Which is better revolution or reform?

[Wasted7]

I have often thought about the practical implication of communism/socialism on society today and whether it would be in the best interests of of a capitalist country to become gradually more leftwing through a democratic process however this seems quite unrealistic in light of the system today.

So the alternative is a revolution-like senario which would most likely involve bloodshed and end (as history teaches us) in a temporary dictatorship.

Does anybody have any thoughts on how communism/socialism can be reached without the mistakes of the past?

Sorry if this is obvious question i am still new at this stuff.

[workersunity]

thats a loaded question, all i can say right now is that reform wont change capitalism into socialism, revolution is necessary, also there wouldnt be a vanguard

[Hiero]

You have to understand the class war to get the answer.

One class the capitalist class have everything under this system, so they have no need to change. They would loose their lifestyle if there was change. The proleteriat who have no extra gains under this system can make benifit from a collective system.

So both class clashes, some times it is more sharper then others. So all the time the capitalist class do not want to give up their position. At the class conflicts sharpest moment revolution occurs.

[Roses in the Hospital]

In the long run I don't think there's any alternative to revolution. But, that's a long way off, so in the meantime I don't see a problem with persuing reformist policies too, if you accept the best you'll get is short term concessions...

[ack]

I would rather have a reform and not fully socialism than have a revolution and have people die for our ideals.

There doesnt need to be death merely for the purpose of initializing a socialism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:32 PM
I would rather have a reform and not fully socialism than have a revolution and have people die for our ideals.

There doesnt need to be death merely for the purpose of initializing a socialism.
Capitalism murders hundreds of people around the world every day. I for one see no problem in spilling blood in order to end this state of affairs. The capitalists will never voluntarily surrender their power and so it must be taken from them. Obviously if this can be managed without a massive loss of life then that's well and good, but we should not allow pacifism to stand in our way.

[slim]

I stand that revolution is the only way. There needs to be order afterwards though. I will not risk my life in order for some dictator to seize power from the mess.

We need to prepare NOW. Set up legitimate ground rules and how the power will be given to the people.

The war is coming so be prepared. Dont just wait for it to fly over your heads. Be ready to fight. It is our generation.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

The two should go hand-in-hand. Revolution must not happen for revolution's sake (and by this mean an armed revolution) otherwise you will end up with its failure and a crackdown on human and civil rights which does no-one any good (except the establishment). Or, you'd end up with a dictator who will exploit worse than capitalism (by this I mean it'll be in your face with no doubt that it's happening).

Whoever finds themselves in charge after the revolution (whether it's organised or spontanious) should be prepared to give up the de facto power he or she has gained and, whether it's a council or one person ruling, socially liberally changes must immediately be made.

If this ^^^ is instituted by a capitalist government, it's simply reformism.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:34 AM
I stand that revolution is the only way. There needs to be order afterwards though. I will not risk my life in order for some dictator to seize power from the mess.

We need to prepare NOW. Set up legitimate ground rules and how the power will be given to the people.

The war is coming so be prepared. Dont just wait for it to fly over your heads. Be ready to fight. It is our generation.
I only hope that you are right

[Rage]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Sep 28 2005, 01:03 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Sep 28 2005, 01:03 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 12:32 PM
I would rather have a reform and not fully socialism than have a revolution and have people die for our ideals.

There doesnt need to be death merely for the purpose of initializing a socialism.
Capitalism murders hundreds of people around the world every day. I for one see no problem in spilling blood in order to end this state of affairs. The capitalists will never voluntarily surrender their power and so it must be taken from them. Obviously if this can be managed without a massive loss of life then that's well and good, but we should not allow pacifism to stand in our way. [/b]
Then that makes us just as bad as the Cappies.


/,,/
Rock on!

[violencia.Proletariat]

if reformism, participating in the political system, had any effect it would have worked by now. ;)

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:12 PM
Then that makes us just as bad as the Cappies.


/,,/
Rock on!
How is that? You have people in control of the machinery of the state, violent institutions, the repressive power of capitalist society. They have everything to lose, and nothing to gain from the liberation of the working class. Do you honestly think they will give you anything peacefully? No, of course not. They will use everything they have to crush you. You will have no option but to fight them and defend yourselves.

