Democratic Socialism

[MKS]

Democratic Socialism: Is change within the system possible, paticularly in Western nations such as US, England, Canada Etc.? Is revolution the only way? Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?

[RedLenin]

Is change within the system possible, paticularly in Western nations such as US, England, Canada Etc.?

No. The bourgeoisie dictatorship cannot be turned into a proletarian dictatorship.


Is revolution the only way?

Yes. Change comes from the bottom up.


Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?

No, just a confused one. :P


Nothing can be achieved without sacrafice, nothing gained without loss, chains do not fall off they must be ripped off

This quote from your sig pretty much sums it up. We cant rely on the state to bring about socialism. The people must do it themselves. All power to the people!

[Paradox]

Is revolution the only way?

Seeing that men/women make history, and not the other way around, yes, revolution is necessary. This isn't to say that we have to be overly violent and go on crazy hunts for reactionaries. But, we will have to defend ourselves from those reactionaries (the real ones, not those accused of being reactionary by people who don't like them, hence the crazy hunts). Change within the system is pointless because the aim of this system is profit. Therefore, the system must be replaced, as it cannot be reformed into Socialism/Communism. It's like trying to turn an apple into an orange.


Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?

I'd say they're more hopeful that change doesn't require violence. That, or they're not really Socialists, just posing. In the case of the former, I think that they'll eventually realize that change within the system just isn't feasible.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Is change within the system possible, paticularly in Western nations such as US, England, Canada Etc.?

With the profits flowing to the Western bourgeoisie from the third world, change through any method (least of all any authentic democratic message) in "Western nations such as US, England, Canada Etc." is well nigh imposible - for the moment. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that violence, direct and effective violence, in support of those throwing off imperialism, is an absolute necessity for any sort of real socialism.

Further, continued serious pressure, outside the realm of bourgeoisie politics, is necessary for us to keep the "social-democratic" reforms we've won . . .


Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?

Bad? That's a weird term to use. I'd say, in practical terms, it makes them not a socialist in any authentic sense - in practical terms, it makes them a capitalist who likes lil' reforms.

[MKS]

Bad? That's a weird term to use. I'd say, in practical terms, it makes them not a socialist in any authentic sense - in practical terms, it makes them a capitalist who likes lil' reforms.

Then what do you make of the Socialist Party USA which believes in democratic changes and construction of a Socialist system. to me they are just another, more radical, facet of the Deomcratic Party.

[h&s]

The current system is actively designed to keep power in the hands of the ruling class and out of the hands of the working class.
Working within this to replace it is nigh on impossible. That would require a party with enough representatives in the parliaments to change the constitution. All of those representatives are never going to stay loyal to the working class once the capitalists have tempted them with all of that money.
'Demoratic' Socialism is probably the most vanguardist form of socialism, which can never be a good thing...
Actually changing the constitution 'democratically' (real revolution is far more democratic ;) ) is impossible without extreme violence from the state - its inevitable. Just look at Chile - Allende was a left-winger, the ruling class sisn't like him, and optem for a military dictatorshiop instead.
We can not give them enough time to do that - we need to take power ourselves.

[Armethos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:59 PM
Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?
I don't think there is such thing as a "bad" socialist.

[Zingu]

Democractic Socialism and Social Democracy run into the same problem Leninism did.


The party leadership alienates itself from the proletariat, but not like Leninism, becomes a moderate party, any major "leftist" political party in Europe will show you that.


An other problem I think the Democractic Socialist approach would run into would be how if they push for Welfare and Social Democractic reforms in the system, and once these are in place, it will make the proletarian "happy", no longer feeling a radical feeling as welfare nets are set up to make "capitalism with a human face", forcing these parties to also adopt a moderate goal.

[Orange Juche]

I used to be a Democratic Socialist.

Then I realised wages, and the state, are bullshit.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:37 AM

Is change within the system possible, paticularly in Western nations such as US, England, Canada Etc.?

