Where to start the revolution.

[Che1990]

So when the revolution comes should it start in third world countries or imperialist states? And should it start in the rural areas first or the urban ones. Please give me your thoughts.

[encephalon]

Revolution already has come. It started in third world countries. It will end in imperialist states. Rural and Urban. Ongoing. It's not something that's going to start one day and end the next. It's a fucking global revolution, not cricket.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:22 AM
So when the revolution comes should it start in third world countries or imperialist states? And should it start in the rural areas first or the urban ones. Please give me your thoughts.
Depends on what sort of revolution you speak of. Revolution is indeed happening throughout the third world. However, these are bourgeoisie in nature, involving peasantry, which are extremely reactionary by nature. Although, in Nepal, their revolution is under the communist flag, but is being led by peasants in absence of the proletariat. The problem is, the material conditions are not present in Nepal for socialism to take hold, after the revolution. They simply do not have the infrastructure for socialism.

In the absence of a class-conscious proletariat, the country will then need to make 'compromises' in order to maintain socialism. Although my hopes go out to these people, I suspect this 'brand' of communism can only result in a bureaucratic state-capitalist society.

A communist revolution must come from countries with the most prominent class divisions between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and will come at a time when the bourgeoisie have pushed the petty-bourgeoisie into the lower class strata. However, perhaps once an advanced capitalist, industrialized country goes through a communist revolution, they may be able to nurture socialism in a less developed country that has a lack of proletariat.

[slim]

In the urban versus rural argument.

Rural fighting would be slower paced, on a more set piece basis and will claim less lives.

Urban warfare would require well trained and intelligent fighters. The death toll would be catastrophic. The harsh and ironic thing is that urban warfare is more successful in winning revolution.

[codyvo]

Also with urban revolution you get the factor of chaos on your side, if we struck in an urban area their would be widespread panic which if we used correctly could work out in our favor. But I still think rural is the place to start, like said before it has less casualties and you gain more land, but if their is to be a serious revolution it ill have to be everywhere at once.

[NovelGentry]

Revolution already has come. It started in third world countries. It will end in imperialist states. Rural and Urban. Ongoing. It's not something that's going to start one day and end the next. It's a fucking global revolution, not cricket.

This is a bit of a misnomer... it would appear third world revolution, although I'm not discounting the possibility as a whole, more often develops into a more advanced bourgeois revolution. It is very much a revolution to develop capitalism to the full (whether it be free, regulated, or state) -- to advance those nations as much as possible, where previously even if they've had "capitalism." It has done little to advance as capitalism has in the imperialist nations.

I suspect you will find that the revolutions of the imperialist nations will be far more final, and a secondary revolution or at the very least, strong influence from new socialist nations there, will be required to establish socialism in the third world. In this sense, the most advanced capitalist nations make in there first.

Of course, this is all theory -- only time will tell us the truth.

[NovelGentry]

Dibs go to comradekurt on this, who I did not realize made a similar argument earlier. Sorry Comrade Kurt, I just read the post I responded to and jumped right on it... maybe some day I'll learn to read the whole thread first.

[guerillablack]

Revolution this, revolution that. Like the brother said there are many revolutions going on in third world countries.

[encephalon]

Revolution already has come. It started in third world countries. It will end in imperialist states. Rural and Urban. Ongoing. It's not something that's going to start one day and end the next. It's a fucking global revolution, not cricket.


This is a bit of a misnomer... it would appear third world revolution, although I'm not discounting the possibility as a whole, more often develops into a more advanced bourgeois revolution. It is very much a revolution to develop capitalism to the full (whether it be free, regulated, or state) -- to advance those nations as much as possible, where previously even if they've had "capitalism." It has done little to advance as capitalism has in the imperialist nations.

I suspect you will find that the revolutions of the imperialist nations will be far more final, and a secondary revolution or at the very least, strong influence from new socialist nations there, will be required to establish socialism in the third world. In this sense, the most advanced capitalist nations make in there first.

