Revolution?

[EbolaMonkeh]

I'm new to this whole communism business, so pardon me if this is blatantly obvious or something...

My question is, does the whole concept of a revolution and putting the power back in the workers' hands not rest on the assumption that the "masses" WANT a revolution? I've been reading some of the posts in here, and to those who say that it is only the bourgeois and upper-middle class who wouldn't want a communist revolution, let me point out that there are some very patriotic (nationalistic, even) poor people. People who are getting fucked over by the system, but don't realize it, and are under the impression that communism=bad.

Communism is still very much a dirty word in most places, and anybody who brings up the concept that it might be a good idea is pretty much shot down in most situations. Some kids founded a communist club at my school, and when the girl doing the morning announcements mentioned that their first meeting was taking place, she laughed. Nobody seems to take this seriously. People treat it as some cute relic of the Cold War.

How will the "masses" be convinced to rise up and overthrow their oppressors, when they don't even know they're being oppressed?

[Fidel Follower]

Well the job of this web site and other commie groups is to tell "the masses" what the truth is! I also know without the masses a revolution cannot work. A revolution would need the support of most of the people or as Che Guevara found out a revolution will be destroyed!

So i suppose if people really are so stupid, that they cant see the injustice of capitalism they we are all fucked. Because we can only tell people the truth, we cannot force it on them.....:hammer:

[TheComrade]

I agree - any protest, revolution or act of dissent will fail without the support of the majority. As regards persuading people - I think it's important to be reasonable as well as charasmatic etc. We must learn from the past (never done before!) we can't just brainwash people - we must entrench socialism into people with reason and justification otherwise it will fail!!

[chilcru]

Very apropos to your question is Lenin's What Is To Be Done?

[anomaly]

Once shit begins to fall upon the proletariat, one's definition or understanding of communism will prove irrelevent. That is, once material conditions make the proletarian only want to be rid of capitalism, he will naturally drift toward communism. That is the reason we see no such revolution today: material conditions haven't allowed for one. But, personally, I think the time is coming.

[chilcru]

That's an anomalous statement, anomaly. The very existence of capitalism itself furnishes the material conditions for the proletarian revolution. But the proletarian act to replace capitalist society with communism will not come spontaneously. Given its antagonistic relations with capitalists, the proletariat is the natural bearer of communism. But to realize communism, the proletariat must transcend its being a class-in-itself to being a class-for-itself and that means getting rid of the bourgeois culture into which the proletariat is born. And such transformation requires a conscious act.

[anomaly]

Oh yes, certainly. I was simply highlighting the material conditions neccesary. One cannot discount the 'revolutionary will', as I call it. In other words, as you say, the proletariat must want change. And the mechanism of this change will inevitably be revolution.

Now, I, of course, have some rather different ideas than most about where this 'change' will first be seen. While many adhere to strict orthodox Marxist thinking, that revolution will happen in 'industrialized' nations (1st world, that is); I think communist revolution will first be seen where shit is falling most heavily upon their heads, that is, in the 3rd world.

This lives me to wonder, chilcru, what is your opinion on this?

[chilcru]

I'm still trying to get a grip on that proposition with further reading, anomaly. This is so because such a proposition is still a grey area for many Marxist movements. True, the revolutions in the last century erupted mostly in the Third World but those were not communist revolutions but, almost without exception, peasant revolutions led by the vanguard party of the proletariat. In the aftermath of the triumph of the Chinese Revolution, Lin Piao tried to apply Mao's PPW on an international scale by postulating that the Third World constitutes the countryside of the world that will encircle the imperialist centers of US and Europe. His theory is a variation of the idea that the global liberation of the masses would start in the Third World. It was echoed by many Maoists in the 1960's, back when Lin Piao was still in good graces with Mao. But now, it is rejected by Maoists, such as the Communist Party of the Philippines.

[sovietsniper]

Under caipitism the workers are oppresed. However some day they will come to the relisathion that a revoluthion is in there intrest.
It is our job to make them come to that relisathion

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:54 AM
Now, I, of course, have some rather different ideas than most about where this 'change' will first be seen. While many adhere to strict orthodox Marxist thinking, that revolution will happen in 'industrialized' nations (1st world, that is); I think communist revolution will first be seen where shit is falling most heavily upon their heads, that is, in the 3rd world.
It's not "strict" adherence, it's simply marxism. You can't have a proletarian revolution in a nation without a substansive proletariat. Third world revolutions under the "communist" name will become capitalist. You can't subsitute "will" for material conditions.

