I Know Why The Revolution Will Never Come. [Archive]

d-e-f-i-a-n-c-e

23rd June 2005, 18:37

dude...fancy quotes dont make much of an arguement.....and besides...it's the same thing...split because weak...weak because split..think about it....anyways...firstly...the 'working class' that you're talking about....most of the people that belong to this class...dont even know what communism is....so you cant blame them...and if there is to be a revolution or w.e...the working class have to be leftist...because it's them that the revolution is for...isnt it.....i mean...i'm completely happy with my middle class life....just that i cant bear watching kids beg on the streets and people die of hunger....and the thing...really...is that the 'working class' in the west...or or anywhere for that matter...are stupid and ignorant...and their perceptions of socialism...or communism are totally and absolutely false...and i think that socialism/communism...is beyond their comprehension....for people to accept such a system...people have to be at a higher state of mind...at present...only priests from tibet or w.e can truly live in a communist state....and besides that...the media potray communists and anarchists as evil violent people who want to riot....this discourages parents from educating their children about socialism/communism....and also leads to parents protesting their childrens views...as in my parents are completely against my views but eh....

wet blanket

23rd June 2005, 19:36

Originally posted by d-e-f-i-a-n-c-[email protected] 23 2005, 05:37 PM
and the thing...really...is that the 'working class' in the west...or or anywhere for that matter...are stupid and ignorant
Maybe communism isn't your cup of tea.

STI

23rd June 2005, 21:56

Do you people know why there hasnt yet been a revolution?.....it's because of all these sects....leninsts and anarchists..and maoists etc etc....people...we all are communist...stop f*cking dividing us!....quit being so childish....and *****y...we're just doing the capitalist thing by dividing ourselves into sects...it's like classes..but in a different way....why? i mean...why the hell do people need to label themselves....after some dead guy?....WE ALL ARE COMMUNIST. period.

The reason, for example, anarchists are not in the same groups as maoists is because there are fundamental differences between the two regarding where the revolution should start, who should play the primary role in it, how to get to the revolution, and what should happen after seizing power. The differences are irreconcilable.

It's not childish or *****y. It's not "the capitalist thing" to not always work with people you disagree with, and it's not classes.

And there's no dead guy named "commun" or "anar".

most of the people that belong to this class...dont even know what communism is....

You're right. We should try to change that.

.is that the 'working class' in the west...or or anywhere for that matter...are stupid and ignorant

I guess you havn't spent much time around actual working class people, then.

is beyond their comprehension.

Heh. Not knowing about something is different than it being "beyond your comprehension". I don't know what feces is made up of, but I'm sure that, if somebody were to patiently and honestly explain it to me, I'd be able to comprehend it.

for people to accept such a system...people have to be at a higher state of mind

No, they have to know the facts of the matter and make a decision based on those.

only priests from tibet or w.e can truly live in a communist state

Tibet is hardly "communist". I think you, along with the working class, could use a bit of reading on what communism is.

the media potray communists and anarchists as evil violent people who want to riot

A lot of us are, and I think that's a good thing.

this discourages parents from educating their children about socialism/communism

No, I think what discourages parents from educating their children about communism is the fact that those parents aren't communists.

nd also leads to parents protesting their childrens views...as in my parents are completely against my views but eh....

Well, you managed to see through a good deal of the crap, so why can't anybody else?

anomaly

24th June 2005, 08:05

I disagree with defiance here. Why call for unification, when so many interpretations of how to better the world exist? We should be experimental and open minded. Let each sect exist, let us all have our revolutions, and let us try to better the world in different ways.

As for revolution itself, one can easily see several revolutions exsting already, and several more will doubtlessly come. I don't know of what revolution you speak, defiance. Have you an idea for an all encompassing global revolution? I much favor localized revolution, and that, comrade, is going to happen very often very soon.

Fidelbrand

24th June 2005, 19:56

Different perspectives and interpretations of the leftist legacy has to be respected. If we don't value people's very basic opinions on dialectics, the hell we'll built for communism,.... and the history repeats... repeats and repeats and we are left in a state of dilapidation. Next time someone says "communism will come" , the other person will definitely say " Get a grip , dreamer!"

I also don't think the not-coming of the revolution is due to our sectarianism. i think it is the poisoning of the liberal ideology. Some good books I recommend:

Amin, Samir, trans. by Membrez, James, (2004) , The Liberal Virus: Permanent War and the Americanization of the World, New York: Monthly Review Press.

Anderson, Charles W. (2002) “Democracy”, A deeper freedom : liberal democracy as an everyday morality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Brecher, Bob, (1998), “The Argument Reviewed”, Getting what you want? : a critique of liberal morality. London ; New York : Routledge.

For The Immoral

24th June 2005, 20:20

I agree someone, but people label themselves because they may follow one person that has led Communistic Revolution.

Take Mao for example. Mao thought his ideas were an advancement in Marxism-Leninism. He also referred to Stalin for making crucial errors, here are some of them.

1) He did not understand dialectics and ended up in metaphysics. He hence sometimes did not understand the demands of the masses. He did not distinguish between the different kinds of contradictions.

