A revolution of Individuals?

[MKS]

A Revolution of Individuals

Since joining this community and becoming more involved in my local socialist organizations I have noticed an alarming trend. The overwhelming contention amongst the membership that to me seems staggers the progression of the cause. Of course I recognize the importance of free discussion and debate, but at what point does it become counter productive?
Too many times have I seen in these discussions the degeneration into petty disagreements about small irrelevant points, disagreements that take away from any valid argument or point that was originally intended.
The concerns I have addressed speak to a larger point, sometimes the greatest enemy of the revolution are those who lead it. Ego and self promotion begin to trump the welfare of the masses and the liberation of the proletariat.
In no way do I seek the repression of ideas and free thought, but we should remember the greater cause and work towards that, and when the struggle is over then we can begin to “perfect” the system that should exist.

"It is imperative to take political power and to liquidate the oppressor classes; but then the second stage of the struggle, which perhaps may have more difficult features than the first, must be faced"
Ernesto Guevara Speech to Afro-Asian Confrence 1965

[redstar2000]

You may find this helpful...

Unity on the "Left"? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082988280&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[rice349]

Uniting all leftist factions has for the most part seemed utterly impossible. Therefore, it is necessary for strong leaders to stand up and work towards gaining political influence amongst the leftists and organize them into disciplined cadres and purge the counter-revolutionaries from the ranks before addressing the oppressive capitalist classes. The petty bickering amongst the left is a waste of time and serves only as a retarding factor in our efforts to overthrow capitalism and its reactionary institutions.

[MKS]

"But when you ask people to do that, what you're really saying to them is "bet your life and your hopes and your dreams on a roll of the historical dice and hope for the best"". excerpt from the aritcle recommended

Your life, your hopes and your dreams should be the sole motive for taking action. It is better to struggle and die than to live as a slave. There is risk in revolution and the future is never certain but i belive when action is taken, when the wheels are in motion than there is no turning back and we will be forced to examine the future, but that will never happen if we do not unite and if only for awhile forget our differences in opinion and embrace the common cause of liberation.
Nobody ever said it would be easy, and maybe our lives will not improve but our childrens lives might and their children after them, that is why we should fight now.
"The road is long and in part unknown. We understand our limitations. We will create the man of the 21st centruy, we ourselves."
Our sacrafice is conscious: an installment payment on the freedom we are building"
It is the vanguard group which clears the way, the best among the good, the party."
Ernesto Guevara "Man and Socialism in Cuba" c.1965

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rice349+--> (rice349)Therefore, it is necessary for strong leaders to stand up and work towards gaining political influence amongst the leftists and organize them into disciplined cadres and purge the counter-revolutionaries from the ranks before addressing the oppressive capitalist classes.[/b]

Rice 349, meet Chairman Avakian. Chairman, meet rice 349...a fellow who's looking for a strong leader. :lol:

I have no doubts about either your sincerity or your good intentions, guy, but puh-leeze. You sound like someone living in 1930.

All that "disciplined cadre" are capable of achieving is obedience. They train themselves for nothing so much as fascism...which had that outlook at the heart of their ideology.

Is that your idea of a future worth fighting for?

And living in?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Your life, your hopes and your dreams should be the sole motive for taking action. It is better to struggle and die than to live as a slave. There is risk in revolution and the future is never certain but I believe when action is taken, when the wheels are in motion then there is no turning back and we will be forced to examine the future, but that will never happen if we do not unite and if only for awhile forget our differences in opinion and embrace the common cause of liberation.

Well, you see rice349's "vision" of the future. Is that worth "dying for"? Is it even worth a broken fingernail?

I agree that there's risk in revolution and the future is never certain. But does that mean that you throw caution to the wind and "bet it all" on an option that you wouldn't necessarily like any more than what exists now?

I think it's far more reasonable to fight for what you really want...and then see what tomorrow brings.


Che Guevara
The road is long and in part unknown. We understand our limitations. We will create the man of the 21st century, we ourselves.

Our sacrifice is conscious: an installment payment on the freedom we are building.

It is the vanguard group which clears the way, the best among the good, the party.

I would suggest an attitude of skepticism towards rhetoric about "sacrifice" and fuzzy statements about "the man of the 21st century".

Che really meant those words...but there are a lot of "leftists" who say that stuff and don't mean it; that is, they mean to sacrifice you and their "new man" is themselves in power.

Note also the problem of liberation "on the installment plan"...if the next payment isn't made, your liberation gets repossessed by the old ruling class.

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

[rice349]

Definitely interesting piont Redstar, and a lot to think about, and in the fairness of being self-critical, it's important to asses the criticism from contemporaries and comrades.


Rice 349, meet Chairman Avakian. Chairman, meet rice 349...a fellow who's looking for a strong leader.

No thank you lol, i can't stand Avakian nor his cultist RCP.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Since joining this community and becoming more involved in my local socialist organizations I have noticed an alarming trend. The overwhelming contention amongst the membership that to me seems staggers the progression of the cause.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics ... everyone has different ideas, even within a party. Do you think that the members of the Republican Party are just one, large monolithic, like-minded group? They are individual people, and so are members of the Left. Differences are everywhere.