Of course, this is all theory -- only time will tell us the truth.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear in what I meant. I don't see the revolutions in the third world as independent, but as part of an integrated whole. Much like you wouldn't call an insurrection in NY, NY the "new york revolution" and another a few weeks later in boston, MA the "boston revolution" but include both as a US revolution, so too I would group all revolutions in the last century as one entire global revolution.

It matters little what was achieved in these past third-world revolutions when approaching it as a global revolution. I tend to think of them as initial sparks in a revolutionary engine; while they do little on their own, they eventually culminate into greater and more wide-spread revolutionary acts until ignition reaches full steam, and the feul begins to burn steadily.

[guerillablack]

Like the brother already said the revolution already begun. Revolution is a process. The revolution did not end at the Revolutionary War. The revolution did not end with Nat Turner, Vessey, Assata Shakur, Fred Hampton, Huey Newton, Malcolm X, Dr King,etc.

It's a movement. But what are you doing to progress this movement is the true question. Are you an armchair revolutionary? The revolution will not be televised.

[NovelGentry]

Perhaps I was a bit unclear in what I meant. I don't see the revolutions in the third world as independent, but as part of an integrated whole. Much like you wouldn't call an insurrection in NY, NY the "new york revolution" and another a few weeks later in boston, MA the "boston revolution" but include both as a US revolution, so too I would group all revolutions in the last century as one entire global revolution.

It matters little what was achieved in these past third-world revolutions when approaching it as a global revolution. I tend to think of them as initial sparks in a revolutionary engine; while they do little on their own, they eventually culminate into greater and more wide-spread revolutionary acts until ignition reaches full steam, and the feul begins to burn steadily.

But is it the initial development of socialist revolution or is it the finalization of bourgeois development?

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:31 AM
Like the brother already said the revolution already begun. Revolution is a process. The revolution did not end at the Revolutionary War. The revolution did not end with Nat Turner, Vessey, Assata Shakur, Fred Hampton, Huey Newton, Malcolm X, Dr King,etc.

It's a movement. But what are you doing to progress this movement is the true question. Are you an armchair revolutionary? The revolution will not be televised.
You do realise how much money Assata Shakur is making by selling Tupacs work to be on weak albums.

[encephalon]

But is it the initial development of socialist revolution or is it the finalization of bourgeois development?



I would say both. The development of the bourgeois is necessarily the development of its own destruction. How many of us, truthfully, would know much of anything about communism had it not been for the so-called "communist" revolutions throught the third world, whether they were actually communist or not? These revolutions could've easily been called bourgeois revolutions in another world--would the destruction of capitalism be furthered in the same manner if it were so? I honestly can't see how it would have been.

Whether we like it or not, most of us, at some point, depend upon the russian revolution as the origin for our current knowledge of marxism, communism, and leftism in general. If lenin siezed control of the state in the name of capitalism, I have a feeling that we, as a loose-knit group, wouldn't even be half as numerous as we are now.

We tend to forget that revolution includes the spread of revolutionary ideas. Those, above all, serve as the spark for the rest of it.

[OleMarxco]

Once we have guns. Now go back to your chillin'-room and watch some goddamn TV and mellow out! Then, we will call your when "the game starts". That's the fuckin' codeword, jerk, renember'rat. Oh, and it'll be free barbecue and AK-47's FOR EVERYONE! (So don't give me that bullshit that it has been a reknowned terrorist-gun/rifle, YEAH I KNOW, so what? We're not unjusticeful! No killings of -unarmed- civilians) :D

[slim]

If a western country fell to revolution imagine the impact on the international community. On a global scale no-one really cares if Uzbekistan or Burkina Faso have civil wars; to them its just another small country with no impact on the world's economy or politics.

If a first world nation had a revolution then the west would be hurt badly and maybe the chance of revolutionary success worldwide would be a lot higher.

