Revolution

[Fidel Follower]

Hummm why dont we start a revolution? There is never a good time to start one, so why not now? America needs to be changed and all the huricanes meens that the goverment is "weaker" why isnt there a revolution happening right now....

This is a thought that has poped into my head, and im sure there are lots of reasons why there isnt a revolution, but now its your chance to tell me, dont be big headed about your knowledge just help a fellow lefty understand... :hammer:

[visceroid]

you cant just "start a revolution" you need support. even if we tried a bolshevik coup, in order for a government to be legitimate it need support, ie a backing of force. the military and the police would take us down straight away.

[*PRC*Kensei]

cause if it's not at a well chosen point, and it fails, it's likely to lose 50 % of its support or more...

this happened in italy before wold war 2, socialist tried to take over, failed, and many ex-socialist turned facist (damn fools) ...

also... at this point i dont think u will have a good force to fight... talking about the usa i think the army will knock it down in no time.

focus on the revolution in country's where its....more likely to happen first, like comulbia, filipiniens, ect... south america ;) Once you got... "communism" (or what they make of it) back as a force like it whas 30 years ago, it's time to think about a revolution.

up till now:
Defend the workers, unite in unios ect, fight any right / ultra-right crap... and w'll see :)

dont worry, socialism will safe the world, people will understand this sooner or lather :)

[Fidel Follower]

Ah i see so you need the majoraty of the US to carry out a sucsessful revolution? But surely all communits, anarchists could get together, would that be a huge amount of people? :hammer:

[Fidel Follower]

Thanks *PRC*Kensei thats a good answer! I never tought of that, but i can now see that there is alot of factos to think about! :blink:

But even if another country turned commie, the Americans would still attack, for example Vietnam. And even if they didnt attack they would boycot all goods from a cetain commie country. :(

:hammer: But you are right socialism will always be around!

[which doctor]

Just be patient because one day in the future there will be a good tim for a revolution. I can not tell you when or how, but we will have support and we will win. I guessing it's going to be at a time when unemployment is very high and people have grown weary with their government.

[ack]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 25 2005, 10:54 AM
This is a thought that has poped into my head
That stinkin' pope!
Dontcha hate it when that happens?

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 25 2005, 11:12 AM
Thanks *PRC*Kensei thats a good answer! I never tought of that, but i can now see that there is alot of factos to think about! :blink:

But even if another country turned commie, the Americans would still attack, for example Vietnam. And even if they didnt attack they would boycot all goods from a cetain commie country. :(

:hammer: But you are right socialism will always be around!
please bear in mind VIETNAM WON THE WAR :D

they would indeed boycot... But if you have anough communist country's - and remember there is no free market then - you can slove this problem.
And it is your task - u live in usa ? - to vote for socialists - if there is a party like that - so the capitalist country's dont... react aggresively.

And why not start revolution in europe (now) ?
well, bear in mind the proletariat has already fought a hudge battle over here, but it dint turned pure socialist, we had to share it with the liberals & stuff. - and like always: then some fool starts a world war - so i think we need to wait t'll we can fight again. For now, support the country's that have still got a hudge battle to fight.

If you want world revolution, it's important to build up communism again... in a new way, we learned from the past, if communism/socialism/a marxist-leninist society comes again, it will be better than before, improved. The world should understand leftism aint dead, but just recovering from it's first strike on capitalism.
:ph34r:

[Axel1917]

It is not an easy task; the general outlook on the world seems rather conservative, and it only changes when the status-quo begins to crack under immense pressure. Good cadres must also be built up so that a poweful Marxist party can come into existence to suppor the workers' cause. If a revolution were so easy to start, would not have capitalism died out long ago?

[ComradeOm]

Remember that no one group or person starts revolutions. They simply happen when the time, read material conditions, are right for one. A group can certainly help organise and educate the workers for the struggle but the revolution itself can not simply be “started”. When the economic conditions have weakened the bourgeois order to the extent that they can no longer bribe the labour aristocrats then we’ll have revolution. Until that day all we can do is plan and prepare.

