Violent Revolution?

[ZACKist]

As you all well know, Marx believed that peacful negotiation of setting the class struggle was all but impossible. Do you believe that another October Revolution-ish type revolution will ever occur again? Is it possible? If so, what do you think you're involvement in it would be? I'd defintely like to help, where ever and whenever it could be organized on a grand scale.

[h&s]

Peaceful negotiation of the class struggle? If only... :rolleyes:
Marx was right when he said that was impossible - the whole state is configured to protect the ruling class' hold on power, and as we see very often, they are only too happy to use that to full effect to protect that hold on power.
The only way for the working class to overcome that is to organise together and fight together against the system and their capitlist bosses, and the ruling class know this. Thats why they are always trying to separate the working class through methods like making factories compete against each other.
Together we can overcome this, but force is required - do you really think that our bosses are just going to hand over the keys to 'their' factories to us?
Of course not - we have to seize them, so yes, another October is needed. :)

[Urban Rubble]

H&S, if you think violent revolution is not only the best path, but the only path, then I think you have failed to look at the current conditions that we live under.

Violent revolution is not going to overthrow the international Capitalist class. It is too large, too spread out and too powerful. Violent revolution simply is not a viable option as it was in Marx's time (at least not in the U.S. and not on any level that's going to affect real change). Of course there may be outbreaks of violence, in fact I count on it, but the change we seek is not going to come from armed wokers storming factories.

Social change will come when enough people in the advanced Capitalist nations become class conscious and seek change. Mass movements and large scale activism are the only viable options at this point. People have to accept the change and want to do something about it, history has shown that a small minority who rises up and grabs power produces no real revolutionary change.

[ZACKist]

No doubt that I agree 100% with the need for a revolution, violent as nessicary for the full revolt. So, I agree with you h&s. Do you see this happening sooner than later? How long does it take for the restless to be restless enough? How long does it take for the proletariat to group together and form the ultimate and well-organized band. We need a leader like Lenin. Maybe a Trotsky.

[bolshevik butcher]

revolutionary democracy is possible, it's happened in venuzuela., however the workers' may wellhave to be armed after they take power.

[OleMarxco]

Surely we -could- threathen and cajole them into surrendering to the better good of the people, but I'd much rather see them'd fighting to TEH BITTER END for their capital power...however, I won't blame them..nor STOP them in doin' so...heck, what the hell? I even think it's more funnier to kick their ass than exile them, I gotta admit - But I'll try to be as pacifistic as -possible- withouth showing them any undeserved mercy :P

[h&s]

Originally posted by Urban Rubble+Jun 3 2005, 03:58 PM--> (Urban Rubble @ Jun 3 2005, 03:58 PM)H&S, if you think violent revolution is not only the best path, but the only path, then I think you have failed to look at the current conditions that we live under.

Violent revolution is not going to overthrow the international Capitalist class. It is too large, too spread out and too powerful. Violent revolution simply is not a viable option as it was in Marx's time (at least not in the U.S. and not on any level that's going to affect real change). Of course there may be outbreaks of violence, in fact I count on it, but the change we seek is not going to come from armed wokers storming factories.

Social change will come when enough people in the advanced Capitalist nations become class conscious and seek change. Mass movements and large scale activism are the only viable options at this point. People have to accept the change and want to do something about it, history has shown that a small minority who rises up and grabs power produces no real revolutionary change.[/b]
Hmm, the definition of violent revolution seems to be a problem.
I was replying in response to peaceful revolutio, as in a sort of revolution that involved no violence at all - not even a fist fight.
Real rvolution is not like that (as we all know) so I was just acknowledging that.
I don't mean violence as in armed revolution - I support arming hte working class, but only for defence - I mean that revolution requires a certain degree of force - violence - to seize the workplaces from the state and the capitalists it represents.
I consider a violent revolution to be like the Battle of Orgreave style fighting, spread all around the country.


Originally posted by [email protected]
How long does it take for the restless to be restless enough? How long does it take for the proletariat to group together and form the ultimate and well-organized band.
How long's a piece of string? :lol:
Revolution is more likely to start in a less developed country, maybe in South America. A revolution will inevitably spread among the continent, and once it reaches a developed country it will be pretty much unstoppable.
How long that will take, who knows? I can imagine South American revoltion starting any time, but I don't know how long it would take to complete then spread. Decades at least, I rekon.


Clenched Fist
revolutionary democracy is possible, it's happened in venuzuela., however the workers' may wellhave to be armed after they take power.
They definitely will have to be armed. What do you mean by revolutionary democracy?