No. The bourgeoisie dictatorship cannot be turned into a proletarian dictatorship.


Is revolution the only way?

Yes. Change comes from the bottom up.


Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?

No, just a confused one. :P


Nothing can be achieved without sacrafice, nothing gained without loss, chains do not fall off they must be ripped off

This quote from your sig pretty much sums it up. We cant rely on the state to bring about socialism. The people must do it themselves. All power to the people!

No. The bourgeoisie dictatorship cannot be turned into a proletarian dictatorship.

What basis do you have for that statement? None, because its bullshit. Plenty of liberal democracies have been altered into institutions of a completely different system. I see no logical reason why a proletarian state could and should be ruled out, unless of course you arge that the very basis of socialism is flawed, and you aren't suggesting that are you?

Change comes from the bottom up.


Rubbish, plenty of historical events would suggest otherwise.

No, just a confused one. :P


Says you, and what grand qualification do you you have to make that judgment, a judgement which places your opinion at greater status than another persons? None, no such qualification exists, welcome to the wonderful world of the subjective.

We cant rely on the state to bring about socialism.

Nobody would ever claim such a thing, the state must be manipulated by the people in order to enact change, not the other way round.

[tambourine_man]

i think this best answers the situation:
"...the socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. they desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. they wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
...this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movment in the eyes of the working class.
...this form of Socialism by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lesson the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.
...it is summed up in this phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois - for the benefit of the working class."
karl marx, the communist manifesto (on conservative/bourgeois socialism)

so, yes, in my opinion there are indeed "bad socialists" - those whose methods (and consequently, goals) directly contradict and hinder the establishment of communism and the dissolution of the state. for example, the SPD's employment/acceptance of the freikorps to kill the german revolution of 1918.

[RedLenin]

I see no logical reason why a proletarian state could and should be ruled out, unless of course you arge that the very basis of socialism is flawed, and you aren't suggesting that are you?

No, what I am saying is that having the bourgeoisie government give the workers socialism is doomed to faliure. Plus, I dont believe a state is needed to bring about communism.


Rubbish, plenty of historical events would suggest otherwise.

And, historical evidence will also show you that radical change has always come from the people themselves by means of revolution. The government cannot do it for you.


Says you, and what grand qualification do you you have to make that judgment, a judgement which places your opinion at greater status than another person's? None, no such qualification exists.

No need to be rude, I was simply stating my opinion. I just dont believe you can abolish the system from the inside. Radical change must come from the people themselves by means of revolution. This is what I meant by "confused". I was asked a question, and gave my honest opinion, I am not trying to judge anyone.


Nobody would ever claim such a thing, the state must be manipulated by the people in order to enact change, not the other way round.

The state cannot be democratically changed by the proletariat for socialism. The state is a monopoly on violence and the tool of a minority class to suppress the people. We must smash this state and work on building a communist society. The best you will get with reform is a wellfare-state. Only revolution will create a communist society. Few would argue otherwise.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:46 AM
Plenty of liberal democracies have been altered into institutions of a completely different system.
Care to offer an example?

On the contrary, the instutions of bourgeois dictatorship, through their own action, have simply shifted to different sorts of bourgeois dictatorship.

Putting on different make-up might make you more attractive, but I'll be damned if it changes yr face.

[cormacobear]

So long as these Socialist democratic parties are a reality we live with, do we not have a duty to pull them as far to the left as possible.

The defeatist, 'violence is the only way' methodology too often comes across as violence for violence sake. Whenever violence erupts we know who suffers most... the poor the vulnerable. So try and save a life stop sitting on your hands and help try and make a possible alternative to violence a reality. It's not like you have anything better to do unless you've figured out how to trigger the revolution then you had might as well.