2) During the 30’s the regime of Stalin sentenced many innocents to death.

3) He did not conduct democratic centralism within the party good enough.

4) He did not handle the connections with foreign Communist parties well enough, espeically his handling of the 1927 events in China.

The result of these errors according to Maoism was that the Soviet Union was governed by a bureaucratic nomenclature which later was to conduct a “silent counterrevolution” turning the Soviet Union into an imperialist country, not crucially different from the USA.

These are the most distinct components of Maoism:

1) Guerrilla warfare/People’s War: The armed branch of the party must not be distinct from the masses. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be the most important issues.

2) New democracy: In backward countries socialism cannot be introduced before the country has gone through a period in which the material conditions are improved. This cannot be done by the bourgeoisie, as its progressive character is long since replaced by a regressive character.

3) Contradictions as the most important feature of society: Society is dominated of a wide range of contradictions. As these are different of nature, they must also be handled in different ways. The most important divide is the divide between contradictions among the masses and contradictions between the masses and their enemies. Also the socialist institutions are plagued with contradictions, and these contradictions must not be suppressed as they were during Stalin.

4) Cultural revolution: Bourgeois ideology is not wiped out by the revolution; the class-struggle continues, and even intensifies, during socialism. Therefore an instant struggle against these ideologies and their social roots must be conducted.

5) Theory of three worlds: During the cold war two imperialist states formed the “first world”; the USA and the Soviet Union. The second world consisted of the other imperialist states in their spheres of influence. The third world consisted of the non-imperialist countries. Both the first and the second world exploit the third world, but the first world is the most aggressive part. The workers in the first and second world are “bought up” by imperialism, preventing socialist revolution. The people of the third world, on the other hand, have not even a short-sighted interest in the prevailing circumstances. Hence revolution is most likely to appear in third world countries, which again will weaken imperialism opening up for revolutions in other countries too.

Invader Zim

24th June 2005, 22:07

The reason why there is no revolution, and probably never wil be, is because people live too well. In the west at any rate.

Its a sad fact but we need some major disaster.

YKTMX

25th June 2005, 00:33

How do you live Enigma?

I live in the "West" and I, and most people I know, have to struggle to live a tolerable existence.

I think you've been watching too many sitcoms.

bezdomni

25th June 2005, 01:16

LEARN TO USE A FUCKING COMMA!

That said, the revolution has not occured for many reasons. To blame it solely on division amongst leftists is simplistic and childish.

redwinter

25th June 2005, 03:55

Originally posted by For The [email protected] 24 2005, 07:20 PM
I agree someone, but people label themselves because they may follow one person that has led Communistic Revolution.

Take Mao for example. Mao thought his ideas were an advancement in Marxism-Leninism. He also referred to Stalin for making crucial errors, here are some of them.

1) He did not understand dialectics and ended up in metaphysics. He hence sometimes did not understand the demands of the masses. He did not distinguish between the different kinds of contradictions.

2) During the 30’s the regime of Stalin sentenced many innocents to death.

3) He did not conduct democratic centralism within the party good enough.

4) He did not handle the connections with foreign Communist parties well enough, espeically his handling of the 1927 events in China.

The result of these errors according to Maoism was that the Soviet Union was governed by a bureaucratic nomenclature which later was to conduct a “silent counterrevolution” turning the Soviet Union into an imperialist country, not crucially different from the USA.

These are the most distinct components of Maoism:

1) Guerrilla warfare/People’s War: The armed branch of the party must not be distinct from the masses. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be the most important issues.

2) New democracy: In backward countries socialism cannot be introduced before the country has gone through a period in which the material conditions are improved. This cannot be done by the bourgeoisie, as its progressive character is long since replaced by a regressive character.

3) Contradictions as the most important feature of society: Society is dominated of a wide range of contradictions. As these are different of nature, they must also be handled in different ways. The most important divide is the divide between contradictions among the masses and contradictions between the masses and their enemies. Also the socialist institutions are plagued with contradictions, and these contradictions must not be suppressed as they were during Stalin.

4) Cultural revolution: Bourgeois ideology is not wiped out by the revolution; the class-struggle continues, and even intensifies, during socialism. Therefore an instant struggle against these ideologies and their social roots must be conducted.

5) Theory of three worlds: During the cold war two imperialist states formed the “first world”; the USA and the Soviet Union. The second world consisted of the other imperialist states in their spheres of influence. The third world consisted of the non-imperialist countries. Both the first and the second world exploit the third world, but the first world is the most aggressive part. The workers in the first and second world are “bought up” by imperialism, preventing socialist revolution. The people of the third world, on the other hand, have not even a short-sighted interest in the prevailing circumstances. Hence revolution is most likely to appear in third world countries, which again will weaken imperialism opening up for revolutions in other countries too.
Correction, Mao did not think his ideas were an advancement to a higher level of Marxism-Leninism. That's why he never called it Maoism. Communists didn't start referring to themselves as Maoists until the 1980s.

Mao did not say that the USSR was government by a bureaucratic nomenclature...nor that the counter revolution was silent by any means. There were two forces in the CPSU struggling to keep control, the revisionists and the communists. The revisionists totally won out by 1956.