[farleft]

Violent revolution is the only way to overthrow capitalism, there is NO other way, theres no other way

[Comrade san]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 3 2005, 03:43 PM
The only way for the working class to overcome that is to organise together and fight together against the system and their capitlist bosses, and the ruling class know this.
This is so true, this is a bad analogy but down here, with the Yob Culture, the fact of the matter is is that the yobs know that they are the ruling class, they fight us, they opress us, we dont fight back because we know that too many people are too scared to step in and help.

Other day for example, 8 yobs come and start on me and 2 friends, what happens if the opressed say 'this is unfair' and they step up? Are the other 2 too afraid to revolt too?

As for peaceful negotiations, its bullshit, it hardly works because of the fucking fat cats who are always wanting more.

[lennonist-leninist]

" those who make peaceful revolution impossable make violent revolution inevitable" this was said by a very well known revolutionary and i belive that he was exactly right and what these so called 'goverment officals" are making a peaceful revolt imposable so is see no other way but to overthow with force.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:01 PM
How long does it take for the proletariat to group together and form the ultimate and well-organized band. We need a leader like Lenin. Maybe a Trotsky.
We don't know. The best we can do is to try and educate the working-class and explain to them how communism is in their best interests. However, i don't know whether we need a leader like Lenin or Trotsky to lead a vanguard movement in the "interest" of the workers. History has shown us that the interests of the vanguard is often put before that of the proletariat, despite what the leading party might proclaim. If we could get a truly genuine vanguard movement, then i would support it. Although it is often difficult to tell whether or not the vanguard is genuine. Anyway, that's getting a bit off-topic. I do believe violent revolution is necessary if a large-scale revolt is to succeed. In small-towns/villages, the workers might be able to set up soviets rather peacefully, but in cities i think the capitalists will put up a bit more of a fight.

Should this thread not be in theory ?

[OleMarxco]

Seems more like practice than theory to me, no :che:

[bolshevik butcher]

What i mean is that it is not refomism. It is dmeocrats that want socialism, not jsut reform.

[CrazyModerate]

It only seems fitting that we would want to create a state of peace and equality through blood shed and exploitation.

[Frederick_Engles]

Violent revolution is the only way that capitalism can be over thrown, all peacefull protests fail, the sytsem only listens to violence.

[anomaly]

I think that the issue of using violence is neither black nor white, but rather a very distinct shade of grey. In 1st world countries, with such large military spending, and professional soldiers, will violent tactics ever prove successful? Almost always a relatively small band fights on behalf of the people during violent revolutions. Violent revolution in 1st world country will only lead to needless death.

In a third world countries, democratic institutions are often gone, and in such situations, only violent revolution can be used. Sometimes even in democratic states, revolution must be violent, as poorer o****ries political systems are often infiltrated by rich capitalist o****ries (consider the CIA backed coup of Allende's gov't in Chile), but other times, with proper militia tactics, democracy can prevail in poor democratic states.

In short, we cannot really say what type of revolution is best, as certain situations call for different methods.

[h&s]

In 1st world countries, with such large military spending, and professional soldiers, will violent tactics ever prove successful? Almost always a relatively small band fights on behalf of the people during violent revolutions. Violent revolution in 1st world country will only lead to needless death.
Of course, but no-one seriously suggests fighting the army in a developed country do they?
The army will be involved in fighting against a revolution, but it will not be a conventional (or even guerilla) war, it will be class war.
Revolution will be fought in, and around the workplace, not in a battlefield.

[slim]

It will be in a so called "battlefield". Once the workplaces are taken over, what next? The streets. Then the forces of the bourguoise will pull out of the land once they know they cant win in the streets. Then the revolutionaries will have to move on to consolidate their gains and take other towns.
Knowing the army and their tactics they will use loose formations on roadsides and stuff. The battles where the bourgoise can win are away from urban zones.

[Colombia]

The army usually consists of the proletariat, and I doubt they would fight against their own brethren unless the bourgeousy offered quite a deal to them. Without support from the army, the bougerousy will not be able to fight for the struggle of power. So when you look at it, it can be done without fighting, but the negociations will hardly be peaceful.

[slim]

Unless the bourguoise get some foreign allies to fight for them in their armies.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 8 2005, 01:32 PM

In 1st world countries, with such large military spending, and professional soldiers, will violent tactics ever prove successful? Almost always a relatively small band fights on behalf of the people during violent revolutions. Violent revolution in 1st world country will only lead to needless death.
Of course, but no-one seriously suggests fighting the army in a developed country do they?
The army will be involved in fighting against a revolution, but it will not be a conventional (or even guerilla) war, it will be class war.
Revolution will be fought in, and around the workplace, not in a battlefield.
yeh, i suppose that's waht i think. It will take place through organizations like unions and worers' solidarity. Maybe if it ocmes to it the army would come onside and rebel with us.