[cph_shawarma]

In comparison to 1914, 1919, 1922, 1933, and 1943, the capitalist regime of 1947 weighs down more, always more, in its economic exploitation and in its political oppression of the working masses and of everyone and everything that crosses its path. This is true for the «Great Powers» after their totalitarian suppression of the German and Japanese state machines. It is also and no less true even for the Italian state: although defeated, derided, forced into vassalage, saleable and sold in all direction, it is nevertheless more armed with police and more reactionary now than under Giolitti and Mussolini, and it will be even more reactionary if it passes from the hands of De Gasperi to those of the left parties. Amadeo Bordiga: Force, violence and dictatorship in the class struggle


Revisionism sought to spread throughout the ranks of the working class the firm conviction that it was not possible to overthrow the power of the capitalist class by force and, furthermore, that it was possible to realise socialism after conquering the executive organs of the state by means of a majority in the representative institutions. Left Marxists were accused of a worship of violence, elevating it from a means to an end and invoking it almost sadistically even when it was possible to spare it and attain the same result in a peaceful way. But in the face of the eloquence of the historical developments this polemic soon unveiled its content. It was a mystique not so much of non-violence as it was an apology of the principles of the bourgeois order. Ibid.


In the same way, those who theorise the «utilisation» of legal and democratic ways are ready to admit that popular violence is legitimate and necessary when there is an attempt from above to abolish constitutional rights. But in such a case how can it be explained that the development of military technology in the hands of the state is no longer an insurmountable obstacle? How can it be foreseen, in the event of a peaceful conquest of the majority, that the bourgeoisie will not use those military means in order to maintain power? How can the proletariat in these situations victoriously use the violence which is criticised and condemned as a class means? The social democrats cannot answer this because in doing so they would be obliged to confess that they are pure and simple accomplices in preserving bourgeois rule. Ibid.

http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipa/lipanbeboe.html

Amadeo Bordiga lays down the line. A very good text altogether, read it! Sorry for the long quotes.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:48 AM

Revisionism sought to spread throughout the ranks of the working class the firm conviction that it was not possible to overthrow the power of the capitalist class by force and, furthermore, that it was possible to realise socialism after conquering the executive organs of the state by means of a majority in the representative institutions. Left Marxists were accused of a worship of violence, elevating it from a means to an end and invoking it almost sadistically even when it was possible to spare it and attain the same result in a peaceful way. But in the face of the eloquence of the historical developments this polemic soon unveiled its content. It was a mystique not so much of non-violence as it was an apology of the principles of the bourgeois order. Ibid.


How can the proletariat in these situations victoriously use the violence which is criticised and condemned as a class means? [...] simple accomplices in preserving bourgeois rule. Ibid.

[/quote]
I don't mind long quotes if the debates worth while. :)

In the first quote I listed above he first lists a number of good arguments why violent uprising isn&#39;t the best option, and rather than give opposing arguments he attacks their motives. Pretty weak <_<

Second: They can&#39;t violence begets violence and perpetuates the cycle of oppression.

And I don&#39;t think I can accept that there are only two classes, the aristocracy is as present today with their corperate titles and hereditary wealth and power. Working against their rule can hardly be considered an unworthy goal.

[cph_shawarma]

cormacobear: No he lists a number of illusions that the social democrats tried to spread through the ranks of the proletariat. Not "good arguments". As the history of the 20th century has shown, legalism and "non-violence" (they don&#39;t seem to have a problem with neither virtual nor real violence in the bourgeois order) has ended up in one of the most perverted forms of apology for the bourgeois order.

And no, there aren&#39;t just two classes. Where is that stated? But the two main classes, the classes between which the central class war stands, are bourgeoisie and proletariat. And sofar in history the proletariat is the only class that has shown its capability to overthrow class society altogether (sofar only temporarily and in a limited area, but nonetheless).

What I was aiming at with these three quotes was to show that the "democratic socialists" are nothing but "simple accomplices in preserving bourgeois rule." This is as true now as it was in 1947, as it was a hundred and fifty years ago.