[Mau-Mau]

The first post of this topic remembered me to a thing I saw on TV some weeks ago. I cant remember the context but it was something about political situation in germany after the elections. Then the moderator ( I just remember that sentence) said that about 50 % of Germans still believe that the ideas of socialism is good. It was his grave conviction and he was amazed that it is still 50%. And I thought wot the fuck...only 50%.
How could they mean that seriously. I think the omst people dont know the ideas of socialism and compare socalism and communism wid the situation in the Sovet Union of the last century. But nobody told them that that wasnt socialism. There were so many faults. I never think of it when I think of socialism. Guevara recognized it too when he probed the economy system of SU and he saw how selflish and antisocialistical they were thinkin when Guevara was in Kongo and postulated help of them. These are just two faults of SU which were born by capitalism and not by socialism. Nevertheless people conjoin socialism wid the SU and their mistakes and fail.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by comradekurt+Nov 24 2005, 05:07 PM--> (comradekurt @ Nov 24 2005, 05:07 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 03:54 AM
Now, I, of course, have some rather different ideas than most about where this 'change' will first be seen. While many adhere to strict orthodox Marxist thinking, that revolution will happen in 'industrialized' nations (1st world, that is); I think communist revolution will first be seen where shit is falling most heavily upon their heads, that is, in the 3rd world.
It's not "strict" adherence, it's simply marxism. You can't have a proletarian revolution in a nation without a substansive proletariat. Third world revolutions under the "communist" name will become capitalist. You can't subsitute "will" for material conditions. [/b]
And what do you consider the 'proletariat'? Now, don't feed me what Marx said, give my your belief. I simply cannot see exluding the peasantry.

[chilcru]

Originally posted by anomaly+Nov 25 2005, 05:33 AM--> (anomaly @ Nov 25 2005, 05:33 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:07 PM

[email protected] 21 2005, 03:54 AM
Now, I, of course, have some rather different ideas than most about where this 'change' will first be seen. While many adhere to strict orthodox Marxist thinking, that revolution will happen in 'industrialized' nations (1st world, that is); I think communist revolution will first be seen where shit is falling most heavily upon their heads, that is, in the 3rd world.
It's not "strict" adherence, it's simply marxism. You can't have a proletarian revolution in a nation without a substansive proletariat. Third world revolutions under the "communist" name will become capitalist. You can't subsitute "will" for material conditions.
And what do you consider the 'proletariat'? Now, don't feed me what Marx said, give my your belief. I simply cannot see exluding the peasantry. [/b]
I hope I will not be seeing here a debate reminiscent of the life-and-death skirmishes pitting Lenin against Trotsky.

But its something like this, Comrade anomaly:

In most Third World countries, peasants dominate the spectrum of productive forces. This means that their societies are not yet fully transformed into capitalist. The main issue in these countries is still the "agrarian question". Are the revolutions that are going to erupt here communist revolutions? In trying to make sense out of this riddle, Lenin figured out that one can not launch a proletarian revolution from the barbarous conditions of feudalism.

[anomaly]

Lenin was a fool, and he proved this of himself numerous times throughout his lifetime. I'd hardly take him at his word.

I ask you, along with all other orthodox Marxists who dominate this site, to look at the 'industrialized proletariat' who you claim will 'lead a communist revolution'. Look at how obedient they are, sitting happily in a capitalist state with a high standard of living! In capitalism (international capitalism), it happens that a group of wealthy people and a group of very poor people must naturally exist. And these two generally pull away from each other, leading to that old truism: "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". And so today we have a 'proletariat' that is wealthy and, for the most part, content with the capitalist system, and then we have a group of 'feudal peasantry' who are very unhappy with the capitalist system. And you orthodox ones really believe that those most contented with the capitalist system will be the ones to destroy it? For this to be true, it would require an unforeseen disaster of immense proportion. And if you rely on such a disaster, the chances that your 'communsim' will ever take material form are slim to none.

Instead, I say let us push for what you refer to as 'peasant' revolutions that, even if they may not give us communism (and I'm not of the opinion that they won't), they will atleast near us to communism. Indeed, if the wealthy proletariat of the 1st world are to lead a massive revolution, this could very well be set off by a peasant revolution. In either case, it would not be wrong to say that peasant revolution lead to communism (if this proves to be the case).

Whatever your opinion may be, do not simply shun the peasant revolutions aside as simply revolutions towards 'capitalism'. Realize that while this is a possible outsome, it is by no means the only possible outcome.