The theory of the three worlds is not a component part of Maoism, it doesn't really have much to do with Maoist theory. Mao made a reference in an interview with Anna Louise Strong using a generalization about three worlds existing, which is easy to find, and didn't say much else on the subject of "three worlds" at any other time (I do think it was an incorrect statement by Mao, but he certainly did not say it was a cardinal theory of his or that it was anything but a generalization he made at the time!). Revisionists in the Chinese communist party and especially those involved with Chinese foreign affairs were able to exploit this statement by Mao and expand an entire "Maoist theory of the three worlds" out of a couple sentences Mao said in an interview. And you're mixing some things up here...Lenin was the guy who spoke of a labor aristocracy in the imperialist countries and that some workers would be bought off there.

anomaly

25th June 2005, 09:07

Everyone is talking about 'the revolution'...perhaps we should open are eyes and see the many revolutions happening right now. There is never going to be some glamorous, global revolution. There will be building blocks, localized revolutions, in displaced areas. And if you see few revolutions today, then create one yourself. We all are capable of becoming revolutionaries. Someone said that revolution in the West is unlikely. I agree. I think that we should go to the global south, and begin communism there.

rebelafrika

25th June 2005, 21:15

You know why the revolution will NEVER come? That's interesting because when I look at my neighborhood...and as a matter of fact...when I look beyond my neighborhood and see what is happening in the world, it let's me know why REVOLUTION IS INEVITABLE. Go figure.

danny android

26th June 2005, 01:54

You are right the left is way to devided atleast in america to make a big difference. But that is just because we think differently than one another. I for one don't want to fight in the same revolution as a totalitarion stalinist, or with any group that plans on destroying all religion for that matter. Besides there are a lot of other things preventing a large revolution in the west.

RedStarMilitia

27th June 2005, 12:08

He talks about devision yet his picture is of Lenin

Times They Are a Changing

27th June 2005, 12:41

The revolution won't come because the people are to fucking lazy to change. They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."- Andy Warhol. Everyone wants a change but no one is going to do anything about it. They're to content with being in the lines of the ones with the bigger guns. Were the real actual humans left on this planet. The ones that are fighting for something real. Every one else is to scared or frightened of even a sign of change.

cph_shawarma

27th June 2005, 13:20

Originally posted by d-e-f-i-a-n-c-[email protected] 23 2005, 05:37 PM
dude...fancy quotes dont make much of an arguement.....and besides...it's the same thing...split because weak...weak because split..think about it....anyways...firstly...the 'working class' that you're talking about....most of the people that belong to this class...dont even know what communism is....so you cant blame them...and if there is to be a revolution or w.e...the working class have to be leftist...because it's them that the revolution is for...isnt it.....i mean...i'm completely happy with my middle class life....just that i cant bear watching kids beg on the streets and people die of hunger....and the thing...really...is that the 'working class' in the west...or or anywhere for that matter...are stupid and ignorant...and their perceptions of socialism...or communism are totally and absolutely false...and i think that socialism/communism...is beyond their comprehension....for people to accept such a system...people have to be at a higher state of mind...at present...only priests from tibet or w.e can truly live in a communist state....and besides that...the media potray communists and anarchists as evil violent people who want to riot....this discourages parents from educating their children about socialism/communism....and also leads to parents protesting their childrens views...as in my parents are completely against my views but eh....
What are you babbling about? There is a difference between cause and effect, if you hadn't noticed. Weak because split is not the same thing as split because weak, where don't you get it? Well, why would or should they know what communism is, it's what we (not you and me, but the working class) do that matters. No, the working class does not have to be leftist, that will actually hinder the advancement of the proletarian struggle for communism. Well, if you're so f***ing happy, why are you claiming you are revolutionary? Philanthropist!

Well, communism is apparently beyond your comprehension.

codyvo

27th June 2005, 16:53

Defiance: I agree that the left is far too divided and that labels are meaningless, when most of us are fighting for essentially the same thing. But I don't think that we are all exactly alike, we are all very diverse with our own set of ideas. I also don't agree that the working class is stupid in all of the world or even all oof the west, just america. And even here, the case could be made that they are not stupid at all, just terribly brainwashed and mislead into thinking that the republican or even the democratic party represent them.

AK47

27th June 2005, 17:42

Defiance has a point. We as a group are too divided and pushing in too many directions at once. If we abandoned our labels that might help, but how. No, I do not believe the American people are stupid, just poorly educated. The working class education is more concerned with answering the questions when questioning the answers is the only path to true learning. I think a discussion of what the world we want might look like getting there through revolution or not might be better undertaken. What will the bureaucracy look like, what will the community look like? What will the hospitals look like? What will the psych wards look like? How will the whole thing come together? I mean lets offer an alternative that people can see and agree, on disagree with. Once that begins, I think then we will know weather ant revolutionary defense is needed or not.

