ph34r: Working Men Of All Nations Unite :ph34r:

[Ele'ill]

Yes i agree even though a revol could occur by fighting means this is only likely in places such as South America. Because the UK etc. is more controlled and systematic than the less developed countries a violent revol is unlikely but not impossible.

Don&#39;t forget about the IRA. As thuggish and illegitimate as they may be at this point.

[October Revolution]

Yes ofcourse groups like the IRA can be created yet if you look at the IRA they havn&#39;t been effective at all in getting what they want. This may be through stupidity which is a probabiltiy but i can imagine it&#39;s mostly due to the system in the UK and Ireland...oh and yeh theres no jungles in Northen Ireland :P I was just saying if there is going to be a revol anywhere it&#39;smost likely to be in weaker capitalist countries.

[codyvo]

In short, election.
I am a peaceful man but I do understand that revolution is necessary sometimes. Right now I don&#39;t think it is at that point yet in america. I think that if we really want something done we should move together in mass numbers to get a congressman elected. From their you have some many more possibilities that revolution may not even be necessary. If this dosn&#39;t work
REVOLUTION&#33;

[Red Robe Majere]

I would say Revolution.
Just us here at Revolutionaryleft we would lose, but the people to poor to have internet would might help us. If we spend time training and get supplies from places that are willing to suport us we might stand more of a chance.

[Ele'ill]

I would say Revolution.
Just us here at Revolutionaryleft we would lose, but the people to poor to have internet would might help us. If we spend time training and get supplies from places that are willing to suport us we might stand more of a chance.

"more help" does not equate "adequate help". I believe you would lose. I wont&#39; comment any more as there are about 6 threads going that have interwined conversation about revolutionary tactics and such... ;)

[pandora]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 5 2005, 09:28 PM
Well surely that depends on the situation, it varies from country to country. In a country with no democracy revolution is more liikely, but in other countries it maybe easier if the masses are gradually won over.
Cheers Clenched Fist&#33; :lol:
A truthful and realistic answer. In countries where there is a peasant majority such as campesinos or tribes in India still in touch with the land, and who are shut out of global capital I believe a combination of democracy and revolution will permeate.

There will be a rising of the resistance already happening, but these resisters must organize committies on a local level. All over the world the US and allies are over-extended in many countries, fighting this very thing the world over.

Communities are organizing to get multi-nationals out and preserve the food supply&#33; THis is already happening. The response has been to call all those who would organize are protect their land terrorists and send in a military occupying force from Southern Mexico, to Columbia, to Iraq, to what is happening in Nepal. But it is financially impossible to finance a miltary occupying force in every country throughout the world simulateously. THis is why the US economy is collapsing, and this is why Rome collapsed.

As the US pulls out and uses economic repression against countries with economic blockades to more and more countries it actually increases the self-sufficiency within each nation, even though when a country is suddenly isolated in this sense it goes through economic shock, eventually it recovers to a sustainable level with community gardens and interdependence in communities. Not to first world standards, but it begins to be able to feed itself and produce its own tools.

When this happens in enough nations they begin to have silent agreements against US imperialism and neo-liberal globalization with countries pretending to play the game (Argentina and Brazil are going through this now) but eventually as these countries also collapse due to IMF debt, and the requirements of neoliberalism which cause revolution and unrest, more and more countries will silently band together in soveignity until the strain on the imperialist system causing bankruptcy.

Unfortuantely the poor in 1st world countries will then face huge hardships. Many will be imprisoned, already 1/3rd to 1/4 of all prisoners are in the US. But they can&#39;t lock everyone up, it is financially destablizing. Eventually the fear of the silent masses will transform to anger. It is our job to try and create viable alternatives for communities to utilize this anger to increase networks in communities so that there are systems in place for sustainablility when the system crashes.

System crash will cause revolution regardless, its our job to help workers to organize into community systems so that communities are resilent against the chaos, and people get fed and cared for. Check out the volunteer ambulance project in Bedford Styvansent and other community projects in communities that are increasingly being CUT OFF from all services in neo-liberalism.

I remember twenty years ago this wasn&#39;t happening, there were community health clinics, more food stamps and programs to help keep communities tied into the system. As communities have to fend for themselves more and more they lose all respect for the governing bodies. Unfortunately this distrust actually is one of the sources of Libertarian and Republican power, as they take advantage of the fed up with government attitudes of the working poor. Our job is to circumvent this anger into socialist and community based systems until a Communist system can be engendered.

But that&#39;s my opinion :D