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:21 AM
Lenin was a fool, and he proved this of himself numerous times throughout his lifetime. I'd hardly take him at his word.
Hummm can i have any evidence on that?

[RedMenace]

Revolution need not involve violence. Simply put, it is the scenario where workers gain control over the means of production. Small Revolutions happen around us, every day. I was reading about workers in Argentina who have reorganized an abandoned factory without the consent of its capitalist slumlord "owner" and have now resumed the production of goods in order to benefit their own community. THAT is an example of Revolution- and not a shot was fired.

At least, that's in my thinking. This is a place for discussing theory, right?

Taken from this perspective, Revolution seems like a natural and logical thing for the jobless and hungry proletariat to desire. It need not involve risking their lives or endangering their families. There is no reason to assume that similar things wouldn't be possible in the United States in abandoned factories and mills. Beyond challenging the notion of private ownership of capital, it underscores the base stupidity of profit-taking global capitalists in industrialized countries.

[Fidel Follower]

I see your point, but America is not going to lie down and let us talk about how good communism is! If we want a revolution then blood is nessasery.
I think it was Che Guevara who said "A revolution is not a revolution without the blood of the capitalist.( i will try to find the book name)

So i think force is nessasary! :hammer:

[RedMenace]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 27 2005, 06:04 PM
I see your point, but America is not going to lie down and let us talk about how good communism is! If we want a revolution then blood is nessasery.
I think it was Che Guevara who said "A revolution is not a revolution without the blood of the capitalist.( i will try to find the book name)

So i think force is nessasary! :hammer:

I also see your point, Comrade.

Obviously the capitalists are not going to sit around while the workers take their machinery, buildings, office equipment, etc. They're going to fight back. The bourgeoisie have a fundamental hatred for the proletariat, and the root of hate is fear in becoming that which one despises. Once you deprive a capitalist boss of his capital, he is no better than any of his employees.

So yes, at some point the factory owners will call the police and blood will be shed. However, my point is that Socialist Revolution is not implicitly destructive to human life. Its goal is to put the means of production into the hands of the workers, not to execute former capitalists. Revolutions in the past have almost always been violent, but it's only because Imperialism, Colonialism, and Capitalism are such violent systems. They use violence and fear of violence to keep their subjects and workers in line. Would-be revolutionaries have to circumvent this somehow.

It isn't that the industrial proletariat are content, it's that they're afraid of losing their jobs and ending up incarcerated for defying the will of the State. Nobody wants to be without health insurance, but is it worth getting shot over? ... or perhaps worse, becoming a convict? The citizen hates the "criminal" most of all.

[Punk Rocker]

How will the "masses" be convinced to rise up and overthrow their oppressors, when they don't even know they're being oppressed?

Focoism. You don't need the masses to start the revolution, you just needed the masses to finish it. Just strike a match on the praire and it will start a firestorm, to burn away oppression.

Castro had our same problem with the Cuban Revolution. He started the revolution with just 80 people, and all but 12 of them were killed or captured in the first battle. Still that first battle was enough to wake up the masses and rally enough Cubans behind Castro to bring down the government.

There are a lot of Americans who question the government but aren't yet revolutionary, these are the people we want to bring over to our side. As for the right-wing nationalists, "none are more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free" -Goetehe.

[Fidel Follower]

Yes Red Menice i think that force only needs to be used if nessesary.
If a state did become communist then i think it would be wrong to kill any anti-revolutionaries.
But if they took up arms would be nessesary to fight them.
Ahh and bless good old Fidel Castro, he did what many of us will never be able to do.

Communism cannot survive as an island, with out other communist countries to help it float... :hammer:

[KGB5097]

A revolution without the support of the masses isn't a revolution at all: Its a coup. A Coup dosen't work well for a Socialist or Communist group due to various factors.....

The book "Coup d' Etat: A practical handbook" By Edward Luttwak is a good read if your intrested in the real life change of government through non-democratic means, it explains alot about how and why revolutions take place, although it follows the line of a military or police coup as opposed to a revolution of the workers. If your a searious revolutionary its worth the read though, it puts alot into context and helps you understand exactally what would happen, and what would need to be done should a revolution ever need to take place in a western nation.

[Fidel Follower]

Yeah i have heard of that book before. Do you have any links to writtings on the web? I would like to read that. Thanks :hammer:

[KGB5097]

I wish I did, I did look awhile ago but ended up just going out and finding the book. I think its only a few dollars on amazon, if you trust amazon....

I'll post a link if I should find anything, as its writing which is relivant to anyone who calls themselves a revolutonary, in my opinion anyway....

