Realism And The Revolution

[totem23]

Marx saw the communism as the inevitable end to the political progression. By his own view of history, he was proved wrong. He wrote in the era at the pinnacle of industrial capitalist monstrocities in "first world" (and therefore the most widely recognized) nations. The revolution was not only a goal; it was imminent. And yet, by his own doing, communism swept the world by force, by the conscious effort of educated revolutionaries. The people rose up and found themselves not in the utopia promised by Marx, but mired in economic problems just as before, compounded by severe personal restrictions.

Fact: previous communist nations have all failed. None became what Marx desired, what he even saw as the inevitable. It is time we modified our beliefs.

I believe that there is an equilibrium to be reached. The only question is how we can reach it now. There must be a realistic way.

[Hefer]

I don't think humanity is ready for communism; we may have to make a transtion that may take some decades, maybe centuries. We should have social democracy; aka open-market with some social control and work our way from there. Educating the population would be our best hope for reaching communism :) :hammer:

[Hefer]

Shouldn't this thread be in theory???

[kurt]

By his own view of history, he was proved wrong.

The USSR, China, et al were all under semi-fuedal modes of production at the time of their revolutions. For the most part, they have all become effectively capitalist. It was Marx who said that history moves in stages; you can't "skip" a mode of production. If anything, Marx was proven correct.


Fact: previous communist nations have all failed. None became what Marx desired, what he even saw as the inevitable. It is time we modified our beliefs.

Be careful when presenting fallacy as fact, someone may catch you on it.

If you knew anything at all about communism, you'd know that a communist nation is impossible. Communism, a classless, stateless society cannot be encapuslated within a nation!

Furthermore, none of these so called "communist" regimes even had the gall to suggest that they were in fact communist. They were always "working towards communism", and claimed to be socialist. They knew too well that they were not communist; something which you don't seem to understand.

[Gojo]

Originally posted by kurt+Jun 26 2006, 06:43 AM--> (kurt @ Jun 26 2006, 06:43 AM)
By his own view of history, he was proved wrong.

The USSR, China, et al were all under semi-fuedal modes of production at the time of their revolutions. For the most part, they have all become effectively capitalist. It was Marx who said that history moves in stages; you can't "skip" a mode of production. If anything, Marx was proven correct.


Fact: previous communist nations have all failed. None became what Marx desired, what he even saw as the inevitable. It is time we modified our beliefs.

Be careful when presenting fallacy as fact, someone may catch you on it.

If you knew anything at all about communism, you'd know that a communist nation is impossible. Communism, a classless, stateless society cannot be encapuslated within a nation!

Furthermore, none of these so called "communist" regimes even had the gall to suggest that they were in fact communist. They were always "working towards communism", and claimed to be socialist. They knew too well that they were not communist; something which you don't seem to understand. [/b]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:43 AM

By his own view of history, he was proved wrong.

The USSR, China, et al were all under semi-fuedal modes of production at the time of their revolutions. For the most part, they have all become effectively capitalist. It was Marx who said that history moves in stages; you can't "skip" a mode of production. If anything, Marx was proven correct.


Fact: previous communist nations have all failed. None became what Marx desired, what he even saw as the inevitable. It is time we modified our beliefs.

Be careful when presenting fallacy as fact, someone may catch you on it.

If you knew anything at all about communism, you'd know that a communist nation is impossible. Communism, a classless, stateless society cannot be encapuslated within a nation!

Furthermore, none of these so called "communist" regimes even had the gall to suggest that they were in fact communist. They were always "working towards communism", and claimed to be socialist. They knew too well that they were not communist; something which you don't seem to understand.

[email protected] 26 2006, 06:43 AM
something which you don't seem to understand.
There seem to be TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE THAN DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMUNISM IS ALL ABOUT AND YET THEY JOIN THE FORUM AND POST CRAPY and USELESS POSTS.

:!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

[Si Pinto]

When I first saw the title of this thread I thought....Good!! at last something important to talk about, a bit of realism for a change.

Here we are 5 posts later and you guys are at each others fucking throats again!!

How the hell is the leftist movement supposed to 'win over' the masses when we can't have a discussion without constant hassle over 'this' means 'that' and 'that means 'this'.

If I was a capitalist reading these posts I'd be pissing myself laughing, and could happily leave, safe in the knowledge that we couldn't organise a 'piss up in a brewery' never mind a revolution.

