The Socialist/Communist American Revolution

[American_Lenin]

How do you guys think it should/will happen.

Will it be bloody?
how bloody?

who will be the leader

how should it be patterned

I think that the Revolution will arise soon when the American people see the truth and are tired of our current "democratic" govenrment.
It will be similiar to the Russian Revolution and a single leader will emerge a capitalist system will be created for the purpose of the transition to Socialism.

[LoneRed]

im having trouble decifering your last sentence. We have a capitalist system, so are we to resort back after the "socialist" revolution, Definitely not. There are many threads on revolution, which might be of interest. There was need for a "leader" of sorts back in russia and china, humanity has and will be more progessed by then, we will not need one leader. The bourgeoisie tell us that there must always be someone to govern and people to be governed. These are just lies, to keep them in power.

[rouchambeau]

Working-class people should appoint trusted leaders who will not abuse their power if they are appointed (i.e. not act like another Lenin). It should be a massive movement like the kind we have seen in the South during the Civil Rights Movement. The key tactic should be a general stike to freeze the economy until revolutionary workers get their demands.

With enough popular support there should be no bloodshed at all.

Whoever working class people decide it should be (if they decide to have one at all). The leader should be someone who would basically act as a "talking-head" for the movement. It should be someone that the movement does not depend upon, nor be subject to.

I think we all know how the Russian Revolution turned out...

[American_Lenin]

No...I mean if there is a revolution the nation will be in caos.

The Revolution will be to install the leaders dedicated to Socialism, then when the nation stabilizes the transition to Socialism can begin

i sohuld of worded that last sentence differently

[rouchambeau]

Since when are working-class people incapable of creating socialism themselves?

"The Revolution" that you speak of sounds simply like a violent way to bypass bourgeois democracy and get the same effect.

[Ol' Dirty]

First of all, something extremely negative (unfortunately) will have to happen to make people realize that the current system is a crumbling foundation that can not uphold its structure. We'll then need to gather a group of fighting, strong, intellectual proletarians to rise up against the bourgoise. We'll need to destroy destroy millitary targets, hopefully rallying some to our cause; we'd need to use new tactics, but we need not discuss them here (We're not that stupid, fed fucks!)

It may be bloody, but, hell, so are all the plutocratic capitalist wars today.

[American_Lenin]

The leader will be from the working class, he will unite them

[Comrade-Z]

The leader will be from the working class, he will unite them

No thanks. I can make my own decisions. I don't want to exchange capitalists for "red" bosses or "red" leaders. I don't care if the person is from the working class, I'm not following anyone. I will self-manage and self-rule with those who are my equals, which should be everybody.

How would this society be any different than the one we have now? How is my life going to be any different if I am still taking orders? I thought communist society was supposed to be a society without followers, without order-takers, and without leaders.

[American_Lenin]

yes, but according to Marx there must be a State under Socialism that will transform to Communism overtime

[rouchambeau]

yes, but according to Marx there must be a State under Socialism that will transform to Communism overtime

WELL IF MARX SED IT IT MUST B TRU LOL

[Janus]

yes, but according to Marx there must be a State under Socialism that will transform to Communism overtime
The idea that there had to be a transition period called socialism specifically was advanced by Lenin. Marx was pretty ambiguous on the term socialism though he did believe that the worker's state would wither away into communism. The problem with a transitional state is that certain groups, particularly vanguardist ones, can take over the state, declare "socialism", and never move out of it.

[barista.marxista]

Marx's concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was also based on the fact that capitalism was not fully developed in the mid-late 19th century. As he saw revolution being imminent (the optimist, he was), he thought a Proletarian "state" (there was much controversy of using that word) would be needed to develop the productive capabilities to their full potential, while maintaing proletarian control.

Well, it's almost 125 years later. Capitalism has developed the productive capabilities far beyond what anyone 50 years ago would think possible, let alone Marx himself. We can produce food, clothes, houses, medicine, etc., for everyone on the planet -- we have the technology and the surplus-value. So why do we need a "state"? If our fellow workers gain the consciousness to make revolution, why do we need a bureaucracy to be our "manager"? To prevent bourgeois counter-revolution? Give a gun to every worker of every council, and no bourgeoisie is going to take power. If we overthrow our state and leaders, our capitalists and imperialists, why would we let new ones come in? We don't need an army to fight -- that's just another authoritarian hierarchy. We can defend our revolutions ourselves.

I predict the American Revolution will happen very similarly to the Autonomist movement in Italy in the 1970s -- increased proletarian independence and control, the formation of councils to oversee the workplace, capitalist resistance, violent civil war, and then the restructuring of society into non-hierarchal, democratic federations of councils that govern production on a local-regional-national system. We're not going to be tricked into having more leaders who "promise" to "this time really really fight for the workers' interests." Why do we need leaders to fight for us, to manage for us, to guide us, when we can fight for ourselves, manager ourselves, and lead ourselves? Liberate yourself from the bourgeois mentality -- you don't need a leader to show you how to make revolution, and how to live your life, do you?

If you want to free yourself, I suggest reading all you can read. I recommend Anton Pannekoek, Steve Wright, Harry Cleaver, Toni Negri, Paul Mattick, and other Council Communist and Autonomist Marxist writers. If you want something fast and free, check out Non-Leninist Marxism: A Philosophy of Revolution (http://web.archive.org/web/20010803232303/www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1587/nonlenin.htm) by Lenny Flank Jr.

[Dyst]

WELL IF MARX SED IT IT MUST B TRU LOL

Fool. There is a difference between saying something out of the blue and actually proving something or making strong arguments.

Here is a website more appropriate for people like you:
http://pbskids.org/barney/