[Conghaileach]

Seeing as a socialist revolution will involve the liberation of the mass of people, it is fundamentally democratic. As for trying for reformist social democracy (see the likes of the Party of European Socialists in the EU for a list of parties of this nature) it has been proven on a number of occassions that the workers have only themsleves rights by forcing them on their various governments, and the threat of revolution.

[cormacobear]

How do we know they&#39;re illusions, because that guy says so. i&#39;ve seen no proof

I don&#39;t see myself as an accomplice I see myself as one of the status quo&#39;s harshest critics, I see myself working with the proletariat to ensure their rights and will is ensured. The people who risked American retribution by vtoing for Chavez probably wouldn&#39;t appreciate a pampered first world critic, telling them they&#39;re appolagists.

Even Marx aggreed in his later years that non-violent reforms could likely acheive socialism in several countries.

[Invader Zim]

No, what I am saying is that having the bourgeoisie government give the workers socialism is doomed to faliure.

Then you fatally misunderstand the nature of democratic socialist change. If a workers government gains power then the government will cease to be a &#39;bourgeois government&#39;, by definition.

Plus, I dont believe a state is needed to bring about communism.

Well good for you.

And, historical evidence will also show you that radical change has always come from the people themselves by means of revolution.

Really, I suggest a long trip to the library and considerable research into the social movement known as Chartism. Which while had physical force wing, was largely comprised of those who supported moral force. Not that a little threat of physical force is not a good catalyst in acquiring reform, like in many things a little extra persuasion is often necessary in getting what you want.

I would also suggest considerable research into the fall of the Weimar republic. While I do not advocate fascism, you can not deny that the rise of the Nazis was not a major change in government. Yet Hitler tried revolution, but acquired power through democracy. If Hitler could do it I see no reason why a leftist group could not.


No need to be rude, I was simply stating my opinion.

Well I don&#39;t take well to being told that I, or any other socialist of the same view, are &#39;confused&#39;, especially when the point simply comes down to opinion, rather than any quantifiable fact.

Radical change must come from the people themselves by means of revolution.

Why, where is your evidence for this, and if that is the case why do examples which contradict this rule exist?

This is what I meant by "confused".


Please... dont. You were saying that you, with your opinions are correct, and everybody else is "confused" which is a cherry topped method of saying that they are wrong. Well, sorry cobra, I disagree. While I do not dismiss revolution, I at the same time do not dismiss the possibility of workers elected government. Both have their uses, and both can yield rewarding results.


The state cannot be democratically changed by the proletariat for socialism.

And why is that? What makes it fundamentally impossible? If a fascist can do it, then why can a communist or socialist do it? The only reason it can&#39;t happen at the moment is public opinion, but by the exact same token, revolution is also impossible in western liberal democracies. The only thing which can be done to make progressive changes is apply pressure on the government for concessions. If it takes the threat of force to spur them into action, then so be it, like I said earlier a little extra ‘persuasion’ never hurt.

The state is a monopoly on violence and the tool of a minority class to suppress the people.

Indeed, but you are assuming that the result of the election would be ignored. At that stage the once liberal democracy ceases being a liberal democracy, and becomes a dictatorship, at that stage revolution is undeniably necessary. But I reject the idea that, that is always going to happen.

Few would argue otherwise.

Ah, I see, so we must all be sheep. If we all followed the views of the majority then we would all be reading the Sun, and voting New Labour. Sorry mate, but I&#39;ll give that a skip and stick to my own views. Just to take a historical example, the majority of communists in the mid stage of the 20th century supported Stalin, look what he did. The moral of this story is that even a majority is fallible.



Putting on different make-up might make you more attractive, but I&#39;ll be damned if it changes yr face.

Well, in that case, please do feel free to move to a Cambodia and work in a sweat shop, (which is probably the nearest environment you can get to mid 19th century Britain) after all you shouldn&#39;t really notice if the differences are really only cosmetic. I hope you enjoy a 16 hour day, no minimum wage, harsh working environments, child exploitation and high mortality rates. I’m sure that you would be dead long before you reach old age, but if the differences are nothing but cosmetic. I’m sorry for being sarcastic and cynical, I truly am... but your being daft.