[Sickle of Justice]

jeez, lets stop talkin about it and get out and do it! the only way for a revolution to happen is if someone acts, and i dont necesarialy mean some suicidal strike on the white house, i just mean to get the facts out there. dont let idiot politicians pretend we dont exist! the prolitariat are ready, and in the wake of the iraq war so many people hate the u.s. government that even if you preach for a communist regime, but do a lot of yelling about how stupid the war is youd probably get the support of a lot of librals! come on! lets do something!!!

[Mischa]

" those who make peaceful revolution impossable make violent revolution inevitable" this was said by a very well known revolutionary

Actually, JFK said that, but that's a moot point...

I think that peaceful revolution is a very real possibility in this country. After all, the Russian revolution was bloodless, it was the counter-revolution and civil war that was so damn bloody. If you have a critical mass of people, you wouldn't have to worry about the soldiers shooting at you, because the soldiers would be on your side. They're workers too.


Unless the bourguoise get some foreign allies to fight for them in their armies.

Which is pretty much guaranteed.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:32 PM
Unless the bourguoise get some foreign allies to fight for them in their armies.
But then the army in that state will fight against the invaders to preserve their way of living.

[Black Dagger]

the prolitariat are ready

No, they're not. You can't 'start' a revolution, a revolution comes out of the conditions, and at the moment the conditions of advanced capitalist societies are anti-revolutionary.

[h&s]

I think that peaceful revolution is a very real possibility in this country. After all, the Russian revolution was bloodless
The culmination of the revolution was almost bloodless, but to say that it was bloodless is inaccurate. The revolution built from 1905 onwards. In that time there was a lot of state force used against the working class.


jeez, lets stop talkin about it and get out and do it! the only way for a revolution to happen is if someone acts, and i dont necesarialy mean some suicidal strike on the white house, i just mean to get the facts out there. dont let idiot politicians pretend we dont exist! the prolitariat are ready, and in the wake of the iraq war so many people hate the u.s. government that even if you preach for a communist regime, but do a lot of yelling about how stupid the war is youd probably get the support of a lot of librals! come on! lets do something!!!
If only everyone had your energy! :lol:
You mention to stop talking about commuism - well if we do that, we'll get it wrong and the revolution will fail. Its as simple as that.

[Gianandrea]

Violent revlution is necessary because you must kill every capitalist, land owner and bourgeois member of society that is unwilling to participate in a society based on equality. This is how you purge the obstacles to equality. It is no worse to kill 100, then it is to kill 1 during revolution, as long as they are a blockade to the struggle for a truer freedom based in full equality, not a so called equality of opportunity.

[viva le revolution]

A revolution will only be carried out in the third-world. A clash of civilizations does exist but not between christians and muslims but between the developed capitalist one and the third world. A united Latin america or south asis is the most viable.
A violent revolution wont be in a ford factory but in an asian sweatshop where the exploitation is most naked.

[Bannockburn]

The army usually consists of the proletariat, and I doubt they would fight against their own brethren unless the bourgeousy offered quite a deal to them. Without support from the army, the bougerousy will not be able to fight for the struggle of power. So when you look at it, it can be done without fighting, but the negociations will hardly be peaceful.

While ideally, I wish that was true, however, I think it is wrong. While a peaceful revolution would be ideal and preferable, I think it’s a fools dream. History has dictated that establish power will use violence in order to stabilize their own monopoly of control and power. Generally, anything that can threaten its authority will find violence in order to suppress it. I don’t think that’s controversial. Thus, while not desirable, I think violence will be the process.

Generally to suppress this revolution the military is involved. Yet, the military is an instrument of government power, and has been. Hobbes recognized that the State ought to have supreme control of it, and the only control of it. Nevertheless, while the military as individuals are the proletariat, but as a collective unit of military, army, navy, marines, etc, are a branch of government power. Disciplinary power, while a strong force within the military institution, has overwhelming advanced over any ideological cause. Thus, while the framework of military power, link with government power tends not to focus on a ideological frameworks, but within achieving, and maintaining government control. Again, I don’t think that’s controversial.

Nevertheless, I think are some underlining assumptions within this revolution. One: can the civilian population achieve victory over a supremely advanced technological military? I think this is an important question. Most of us do not have at hand the equipment to fight say the modern military. More than gas-bombs will be needed. So this is an important question. Second, can long spread revolution be spread among the middle class suburban materialist? Tocqueville argued that giving up their property for something uncertain like a revolution tends not to favour the middle class. Again, I think this is an important question.

Oh, I think I should clear something up. When I mean revolution, I generally am referring to an anarchist revolution.