Xanthor

28th June 2005, 16:12

When russia had its revolution weren't there many communist groups fighting, namely the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. They were divided yet there was a revolution. I think when the time comes there will be a revolution, and we will win...What I also believe is that since we are alive and there is no communist society, we need either have our fucking revolution or make prepareations for future generations so that the world will be ready for it. We shouldn't fight amongst ourselves either, what we need to do is ready our own sects educate people. If your a leninist tell people about leninism maoists tell people about maoism dont go around saying other sects are wrong for that is hypocritical because we all want the same thing. The different Sects are here because different people have different needs so we create one theory that branches off the main theory so we can make those people happy. So what I have to say is that we needto stop talking about why the revolution hasnt come and start fucking preparing because when that first mechanic says FUCK THIS we all need to throw down our tools and say FUCK THIS and slowly capitalism will implode and we wont have to cling to our seperates sects. But thats just me.

Revolutionary_Anarchism

28th June 2005, 17:05

The problem is not with the anarchists, its with the Leninists and Stalinists. They refuse to work with us, unless they really need us (like in Russia) but they will end up screwing us over.

The solution is TO NOT WORK WITH LENINISTS AND STALINISTS! But instead fight them, oppose them. Look what happened to the Soviet Union, it became Stalinist hellhole.

Xanthor

28th June 2005, 20:42

personally i have no beef with leninists. But I really dont like Stalin because he tore apart everything that was communist in russia.

RedStarMilitia

1st July 2005, 03:03

No-one has noticed that defiance's picture is of lenin, he criticises division and people agree with him yet he is a cause of division.
stalin did tare apart what communism was.

Ultra-Violence

1st July 2005, 19:17

i wolu like to say that not all americans are brain-washed even tho the majority is.i my self coming from an immigrant family who are costantly explioted bye the capitlist system i a minority was able to educate my self about the i deas of communism and still always learning and im a little offended when u call all americans brains washed. there are many "leftist" here in the state but the anarchist are mostly made up of 14-18 year old kids who are into the punk seen and know very little about thier idielogies and the communist here are far and few in between. but plz don say "all"americans are brianwashed :)

stealthisname67

1st July 2005, 22:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:56 PM
No, I think what discourages parents from educating their children about communism is the fact that those parents aren't communists.
Don't you think that the parents aren't communists because they do in fact think we are all fascists?

Phalanx

2nd July 2005, 03:34

I'm committed to fighting imperialism. I want to go to Colombia, but thats a story better left said somewhere safer.

danny android

2nd July 2005, 05:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:05 PM
The problem is not with the anarchists, its with the Leninists and Stalinists. They refuse to work with us, unless they really need us (like in Russia) but they will end up screwing us over.

The solution is TO NOT WORK WITH LENINISTS AND STALINISTS! But instead fight them, oppose them. Look what happened to the Soviet Union, it became Stalinist hellhole.
yes we should be willng to work together to meet the goals that we all share. However anarchists should not start fighting lenninists and stalinist (well fight stalinists stalin was a freaking toltalitarian and i freakin hate the guy) Just because of something that they did almost a hundred years ago. We must unite under one banner and fight for the things that we all agree are necesarry. Unite for the sake of the people.

Bureau de Change

2nd July 2005, 15:30

Anarchists and communists can and probably should work together in raising awareness of 'leftist' ideas. They can also work together in unions or protest groups pragmatically, in order to get better wages or working conditions (though this may hamper the revolutionaries efforts). HOWEVER, ANARCHISTS and COMMUNISTS should be ABSOLUTE ENEMIES if they are working towards REVOLUTION. Anarchists will be the second group of people against the wall if there ever is a Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist revolution. There are many revolutionaries on this board with the same goal of stateless communism but a transition stage of a dictatorship is an IRRECONCILABLE difference.

werewolf

5th July 2005, 08:35

As somebody who is rather new to the "mainstream" I find myself agreeing with Defiance. I began more as an anarchist and through my own ideas developed into what I later found out to be a Socialist. We in general believe in the same basic principles. If there is to ever be a revolution of any kind we must go with these basic principles. If you want to get technical the eventual goal of EVERY society is some form of a Utopia, (even if it is never reached) we all pretty much have the same goal in mind in the form of Communism. (not saying we are all communists, ideally that's what would be the result) I constantly see division based on minor changes in Philosophy. It can be agreed by pretty much everyone that in the initial stages of a violent (or even a reformist) revolution there must be clearly defined leaders. Where everyone begins to disagree is after the revolution what becomes of these leaders. I believe in a Republic system with more of a true Democracy on a local level. However, if that time comes we should be able to decide Democratically. (no offense to those in favor of a dictatorship.....perhaps if there is a "good" dictator, he might just be able to inspire us all, but I have yet to see one) That's just my thoughts on it. I recently wrote an essay on my theories of Revolution, if anyone cares to see it, I'll post it.

Xanthor

5th July 2005, 22:52

if you haven't already posted that essay i'd like to read it.

Mr Flibble

6th July 2005, 21:04

the revolution wont come or at least where there is possibity for life to improve. if a person belives he or she can move up in the world by working they are not gonna fight a civil war.

also what is the revolution? should we replace our leaders with other peolpe who want to rule. Im sayin this now...im not gonna kill for any leader in the world cause most of them from what i know are pretty much the same no matter what they say

werewolf

7th July 2005, 00:14

It's all a matter of how soon you want change. There are two basic types of revolution- Reformist and Violent. A Reformist revolution would take awhile and if there are any bumpy spots people would loose interest and go back. With the Violent revolution, even if it is successful, there is usually some bloodshed afterward with the "counter-revolutionaries." Even if that manages to be settled, sometimes the military leaders have a hard time turning over power to a Republic. Of course if it's a "good dictator" (there have been some) then it's not so bad, but more than likely if he's corrupt enough to take the power, then he will probably be a little on the cruel side.

