Log in

View Full Version : A Revolution of Success



werewolf
12th July 2005, 22:46
Note- My organization has been isolated for quite some time, so our ideas may be slightly different than the "mainstream."

*Disclaimer:* Also this is meant to be an academic look at Revolution and is no means inciting Revolution.

A Revolution of Success


The fate of Socialism and any kind of possible future for Communism in America comes down to the ability to start the Revolution. The Revolution, of some kind, is the only real way anything can happen to dramatically change the design of the government and economy. The passive and relatively indecisive roles recently taken by all of the major Leftist parties, has left the future of Worker’s Solidarity in question.

The violent peasant revolt envisioned in the past, is now only a memory as our world begins the 21st century. The “peasant” is just as likely to be a businessman behind a computer as he is to be a laborer. No longer are armies largely infantry with only vision, hearing, and smell. The soldier of today can easily see in the dark and see the very body heat which keeps us alive.

With this in mind, the antiquated idea of the mass charge under the red banner is a thing of the past. Perhaps even the guerrilla tactics used by Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam could very well follow. Recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq show that the casualties inflicted upon the guerrillas may be too great for all but the religiously motivated to tolerate. Though Vietnam was a victory for Socialist and Communist forces, it must be kept in mind that in the end it was the regular North Vietnamese Army of tanks that rolled into Saigon.

The Revolution of the future must be one of either elections and reforms or a carefully orchestrated violent Revolution utilizing all of the technology available to the masses. Although the Capitalist nations are strong and technologically superior, they do have weak points which may be brought against them.

Revolution through reform has witnessed some success throughout Western Europe. The Democratic Socialists have made perhaps the greatest strides in conquering the world than the “Reds” ever had. Their vision of a Socialist-Capitalist hybrid is a noble one, however, there is still a distinct class system which continually undermines Democracy.

All levels of government must be saturated with such Reformists for a truer form of Socialism to ever have any success. Wages must be capped to allow a larger money supply to be entered into a higher minimum wage. A stable economy would therefore be in existence.

Larger industries must be nationalized to ensure a fair supply of goods and services to the public. Guevara addressed the need for a more diversified economy by stating a need for smaller businesses and industry to provide goods and services far too specific to be nationalized.

There will always be critics in the reformist system, which if failed to be addressed will manage to use the checks and balances system to their advantage. Democracy in all of it’s benefits of equality fails to address the problem of ignorance preventing the best option from being passed. The reformist position is most possible if the public is made aware of the real facts. The real facts of Socialism may finally be brought to public attention in this post-Soviet world.

Violent Revolution has been successful in Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. All four countries at the time of the revolution had a population suffering under imperialist or colonialist power. In all but Vietnam the end result was a dictator who despite what his original intentions may have been, ended up being corrupted by his power. In recent years China has softened its iron grip upon its people, however at the same time, taking steps backwards.

In order for a violent uprising to be successful the leaders and followers must be aware of and fully committed to the eventual goal. As Guevara learned in Bolivia, guerrilla warfare is a failure if the army cannot rally popular support. It also addresses the need for a larger force than a single army made up of a handful of soldiers.

The Russian Revolution in the 19th century laid down the ground work for a successful guerrilla army. The foot soldiers must never be aware of a full plan and just not know anyone other than their leader. In turn the leaders must not know anyone other than their leader. In the event of capture the soldier will only be able to give one name.

Though it is possible for a guerrilla army to defeat a modern power with small arms alone, it is more likely to be successful if it uses technology as well. Following the 1999 bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, 20,000 Chinese computer hackers successfully infiltrated several United States government websites. The use of modern technology is perhaps the most important step in bringing about a modern violent revolution. The Capitalist world is so tied to the computer that a hacker in the right place on the web could easily shut down the power for an entire city or cause a company to go bankrupt. When those in power come knocking at their doors however, there will always be the need for the bloody revolution.

The Viet Cong’s ability to blend into their surroundings, the jungle or the surrounding people, is what made them such a threat. Utilizing snipers and terrorist bombings proved to be the most successful methods of bringing havoc to the corrupt South. To create such terror requires an force that fully believes in the cause.