... it is necessary for strong leaders to stand up and work towards gaining political influence amongst the leftists and organize them into disciplined cadres

I can't help but see that this might end up moving us dangerously towards cults of personality and oppression.


... and purge the counter-revolutionaries from the ranks before addressing the oppressive capitalist classes.

Because what is counter-revolutionary is always easy to see and define. So we must kill them. The possiblity of learning from them or at least listening to their arguments must never cross our minds, because the Party says so. That sounds like the capitalist politics of discount, embarrass, demonize, ignore and destroy. If it works for them, we must do it too.

TGOW

[rice349]

Because what is counter-revolutionary is always easy to see and define. So we must kill them. The possiblity of learning from them or at least listening to their arguments must never cross our minds, because the Party says so. That sounds like the capitalist politics of discount, embarrass, demonize, ignore and destroy. If it works for them, we must do it too.

Their ideas will be discussed and considered, and purged doesn't necessarily mean killed, basically it means kicked out, and would be allowed reconsideration of rejoining the party at a later time.

[MKS]

It sounds as though some of you do not wish to see change and let thier pessimissim cloud any vision of positive reformation.

I am a Socialist, I will work and fight until I die for a Socialist society and ultimatley a Communist one. What Che said, that there must be a vanguard of the masses, a dictaorship of the proliteriate (yes I know Che was not the originator of that idea), there must be a group willing to lead and to educate the revolution, these idelas are fundamental to revolution. The Cuban revolution did not begin as a Socialist one it went throgh many changes, and even regressions before it came to resembel the Socialist society that exists today. My point and Che,s point and the point of any revolutionary in hsitory is that there cannot be hesitiation when facing change, there must be complete immersion and sacrafice, and even at times blind "faith" for the cause.

Maybe I am dreamer and naive, but let me ask you. How many people do you think called Che, Fidel, and Lenin the same thing. (No, I am not comparing myself to any of them).


When all the Manifestos have been written, all the speeches made and all the slogans chanted there is only one thing left to do. Fight!

I know my ulitmate goal: destruction of the capitalist systems that have relegated most men to the oppression of the few. How will it be obatined? I do not know. Will it be a perfect transition? Of course not. Will I let fear of failure stop me? Absolutely not.

[NovelGentry]

there must be a group willing to lead and to educate the revolution, these idelas are fundamental to revolution.

Are they though? Or does material conditions and reality (and thus necessity) supercede our desires.

I admire Che the same way I admire any revolutionary who really wants to drive socialism home -- but at the end of the day, it's going no where based on our simple desire to have it. Wanting socialism without recognizing this and having material consciousness is on the same level as prayer.


and even at times blind "faith" for the cause.

Prayer point proven.

[MKS]

I put the word in faith in quotes to avoid my thesis to sound like prayer or some new concotion of "judeo-chrsitian" idealogy. But you cannot deny there is belief in the cause, beleif in ideals and theories lead to action. Sometimes we need to only have that belief to act.

And why cant our desire for change not be enough to intitiate change? Desire is the root of all action. I think you missed my point: we cannot wait for a "perfect" time for revolution we must first committ and through our struggles and work hopefully we will create a lasting foundation upon which our idelas manifest into reality. And i can see no greater nessesity than the nessesity of change.

[NovelGentry]

But you cannot deny there is belief in the cause, beleif in ideals and theories lead to action. Sometimes we need to only have that belief to act.

Well that depends on who's ideals you're talking about. Marxism is not based on "save the starving children." It's material reality and EXTREMELY scientific (or at least tries to be).

The argument to push socialism before material conditions present it as the inevitability is a fairly subjective one and based primarily on moral principle. Whether you believe it's right.

Marx all the way through Che surely believe capitalism to be bad. But above being bad, it is simply unfeasible, obsolete, and in essence "wrong."

I believe strongly in the theories of Marx. I also believe strongly in the ideas of people like Che. And those things, as strange as it may seem are in CONSTANT battle. I believe there is a way to accelerate and advance material consciousness and essentially class consciousness alongside the development of the material conditions (which is really out of our hands, as the bourgeoisie run the show).

But at the point you grab a gun, the necessities of revolutionary consciousness and THUS a successful revolution, have to already have been taken care of.


And why cant our desire for change not be enough to intitiate change?

Have you even read Marx?


Desire is the root of all action.

If you are indeed Marxist (which I'm highly doubting) then you should believe that material reality and the desire/necessity to resolve material conditions is the guiding force of history, and as the guiding force of history it is the guiding force of progression, and as the guiding force of progression it is the guiding force of action -- or should I say, action which will actually progress.


I think you missed my point: we cannot wait for a "perfect" time for revolution we must first committ and through our struggles and work hopefully we will create a lasting foundation upon which our idelas manifest into reality.

And I think you missed my point. It's not about a "perfect time" -- there is not some instance that comes and then passes. My point is quite simply, any action we take is bound to failure UNLESS we have first ensured the necessities of revolution ar met. If you do this, "hope" has no place -- and we WILL create a lasting foundation upon which our ideals manifest into reality, if you do not do this, you will create temporary change which may or may not retard the natural advancement toward communism.