Mr Flibble

7th July 2005, 14:23

if we fight to get power we are far more likely to become ruthless dictators

Colombia

7th July 2005, 18:09

What concerns me is that once the divided left comes together to overthrow the old world order, we will all again become divided.

anomaly

8th July 2005, 05:48

Yes, Colombia is right (we might end up destroying ourselves). This is why I've become favorable of autonomity. We shouldn't wait for 'the revolution', we should fight our own revolution! Go out, and listen to what the proletariat in a particular region wants, and give it to them through revolution. Often times, what they want is quite similar to communism or anarchism. this is the new way for revolution. No longer should we go out and tell the proletariat what they need, because most of them already know what they need. Listen to them, and fight for them. This is autonomity.

werewolf

8th July 2005, 23:19

The first step before any revolution is education. The people need to be educated as to what they are fighting for. A few of us won't be able to do much when Uncle Sam or another power suddenly create an elaborate lie, which an ignorant people would believe. Once people actually know what the general idea is, we can meet with all of them. Perhaps then, through reasoning, a comprimise can be reached among all of us. Already we all basically would be fighting for some form of Socialism with Anarchy or Communism as the hopeful result. Every society has a perfect model which it strives to reach. It's almost like Buddhism with Nirvana. Though a few of you will disagree: every Socialist in their hearts have Communism as the eventual goal. Even if they don't realize it, that is the hoped for goal.

We must not be divided. Divisions further down the road will lead to conflict. It's a guarentee and has been historically proven.

9th July 2005, 05:05

What concerns me is that once the divided left comes together to overthrow the old world order, we will all again become divided.

Concessions will have to be made.

anomaly

9th July 2005, 07:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:19 PM
The first step before any revolution is education. The people need to be educated as to what they are fighting for. A few of us won't be able to do much when Uncle Sam or another power suddenly create an elaborate lie, which an ignorant people would believe. Once people actually know what the general idea is, we can meet with all of them. Perhaps then, through reasoning, a comprimise can be reached among all of us. Already we all basically would be fighting for some form of Socialism with Anarchy or Communism as the hopeful result. Every society has a perfect model which it strives to reach. It's almost like Buddhism with Nirvana. Though a few of you will disagree: every Socialist in their hearts have Communism as the eventual goal. Even if they don't realize it, that is the hoped for goal.

We must not be divided. Divisions further down the road will lead to conflict. It's a guarentee and has been historically proven.
But there are many of us who do not see socialism as neccesary. Many of us feel that this time, instead of again trying to implement socilaism, we should attempt communism. Now, if we do that, and some other people have a socialist revolution, our two groups will imediately become allies, obviously. But the notion that we 'should' fight for socialism with the 'hope' of eventual communism is absurd (because it historically has not happened).

werewolf

9th July 2005, 20:56

Well then lets start writing books because it's going to take one thousand years to get the people educated enough for Communism to work. Even then there is going to be a lot of opposition. The only sure way I can think of would be if there was a super-violent Revolution which would probably destroy 3/4 of all humans on Earth, leaving only us and those that can easily become us.

As much as I'd like Communism to happen immediately, it needs that middle step and then be phased in. The best way is to have Socialism with progressive leaders. The past couple of times have had mad men getting into office. If we can prevent that, then we will be on the road to progress.

riverotter

9th July 2005, 21:42

As many posters have pointed out it's true that the poor and oppressed are not stupid - locked out of learning to work with ideas, yes. Ground down by the everyday struggle to survive, true. But it's that very process of grinding them down that creates a deep understanding of the nature of, and visceral hatred of, the system. In fact most, if not all, of the poor people I've spoken with have understood it as better than most progressives (and many leftists.)

As far as the divisions between various leftists groups goes - I think it's kind of inevitable. The last thing we need is the kind of watering down of different ideas into a meaningless "big tent". If you and I have serious, fundamental differences then we should be in different groups.

Does that mean we can't work with each other? Absolutely not. Not only do the various left groups need to unite with each other over the pressing issues of the day (like beating back the religious fascists), but we need to unite with mainstream progressives. Even with the moderate conservatives/libertarians who are freaked out by what's happening.

Beyond that, anyone who's interested in changing the horrific conditions the vast majority of people have to endure and who want to actually be effective about it need to continuously test and explore the validity of their ideas. I don't know everything - I may need to learn something from you. Or vice versa. I may even need to learn something from Rush Limbaugh (gag). But for people who are basically on the same side, which we all are, it's even more imperative that we come together and try to figure out what the truth is.

10th July 2005, 06:04

But there are many of us who do not see socialism as neccesary. Many of us feel that this time, instead of again trying to implement socilaism, we should attempt communism.