[More Fire for the People]

A revolution simply does not happen because you want it to happen. Revolution’s happen when two things have come into play:
1. There is an active vanguard of the proletariat
2. The material conditions for a revolution are prevalent

Without both, there is no revolution, with just the second one there are ‘May 1968’s in which the working class rebels but nothing happens. With simply the first there simply cannot be a victory.

[SmokeyDaSharky]

Yes I want a revolutioin but for the tyrannists first. You also need supplies and support. By the way who is to say what society is the correct way to live. I believe that everyone that has excess amounts of anything of need such as food, money, living space and other materilisitc excess necessities should expand it to the rest of the population of the world and then everyone would be more equal. But we will always have those who want the extra food and million dollar cars, watches, rings. Even right now I stand as a hipocrite because I have a computer which if I sold could feed many mouths. Those who are with greed must be abolished and those who suffer should be relieved. Those who do nothing should be abolished too, all they do is comsume and are not useful to pull forward. Email with your comments on my ideas. :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Wanted Man]

Lenin on the subject of the ultra-leftists will of starting a revolution immediately under the slogan "No compromise!":


It is as though 10,000 soldiers were to hurl themselves into battle against an enemy force of 50,000, when it would be proper to "halt", "take evasive action", or even effect a "compromise" so as to gain time until the arrival of the 100,000 reinforcements that are on their way but cannot go into action immediately. That is intellectualist childishness, not the serious tactics of a revolutionary class.

The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the "lower classes" do not want to live in the old way and the "upper classes" cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.

From: Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)

[Jimmie Higgins]

To follow the Lennin quote: right now we do have the beginings of a crisis "at the top" - the US is failing in it's ability to promote it's imperialist mission in the middle east.

So our job is to organize and the anti-war sentiment into an oppsition which will draw more people to our side and also exasterbate the conflicts within the ruling class ove the war further which will, in turn, draw more workers into politics and the process repeats and intensifies.

This is how you go from the "apathy" of the mid sixties to the radicalism of the late sixties to the mid-seventies. Or you go from trade-unions loosing battles in the 1920s to unprecidented victories and gains and rank-and-file militancy for unions in the 1930s.

[snake]

The manipulation of the peoples are so big today that we just c`ant go in and say
-What happened to the solidarity?
We in ung vänster sweden is trying to destroy this manipulation! :hammer: :che:

[Fidel Follower]

Sorry i havent been around to post my computer was ill...but im back and better than before! :unsure: i think? :hammer:

[visceroid]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 25 2005, 05:04 PM
A revolution simply does not happen because you want it to happen. Revolution’s happen when two things have come into play:
1. There is an active vanguard of the proletariat
2. The material conditions for a revolution are prevalent

Without both, there is no revolution, with just the second one there are ‘May 1968’s in which the working class rebels but nothing happens. With simply the first there simply cannot be a victory.
march 1917 was a revolution in which no vanguard party took part in, revolutions can be succesfull without vanguard parties, and so far every revolution involving a vanguard party, has turned to state capitalist shit.

ive said this before, but i would much rather a failed '68, than a successful october

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by visceroid+Oct 28 2005, 10:33 AM--> (visceroid @ Oct 28 2005, 10:33 AM)
Diego [email protected] 25 2005, 05:04 PM
A revolution simply does not happen because you want it to happen. Revolution’s happen when two things have come into play:
1. There is an active vanguard of the proletariat
2. The material conditions for a revolution are prevalent

Without both, there is no revolution, with just the second one there are ‘May 1968’s in which the working class rebels but nothing happens. With simply the first there simply cannot be a victory.
march 1917 was a revolution in which no vanguard party took part in, revolutions can be succesfull without vanguard parties, and so far every revolution involving a vanguard party, has turned to state capitalist shit.

ive said this before, but i would much rather a failed '68, than a successful october [/b]
What? The February Revolution placed a liberal government in power. And if it wasn’t for the October Revolution that same liberal regime would’ve driven Russia into the ground. I challenge anyone to provide an alternative to Lenin, an alternative that would’ve allowed the continued existence of Russia. The Bolsheviks didn’t “take” power, they simply picked it up while the country disintegrated under Kerensky.