In the aftermath of a swift and violent revolution, the opponents of the revolution do their best to halt the progress. The White Russian forces may have been the major cause of Lenin’s later hard-liner approach. Too much blood shed against enemies of the people will cause critics throughout the world and within the nation itself. Political opponents must be reeducated, allowed to leave, or utilized in other means. A great economist in a Capitalist world would be very useful in keeping the wheels of Socialism turning steadily.

In order for the Revolution to occur in the lifetime of those who fully believe in the cause, it must be one of swift violence or of swift and intelligent reform. The leaders of which must always remember the people they represent and the history which has come before them. Ignorance is always the weapon of Capitalists and must always be stamped out first.

redstar2000
13th July 2005, 03:02
Originally posted by werewolf
The Revolution of the future must be one of either elections and reforms or a carefully orchestrated violent Revolution utilizing all of the technology available to the masses.

Not necessarily.

The first option is impractical on its face; there are no such things as "free elections" in American capitalism any more.

The second is what I think Leninists have in mind when they speak of their organizational capabilities to "lead a revolution". I think their claims in this regard are very dubious.

In my opinion, historians will look back on France in May of 1968 as the first example of a "modern" proletarian revolution...even though it was unsuccessful.

Had the French working class at that time been conscious of the need to destroy the bourgeois state apparatus, I think they could have done so...and fairly easily at that.

I think the "next wave" of proletarian revolutions will take place in Western Europe to begin with...and will be "like France" only more so.

You see, I don't think it really matters how "high tech" the ruling class's repressive machinery might be -- provided that an uprising is sufficiently massive in scale and is overwhelmingly conscious of what it desires.

There's no practical way to imprison or execute tens of millions of people...and any serious effort to do that simply radicalizes additional millions of people.

It's something we really shouldn't forget. No matter how immensely powerful a ruling class appears, it is, in the last analysis, "a paper tiger" (as Mao correctly said)...it simply cannot withstand the prolonged outrage of the masses.

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

werewolf
13th July 2005, 03:35
Well of course a huge volume of people would be impossible to stop, but to save lives it's good to utilize all technologies available. Very few people are actually willing to sacrifice themselves for much anymore. (of course who knows, maybe once they understand what we are talking about, they'll be self-sacrificing about it)

violencia.Proletariat
13th July 2005, 04:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:35 PM
Well of course a huge volume of people would be impossible to stop, but to save lives it's good to utilize all technologies available. Very few people are actually willing to sacrifice themselves for much anymore. (of course who knows, maybe once they understand what we are talking about, they'll be self-sacrificing about it)
yet you have thousands of people in the army, "i will die to defend my country"

werewolf
13th July 2005, 07:02
There is a difference between fighting with an established army and fighting for a revolutionary one. How many would join with the idea, "if this fails we can always surrender and go back to the old way?" Look at the rural farmers in Vietnam, they didn't care much about the ideals of either side.

Vanguard1917
15th July 2005, 02:03
Had the French working class at that time been conscious of the need to destroy the bourgeois state apparatus, I think they could have done so...and fairly easily at that.

Why was the French working class not conscious of the need to overthrow capitalism? Where is this consciousness supposed to come from if not a from a revolutionary party?

redstar2000
15th July 2005, 03:19
Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Why was the French working class not conscious of the need to overthrow capitalism? Where is this consciousness supposed to come from if not from a revolutionary party?

Well, the French had a whole pile of self-anointed "revolutionary parties" -- revisionist, Trotskyist, Maoist, etc. -- and none of them amounted to a puddle of warm spit.

In fact, the last "vanguard party" that was worth a shit was the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands...and it had plenty of problems.

In light of this wretched track record, we may as well presume that the working class itself will, in time, spontaneously develop the necessary consciousness to overthrow the capitalist state apparatus.

There's no way that we can do any worse than the "vanguard parties" have done in the last century.

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

dietrite
15th July 2005, 03:31
In light of this wretched track record, we may as well presume that the working class itself will, in time, spontaneously develop the necessary consciousness to overthrow the capitalist state apparatus.

Can you explain what you mean by "spontaneously develop the necessary consciousness"? I don't quite understand this, if it is actually the horribly idealistic statement I have taken it as, or if there is something more materialistic to it, more realistic.

redstar2000
15th July 2005, 04:50
Originally posted by dietrite
Can you explain what you mean by "spontaneously develop the necessary consciousness"? I don't quite understand this, if it is actually the horribly idealistic statement I have taken it as, or if there is something more materialistic to it, more realistic.