I suppose you would have tried to talk Hitler into giving up power and letting Jews, Roma and Sinti, and Communists live?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Rage+Sep 28 2005, 08:12 PM--> (Rage @ Sep 28 2005, 08:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:03 PM

[email protected] 28 2005, 12:32 PM
I would rather have a reform and not fully socialism than have a revolution and have people die for our ideals.

There doesnt need to be death merely for the purpose of initializing a socialism.
Capitalism murders hundreds of people around the world every day. I for one see no problem in spilling blood in order to end this state of affairs. The capitalists will never voluntarily surrender their power and so it must be taken from them. Obviously if this can be managed without a massive loss of life then that's well and good, but we should not allow pacifism to stand in our way.
Then that makes us just as bad as the Cappies.


/,,/
Rock on![/b]
Che pretty much sums it up but I'll add my thoughts all the same :P

How will you change anything without the application of violence? Reform requires you to work within the system but its the system itself that we must tear down. If history has proven anything its that those that place their trust social-democratic means inevitably end up as just another group of oppressors.

The purpose of revolutions is to replace one existing order with another, more progressive one. Reform can only ever improve conditions within the existing social order. So while you may succeed in raising the minimum wage, lowering weekly working hours etc etc, you will still be living in a capitalist system with the capitalists still stealing the fruits of your labour and you will still not have freedom.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:32 AM
I would rather have a reform and not fully socialism than have a revolution and have people die for our ideals.

There doesnt need to be death merely for the purpose of initializing a socialism.
and you dare call yourself a socialist

[Rage]

"How will you change anything without the application of violence?"


Ever heard of Ghandi.

I think there can be no peaceful revoloution but I was just thinking if we kill another human being, just as the cappies are doing, then we substain ourselves to a deeper level of hate.


/,,/
Rock on!

[rikaguilera]

The obvious answer to which is "better" would be reform. The answer to which is more realistic is a bit harder to answer with a degree of sureness. I would think that in theroy you could "reform" a govt. with little steps. Electing ceartain representatives. Exposing current fascist for what they are, and get more people on board to a form of govt. that is more of what you want. It would take a lot of time though. Revolution, on the other hand, has only come in extreme cases of govt. abuse and disregard, that the people finally had enough and thus rise up against them. In the U.S. this attraction of material wealth and prestige is just too attractive to the brainless, so it would be hard to gather the numbers needed to carry out a revolt. Not impossible, but hard none the less. With current happenings, and current disregard for the poverty stricken, it seems more and more realistic that a reovlt can actually begin to take a position in the minds of some, but it would take a lot of very organized work to get something started. I have posted some of my ideas here before on what I think it would take for a revolution to take place in the U.S. today, and I am always intrested on others ideas on the subject. Trust me, I would be at the head of the line to make something happen. Violent or peaceful.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:43 PM
"How will you change anything without the application of violence?"


Ever heard of Ghandi.

I think there can be no peaceful revoloution but I was just thinking if we kill another human being, just as the cappies are doing, then we substain ourselves to a deeper level of hate.


/,,/
Rock on!
Gandhi did not lead a revolution - he removed a foreign power from India and left the class situation on the subcontinent virtually unchanged. Non violent methods were possible in this case for two main reasons - 1) the British were not eliminated and their existence was never threatened and 2) Gandhi fought against a relatively small number of foreign occupiers and not against the oppressing entire class. In the end the Indian people were just as shackled as they were under the British, only now they had new masters.

Those two factors do not exist in a class revolution. In this case both the entire bourgeoisie and proletariat classes would be involved in a violent struggle. The workers would be fighting for their freedom while the capitalists fight for their very existence. There would be no foreign soldiers to target or focus on, it would be citizen against citizen.

Sometimes violence is a necessary tool. Its not something I usually condone but in the case of revolution it is unavoidable. Whether the same applies to hate... I honestly don't know. I do feel slightly uncomfortable with Che Guevara's writing that an "intransigent hatred for the enemy" is necessary for success. But whether killing with hate in your heart is better than the coolness of the likes of Eichmann, well that's one I can't answer.