[Pandii]

*Was also pondering a similar question.*_
Thanks a bunch for all the information comrades! Its good to see so many willing to help, it’s a pleasant change from other forums where negativity (and stupidity) is far to prevalent to even be funny.
Thankyou once again, I am slowly filling up my information basket.
Pandora_ :hammer:

[Yazman]

Material and economic conditions generally have to allow for revolution as well as the obvious need for support. It's not a matter of simply saying, "hey visceroid, wanna start a revolution?"

ComradeOm has explained it quite well, read his first post in this topic!

[CommieTommy]

Revolution is a measure that will never succede in america, never. America is such a conservative soceity that we will never see a leftist revolution in America. We need to be in more radical times also, if we were still in the Great Deppresion still, maybe if We were in a World War 3, and maybe if the president declared himself president for life a revolution might possibly happen. But thats never really going to happen. America hears the left and they think Stalin, Mao, etc. IF the leftist ever won control of the goverment the south would probily break off and there would be another civil war. We should avoid revolution hear and just look abroad and praise global revolutions.

[Black Dagger]

Revolution is a measure that will never succede in america, never.

How can you make definate statements about the future? Moreover, how can you be a communist and maintain that revolution will 'never succeed' in the US? Does the communist movement have no point then?


America is such a conservative soceity that we will never see a leftist revolution in America.

Things change, people change, society changes- over time, the US of 2050 will be much different to the US of 2005. Think about how much change has occurred even in the last 20 years.


IF the leftist ever won control of the goverment the south would probily break off and there would be another civil war.

But the goal of the communist movement is not to win control of the government- it's to abolish capitalism and the bourgeois state, is it not?



We should avoid revolution hear and just look abroad and praise global revolutions.

The world needs global revolution, revolutions in advanced capitalist countries are important because said countries have more est. infrastructure, resources, technologies etc. such that they could aid revolutionary societies in the 'developing' world if need be. Moreover, there needs to be a revolution in places like the USA because it is precisely the govt/militaries of these countries that have disrupted, undermined and out-right killed revolutionary movements in other parts of the world (particularly Latin America- in the case of the US).

[CommieTommy]

I think that it is obvious that a revolution under the socialist flag will never take to the streets. Have you read the history books about the Cold War? We hate communists, we attack anything on the left or anything that has any idea that is on the left. People all over america will never agree with the idea of communism, we are a christian conservative country, or as Che Guevera said we are in the "heart of the lion" IT is impossible to takeover the country here. The heart of communism here is a bunch of young college students and ex-hippies that cannot connect with mainstream America. I hate to predict the future but remember this, the past reflects the future. The worker of America looks at the democratic party now, not the communist party.

[More Fire for the People]

Indeed a revolution in the future would be possible and if religious consevative-fundamentalism were to decline in the south of the USA it would be the hotspot for revolutionary activity. The economy of the south is divided into two tiers: the upper tier of corporate powers that control where and how you buy your needs and the lower tier of poor farmers. It is actually much like the economy of India.

This is a recipe for revolution, opposition to anti-union corporate powers and a poor peasantry.

[ScottishSocialist13]

any attempt to start a revolution nowadays would be quashed by the military before it even got started. it would take som esort of catastrphic natural disaster to topple capitalism.

[Black Dagger]

it would take som esort of catastrphic natural disaster to topple capitalism.

Or perhaps a more conscious working class coupled with a broad-based communist movement?

[ScottishSocialist13]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 07:45 PM

it would take som esort of catastrphic natural disaster to topple capitalism.