It is common sense that a communist state in a capitalist world will fail before long. A nation needs to trade to survive; there is no place in the world where the citizens will have everything they need within the state. And since communism has no money the nation will be broke. Since they wont have any money they wont be able to trade. It will fail.

Now, if we do that, and some other people have a socialist revolution, our two groups will imediately become allies, obviously.

The notion of having a revolution to create a communist state is so absurd that I wouldn't support it based on the fact that since it has to exist in a capitalist world it will go broke. This revolution would cause nothing but starvation.

But the notion that we 'should' fight for socialism with the 'hope' of eventual communism is absurd (because it historically has not happened).

The reason that it has historically not happened is because this is still a capitalist world. A communist state cannot exist. We fight for socialism because it is the bridge between capitalism and communism. Socialist countries can survive in a capitalist world (as proven by Cuba). This is why we fight for the socialist cause. The two viable options here are fighting for socialism (possible) or fighting for worldwide communism in a single revolution (almost impossible).

Camarada

10th July 2005, 06:09

Maoists/Stalinists/Jong-il ists (whatever they call themselves) and any other supporters of brutal regimes are NOT communists. Thus I am NOT united with them if their goals are to give themselves power after the revolution!

10th July 2005, 06:51

Jong-il ists (whatever they call themselves)

They're called North Koreans :lol:

anomaly

10th July 2005, 08:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:56 PM
Well then lets start writing books because it's going to take one thousand years to get the people educated enough for Communism to work. Even then there is going to be a lot of opposition. The only sure way I can think of would be if there was a super-violent Revolution which would probably destroy 3/4 of all humans on Earth, leaving only us and those that can easily become us.

As much as I'd like Communism to happen immediately, it needs that middle step and then be phased in. The best way is to have Socialism with progressive leaders. The past couple of times have had mad men getting into office. If we can prevent that, then we will be on the road to progress.
You misinterpret the process of communist revolution. Why do we need to educate the people? Subcomandante Marcos found out soon enough that the people already knew what they wanted, they simply didn't have to means to get it. That is where revolutionaries come in, to supply them with these means and aid them. Now, what do many of the world's poor want? Subsistence, basically. They want exactly what they need, that is, the essentials to life. We can give them these needs through an autonomous, self-sufficient commune. We must think small, and local, not large and national.

But even with that assumption of what 'they' want, even if it may be true of many, we must still go out into the world and listen to what the people want.

10th July 2005, 17:26

You misinterpret the process of communist revolution. Why do we need to educate the people? Subcomandante Marcos found out soon enough that the people already knew what they wanted, they simply didn't have to means to get it. That is where revolutionaries come in, to supply them with these means and aid them. Now, what do many of the world's poor want? Subsistence, basically. They want exactly what they need, that is, the essentials to life. We can give them these needs through an autonomous, self-sufficient commune. We must think small, and local, not large and national.

This is wrong. There is a difference between being uneducated and being educated but not acting. People that are educated but don't act are the ones you talk about. These people will support the revolution but won't do anything to start it. The problem is that most people are uneducated on the issue. Look what happened to Che in Bolivia. This happened because the people were uneducated. They couldn't support what he was doing because they weren't educated enough on what he was trying to do. So yes, people must be educated first. The majority of the country must support what you are doing or you will fail.

danny android

10th July 2005, 17:58

Education and action can go hand and hand. Educate through action, or act through education. We need to have bothe for the revolution to grow.

Rockfan

11th July 2005, 03:44

Originally posted by d-e-f-i-a-n-c-[email protected] 23 2005, 05:22 PM
Do you people know why there hasnt yet been a revolution?.....it's because of all these sects....leninsts and anarchists..and maoists etc etc....people...we all are communist...stop f*cking dividing us!....quit being so childish....and *****y...we're just doing the capitalist thing by dividing ourselves into sects...it's like classes..but in a different way....why? i mean...why the hell do people need to label themselves....after some dead guy?....WE ALL ARE COMMUNIST. period.
Yeah Ive brung something like this up before, its not much use dude.

werewolf

11th July 2005, 07:18

This is wrong. There is a difference between being uneducated and being educated but not acting. People that are educated but don't act are the ones you talk about. These people will support the revolution but won't do anything to start it. The problem is that most people are uneducated on the issue. Look what happened to Che in Bolivia. This happened because the people were uneducated. They couldn't support what he was doing because they weren't educated enough on what he was trying to do. So yes, people must be educated first. The majority of the country must support what you are doing or you will fail.

I speak from experience on this, so I agree with you all the way. Late last year I was discussing Socialism and Communism with a few of my friends. Well this one girl walked past and asked what we were talking about. (now keep in mind that these friends I was talking to were black) My one friend says, "He's a Socialist." The girl apparently, somewhere, thought Socialism and Communism were the same as......*gags*......FASCISM! She cursed me out and my friends and I both looked at her strangely.