[risky.riot]

Comrade, this is a very interesting question... the answer of which being revolution. Revolution is the correct means of reaching communism or even socialism. You cannot truly hope to achieve it through reformist governments because of a few reasons:

1. The lack of application on a global scale- simple Marxism. One of the main principles of Marxism is that there needs to be a revolution on a global scale. The reason for this is so that there will no longer be any capitalist countries which could go and do counter-revolutionary activities, especially after the revolutions in some counties has been successful. This is a much more realistic and logical attitude than Stalin's view of "Socialism in One Country" which is illogical as there would thus be external countries and groups which would be able to destabilize the established country. Furthermore, the idea of Socialism in One Country is in itself counter-revolutionary because it does not in any way help to achieve the goal of a society in which there is no state; one of the core principles of Marxist communism. History tells us this comrade, not only through the USSR and its failure, but also through other countries which made attempts to achieve even simply socialism, but ended up having American "intervention". Eg. Chile and Guatemala.

2. The Bourgeoisie rule of the political system today simply would not allow for it to work. Because the Bourgeoisie have so much financial backing, it would be almost impossible for a proletariat government. The Bourgeoisie are more apt at funding campaigns and spreading their lies as they have more resources which can be allocated towards doing so. They are more able to fill the mind with their propaganda and the more propaganda that is seen, the more it is accepted, simple as that.

3. Capitalism has gone and disillusioned many people into believing that "radical" or "extreme" alternatives are unnecessary because it is capitalism which goes and successfully meets the needs and wants of the consumer. Because people believe that capitalism is capable of making happiness through goods, they believe that these material goods can fulfill their inner wants. These packs of lies go and warp the minds of people into accepting them and believing that they have been satisfied and are happy. One of the things about capitalism is that it is said to be successful at meeting the needs and wants of the consumer. The only reason why it is so good at doing this is because most of the wants are wants that they themselves have created.

4. In a despotic regime it would be impossible to go and gain political influence over the government as its decisions are solely made by the individual/junta. Political influence is the influence that organizations outside of the government has over the government; Eg. Labour parties and grassroots organizations. Because these are non-existent in despotic societies, it is impossible to influence change in the government. (This is actually the second time I've written this because I accidentally closed the tab that I had this in... there was a 5th argument, but it was primarily a continuation of the 3rd).

Thus comrade, revolution is the means in which communism/socialism is reached. Now, you mention dictatorship... God, was this ever misconstrued... When Marx wrote about a "dictatorship of the proletariat" he never intended it in the means that have been implemented in the past.
"Marx used the term "dictatorship" to describe control by an entire class, rather than a single sovereign individual, over another class.
Marx never intended for there to be simply one man dictating everything, that's far too an authoritarian approach to what Marxism hopes to achieve.

"In this way Marx called capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which he believed would be superseded by the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn would be superseded by a classless and stateless society known as communism. He viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as only an intermediate stage, believing that the need for the use of state power of the working class over its enemies would disappear once the classless society had emerged."
He never meant it in the way that it had been taken by Stalin or Mao or any authoritarian socialist. Thus, in order for us to reach communism, or even socialism, we must have revolutionaries who are cognizant of the fundamental principles of Marxism in its truest form. Now, I&#39;m not saying that Marx&#39;s words should be taken as thought cast in stone, but they should be understood properly. (I hope I don&#39;t have to end up writing this again&#33; <_< )

Well comrades, I hope that that can help this discussion. I hope that I answered your inquiry.
--Comrade Risky


(Btw, for those of you wondering, the quoted parts in the part of the Dictatorship of the proletariat was taken from thefreedictionary.com (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Dictatorship+of+the+proletariat))

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:19 AM
Which is better revolution or reform?
Neither is "better" than the other. It isn&#39;t a question about which is better, but which will create a communist society.

Communism is based on class antagonisms that mean one class struggle’s against another class, which oppresses it. A few hundred years ago it was the aristocratic classes oppressing the middle classes and when the middle classes wanted to expand their control and influence they had a revolution, like the French revolution, and removed the aristocracy and created a new ruling class.

In the society we have now, we have the ruling classes and the working classes [proletariat]. The ruling class control society and the workers have to sell their time i.e. working in a job in order to survive.

Karl Marx predicted that history develops based on class struggle and that eventually the working class will realise, like in the French revolution, that the class above them is stopping them from having what is rightfully theirs. For example, freedom from selling their labour, freedom to live how they choose.

With this in mind, you have to ask yourself how is that achieved? how do the working class manage to get rid of the ruling class so they can be free? Reformism relies on the parliament and elections to change things, but the ruling class controls these institutions. Parliament, courts, the police and army are all controlled by the ruling class, so if you think about it, how can the working class use those things to get rid of the ruling class if the ruling class controls them? They can&#39;t...