And i can see no greater nessesity than the nessesity of change.

Really? Necessity for change means nothing if the necessity for change to occur is not first met.

[MKS]

A marxist? Maybe not by your definition, and what seems a narrow and unyielding alliegance to a doctrine written to educate and inspire change.

Am I to construct all my thoughts and beliefs accroding to Karl Marx, am I not allowed original thought or opinion? god forbid a man have an orignial thought after Karl Marx.

Maybe I am not a memeber of the church of Karl Marx, but then again I never liked chruch to begin with.

My original point is being proved by our disscussion. It seems you are too busy disecting my argument and disputing it then resolving our differences and finding common ground.

I believe the material reality is ripe for revolution. The vanguard must mobilize and begin the work of procession.

The great tragedy of the Socialist movement is its inability to seperate itself from the past.

[NovelGentry]

a doctrine written to educate and inspire change.

Ah yes, so Marx was just a preacher man, trying to inspire change.

Marx's "doctrine" as you call it, although inspiring, was a rather scientific-philosophy on historical progression of man as material creatures. If you find it so inspiring as to denounce it's conclusion it's difficult to believe you have any serious understanding of it.


Am I to construct all my thoughts and beliefs accroding to Karl Marx, am I not allowed original thought or opinion? god forbid a man have an orignial thought after Karl Marx.

This is not about adding ideas or even changing them -- it is a quesiton of whether you understand it or not. See above.


Maybe I am not a memeber of the church of Karl Marx, but then again I never liked chruch to begin with.

Oh, but you are, as you take his word as an inspiring doctrine to move people towards the glorious revolution! Regardless of it's principles -- you've done more in your thinking to establish a church based on it than I could ever hope to do with objective interpretation of it.


My original point is being proved by our disscussion. It seems you are too busy disecting my argument and disputing it then resolving our differences and finding common ground.

We have no common ground. You'd see all of these arguments disappear so that we may move on to the revolution if you had it your way. While I would much rather realize Marxism for what it is and try to help others understand that.


I believe the material reality is ripe for revolution. The vanguard must mobilize and begin the work of procession.

Unfortunately Marx never spoke of a vanguard to begin the work of procession. He spoke of workers revolution where class conscious masses would organize and throw off capitalism as earlier classes had thrown off their restraints.


The great tragedy of the Socialist movement is its inability to seperate itself from the past.

Past, Present, and Future mean nothing in light of Marx's realization, other than as abstract words in which we can place stages of class struggle.

General Response

I have no problem with being called an orthadox Marxist or anything of that nature. I'm quite ready to accept the burden of denying Leninism, Trotskyism, Guevaraism, Maoism or whatever else you would like to consider an evolution to his work and the "ideology."

If indeed I am to be stuck in my way of thinking, I would rather be stuck there and be faced with the task of pointing out the contradictions against Marxism which have been established by such evolutions.

I too WANT revolution, but more than I want that, I want people to be conscious of Marxism, the material philosophy behind it, and of the class struggle which this presents. In fact, I want people to be this way because I think that is HOW we go about making revolution, not by simply picking up a gun and following the vanguard into the good fight.

[MKS]

I too believe in Marxism, but as a base for action and not the final word on what historicaly has proven to be an evolving theory. Even Marx and Engels used the utopian socialist ideals as a basis for their more evolved work. Although his work was scientific it has been used to "inspire change" just as Darwins works have "inspired change" in the scientific/naturalist community and in basic thinking about the origin of species.

I do understand Marx, but like you said Marx never wrote a definte "plan of action" for instituting his ideas and theories, therfore it is left to another generation to build that bridge.

Your points are valid, and I think we do have some common ground even if it is in the most basic sense of the phrase.

To me Marxism-Leninism is an evolving theory that will never be perfected unless we initate it. With that in mind though we must guard against complete revisionism, which is what I think you are guarding against.

..."we shall have made an important contribution to Marxism-Leninism, to the cause of humanity". Ernesto Guevara (Man and Socialism in Cuba c.1965)

I believe that if we use Marxism as our sole means for constructing revoltuion that the revolution will stagnate as we could alienate those we wish to free, there will never be a complete Marxist revolution, just like there will never be a completley Christian church, there will always be the unknown variable, humanity, which to me Marx overlooked purposely when creating his theories.

There must be a vanguard of the masses, the vanguard that educates the masses and creates the complete socialist man. I did not refute Marx's conclusion I am simply saying that realisticly it is idelas and morals that drive all change. Marx must of had some idelas and a moral standpoint when authoring his works or else he never would have done it.
We should not fight just to push the dogmatic texts of Karl Marx upon the masses, we should fight because in our hearts and our minds we will not accept the injustices that previal in this capitalist world, socialism and ultimately communism is the best way to bring equality the masses. Karl Marx brought this realityl to the world, it is our duty to see that is brought to fruition, and although the end may not mirror the vision of Marx, it will still be because of him that we were able to even begin the fight, and bring an end to the slavery of capitalism and imperialism.

"In these circumstances one must have agreat deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into an isolation from the masses. We must strive everyday so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples,as a moving force." Ernesto Guevara Man and Socialism in Cuba c.1965

[NovelGentry]

Even Marx and Engels used the utopian socialist ideals as a basis for their more evolved work.