[TheComrade]

Why do you need a 'revolution'? Why can't capitalism be brought down with a gradual shift in politics - the use of language, debate and political pressure from the more liberal governments of the world can be more powerful than taking up arms.

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:29 PM
Why do you need a 'revolution'? Why can't capitalism be brought down with a gradual shift in politics - the use of language, debate and political pressure from the more liberal governments of the world can be more powerful than taking up arms.


I'm not saying that a gradual shift in politics isn't possable, i'm just giving out some information about revolution for thoose who are intrested...

Personally, I can see the change going either way...

[our_mutual_friend]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:29 PM
Why do you need a 'revolution'? Why can't capitalism be brought down with a gradual shift in politics - the use of language, debate and political pressure from the more liberal governments of the world can be more powerful than taking up arms.
I completely agree with you there. I see it as being the best option for change. Perhaps Cyber Communist might like to join the discussion and give his view hmm? He previously had MUCH to say on the subject.



(Completely off topic - but it's still snowing!!! :D :D :D )

[anomaly]

"Hummm can i have any evidence on that? "---Oh, Fidel Follower, you don't still follow that silly Leninist idea of a 'vanguard' to 'lead' the proletariat, do you? It is a terrible idea, and it historically has failed.

"Why do you need a 'revolution'? Why can't capitalism be brought down with a gradual shift in politics - the use of language, debate and political pressure from the more liberal governments of the world can be more powerful than taking up arms."---Bourgeois elections will not bring us any true 'revolution' because the bourgeoisie have been known to steal elections, and, when leftists do win, the bourgeoisie have been known to overthrow the leftist regime. Many on the left have in the past gone this way, and all have failed. The only (once) socialist regimes have come about through revolution, though they later became corrupted. I see no reason to think that violent revolution will not also lead to communism. I only think that we need to do away with the idea of a vanguard to 'lead' the proletariat.

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:04 AM
"Hummm can i have any evidence on that? "---Oh, Fidel Follower, you don't still follow that silly Leninist idea of a 'vanguard' to 'lead' the proletariat, do you? It is a terrible idea, and it historically has failed.



Have you not heard that saying "Try Try Try again&#33;"....... <_<

[TheComrade]

Bourgeois elections will not bring us any true &#39;revolution&#39; because the bourgeoisie have been known to steal elections, and, when leftists do win, the bourgeoisie have been known to overthrow the leftist regime. Many on the left have in the past gone this way, and all have failed. The only (once) socialist regimes have come about through revolution, though they later became corrupted. I see no reason to think that violent revolution will not also lead to communism. I only think that we need to do away with the idea of a vanguard to &#39;lead&#39; the proletariat.

I understand what you are saying - I think however, that if you were to fight this corruption, to reveal it, to undermine it then a true source of the bourgeoisie&#39;s power will be destroyed. If you simply use a revolution to change the surface appearence of the politics you smother anti-communist/socialist beliefs and in doing so fuel their cause. All they need then is one show of weakness by a communist governmnet and we have a violent attempted coup. What I am trying to say is that to systematicly destabilse and topple a system is better than just removing it all in one go.



Have you not heard that saying "Try Try Try again&#33;".......

This is poltics - not a game&#33; Think about how many people died as a result of failed vanguardist ideals - so we should see them die over and over because we need to &#39;try try try again&#39;..?

[KC]

I understand what you are saying - I think however, that if you were to fight this corruption, to reveal it, to undermine it then a true source of the bourgeoisie&#39;s power will be destroyed.

Right now the bourgeoisie has control of society. They are the rulers. To try to achieve a communist revolution through democracy is a horrible idea. The bourgeoisie certainly won&#39;t just give up its power. What happens then? What happens when the corruption of the bourgeoisie is revealed? Do you think they will throw their arms up in the air and say "You got us"?&#33; Do you think that, because you revealed them for what they really are, that they will give up their power willingly? Of course they won&#39;t&#33; What happens then? Peaceful protest?


If you simply use a revolution to change the surface appearence of the politics you smother anti-communist/socialist beliefs and in doing so fuel their cause. All they need then is one show of weakness by a communist governmnet and we have a violent attempted coup. What I am trying to say is that to systematicly destabilse and topple a system is better than just removing it all in one go.

Nobody is using a revolution to "change the surface appearance of the politics". We are using revolution to effectively achieve our goal in a realistic manner. There is simply no other way (if you would like to present an alternative to revolution, I would love to hear it).