[More Fire for the People]

The revolution can only first occur in third world countries because the imperialist countries lack revolutionary potential.

The revolution in the third world would quickly spill out across borders into imperialist countries and then we could rely on the urban proletarian and rural poor to assist in the revolution in the imperialist world.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:22 AM
So when the revolution comes should it start in third world countries or imperialist states? And should it start in the rural areas first or the urban ones. Please give me your thoughts.
Everyday it's around you, you live neck-deep in revolution and yet never seem to realise.


"People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have corpses in their mouths." -- Raoul Vaneigem

[slim]

Well said.

Currently as a political organiser im looking into potential hotspots and such forth. Its only the conservative sort of believers who are happy with their government. The centre, far left and far right are pissed off.

[Clarksist]

The mind.

Once we have held the revolution inside ourselves, and we are ready to fully take on the responsibility of revolution. I don't know if many people, myself included, have yet.

[flyby]

From the RCP's Draft Programme (highly relevent to this thread)

http://rwor.org/i/logos/dpcloud.jpg

Revolution Means Waging People’s War

The RCP,USA bases itself on the fundamental truth that this system cannot be reformed, and that revolution in the U.S. will mean revolutionary war! Mao Tsetung teaches us: “The revolutionary war is a war of the masses, it can be waged only by mobilizing the masses and relying on them.”

Today, more and more, the oppressed people, especially those among the younger generation, hate the world they are forced to live in and recognize the system will never change. They say “the oppressors will never stop doing what they are doing—it only gets worse. If they want war, let’s give them war!” We say, “Yes! Let’s give them war, BUT let’s do it for real and let’s do it to win!” Let’s do it with the orientation, strategy and doctrine that will provide the means for the masses to go up against and actually defeat the powerful armed forces of the imperialists.

Only a revolutionary people’s war, led by a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, will lead to the seizure of power by the proletariat, and enable it to establish its dictatorship and bring into being a new society that will serve the interests of the masses of people and, above all, will serve as a base area for the world proletarian revolution. Mao Tsetung said, “The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.”

for the rest of this (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-pw.htm)

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Josh of Heavens+May 30 2005, 07:49 AM--> (Josh of Heavens @ May 30 2005, 07:49 AM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 05:31 AM
Like the brother already said the revolution already begun. Revolution is a process. The revolution did not end at the Revolutionary War. The revolution did not end with Nat Turner, Vessey, Assata Shakur, Fred Hampton, Huey Newton, Malcolm X, Dr King,etc.

It's a movement. But what are you doing to progress this movement is the true question. Are you an armchair revolutionary? The revolution will not be televised.
You do realise how much money Assata Shakur is making by selling Tupacs work to be on weak albums. [/b]
Assata Shakur is in Cuba and i doubt has any publication or ownership of any of Tupac's songs. But Afeni Shakur does. But research before you speak and see what she is doing with the proceeds.

[NovelGentry]

Whether we like it or not, most of us, at some point, depend upon the russian revolution as the origin for our current knowledge of marxism, communism, and leftism in general. If lenin siezed control of the state in the name of capitalism, I have a feeling that we, as a loose-knit group, wouldn't even be half as numerous as we are now.

This may be true, but it does not reverse the conclusions made by the work, which are generally applicable to revolutions which have occured in every underdeveloped capitalist environment.

[Organic Revolution]

i think that the revolution should start in large cities so people will be inspired by seeing major infastructures fall.

[Klipper]

other than theorising... what are you all doing to prepare for the revolution?
stocking arms? building bombs? training? building camps? anything?

[Organic Revolution]

this is a god damn web site... only people who dont do that shit would advertise that they did... no body is looking to get locked up

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:06 AM

Whether we like it or not, most of us, at some point, depend upon the russian revolution as the origin for our current knowledge of marxism, communism, and leftism in general. If lenin siezed control of the state in the name of capitalism, I have a feeling that we, as a loose-knit group, wouldn't even be half as numerous as we are now.