As a basis, yes.. in the sense that their desire for it more than likely lead them to actually develop the theory. But in terms of theory and as an argument of why, where did they do this?

I've read a lot of Marx and in doing so a lot of Engels -- The writing is moving, but it is so only in light of them pointing out the nature of capitalism. It is inspiring because they show how beastly capitalism is, and they show that there is a solution. It is not inspiring because they say "Look, everyone will be so much happier under communism."

A capitalist could read Marx and Engels, and agree to the fullest with what is being said about capitalism, and never feel inspired to fight for socialism. What inspires us is not their diagnosis of class struggle and capitalism, but our own compassion as human beings, their work gives us hope only in the sense that, if we believe it, we are assured of it's eventual succession.


I do understand Marx, but like you said Marx never wrote a definte "plan of action" for instituting his ideas and theories, therfore it is left to another generation to build that bridge.

Agreed, and this is where all supposed evolutions of Marxism (Marxism-Leninism, Maoism) fill the gap. And these works are very much morally inspiring and push us to actually take action, and furthermore define the action we should take.

The problem I have is when the action, time for action, or course of action contradicts what we know to be truth because of Marx.

For example: The proletariat is the only revolutionary class (a Marxist truth)
Leninist contradiction: Create revolution in a society where the proletariat is not fully developed, not a majority, or worse, barely in existence.
Maoist contradiction: Allign with the peasants as a revolutionary force, they too are revolutionary!


To me Marxism-Leninism is an evolving theory that will never be perfected unless we initate it. With that in mind though we must guard against complete revisionism, which is what I think you are guarding against.

To me Marxism-Leninism is an obsolete theory which makes perfect sense for any third world or developing early capitalist nation, but should never be applied or thought to make sense in an advanced capitalist nation (for the reason stated above). The vanguard is essentially a mechanism to substitute for lack of a proletariat that can become revolutionary.

I believe, like Marx, that the proletariat CAN (and WILL) become revolutionary, even if they are not. As such, there is no need for a vanguard, and worse, in creating the vanguard we seek to overthrow the system that would make them revolutionary to begin with. How do you expect them to become revolutionary when you have changed in full the property relations and class antagonisms that will make them revolutionary in the first place? I don't think you can.

The best you can do is train them to act like revolutionaries, and hope that one day they will be so brainwashed in this training and propaganda that they will simply think "this is the way it is, and this is how we do it." The same way the bourgeoisie throughout capitalism, is no longer revolutionary. Subsequent generations lose touch with the revolutionary requirement of feudalism, and you'd be hard pressed to find any business owners running around talking about the constant need to oppress the feudal aristocracy that seeks to restrict ownership and rights to private property.

But this lack of revolutionary consciousness fades with time -- it should not be the policy to replace it or even try and fake it simply by "reeducating" the masses. We need people who actually understand, not just people shouting slogans from their rooftops.


..."we shall have made an important contribution to Marxism-Leninism, to the cause of humanity". Ernesto Guevara (Man and Socialism in Cuba c.1965)

And Che suffered very much from this same ideological flaw.


I believe that if we use Marxism as our sole means for constructing revoltuion that the revolution will stagnate as we could alienate those we wish to free, there will never be a complete Marxist revolution, just like there will never be a completley Christian church, there will always be the unknown variable, humanity, which to me Marx overlooked purposely when creating his theories.

I do not propose that we do this. If we are to use Marxism for our sole means of constructing revolution our actual plan is little more than waiting for it to happen and then seeing how it all goes down when the masses are ripely pissed-off.

What I suggest is we advanced their consciousness as fast as possible, and do so while at the same time creating a plausible means by which the revolution can actually win, and preferably with the least amount of pain and suffering of the class.

Then when they have actually achieved this consciousness, we all rise up together.

Che, unlike Lenin, had a mix of both if you ask me. His solution was not a small centralized vanguard that would seize power, but a small centralized vanguard that would initiate guerilla warfare, and then grow, as their actions helped to raise consciousness amongst the rest of the proletariat.

This worked nicely in Cuba -- but unlike Cuba, the US would crush any such Guerilla movement in a matter of weeks. So unless you raise that consciousness in an extremely small period of time, there will be no mass to weep for your deaths.

I believe the tactis of guerilla warfare, that is, the actual tactics of warfare itself are extremely useful -- urban stick and move operations are proving moderately successful against the US in Iraq, even with all of the technology we have. But there is already a fairly massive uprising and opposition there -- it was there before we even got there.

We need to first create that mass. Then we can pick up the guns.


There must be a vanguard of the masses, the vanguard that educates the masses and creates the complete socialist man.

Agreed. But the Leninist vanguard does more than educating, it seizes power. The Guevarist (if you wish to call it) vanguard combines to two -- it rises up in arms so that it may raise consciousness WHILE it attacks the existing powers. But again, if we attempt to do this like the boys floating in on the granma, we will be crushed before we ever have a chance to raise that consciousness.