:lol:

The second half of this collection of posts discusses the material foundations of spontaneity...

Class and "Leader" (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1119796435&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

And here is an entire collection devoted to the same subject...

Revolutionary Spontaneity? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1109887978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

anomaly
15th July 2005, 07:18
So redstar, when you say 'spontaneously', you basically mean without the presence of a Leninist Party? I maintain that a revolution does need leaders, but not 'Party leaders', rather, it needs revolutionaries. Certainly, if the working class itself does decide to simply revolt one day, that would be great, but it isn't going to happen. for one thing, most proletarians don't have the means for revolution. That is where revolutionaries come in, one, to tell the proletariat, basically, it doesn't have to be this way, two, to tell them about such alternatives, three, to listen to what they want, and finally, to provide them with the means to revolution. So redstar, are you even against revolutionaries who simply urge the proletariat to engage in communist revolution?

dietrite
15th July 2005, 07:33
Redstar, I find your ideas completely idealistic and utopian.

redstar2000
15th July 2005, 19:14
Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)Certainly, if the working class itself does decide to simply revolt one day, that would be great, but it isn't going to happen. For one thing, most proletarians don't have the means for revolution. That is where revolutionaries come in, one, to tell the proletariat, basically, it doesn't have to be this way; two, to tell them about such alternatives; three, to listen to what they want; and finally, to provide them with the means to revolution. So redstar, are you even against revolutionaries who simply urge the proletariat to engage in communist revolution?[/b]

Of course not. Don't I do that myself in most of my posts?

I have some question about what you mean when you use the phrase "the means of revolution". What are you actually referring to here?

Otherwise, I think serious communists and anarchists do the things you suggest as much as they can.

What is always in dispute is how much effect we will have on the outcome of events. The Leninists believe that "without them, the working class is nothing"...that is, it can't ever do anything of any revolutionary significance.

My view is different: proletarian revolutions are made by the working class without regard to the presence or absence of conscious communists -- though our presence may (or may not) be helpful.

If we do what communists are supposed to do -- put forward the most revolutionary options in a clear and honest way -- then we will be helpful and possibly very helpful.

The 20th century Leninist parties almost never did that...most of the time they were to the right of the most advanced workers and, in periods of upheaval, often far to the right. Their advice was almost always "support the left bourgeoisie" in one fashion or another.

It still is! :angry:


dietrite
Redstar, I find your ideas completely idealistic and utopian.

That's disappointing. :(

But I'm afraid that a more elaborate critique is required of you if you want me to discuss your objections.

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

Vanguard1917
16th July 2005, 00:18
The 20th century Leninist parties almost never did that...most of the time they were to the right of the most advanced workers and, in periods of upheaval, often far to the right. Their advice was almost always "support the left bourgeoisie" in one fashion or another.

If the word 'Leninist' was put in inverted comas in the paragraph above, I would agree with you. The main official Communist parties of the world post-1924 were essentially Stalinist (that includes those actually in power - as in China and Cuba - and those not in power - as those in Europe) - i.e. their policies were based around the conservative demands of Moscow. This meant keeping the working class movement 'under control' around the interests of Soviet foreign policy.

Are we talking about Leninism, or are we talking about parties that were Leninist in words but Stalinist in actions? Because this was never Lenin's position. In What is to be Done he emphasises that the revolutionary party must never lag behind the movement. It must be at the forefront of the movement and must lead it towards the revolutionary direction.

redstar2000
16th July 2005, 04:17
To be sure, most of the Leninist "big name" parties were also pro-Stalin, or, as you call them, "Stalinist". But note that the huge French and Italian parties were anti-Stalin even before, if I'm not mistaken, Khrushchev's famous (or infamous) speech in 1956.

What you are really suggesting here is that "Trotskyist" parties are "not like that".

I don't know enough about the details of all the Trotskyist parties in the "west" to agree with you or not.

But the largest (by far) Trotskyist party in the U.S. is the "Socialist Workers Party"...and they certainly enjoyed warm relations with bourgeois liberal opponents of the Vietnam War. They have also taken the farce of bourgeois "elections" seriously enough to run their own members for public office...though I don't think they do it anymore for lack of resources. At the present time, their opposition to U.S. imperialism appears to be "nominal"...they don't really seem to be doing anything on that issue at all.