This may be true, but it does not reverse the conclusions made by the work, which are generally applicable to revolutions which have occured in every underdeveloped capitalist environment.
I disagree with this notion that revokutions should not take place in 'underdeveloped' countries. To explain myself, let us first look at 'developed' capitalist nations. Lt us look at Europe and the USA, where socialism and communism are now as badly spoken of as fascism (except in a few European nations which are not completely against using the word socialism in a nearly positive light). But still, the revolutionary situation in these nations is in a terrible state. We far leftist theorists on this site are in the heavy minority in the USA, as the general public now accepts capitalism not as one possible economic choice out of many, but rather as the economic choice. Most in the USA have this odd notion in their heads that capitalism has already defeated communism! If anything, revolution in developed nations, if successful (which isn't likely due to massive faith in capitalism), will likely lead us down a road that in fact would never get us to communism.

Instead, let us go and have this revolution where 'revolutionising' society would prove to be the most beneficial. Let us not turn to developed nations which experience such premiums in life as minimum wage, organized labor, and atleast some sort of welfare system. Instead, let's go where these things are nonexistent. I suggest a large area, like Latin America, as a place where communism could potentially take material shape, given the array of resources availble. Also, in Latin America, where few premiums in life exist, the proletariat will likely be much more supportive of a revolution, and fight for it, than in a place like the USA, where the so-called proletariat already enjoy mostly cozy lives. We have seen revolutions in underdeveloped nations fail in the past yes, but now we know why they failed. If we repeat those failures, than we will truly deserve our fate. But have faith in the movement, comrades, that we will not repeat such failures.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

I'm disappointed, although certainly not suprised, that so many underestimate or miss entirely the revolutionary potential of the proletariat in the advanced Western countries.

Take a look at the relevant polls and statistics (or talk to the average person in the street) and you'll find that the population is increasingly hostile to corporate power, militarism, religious fundamentalism, as well as cuts and eliminations of the social safety net.

It may be true that many are deeply suspicious of anything to do with "socialism" or "communism" but that is almost always because they have no knowledge of what is, just the propaganda they are relentlessly subjected to. There have been 'Red Scares' and witch hunts in the past but they have been unable to destroy our ideas and our movement.

US economic power in the world is in decline which forces the ruling class to start imperialist wars as it's foreign policy and attack people's civil liberties and social programs domestically. This will inevitably lead to a sharper class divide and an anti-war opposition. Once people realize that the source of war and poverty is capitalism they will aim their fury at it.

The United States and West European countries have seen mass upheavals in the past and they will again in the future, sooner rather than later.

Regardless of where socialist revolution starts, it will need to spread to other countries and eventually all over the world.

[slim]

Everyone says that revolution in European states is impossible.

This is very innacurate. As said above, the people hate the bourgeouis but they dont know the means of how to get justice.

The main reason why i see revolution as possible is because the cappies dont expect it. They cant see it coming their way so theyll invest billions into south america and the middle east to keep order there but they will fail to notice disorder at home. We are on their doorstep and can force them out once we're organised enough.

[Commie Rat]

Having all the Third world countries in S.A and Africa as communists or socialists then that will provide a strong firebase in to Europe and US, starting the revolution as a rural one in the third will will bulid support and strength but we need to move it to a urban style for the revolution in industrialised nations

[slim]

Your method would take many years. Time, that we do not have. I will not leave this issue to lie with my children as many have done in history.

[Organic Revolution]

overthrowing every government in the world would take a VERY long time to do.