I have little doubt that the Cuban revolution raised the consciousness of it's proletariat, but Cuba was far more capitalistic than Rusisa in 1917 -- as such, it fairs a hell of a better chance. If it fails, it will fail on that not ENOUGH consciousness was raised, and if this is the case it is because the material conditions did not allow for that consciousness to be raised.


I did not refute Marx's conclusion I am simply saying that realisticly it is idelas and morals that drive all change.

But you propose, quite unrealistically, that these ideals and morals can overcome material reality. A more subtle form of mind over matter if you will. The fact of the matter is, what we want here... what we are inspired to do, is brought about by our level of consciousness. Thus, it is not the ideals and morals that drive all change, it is the material conditions which drive people to develop/maintain such ideals and morals, and in turn, those drive change.


Marx must of had some idelas and a moral standpoint when authoring his works or else he never would have done it.

Indeed, he had a standpoint, and he had this standpoint because he became consciousness of the conditions. If you are not aware of what starvation is, you cannot be morally opposed to starvation. If you are not aware the current system is causing people to starve, you cannot be morally opposed to the current system based on the argument of starvation. The material condition is set, and it is set before we become conscious of it -- if the material condition never existed, we could not become conscious of it.

Consciousness is not simple knowledge -- it is an awareness, and a very abstract one at that. I believe Satre focused a lot on the idea of existence and consciousness -- maybe look into his works?

But one thing remains true, if something does not exist first (has no material presence) you cannot be conscious of it.

You can have knowledge of it, maybe even an idea of what it would be like if it did exist, but NOT consciousness. It defies the meaning of the term.


We should not fight just to push the dogmatic texts of Karl Marx upon the masses, we should fight because in our hearts and our minds we will not accept the injustices that previal in this capitalist world, socialism and ultimately communism is the best way to bring equality the masses.

I'm not talking about pushing the texts. I'm talking about pushing the ideas, and I've never heard someone call truth and fact dogmatic.

And I agree, this is why we should fight, it is the only reason we will fight, as if we do not feel this way we would never rise up. But without the proper consciousness, we are doomed to failure. There are two ways to achieve this consciousness -- one is to wait until those material conditions slap you on the face, the other is to point out their existence, so people can see them and understand them where they stand, and destroy it before it's slapping them on the face.

I do not believe I can consider myself completely conscious. I have an extensive knoweldge of what all these things look like, and although my family had tough times as a child, I've never experienced the likes of hunger that those at the bottom of the proletariat do.

Do I have to in order to actually achieve true revolutionary consciousness? I believe I do -- and that is precisely why I'm not grabbing a gun right now and going about the revolution. Because no matter how much I LONG for it, material reality deems me incapable of actually NEEDING it.

With that said, I do believe I have a moderate level of consciousness -- enough that I will go out there, fight, and probably be one of the first to pick up a gun. But the actual action remains a reactionary tendency NOT a revolutoinary one. I may be far less reactionary than say t_wolves_fan, but can never be as revolutionary as say a starving child in a trailer park.

Just the same though, this is not to say these people are currently as revolutionary as me. They've got some consciousness, but their consciousness is only on the level of knowing something is there. They cannot see the shape or depth of it. But in terms of potential revolutionary consciousness, the starving child takes the cake every time over the lower middle class to upper middle class kid writing on the message board.

What Marxism does is it allows them to see what they know is there. I see it, but I can't feel it. They can feel it, but they can't see it. The actual revolutionary vanguard must be made up of those who have both (yes, I do believe in a vanguard, just not the type you're thinking). The educational vanguard, can be made up of those who see. If I can give that to those who feel it, they will be the most outstanding and amazing revolutionary force you have ever seen -- and regardless of my own comfort, I would be more than willing to die to honor their cause.

But very few if any of us are not ready yet. If we wait long enough, we will all feel it (this is what Marx makes clear in his writing), and in feeling it we will begin to question, and look around, and naturally see it. And then we will rise up. But we don't need to wait till we can feel it to see it anymore -- we can see it through Marxism, and we should seek to give that to those who have yet to see it in this way, but who are already feeling it. And as capitalism progresses, more will begin to feel it, and as our educational vanguard progresses, more will begin to see it. Until the majority of us, have both. Then it's go time.

So what I say to you, instead of picking up a gun, sign off this message board, drive to the poorest area in a 50 mile radius, and talk to people.

Maybe bring some friends though, crime is an unfortunate side-effect of poverty.

As per the problem with Leninism. Lots of people who can see leading a fair amount who can feel -- we are the "enlightened" ones who lead the way... the vanguard who knows what to do! Apparently they didn't... it failed.

But they never ensured those who felt it could see it, and they never bothered to try and get people to see it aside from popular slogans and propaganda and yes, fear tactics. And when all of them whithered away, they were left with the massively reactionary body both within the state and outside the state -- and they had little choice but to crumble back towards the preceeding system.


Karl Marx brought this realityl to the world, it is our duty to see that is brought to fruition, and although the end may not mirror the vision of Marx, it will still be because of him that we were able to even begin the fight, and bring an end to the slavery of capitalism and imperialism.

Karl Marx didn't bring this reality to the world. He simply pointed the reality of the world out to us. If you think I'm saying otherwise and holding him up as some kind of superhero, I'm not.