What on earth does that quote mean, anyways?

[TheComrade]

Right now the bourgeoisie has control of society. They are the rulers. To try to achieve a communist revolution through democracy is a horrible idea. The bourgeoisie certainly won&#39;t just give up its power. What happens then? What happens when the corruption of the bourgeoisie is revealed? Do you think they will throw their arms up in the air and say "You got us"?&#33; Do you think that, because you revealed them for what they really are, that they will give up their power willingly? Of course they won&#39;t&#33; What happens then? Peaceful protest?

And what is wrong with &#39;peaceful protest&#39;? Once the terrible extent of the corruption is revealed I believe that the people will wilfully remove the government. And what should replace it? A stable and democratic truly socialist government - of course.



Nobody is using a revolution to "change the surface appearance of the politics". We are using revolution to effectively achieve our goal in a realistic manner. There is simply no other way (if you would like to present an alternative to revolution, I would love to hear it).

What on earth does that quote mean, anyways?

I don&#39;t believe that a sudden massive change in governance would work. Its like (bit of an obscure example sorry) if one day we had no electricity - no microchips worked - and we were expected to suddenly get used to life without it people would go berserk. Such an immense change in something so essential is catastrophic. Those that would normally support more equality would suddenly say &#39;Hey&#33; What&#39;s happened&#33;&#39; With a gradual change you can gently enlighten them (and yourselves.)

Give another analogy - if I was to go out and shoot Bush and Blair they might be gone but what they believed still would remain in those around them. Unless you are advocating &#39;Red Terrors&#39; by removing a government you are not removing the love of capitalism which would remain in the people.

If I still make no sense at all, I’m sorry – but hey, I have just got back from 8 hours of exams&#33;

[KC]

And what is wrong with &#39;peaceful protest&#39;? Once the terrible extent of the corruption is revealed I believe that the people will wilfully remove the government. And what should replace it? A stable and democratic truly socialist government - of course.

When the people go to remove the government, what do you think will happen? Do you think the bourgeoisie will hand it over? No. They will defend it with everything they&#39;ve got. What happens then? Will you give up? Or will you fight for it?



I don&#39;t believe that a sudden massive change in governance would work. Its like (bit of an obscure example sorry) if one day we had no electricity - no microchips worked - and we were expected to suddenly get used to life without it people would go berserk. Such an immense change in something so essential is catastrophic. Those that would normally support more equality would suddenly say &#39;Hey&#33; What&#39;s happened&#33;&#39; With a gradual change you can gently enlighten them (and yourselves.)


You don&#39;t believe that "a sudden massive change in governance would [ever] work"? Not even if the people are ready for it? Not even if the people are striving for it? People welcome change when they want it badly enough. People will welcome change when they are willing to die for it.

[Fidel Follower]

Ahh i see your point TheComrade, how about a diffrent quote "Try and if it failes then improve it, them make sure every one has equal rights the state will be perfect, so no bother trying again" unless it all goes to shitter and you really do need to start again...like this post i better stop now.. :blush: :hammer:

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:10 AM

Bourgeois elections will not bring us any true &#39;revolution&#39; because the bourgeoisie have been known to steal elections, and, when leftists do win, the bourgeoisie have been known to overthrow the leftist regime. Many on the left have in the past gone this way, and all have failed. The only (once) socialist regimes have come about through revolution, though they later became corrupted. I see no reason to think that violent revolution will not also lead to communism. I only think that we need to do away with the idea of a vanguard to &#39;lead&#39; the proletariat.

I understand what you are saying - I think however, that if you were to fight this corruption, to reveal it, to undermine it then a true source of the bourgeoisie&#39;s power will be destroyed. If you simply use a revolution to change the surface appearence of the politics you smother anti-communist/socialist beliefs and in doing so fuel their cause. All they need then is one show of weakness by a communist governmnet and we have a violent attempted coup. What I am trying to say is that to systematicly destabilse and topple a system is better than just removing it all in one go.



You seem to be rather intelligent, so I&#39;ll refrain from patronizing you.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the bourgeosie will cave due to political pressure alone. Perhaps peaceful protests will do something. But, as Lazar and myself point out, this historically has proven ineffective.

What has proven effective is violent revolution, as I previously mentioned. Oh, and when it&#39;s 90% of the population fighting the wealthy 10%, the government&#39;s calling it a coup will prove about as effective as George Bush taking a class in diction.

But, if you truly feel that peaceful protests will work, go ahead and pursue such methods. Neither method has proven successful so far (in creating communism).