The people are not stupid, they are just ignorant. As I have said many times before, Ignorance is the weapon of Capitalists. They know exactly what they need, they just do not know how to change it.

anomaly

11th July 2005, 08:13

werewolf, you speak of petty bourgeois in our own nation, no doubt. I'm talking about the third world here. These people see the darker side much more than do our compatriots. These people often do not like what they see in front of them, but lack the means to change it. Now, imagine if we should supply them with arms and aid them in their struggle. They could successfully revolt (if they were to simply 'stop' working, without armed revolution, they would die, obviously). These people do in fact know what they want, as Marcos, in Chiapas, soon found out when he went out and attempted to 'tell' the people what they wanted. They want, essentially, life. Now, what system can give them life, and provide the essentials? It is a self-sufficient and autonomous communism that they seek.

So instead of 'educating' them in 'ideology', why not listen to them for a change, and supply them with the means to change.

Oh, and Lazar, this is a bit off topic, but Che didn't fail in Bolivia because the people were 'uneducated', he failed, and he even admits this in one dialogue, because he didn't win over the peasantry. For example, in Cuba, Fidel successfully created a network of peasants who wanted Batista ousted from power. Che never did do this in Bolivia.

11th July 2005, 08:19

The people are not stupid, they are just ignorant. As I have said many times before, Ignorance is the weapon of Capitalists. They know exactly what they need, they just do not know how to change it.

I wouldn't consider them ignorant, although I do agree with you on everything else in your post. I would call them uneducated. When people don't learn about something, they make assumptions based on what they have heard. I wouldn't consider this ignorant as everybody does this.

Oh, and Lazar, this is a bit off topic, but Che didn't fail in Bolivia because the people were 'uneducated', he failed, and he even admits this in one dialogue, because he didn't win over the peasantry. For example, in Cuba, Fidel successfully created a network of peasants who wanted Batista ousted from power. Che never did do this in Bolivia.

Peasants came to Fidel, when they heard of what he was doing and what he was fighting for. Che tried to copy this in Bolivia and failed; no peasants supported him - no peasants came to him - becasue they were uneducated. They were actually scared of him and his group. It was a peasant that alerted the Bolivians to his whereabouts at one point.

anomaly

11th July 2005, 08:28

Regardless of the peasantry, Che's comrades in Cuba acknowledge today that the Bolivian campaign was a failure from the start.

But regardless of this bit of history, I stand by what I also said in the post. The people know what they want, we simply have to provide them with the means to get it.

Quinlan Vos

12th July 2005, 09:18

[ Do you people know why there hasnt yet been a revolution?.....it's because of all these sects....leninsts and anarchists..and maoists etc etc....people...we all are communist...stop f*cking dividing us!....quit being so childish....and *****y...we're just doing the capitalist thing by dividing ourselves into sects...it's like classes..but in a different way....why? i mean...why the hell do people need to label themselves....after some dead guy?....WE ALL ARE COMMUNIST. period.]
This is laughable. It can't be serious.
Usually, the disagreements between these "sects" are based on substantial disagreements as to the nature of revolution and even what "communism" itself would constitute. To suggest that such disparate groups can "unite" is abdurd, because they generally have little in common beyond terminology.

Xanthor

17th July 2005, 01:11

now that i've really thought about it Iknow why the revolution hasnt come its because all we do all day is ***** and moan about the world and post on forms talking about why it hasnt come yet. so what i have to say is STOP *****IN AND START A REVOLUTION FOR FUCKS SAKE.

17th July 2005, 05:25

Most of us can't "start a revolution" as most of us live in first-world countries and good luck to whoever tries to start a revolution there!

Black Dagger

17th July 2005, 10:54

so what i have to say is STOP *****IN AND START A REVOLUTION FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Have you heard of the phrases, 'social conditions'? 'Class consciousness'?

Grow up.

Xanthor

19th July 2005, 23:19

have u ever heard ur an asshole

OleMarxco

20th July 2005, 00:19

Have you ever heard about not taking "the argument to the man"? Don't take thing's personal, or else, you're all Ad Honimen. I'll explain that to ya latah, kid ;)

spartafc

20th July 2005, 02:21

It's funny how divisive this thread has been considering it's about the need for unity.

To some extent, we do need unity - this seems painfully clear.

Xanthor

20th July 2005, 17:06

First of all I'd like to say that, yes I have heard of 'social conditions' and 'class consciousness', and secondly, he made me sound like an idiot in his little sarcastic way and thats why I made the asshole comment, and lastly that reply i made up there was because im tired of hearing about why the revolution hasn't come. Why don't you people go out and fucking tell people about communism and capitalism and such. That's the beginning of a revolution, not picking up a gun and shooting people high on the politcal chain.

Black Dagger

21st July 2005, 07:14

First of all I'd like to say that, yes I have heard of 'social conditions' and 'class consciousness',

You've 'heard' of the concepts, but do you understand them? Your impatient slogans of 'revolution now!' suggest that you do not. A minority-number of communists cannot create the conditions for a revolution over-night, this is a process that takes time, and thus requires patience. You can't force a social revolution, and a revolution of social ideas and norms is what is needed before a political revolution (abolition of the bourgeois state) can take place.

...and secondly, he made me sound like an idiot in his little sarcastic way

I did no such thing, i quoted your own words, so you agree that your words sounded idiotic?

why don't you people go out and fucking tell people about communism and capitalism and such.