If in the end it does not mirror the vision of Marx, the outcome will always be incompatible with the material reality.


it will still be because of him that we were able to even begin the fight, and bring an end to the slavery of capitalism and imperialism.

Marx did not create class struggle -- this would happen eventually, whether or not Marx was even born. And I suppose that is where we differ.


"In these circumstances one must have agreat deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into an isolation from the masses. We must strive everyday so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples,as a moving force." Ernesto Guevara Man and Socialism in Cuba c.1965

Agreed, but Marxism, regardless of his great deal of humanity, is cold scholasticism. The fact is, neither extreme of humanity and compassion or cold scholasticism and hard truth, will allow the revolution to succeed indefinitely. We need both, and we need it all within the Proletariat. And we need it long before we even think about picking up a gun.

[MKS]

I understand now your point. But I must say if consciousness is the only factor for revolution than Che would have never fought. Che had a very comfrotrable life in a fairly middle class family. He did expierence suffering in his travels but he never lived it (in his early life) but knowing what it wa and how it destroyed entire nations, was enough for him to enter the revolution, a revolution that did not even affect his own (birth) nation.

Marx was great at describing the class struggle and the aims of the Party, it is truth and fact, but like any material it can become dogmatic when it is taken as infallable truth.

You may not live in a trailer park but you can certainly understand the suffering invovlved in such a life, and that should be enough to act. The masses might recgonize thier situation, but they do not see anyone standing up to take action. That is the duty of the vanguard, to intiate revolution so the masses can begin liberation and ultimatley take up the cause. The vanguard is simply the usher to Communism and will ultimatley not need to exist.

In Cuba it seems the vanguard has collapsed allowing for capitalism to seep back into society.

Che wrote: (paraphrase) The Cubans were willing to fight for the revolution, they werent willing to work for it.

In America the masses are weak and blinded by the "hope" of success and propsperity. Revolution in America will probably never occur for many reasons, to me the biggest one, is there is no cohesive force to intiate change (violent or not). The Communist and Socialist Parties of America seem to be just another facet of the burgoise liberalism that plagues the nation.

[NovelGentry]

Che had a very comfrotrable life in a fairly middle class family. He did expierence suffering in his travels but he never lived it (in his early life) but knowing what it wa and how it destroyed entire nations, was enough for him to enter the revolution, a revolution that did not even affect his own (birth) nation.

Maybe you're not completely understanding what I'm saying then. I'm not saying you need both to fight -- hell, you don't need either to fight. A bourgeois capitalist can defect in light of the crumbling capitalist system and fight for the sake of fearing what will happen to him if he opposes.

Many reactionaries will fight. Not saying Che was a reactionary, far from it.

I'm not saying you have to grow up poor. Che spent a lot of time with poor people, and lived poorly, throughout his travels, and in doing so he most certainly did get a feel for this. Just the same as if you or I were to embed ourselves in a situation where we felt it more, we would gain that consciousness. Again, we have knowledge of it, but we cannot say we are conscious of it. Looking at his travels, and not just the ones which he purposefully seeked out "adventure" so to speak, but specifically his time spent in Guatemala you see him living in some very uncomfortable situations.

If I'm not mistaken he once carried a job there as a photographer, and in being paid enough to survive, he didn't have much more than that -- and that is when he really became more active. Before this he was sympathetic, no doubt, and had a very broad knowledge of oppression, but to say he'd ever really felt it? As willful as Che was to seek out that oppression, and in doing so "bringing it upon himself" so to speak, it does not change the fact that he experienced it.

Again, we could just as soon willfully experience this to grasp it ourselves. But until we do, within our own little worlds, we are little more than writer's of fiction.


Marx was great at describing the class struggle and the aims of the Party, it is truth and fact, but like any material it can become dogmatic when it is taken as infallable truth.

I do not propose anyone see Marx as infallable, nor do I propose anyone take every sentence he said as the absolute truth. But in general terms of what he wrote with respect to historical materialism, I propose we HAVE to take that as truth, or else we have to admit that capitalism can sustain. This is not to say capitalism is good, we could still fight it on strictly moral grounds, but then how much better are we than people who oppose gay marriage on strictly moral grounds.

We cannot objectively say our moral argument is truth either -- and in fact, that will make us far more dogmatic than examining the truth of Marx's work and promoting it could ever hope to do.


You may not live in a trailer park but you can certainly understand the suffering invovlved in such a life, and that should be enough to act.

And it is for many, but action alone cannot make us revolutionary. I doubt Che would agree the action of picking up a gun alone makes the person the "new socialist man" he was talking about. There is simply a lot more to it than that. Whether or not you are willing to die for a cause means you are obviously conscious of the opposing forces threat to your life, or at least the freedoms of your life. But that does not make you automatically develop any revolutionary mindset, just a survivalist one.


The masses might recgonize thier situation, but they do not see anyone standing up to take action.

Precisely. If they were actuallly conscious on the level I'm talking about, they would be standing up and taking action. Waiting for someone else to get up and fight and then following toe is more reactionary than it is revolutionary.