Or perhaps a more conscious working class coupled with a broad-based communist movement?
Perhaps. But i can't see people's opinions changing easily. Most people have a defensive attitude towards socialism/communism and i believe it would take some sort of shock to get the public to waken up and realise there is a real alternative to capitalism

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 01:45 PM

it would take som esort of catastrphic natural disaster to topple capitalism.

Or perhaps a more conscious working class coupled with a broad-based communist movement?
A socialist mass movement is impossible, as it is unlikely that class-consciousness can grow under capitalist hegemony. The only hope for a revolution is a vanguard of the proletariat that creates a system in which proletarian consciousness can grow.

[Black Dagger]

But i can't see people's opinions changing easily. Most people have a defensive attitude towards socialism/communism and i believe it would take some sort of shock to get the public to waken up and realise there is a real alternative to capitalism

Well it's a good thing that capitalism as a system is prone to shocks then isn't it?



A socialist mass movement is impossible, as it is unlikely that class-consciousness can grow under capitalist hegemony.

That's a tad defeatist/determinist don't you think? Why is capitalist hegemony impossible to challenge/defeat? If an elite 'vanguard' can become conscious- ie. overcome capitalist hegemony, why can't the rest of us proles do it too? What do you have that we don't?


The only hope for a revolution is a vanguard of the proletariat that creates a system in which proletarian consciousness can grow.

Let me get this straight... a vanguard 'of the proletariat' - do you mean an elite group composed of people from prole backgrounds or an elite group that represents/fights for people from a prole background? This vanguard creates a system... ie. they overthrow the old system - but they do this in a situation (capitalism) where it is 'unlikely that class consciousness can grow' i.e. at a time where CC is pretty low- non-existant... so an elite group of revolutionaries who may or may not be proles but are nevertheless somehow 'class consciousness' - but still a minority in society where most of the WC could give a fuck about them- overthrow the state (and capitalism?) and institute a system... a new state? That helps to foster class-conscious in the WC, and then onwards to communism? How exactly does this elite group get the consent of the WC which they rule when the WC is not class conscious? If most people are not class conscious and 'can't' be because of capitalist hegemony- wouldn't any vanguard 'revolution' be quickly defeated by a bourgeois counter-revolution supported by the reactionary/unconscious WC?

[CommieTommy]

I would say about 96% of America hears Communism and has a uneducated, biased rememberance of it. Even the most educated of people think, Stalin, Mao, Fascism. They see Communism as a evil force. Revolutions are about gaining support of the whole country, not a group of college students storming the White House. If I walked the streets of even the most liberal of cities of America, every single person would probily say, " Communism! HA!" America has no radical history also. IF we experience the revolutions of 1848, and maybe if America some how got pumped full of intellectuals and a monarchy was still in control, there would be a socialist revolution. You see, America is a conservative base. There is no radicals here, even in the America's most radical years in the 60s, the protesters who were planning a revolution of america were in the minority. There was one revolutionary group back then to start a revolution when America's time was toughest with the Social Change and Imperialism going on aproud, which was Weatherman underground. Leftist groups in New York during the great deppresion were highly against revolution.

ITS IMPOSSIBLE, Diego Armando was correct, we need a radical history with a politically aware soceity, with the ingredients of oppresion against peasants and wide spread corporate corruption. Which we never saw in our history. You can argue all you want, a revolution is highly unlikely to happen in America. If it ever does, it will never happen in our lifetime.

[*PRC*Kensei]

But we dont need a revolution in the usa...

we need one in all other country's, and crush the usa aftherwards... force em to...

A revolution is most needed where the proletariat is unarmed, poor, and has no rights... in the 3th world & corrupt country's.

I think columbia & filipiniens (dont know how to spell :P ) are the first on the list..
ather that the rest of south amerika, afther that part of afrika...
& by then maby europa ?

The luck with the USA is that they have Gorge bush, and that guys is likely to start somekind of war, or drive his country into dead, so amerika will...take itself down with a guy like him in command :)

- all american leftists: dont get angry at me, taking about USA as a capitalistic state, not about you -

[Black Dagger]

But we dont need a revolution in the usa...