I do, i'm sure others do as well, but 'preaching' about communism can be difficult when many people do not wish to 'listen'- social conditions, class consciousness, and the cultural hegemony of ruling class/the state-factor into this problem.

That's the beginning of a revolution, not picking up a gun and shooting people high on the politcal chain.

I agree, 'propaganda by the deed' may sound 'fun'- but in the end it's not productive, and sometimes counter-productive.

VoiceOfTheRiot

21st July 2005, 20:54

Donnie

21st July 2005, 22:08

I want to put in my two cents as to why there hasn't been a revolution. B/c most of you are young probably privliged kids. You have to believe in you're cause to such an extent that you would die for it. How many of you are ready to die for you're cause?
There maybe a few privileged kids on these forums but they are still willing to join the working class movement. I'm certainly not a privileged and I’m neither young, but there will no doubt be young people on here but I don't see why their age has anything to do with it? I personally think it's a good thing that the youth of the working class are being aroused by the idea of a communist society.

Oh and I think you have a narrow minded view of youth today, you seem to think that just because there young there not prepared to do anything. For all we know some of the communist/anarchist youth on this forum could be up to all kinds of stuff.

Die for it? Well if I get shot I get shot or what ever happens to me. You seem to think that the revolution is just going to be all fighting etc. The revolution isn’t about just shooting and destruction. It’s about the transformation of one society to another, the social revolution with change so many things like culture, politics and economics. Revolution is about the construction of a new society it’s not just about the destruction of the present system. As Alexander Berkman said the fighting in the revolution will literally just be the “rolling up of the sleeves”. The things that will be happening during the revolution in my eye’s will be the changes in the system, from a system of a oppression to a system of federalism, from the changes in women’s roles and the family unit the views on religion and the views on homosexuality. Everything will change in the revolution it’s not just about grabbing an AK and shooting the nearest Fascist or Capitalist (as much as I would like to do that in the revolution ;) ).

22nd July 2005, 03:36

I want to put in my two cents as to why there hasn't been a revolution. B/c most of you are young probably privliged kids. You have to believe in you're cause to such an extent that you would die for it. How many of you are ready to die for you're cause?

Every single post I've read of yours has been condescending. Why don't you try working with your allies instead of chastising them?

VoiceOfTheRiot

22nd July 2005, 05:39

22nd July 2005, 07:34

B/c I once thought like you all...and it inspired me to study history, but then as I started to study history seriously in college I've come to the decision that extreme ideas on anyside are the main problems...I think that if we focus on reform, mainly EDUCATION reform and provide legitimate arguements from both sides before we look to a complete society change, If we can properly educate the younger generations I believe they will make educated decisions on our well-being. Weither it be communism or democracy or any other form of gov't.

I'm sorry to see that your interpretation of history has been so.......wrong. If anything you should realize that extreme ideas are what change the world, for better or worse. Have you studied philosophy at all (even Marxism)?

And being condescending gets you nowhere. If you truly wanted to debate with us you would do just that; you wouldn't talk down to us like you're right and we're wrong. If you wanted to convince us that you were right you would attempt to do just that; talking down to people just sets their own beliefs firmer in their minds.

Why isn't this guy restricted?

VoiceOfTheRiot

22nd July 2005, 18:08

Yea...why am i not restricted?

violencia.Proletariat

22nd July 2005, 18:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:39 AM
B/c I once thought like you all...and it inspired me to study history, but then as I started to study history seriously in college I've come to the decision that extreme ideas on anyside are the main problems...I think that if we focus on reform, mainly EDUCATION reform and provide legitimate arguements from both sides before we look to a complete society change, If we can properly educate the younger generations I believe they will make educated decisions on our well-being. Weither it be communism or democracy or any other form of gov't.
well the problem with that is the government has other priorities than education, meaning not as much money goes to it. and i doubt the us government would ever let anti-capitalism be taught in public schools, so the looking at both sides in school isnt gonna happen.

danny android

22nd July 2005, 19:28

Exactly the U.S. government is spending to much money on the military and not enouf on the education of the young.

BOOKS
*NOT*
BOMBS

Donnie

26th July 2005, 13:37

B/c I once thought like you all...and it inspired me to study history, but then as I started to study history seriously in college I've come to the decision that extreme ideas on anyside are the main problems...I think that if we focus on reform, mainly EDUCATION reform and provide legitimate arguements from both sides before we look to a complete society change, If we can properly educate the younger generations I believe they will make educated decisions on our well-being. Weither it be communism or democracy or any other form of gov't.
Its quiet a sick joke is reform. I mean you social democrats say that my family will have better working conditions. I don't see any better conditions in my family. Where still slaves for a wage. The Labour Party was once social democrats they promised everything for the workers in capitalism and look at it now.
If you place workers representatives in a bourgeois state institution, then there going to turn bourgeois and give you bourgeois results. If you ask for something small you're going to get small results back.

Education? The present day schools are full of middle class teachers. The school is one of the strongest bourgeois institutions in today’s society. It’s where working class youth are told to obey their masters it’s where the fresh meat hits the grinder. The children in school are told to be good little workers for their future boss’s. Good little workers die young!