[red_che]

Is change within the system possible

No, it&#39;s like you can&#39;t change a rotten potato from within itself. you have to replace it with a new one. :P


Is revolution the only way?

Yeah, you can&#39;t change the essence of a thing without changing it totally or radically. ;)


Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?

No, because because that someone is not a socialist, in the first place, and no socialist believes with change within the system. <_<

[MKS]

Yeah, you can&#39;t change the essence of a thing without changing it totally or radically

Who is to say that the change made within the system would not be radical. Non-violent, social change is possible so is non-violent revolution.



Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?



No, because because that someone is not a socialist, in the first place, and no socialist believes with change within the system

I think youre being to quick to judge, and by doing so you are creating an animosity and division. I am a socialist (I believe Socialism is the only way to create a truly equal society) however I think that the only way to change any systems, but especially the ones in the Western world, is through change "within" the system, that is to say to change the system competley by changing the principles and realites that drive the system. I agree sometimes change within the system is not possible, but I contend that it is possible and maybe the only way to change things in the Western world (especially the USA)

[codyvo]

I personally am a democratic socialist, but I think it will take a tremendous willing mass to actually make an impact on the system. Also I do think that a country like the US is doomed because it is structured in such a capitalist way that change will take a huge amount of time.

[BOZG]

I just want to point out that the phrase "democratic socialism" is quite vague and has two usages, both as in "democratic" reform of the system to create a socialist society but also democratic as in "workers&#39; democracy" and socialism opposed to the Stalinist model. Reformist, reformist socialism or parliamentary socialism are far clearer about what type of socialism you&#39;re referring to.

[Paradox]

I think that the only way to change any systems, but especially the ones in the Western world, is through change "within" the system, that is to say to change the system competley by changing the principles and realites that drive the system.

Well, the reality is that capitalism is based on profit, and the state is in place to maintain this. That&#39;s why any gains the workers have made, they had to fight for. From within the system, the best you could do is reform, and that will not change the system, it will only, as has been mentioned, put a more "human face" on the system. That&#39;s why the system must be replaced entirely. This requires overwhelming mass support. The bourgeoisie will try to maintain power, but the overwhelming majority of the population will be against them. And though we will avoid it as much as possible, violence will be inevitable, and we will have to be prepared to defend ourselves. Successfully working within the system would require that the ruling class do nothing as we strip them of their power from within their own institutions. Needless to say, that&#39;s not going to happen.

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:35 PM
How do we know they&#39;re illusions, because that guy says so. i&#39;ve seen no proof

cormacobear: Well, to me it&#39;s quite obvious that the history of the 20th century has proved the real nature of social democracy (as well as its pseudo-revolutionary counterpart stalinism).


I don&#39;t see myself as an accomplice I see myself as one of the status quo&#39;s harshest critics, I see myself working with the proletariat to ensure their rights and will is ensured.

It&#39;s not a question of how you see yourself. You might not be an accomplice, if you don&#39;t suppress your communist actions for instance. But you might be. I am not interested (at least in the long run) in ensuring rights for the proletariat or the "will" of the proletariat. My goal, and the goal of a tendency within the proletariat (communism), is the total abolition of classes and work as we know it.


The people who risked American retribution by vtoing for Chavez probably wouldn&#39;t appreciate a pampered first world critic, telling them they&#39;re appolagists.

Trying to pull the "first world"-card won&#39;t work on me. It only proves that you haven&#39;t been capable of producing a grounded critique of what I say. I vote in parliamentary elections, but only in order to survive. I do not have any illusions of parties ever freeing neither me nor my class. I don&#39;t think the venezuelan proles are any dumber than me, but that doesn&#39;t mean they are right on everything. Many of them probably act precisely like me, vote for the person that provides some form of survival. But the liberation of the proletariat can only be its own work.