Yeah, we do. the USA is the 'lions den', the heart of global capitalism, the hegemon.



we need one in all other country's, and crush the usa aftherwards... force em to...

It's more likely that without revolution in the USA, that the revolutions in the 'third world' will be crushed, subverted, derailed- by the USA. Even if they do not succeed, they will try, no question, so revolution in the USA is important to the success of revolution globally.



A revolution is most needed where the proletariat is unarmed, poor, and has no rights... in the 3th world & corrupt country's.

Is the USA not a 'corrupt country'? Revolution is needed everywhere.

[visceroid]

Originally posted by *PRC*[email protected] 31 2005, 03:22 PM
we need one in all other country's, and crush the usa aftherwards... force em to...

ah yes, lets force democracy on them, force a communist society one them. dont you think that if no one participates in a direct democracy, it wont work. they could simply start using money and capitalist relations again if they really wanted.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:00 PM
I would say about 96% of America hears Communism and has a uneducated, biased rememberance of it. Even the most educated of people think, Stalin, Mao, Fascism. They see Communism as a evil force. Revolutions are about gaining support of the whole country, not a group of college students storming the White House. If I walked the streets of even the most liberal of cities of America, every single person would probily say, " Communism! HA!" America has no radical history also. IF we experience the revolutions of 1848, and maybe if America some how got pumped full of intellectuals and a monarchy was still in control, there would be a socialist revolution. You see, America is a conservative base. There is no radicals here, even in the America's most radical years in the 60s, the protesters who were planning a revolution of america were in the minority. There was one revolutionary group back then to start a revolution when America's time was toughest with the Social Change and Imperialism going on aproud, which was Weatherman underground. Leftist groups in New York during the great deppresion were highly against revolution.

ITS IMPOSSIBLE, Diego Armando was correct, we need a radical history with a politically aware soceity, with the ingredients of oppresion against peasants and wide spread corporate corruption. Which we never saw in our history. You can argue all you want, a revolution is highly unlikely to happen in America. If it ever does, it will never happen in our lifetime.
The US has no radical history? May Day began in the US and radical movements of the 30s and 60s had a great deal of popular support even if the parties and groups who had this support were hindered by bad politics.

[Black Dagger]

Nevermind, i was wrong :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:00 PM
There was one revolutionary group back then to start a revolution when America's time was toughest with the Social Change and Imperialism going on aproud, which was Weatherman underground. Leftist groups in New York during the great deppresion were highly against revolution.
THe weatherman underground is not the most revolutionary movement in US history by a long shot. A handfull of college students with bombs? The PLO and the IRA and other such groups have been bombing much weker Imperialist countries for decades and the Weathermen set off a few bombs?

THe Panthers, SDS (which is the much larger movement that the WeatherUn splintered off from), were far more significant in the 60s as far as radicalizing people, popular support and so on down the line. There have been socialist/anarchist led general strikes in cities in the US in the 20th century.

THe US working class has just as much poteential for radicalism as any other powerful nation. The difference between the US and European countries is that the left in the US, historically, has no solid footing. We don't have a mainstream left or expressly leftist major electoral parties so there is no base and, every generation, the left has to rebuild itself in the US and learn the same old lessons all over again. This is why we have "the New Left" in the 60s and 70s, and then another movement in the late 90s (anti-globalization/anti-war) also called "the New Left".

It is much to impressionistic to look at the US today and say there will never be a revolution there because workers are too right-wing. You could have made the same argument in the 1920s or the 1950s and a decade later you'd probably be singing a different tune. There may not automatically be a revolution in the US in my lifetime, but history shows that there will most liklely be another "1930s" or "1960/70s" at least once in my lifetime. What will make the difference between just another 1930s and seeing a sucsessful revolution will be our ability to bring radical ideas and lessons from past movements to these future movements.