This means, as much as we all hate the idea, using force is the only viable way that the working class can achieve freedom from the ruling class, or better still, capitalism, which allows the misery we see in our societies to exist.


[b]I have often thought about the practical implication of communism/socialism on society today and whether it would be in the best interests of a capitalist country to become gradually more leftwing through a democratic process however this seems quite unrealistic in light of the system today.

But it isn&#39;t democratic. The system exists to protect the ruling class/capitalists and keep them in power and wealth. The ruling classes invented these systems. It was they who created them. They knew what they were doing when they did it, and they created them in such a way that "normal" people had as little say as possible.

Even if we did have a -say, would you imagine George Bush or Bill Gates handing over their power and wealth because congress had voted that they should? Of course not.

We get to choose from one or two political parties every 4 or 5 years and they are all the same anyway. They still want to maintain capitalism and their power and we still get shitted on from great heights.


So the alternative is a revolution-like senario which would most likely involve bloodshed and end (as history teaches us) in a temporary dictatorship.

Did you know that during the Russian Revolution hardly anyone died. In the transfer of power from the ruling class to the Bolsheviks barely no one was killed.

The violence only comes when the ruling classes use their resources [police and army] to stop us from having the control. The blood shed in Russia came after the revolution, when the counter-revolutionaries came to put the bosses and priests back into power. At this point the workers defended themselves.

It is not us that want violence. It&#39;s them. We want to have peace and freedom from having to work in shit jobs for shit pay. They just won&#39;t let us and I say we should fight back&#33;


Does anybody have any thoughts on how communism/socialism can be reached without the mistakes of the past?

That depends who you talk to. Everyone has different ideas about the mistakes made. Before you get into that discussion, do you understand what I have said?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:43 PM
Ever heard of Ghandi.
What about him? He was a capitalist who changed the British ruling class for an Indian ruling class. He had no intention of fundamentally changing the fabric of society but simply changing the rulers of it.


I think there can be no peaceful revoloution but I was just thinking if we kill another human being, just as the cappies are doing, then we substain ourselves to a deeper level of hate.

And what happens when class struggle comes to a point where we are threatening the very existence of capitalism and the power of the ruling class and they send in the army and the police to shoot us and drag us away? Then what? What does your peaceful revolution do now, because ad we lau down and shout "we will not resist with violence" they will shoot us in the head and force us to comply with their rules using batons and tanks....

...Then what?

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 1 2005, 09:53 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 1 2005, 09:53 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 10:43 PM
Ever heard of Ghandi.
What about him? He was a capitalist who changed the British ruling class for an Indian ruling class. He had no intention of fundamentally changing the fabric of society but simply changing the rulers of it.


I think there can be no peaceful revoloution but I was just thinking if we kill another human being, just as the cappies are doing, then we substain ourselves to a deeper level of hate.

And what happens when class struggle comes to a point where we are threatening the very existence of capitalism and the power of the ruling class and they send in the army and the police to shoot us and drag us away? Then what? What does your peaceful revolution do now, because ad we lau down and shout "we will not resist with violence" they will shoot us in the head and force us to comply with their rules using batons and tanks....

...Then what? [/b]
Agreed. Taking the Tenetimin Square approach isn&#39;t going to solve anything. It&#39;s just going to get you squished and keep those bastards in power.

If we could fight capitalism with smiles and hugs, I would become a Mister Rodgers impersonator. The problem is, we can&#39;t and quite possibly there was little (if any, times would could have used reformist or peace methods.

Like it or not, we&#39;re going to have arm one day and fight injustice. I&#39;ve never been a fan of murder before and I won&#39;t be a fan after.. but it will be when the revolution comes.

[danny android]

the best path as far as I can see for achieving communism is to have peaceful reforms in the beggining and then once the bourgeosie start to fight back with force then there must be an anrachist type revolution to fight them back. Revolution must be a last resort scenario as to make it a self defence type situation if possible socialism should be achieved peacefully and democraticly because that is the true nature of the idealogy. I do not however believe that violent revolution is out-right unnecesary because the rulling class has already wanted to remain the rulling class and will most definitly fight back. The real task will come after the revolution as to not just replace the old rulling class with a new psuedo-bourgeuasis as has occured in the past with other "communist" revolutions such as in the USSR and China.