[anomaly]

I do not think we need to overthrow 'every' government in the world, in fact not even most of them, to create communism. The only thing I see as neccesary for communism to arise is self-sufficiency, and my earlier predictions that no area can be self sufficiency were wrong. If we look at Latin America, and even just SA, we see that the potential for self sufficiency, and thus a uited communist Latin America, is evident. Internal trade with all areas of Latin America would prove to create a communist society that could be self sufficient for a very long time, and certainly enough time to survive on its own until revolution spread to the next likely candidates for communist revolution, which include Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe. The USA will neccesarily be the last place for communism to take shape. Therefore, until then, we can expect much monotony from the US in its support for capitalism, so I suggest that we revolutionaries get out of this country as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

[Commie Rat]

Your method would take many years. Time, that we do not have. I will not leave this issue to lie with my children as many have done in history.
Why
We have all the time in the universe and we must be strong and bold not rash a hasty

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 15 2005, 05:47 AM

Your method would take many years. Time, that we do not have. I will not leave this issue to lie with my children as many have done in history.
Why
We have all the time in the universe and we must be strong and bold not rash a hasty
We've already seen so much time pass by with capitalism, though! Capitalism has already been with us for over 400 years! Revolutionary conditions are beginning to present themselves all over the world. In light of this, any revolutionary move by us would not be 'rash and hasty' but rather would be quite timely.

[lennonist-leninist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:53 PM
The revolution can only first occur in third world countries because the imperialist countries lack revolutionary potential.

The revolution in the third world would quickly spill out across borders into imperialist countries and then we could rely on the urban proletarian and rural poor to assist in the revolution in the imperialist world.
i think your right if the revolution would be imposiable to begin in an imperialist country. but i could be wrong a revolution could start in a imperialist nation and come out to inspier the third countrys to rise up.

[slim]

Exactly. That is what I think and I would like to tell you why.

If there are third world revolutions the death toll would be catastrophic and there would have to be many revolutions across the globe.

If there is a revolution in the first world then the Imperialist backed third world nations would crumble. The new first world states would be able to finance and even give military aid to third world countries in need.

Another less obvious point is that the western governments and people are ont expecting revolution. When it comes they will be drawn to it to end the oppression that will exist. The governments will have no nearby armies and the administration would fall.

[anomaly]

But slim, a much larger force is required to fight a revolution in the first world than in the third world. Where will you get such a force?

[Commie Rat]

From the Thrid World that is my point

[Organic Revolution]

hmm... im sticking with urban areas

[viva le revolution]

A revolution will only be fought in the third world. A revolution in the first world will be useless to wait for.

1. The workers in the first world have more comfort than the ones in the third world. Thus the motive for revolution is distilled.

2. The first-world is more ready to settle for social-democrats. A revolution cannot be fought through elections.


3. The third-world is the one who is expoited nakedly.

4. The media in the third-world is not as advanced as the first-world.

5. People are actually dying due to capitalism and sanctions in the third world.

[slim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:34 AM
But slim, a much larger force is required to fight a revolution in the first world than in the third world. Where will you get such a force?
As I have said. They cappies wont be as strong as they suppose. The British army has admitted to being overstretched across its battlefields. This is just one example of cappie weakness.

For a first world revolution we have all the resources we need. We can make explosives, grenades, pipe bombs, molotovs, nail bombs, jam jar bombs; we can use knives in their thousands. As for finding people to use those knives:

Revolution will come to the place that is least expected. The governments will take our freedoms and we will take them back. Have faith in the future. It is inevitable.


Third world revolution will be an immediate incentive for the new western forces. We can help them. What chance do peasants have in defeating military dictatorships backed by the USA? If victory were to be won it would be at the cost of millions of unarmed men, women and children. I will not let their blood stain the ground when it can be avoided.

Look at the ratios. A first world country has armies but they are far away. The revolutionaries can be mobile with vehicles and can use mass produced and accesible weapons.

A third world country has armies that watch their own people. They are well fed unlike the rest of the people because they have US. support. They have access to apache gunships that would cause international trouble but nothing compared to an apache at home. Revolutionaries will be starving, weak, homeless, ill-educated, poorly armed (if armed at all) and on foot with no real road system. For those who prefer this method, I would say you would surely fail. Even if you were armed, those around you wouldnt be. You cannot run a one man war, especially when those around you are under fire.