Even Marx aggreed in his later years that non-violent reforms could likely acheive socialism in several countries.


I would like a quote of Marx ever agreeing with such idiocy. Even to believe that reforms are "non-violent" is a grand illusion. The state is in no way "non-violent" and systemic reforms are highly violent, since they affirm the power of the state. I demand that you give proof of Marx ever saying something like that, since that would completely revolutionize the marxological view of Marx.

Please read "Critique of Gotha" by Marx or late letters of Engels. The distortion of Engels&#39; introduction to one of Marx&#39; texts was of great disgust to him and he sent letters to Bebel and other leading social democrats telling them this. They ignored him and continued to publish the falsified introduction.

"Non-violence" is apology&#33;

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:40 PM

Yeah, you can&#39;t change the essence of a thing without changing it totally or radically

Who is to say that the change made within the system would not be radical. Non-violent, social change is possible so is non-violent revolution.



Does believing in change within the system make someone a "bad " socialist?



No, because because that someone is not a socialist, in the first place, and no socialist believes with change within the system

I think youre being to quick to judge, and by doing so you are creating an animosity and division. I am a socialist (I believe Socialism is the only way to create a truly equal society) however I think that the only way to change any systems, but especially the ones in the Western world, is through change "within" the system, that is to say to change the system competley by changing the principles and realites that drive the system. I agree sometimes change within the system is not possible, but I contend that it is possible and maybe the only way to change things in the Western world (especially the USA)

I&#39;m sorry my friend, but I think you are mearly confused. If you are a socialist, I think you would never think of such a thing as a change within the system as the only way in the Western world. Marx or any other socialist never said it, only those social democrats who are masquerading as socialists.

As I have said, you cannot change a rotten potato from within to becoming a new one. You have to replace it. Just like Capitalism, the only difference is that Capitalism is worse than a rotten potato. :D

[MKS]

I say that change within the system is the only way to bring about a revolutionary society, is because ,a war would never be won. If a revolutionary war were to break out in the US for example, the masses of people and the government would quickly act to destroy it. However if the changes were to come about through protest, civil disobediance, and (i know you hate this term) gradual reforms, than a revolutionary society could have a better chance at being created. I dont deny that a war probably would have to be fought at sometime, but first the people must be with us.

[codyvo]

Lenin was a democratic socialist.

"And if we judge people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the high-sounding appelations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that "freedom of criticism" means freedom for an oppurtunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism." V.I. Lenin, What is to be Done?

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:25 PM
I say that change within the system is the only way to bring about a revolutionary society, is because ,a war would never be won. If a revolutionary war were to break out in the US for example, the masses of people and the government would quickly act to destroy it. However if the changes were to come about through protest, civil disobediance, and (i know you hate this term) gradual reforms, than a revolutionary society could have a better chance at being created. I dont deny that a war probably would have to be fought at sometime, but first the people must be with us.
My friend, revolution is not merely war. Revolution means the toppling down of a class by another class. There are two major weapons of a socialist revolution. One is the armed struggle (which is the primary weapon) and the other is through parliamentary or legal struggles (which is the secondary weapon for the revolution). Armed struggle is done by arming the people in destroying the political power of the bourgeoisie in order to establish a revolutionary/socialist government. Parliamentary or legal struggle is utilized to help the armed struggle and advance democratic reforms and to gain democratic aspirations of the people in a tactical period.


I say that change within the system is the only way to bring about a revolutionary society, is because ,a war would never be won. If a revolutionary war were to break out in the US for example, the masses of people and the government would quickly act to destroy it.

Wars can be won if it is a revolutionary war and it advances the aspirations of the people. Communists never lose hope and never underestimate the people&#39;s capacity to comprehend and participate in a revolutionary war as long as it is for their (people&#39;s) cause.


However if the changes were to come about through protest, civil disobediance, and (i know you hate this term) gradual reforms, than a revolutionary society could have a better chance at being created.