We can make all the excuses in the world on why we're not going out right now to fight "they will crush us" "there's no hope" "we don't have enough support" "we need resources" blah blah blah blah. But when you cut through all the excuses, there is a much deeper reason that infiltrates all of those who are not taking serious action. And yes, it is part fear, but it is fear based on reason of consequence vs. reward. The goal is not to get rid of the fear... the goal is to get rid of the idea that we personally need to reward from it. This is in essence the full realization of class consciousness.

As I said before, none of this is to say we don't have certain levels of consciousness, both material consicousness and class consciousness, we do, and when we combine the two we have a certain understanding of our revolutionary consciousness, but for all the understanding, knowledge, and experience we have, it is not enough to outweigh our doubt.

"You have nothing to lose but your chains."

Nothing... you have NOTHING... not even a life worth living... only chains. You can know this, you can repeat this, you can shout it from a mountain, but until you put yourself in a position to give all that nothing up you're not really in a position to say you're fully conscious of this aspect.

And when you are ready to give it all up, if you are doing it for any other reason than this consciousness, it's difficult to say you're really revolutionary.


That is the duty of the vanguard, to intiate revolution so the masses can begin liberation and ultimatley take up the cause.

To initiate? or to succeed? Either or... let me state my point again.

The moment the vanguard does it's duty, you have changed the state of society -- and you have thereby stripped the ability for someone to actually gain the consciousness which was only fostered in society's previous form.

So when the masses "Take up the cause" -- what of their purpose for doing so? Because that is what they are supposed to do? Because that is what they're supposed to be fighting for? Why? Because you said so? Because you put your life on the line? Because capitalism was bad and you were good? Because it is your gift to them? Because you enlightened them? Because why?

What reason are they able to be conscious of if is is not indeed their cause? You say it's their cause... but that's not them saying it, that's you saying it. If they believed it was their cause they would have been on it like flies on shit long before you ever came to their rescue.


Che wrote: (paraphrase) The Cubans were willing to fight for the revolution, they werent willing to work for it.

No doubt many were, and no doubt many still are. But again, how long were the fighting from the Sierra Maestra? It was a slow building campaign, one that DID raise consciousness -- and it did so through action. We do not have the luxury here. Such a campaign would be squashed in days (there's those excuses again).

But let me say this, aside from all excuses. If you are trying to ENSURE that this works, objectively speaking, your best chance is to ensure you have these masses before you undertake your action.


In America the masses are weak and blinded by the "hope" of success and propsperity.

It is not that they are blinded by hope. If you think any single mother on welfare with two kids has hope, you're dead crazy. You are saying they actually feel positive towards capitalism with "hope", they don't, they're neutral. But they don't exactly feel capitalism itself is the problem. Even if they feel their particular boss IS the problem, they don't feel capitalism is and why should they? It seems to "work" for some. They've given up hope on becoming one of those people, but they cannot say capitalism is their problem in light of those people -- they can't deny what they see.

And of course, this works to the benefit of the capitalist, as Marx said "pinning worker against worker." They can't blame the system, so they blame someone else "immigrants taking up all the jobs." "all the jobs moving to places where the labor is cheaper." How can anyone call this class consciousness? And what do you suepect will happen if such people "ultimately take up the cause?"


The Communist and Socialist Parties of America seem to be just another facet of the burgoise liberalism that plagues the nation.

If they seem this way it is because they are. We don't need these parties -- you can take all your party nonsense and toss it out the window. What Marx defined as the Communist party had a very key role -- and every TRUE communist in America seeks to fulfill that role -- as such, we are the true communist party, and even in disorganization and debate on message boards, we work in solidarity by simple unescapable fact that we work for the same goals.

No doubt we could probably unify and do it a whole lot better, and faster -- but the task you take to unify us all is a long one in itself. Never distract yourself from the REAL cause by looking towards party politics, unions, etc... always stand with the proletariat, and find solidarity with them and one day this whole thing will go down, and for once in history, it will go down the way it should.

[MKS]

Che undertook the revolution because of his own expiernences in Latin America, he volunteered to live with the poor and disenfranchised (he could have easily been a successful doctor). It was his moral ideals and conviciton to humanity that drew him to Marxism and ultimatley the Cuban Struggle.

I always felt a revolution in America would have to be one of secession and defense. It would be slow and costly but possible. (America isnt as strong as everyone thinks especially against insurgent/guerilla groups i.e. Vietnam even Iraq)

You're right we cannot just impose socialism/ communism on the masses, but we should try to educate the masses and initiate revolution through that education. Of course the decision for revolution would be made by the masses in light of their new consciousness.

Simply put, I think the basic consciousness is there (people knowing they're being oppressed and "screwed" by the capitalist sytem) I just dont think people realize there is an alternative.


I put the word hope in quotes because its not really hope, but some small inclination that things could get better, and as you said, they dont see capitalism as the problem. But shouldnt, the vanguard, undertake this task to educate the masses to a better way of living?

I think the natural inclination is for people to look for leadership in any endeavor. The revolution is no different. When the masses see someone willing to take a stand so will they. That is what the vanguard is, the first activists that serves the masses and ushers in the revolution.