[risky.riot]

Comrade Danny, I agree with many of the things that you said, however you must admit that democracy can and will only take you so far. I am in total agreement with your statement:

The real task will come after the revolution as to not just replace the old rulling class with a new psuedo-bourgeuasis as has occured in the past with other "communist" revolutions such as in the USSR and China.
I propose that the Communist Party not be the sole ruler of the society in order for this to happen. The creation of a Vanguard Party simply is counter-revolutionary and goes against the cause. By establishing this party we are creating new masters that we will inevitably bow down to. We need to establish some other means of rule because history has proven that the creation of a Vanguard Party simply leads to the creation of dictatorships; and not the kind of dictatorship that Marx spoke about, the kind that has one man leading. This is something that I discussed earlier. We must be smart and avoid the mistakes of history; history only repeats itself as long as people are stupid enough not to learn from it.
--Comrade Risky:&#33;:

*PS; if anyone can come up with an alternative to the vanguard party idea, please share it with me.* :blush:

[danny android]

I&#39;m pretty sure that the alternative to the vanguard is called anarchism.

[Black Dagger]

or Marxism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 6 2005, 05:59 AM
or Marxism?
Oooh contentious&#33;

danny

Reformism/electoral politics is a waste of time, effort and resources. Using all that to built resistance within communities in daily struggles is far more effective and empowering that participating in a system that a) isn&#39;t designed to achieve any viable change and b) you want to destroy in the first place.

[Scars]

Revolution. Reformism simply seeks to make the present situation slightly better, however it&#39;s still teh same system and the bad things might not be as bad, but they&#39;ll still be bad. Only revolution can create real change by sweeping away the old and instituting the new.

[rioters bloc]

revolt now.

[risky.riot]

I&#39;m pretty sure that the alternative to the vanguard is called anarchism.
I would have to disagree with you comrade as truly, the idea of the Vanguard was a Leninist change to Marxism. Thus, I suppose that the other members would seem to be correct in saying Marxism or Anarchy... However I believe that we MUST go through a Communist revolution, not an anarchist Revolution. Don&#39;t get me wrong, Anarchists are great people and Anarchy is an ideal very close to Communism with regards to the end result, however I feel that the transition Marx spoke of is a necessary one in the revolution. We should not simply rush from revolution to Anarchy, it will not work that way. There are things that need to be sorted out and people that need educating before we can just go and make the transition. I am open to constructive criticism comrades&#33; If you feel I am going the wrong way or that I have made a small error, simply speak&#33; For our revolution to be a good one, it must be one that we can all agree on&#33; We must agree on why it will happen and what will happen once it is "done" so to speak.
--Comrade Risky :hammer: :&#33;:

[Communist-sanflea]

Well i say it depends.Revolution,if things keep on going how they are(with the War in Iraq and gov&#39;t carelessness), then things would be ripe for a proleteriate revolution(Karl Marx wanted to find out whether the capitalist system does not inevitably produces crises, which may possibly become severe enough to make a revolution possible).Reform, If the people would actually wake up to the reality of the capitalist system,reform is possible.Hopefully either a revolution occur or a reform.

[Xian]

This forum is called "Revolutionary Left" so I would say most people would say revolution here.

However, I do not think it will happen. And if it did it would dumb because everyone exploited isn&#39;t necessarily the same, and when the upper class is defeated the organization would be unorganized and have different goals.

However a reform will take place, and it will take a long time, but as it grows things like free health care and med care and schooling will take place, and then food will be free and housing, and then upper class businesses (high luxury goods) will not survive. Hopefully people will learn more compassion and less self justifying attitudes. For example in today&#39;s world people don&#39;t give their money to charity because they think "I deserve this." People are starving all over the world, children who don&#39;t have basic food and clothing, and meanwhile in California people are buying Bentley&#39;s and mansions on the beach and tell themself that they actually worked hard, and that those who don&#39;t have things like that didn&#39;t work hard. But I know that people don&#39;t really think that. They know that it&#39;s better to give, but they are so blinded by today&#39;s materialistic world, where what you own makes you who you are. But this will change, because I can see it all the time. Taxes will get so high that eventually every class will have the same, and they will participate in the community&#39;s services. Capitalism will be exposed for the sham that it is, and although there will be no epiphany, no sudden uprising, there will be a gradual change. Just teach your kids to be selfless. That&#39;s it.

~peace~