I beg to disagree with you. Changes would not come easily through protests or civil disobedience. It would be a longer and bloodier method. The ruling class will not just give up its interests unless they are stripped off of their power. A revolutionary armed struggle should be done, while parliamentary struggles should serve for the strenghtening of the armed revolution.


I dont deny that a war probably would have to be fought at sometime, but first the people must be with us.

That is precisely the role of parliamentary struggle, to make the people realize that a revolution is needed.

[(A)PBDS]

Even Marx aggreed in his later years that non-violent reforms could likely acheive socialism in several countries

He did

I am a democratic socialist (Thats the DS part of my name) but i believe in non-violent revolution either within or outside of the current parliament or whatever. I tend to think that the groups who say "it can&#39;t be changed like this" are the ones that know no-one will vote for them. I believe that when the stock market crashes again, there will be huge support for socialist parties all over the world.

But hey i&#39;m just a reactionary pro-capitalist petit-bourgeouis labour aristocrat, right?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But hey i&#39;m just a reactionary pro-capitalist petit-bourgeouis labour aristocrat, right?

Right.

[(A)PBDS]

Fair do&#39;s. But from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, people tend to support non-violent movements much more. the media would probably demonise any violent groups.

Plus, if you kill a soldier or someone, he has family and friends who would be turned away from socialism by his death. I&#39;m not 100% against violence, but i reckon it should be avoided as much as possible.

[Black Dagger]

Fair do&#39;s. But from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, people tend to support non-violent movements much more.

The issue is not violent vs. non-violent groups. It&#39;s between, a group who is pacifistic, and a group which uses violence sometimes- when it&#39;s needed. History shows that both types of groups have the potential for mass support.



the media would probably demonise any violent groups.

It doesn&#39;t matter what the bourgeois is saying when society is revolutionary- if you&#39;ve already got a mass movement, they&#39;re gonna be conscious enough to realise that the corporate spin- is just that, spin. And if you don&#39;t have the mass movement, you shouldn&#39;t be doing a whole lot of violence anyway.



Plus, if you kill a soldier or someone, he has family and friends who would be turned away from socialism by his death.

A price that has to be paid. That soldier chose to be in that occupation, and chose to be a counter-revolutionary, they are fighting to prevent emancipation of society, from capitalism and the bourgeois state- and there&#39;s a chance their family would already be counter-revolutionaries who supported their daughter or son who is in the military. Regardless, their deaths are in the defence of a revolution, that is justified, of a chance to abolish capitalism, and build a communist society based on the principles of liberty, equality and solidarity.



I&#39;m not 100% against violence, but i reckon it should be avoided as much as possible.

Supporting revolution does not mean supporting meaningless violence. Revolutionaries believe in self-defence, not in murder- a revolution- in a capitalist society is working class self-defence. No revolutionary kills for the sake of killing, we&#39;re not inhuman butchers.

[viva le revolution]

If revolution could be brought about by peaceful methods, the communist would be the happiest person on earth&#33; But that is impossible, Class struggle, and a change as radical as the toppling of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat will not be allowed to take place peacefully, nor can it ever take place peacefully. I hurts me to say it, but violence is inevitable, either in the form of armed struggle or in the form of mass demonstrations which after a certain point in time will turn violent.

[Red Powers]

I suggest a long trip to the library and considerable research into the social movement known as Chartism. Which while had physical force wing, was largely comprised of those who supported moral force.


And not suprisingly the Chartists failed to win their demands.



If Hitler could do it I see no reason why a leftist group could not.

Try this reason-- Hitler was working for the Capitalists. All the big German capitalists retained all their property. Hitler even provided them with slave labor and got rid of those pesky communists and independent trade unions. In fact the German Bourgeoisie invited Hitler to become the Chancellor.

[(A)PBDS]

Again fair do&#39;s. i see where youre coming from here. But what do you propose to do with the bourgeoisie afterwards. I dont imagine they will do their own fighting. Do you support killing them all? Imprisonment? or forced proletarianisation?