[viva le revolution]

A revolution by an individual in my opinion would be pointless. In terms of socialism it is impossible and contradicts with the very idea of socialism.
A revolution should be of the masses who have grown sick and tired of the exploitation perpetrated by the Capitalistic mode of society. The main teaching of Capitalism is survival of the fittest or jungle law resulting in monopolies.
Socialism however is a collective system with every member playing a part without being exploited by the oligarchy.
An individual revolution however noble it may seem is no match for the Imperialist machine which often relies on propaganda and demonisation of any system challenging it. The individual would be labelled as a lunatic.
All that aside, i must point out what every revolution needs, a figurehead.
No doubt the head must strongly beleive in the cause otherwise the revolution is doomed to fail! When it comes to personal revolutions many point out the example of the glorious Che Guevara. Granted an individual revolution sets the ball rolling but without the support of the masses it leads nowhere. Imagine if nobody warmed to Che Guevara's vision of a new cuba, all he would be is a doctor helping the poor and underpriveledged. The support of the masses was the ingredient that led to the success of the revolution in Cuba.
To strengthen my point i give you the example of Bolivia where CHE GUEVARA led a guerilla campaign to liberate the Bolivian masses from a Capitalist puppet regime. The main reason for it's failure, apart from the imperialist intrigues of the CIA, was the lack of support of the Bolivian masses.
Therefore i state that although important, individual revolutions themselves are not enough to bring any serious change in Imperialistic and Capitalistic societies.

[MKS]

I was asking whether or not a revolution can be initiated or sustained by such different idealogies (or branches of the same idealogy).

Does there need to be cohesion of theories?

[NovelGentry]

Che undertook the revolution because of his own expiernences in Latin America, he volunteered to live with the poor and disenfranchised (he could have easily been a successful doctor). It was his moral ideals and conviciton to humanity that drew him to Marxism and ultimatley the Cuban Struggle.

I always felt a revolution in America would have to be one of secession and defense. It would be slow and costly but possible. (America isnt as strong as everyone thinks especially against insurgent/guerilla groups i.e. Vietnam even Iraq)

You're right we cannot just impose socialism/ communism on the masses, but we should try to educate the masses and initiate revolution through that education. Of course the decision for revolution would be made by the masses in light of their new consciousness.

Simply put, I think the basic consciousness is there (people knowing they're being oppressed and "screwed" by the capitalist sytem) I just dont think people realize there is an alternative.


I put the word hope in quotes because its not really hope, but some small inclination that things could get better, and as you said, they dont see capitalism as the problem. But shouldnt, the vanguard, undertake this task to educate the masses to a better way of living?

Yes, the vanguard should undertake such action. But as I believe I mentioned, ALL communists are in essence the educational vanguard. It is a responsibility we all take on, naturally, and it is the easeist responsibility.

The problem with the Leninist idea of a vanguard is you basically have a straight run of people playing all roles. Our educational vanguard should not be equivalent to the revolutionary force, our revolutionary force should be much greater -- and yes, Lenin's was, but a lot of people were just pissed off and wanted toss out the old. The fight against capitalism cannot automatically be assumed to be a fight for socialism.

What I propose is that the revolutionary force form it's own revolutionary vanguard. That is the vanguard should be formed out of revolution, rather than for the sake of creating revolution, it exists for the sake of ensuring the success of revolution. This vanguard is presented merely as an organizational role for revolution, to direct the general flow, and NOT specific military strategy. It should work, much like post-revolutionary society as a decentralized group of individuals, party leaders, union leaders, etc... wherever people choose to be represented by someone, their chosen leaders should be respected as their "representative" for this vanguard.

I have little doubt that this form of vanguard could overall progress the revolution. Militarily, we will exceed through our specific strategy, but in the overall grasp of class struggle, we will succeed best with our combined strategy -- a strategy which should primarily focus on destroying the old system before even thinking about instituting a new one.

From there, and from this existing organization, born of the revolution itself, we can establish a state.

While I have my own ideas on how the state would function, from even the earliest points straight through to the creation of the state -- everything should be done as democratically as possible amongst the revoltuionary forces.


I think the natural inclination is for people to look for leadership in any endeavor. The revolution is no different. When the masses see someone willing to take a stand so will they. That is what the vanguard is, the first activists that serves the masses and ushers in the revolution.

As you can see my idea is not opposed to leadership, my idea is opposed to centralized leadership over the total mass. Lenin may very well have represented a large portion of workers and peasants who stormed the street -- but there was an even larger portion that couldn't give two shits about Lenin himself, they just knew it was time for change.

We need to respect leaders, but we need to respect all people's chosen leaders. If people choose no leaders, we need to respect those individuals directly.

If the vanguard is to usher in the revolution, it does so not with a rise in arms, but with a rise in thought -- only when our aim is set, should we even think of squeezing the trigger.

[NovelGentry]

I was asking whether or not a revolution can be initiated or sustained by such different idealogies (or branches of the same idealogy).

Does there need to be cohesion of theories?

Yes, and that cohesion is democracy. The first words that should be heard out of any revolutionary leader's mouth after the collapse of the bourgeois controlled machinery is, "We're all equal now." I would hope they put stock in that statement.