A much smaller Trotskyist party in the U.S. -- the International Socialist Organization -- seems to be pretty active in the anti-war movement here and with a strong anti-imperialist line. They appear to be "drifting" leftwards.

I've been made aware that there are three Trotskyist parties in France that may be significant participants in the next French parliamentary race...but I don't know the details of their ideas. Their focus on parliamentary methods does not make me optimistic about their commitment to revolution.

You see the problem here: by and large, the "non-Stalinist Leninists" have never amount to much in the "west" -- their reputation is along the lines of "as soon as a Trotskyist party has three members, two of them will expel the third...who will then form a new Trotskyist party." If I'm not mistaken, Trotskyism now has two "Internationals" (or is it three?). And all of them claim to be the "true heirs" of Lenin and Trotsky, of course.

It's possible that Trotskyism (or something that calls itself that) may become significant in France...but I frankly don't see it happening elsewhere.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Because this was never Lenin's position. In What is to be Done he emphasises that the revolutionary party must never lag behind the movement. It must be at the forefront of the movement and must lead it towards the revolutionary direction.

True...and yet! When Lenin returned to Petrograd in April 1917, he was appalled to find his own party tailing the bourgeoisie and far to the right of the revolutionary masses and even the soviets.

There just seems to be something "built-in" to the idea of an organized "vanguard" that leads, after a while, to a conservative outlook. I frankly think that "democratic" centralism is probably the practical cause -- the habit of obedience to authority gradually expands beyond the party leadership into a superstitious reverence for even capitalist authority.

And thus my own rather awkward position "on the fence" between Marxism and anarchism. If we are ever to have a really worthwhile revolutionary movement, then we need both the seriousness of Marxist analysis and the innate rebelliousness of anarchism.

One without the other won't work.

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

werewolf
17th July 2005, 15:46
And thus my own rather awkward position "on the fence" between Marxism and anarchism. If we are ever to have a really worthwhile revolutionary movement, then we need both the seriousness of Marxist analysis and the innate rebelliousness of anarchism.

One without the other won't work.
Well since my organization is currently made up of Marxists and Anarchists, I'll keep you posted on any local success. I guess you could say that we are having success in gaining support from the poor section of town.

anomaly
18th July 2005, 08:43
Redstar, when I say 'means to revolution', I refer to the tools of the revolution. These may be votes, protests, marches, rallies, etc., but when I use them there, I mean guns. If the proletariat of the world was armed, would they still accept things the way they are? I say no.

More Fire for the People
9th March 2006, 00:20
The article uses the words ‘of a kind’ too much. The revolution, socialism, and communism are specific kinds in relation to human praxis and history. I agree that the Western parties of the left have taken a passive role. The vanguard of the revolutionary class must actively participate in society through popular workers education, strikes, occupations, insurrection, guerrilla warfare, etc.

Revolutions are not idealistic; they take historic and practical forms. In one instance, a general strike may bring down the bourgeois state but a civil war may follow. In another, the situation may demand that guerrilla warfare be utilized. Revolutions are reflections of material circumstances.

Reform is hegemony. The bourgeois dictatorship must make some concessions with the proletariat in order to preserve the dictatorship. This is evident in the West where the ‘reformists’ have instated welfare, union rights, etc. but in the East where the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has not become a hegemonic dictatorship ‘popular democratic’ revolutions are quite common —China, the Philippines, Nepal.

The proletariat does not what “checks and balances”; the proletariat wants the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat wants workers’ participatory democracy coupled with the dictatorship against the bourgeoisie.

The new ‘technology warfare’ is not a replacement of insurrection, guerrilla warfare, and armed conflict it is merely another means of class warfare.

Holy shit! über-thread necromancy on my part. On interesting note, a year of RedStar2000's post have gone missing.

xprol
10th March 2006, 23:39
"The article uses the words ‘of a kind’ too much. The revolution, socialism, and communism are specific kinds in relation to human praxis and history. I agree that the Western parties of the left have taken a passive role. The vanguard of the revolutionary class must actively participate in society through popular workers education, strikes, occupations, insurrection, guerrilla warfare, etc."

Good stuff. Lets have more of this.