What the opening post said was that communist nations have all failed, it's just poor word use, so why don't you say it's just poor word use instead of saying things like 'If you knew anything at all about Communism' which is patronising, and highly derogatory, to say the least.

Too many people on this forum seem to think themselves above others (which is far more anti-communist than poor word use), and exercise this belief by 'pulling apart' peoples statements before they've even had chance to be answered.

Have a real close look at the title of this thread, and get REAL!!!

[More Fire for the People]

Your analysis of the communist movement is severely lacking. But that's okay, you've probably only learned about communism from an American History textbook.

I suggest you read these works :)
A History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky
Our Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm) by Lenin

Now as to Marx believing that revolution was 'imminent', this is not the whole truth. Marx believed that revolution would not only require a passive material basis — capitalist exploitation, stagnation, imiseration — but also an active, conscious element.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:42 AM
Marx saw the communism as the inevitable end to the political progression. By his own view of history, he was proved wrong. He wrote in the era at the pinnacle of industrial capitalist monstrocities in "first world" (and therefore the most widely recognized) nations. The revolution was not only a goal; it was imminent. And yet, by his own doing, communism swept the world by force, by the conscious effort of educated revolutionaries. The people rose up and found themselves not in the utopia promised by Marx, but mired in economic problems just as before, compounded by severe personal restrictions.

Fact: previous communist nations have all failed. None became what Marx desired, what he even saw as the inevitable. It is time we modified our beliefs.

I believe that there is an equilibrium to be reached. The only question is how we can reach it now. There must be a realistic way.
Alright...rant over..I'll try and answer some points of the thread.


By his own view of history, he was proved wrong.

Don't forget, he and Engels wrote that stuff about 140 years ago!

Think how much the world has changed since then, the capitalism that Marx knew and suffered the consequences of himself, has been replaced by media control and huge international businesses, which are as powerful as any nation. Capitalism is now more deeply rooted in our society than ever before, Marx could never have forseen this.


The people rose up and found themselves not in the utopia promised by Marx, but mired in economic problems just as before, compounded by severe personal restrictions.

Firstly, the revolution failed, I don't think any of us would dispute that, it failed as soon as Lenin and the others dug-in and consolidated rather than continue with the revolution.

Secondly, the economic problems of that time (end of world war I) were being felt across most countries, but these were multiplied tenfold in the USSR, by the western powers continued undermining of the Soviet economy.

The arms race is a perfect example of the US (and the rest of NATO) stopping at nothing to undermine the Soviet Union, neither the US nor the Soviet Union could actually afford the arms race, but the difference was that the capitalist multi-national banks bankrolled the US through this period, look at the US national debt in the 60's 70's and 80's, those figures would bankrupt any other nation on this planet in an instant, but a debt is only a debt if the person you owe the money to wants it back. The banks were only too happy to pay for America's weapons because the last thing they wanted was a communist victory.


I believe that there is an equilibrium to be reached. The only question is how we can reach it now. There must be a realistic way.

Well...ok...what's your idea?

[totem23]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:56 AM
Shouldn't this thread be in theory???
Hm... yea, maybe this should be in theory. But I mean, if we keep everything in theory then it never transitions into reality. And maybe theories shouldn't always transfer out of the ideological realm. But what fun would that be? Or maybe it was my first post and I happened to click on the wrong forum. The world may never know.

We're here now though, so I'll attempt to address the replies. First, though:


How the hell is the leftist movement supposed to 'win over' the masses when we can't have a discussion without constant hassle over 'this' means 'that' and 'that means 'this'.

If I was a capitalist reading these posts I'd be pissing myself laughing, and could happily leave, safe in the knowledge that we couldn't organise a 'piss up in a brewery' never mind a revolution.

What the opening post said was that communist nations have all failed, it's just poor word use, so why don't you say it's just poor word use instead of saying things like 'If you knew anything at all about Communism' which is patronising, and highly derogatory, to say the least.

Too many people on this forum seem to think themselves above others (which is far more anti-communist than poor word use), and exercise this belief by 'pulling apart' peoples statements before they've even had chance to be answered.

Pinto has an excellent point which I thought about commenting on earlier but decided to let go. A lot of people spend time hacking down everyone else trying to prove that their knowledge and communist worth. That's psychotic. The extremists in any movement always cause more injury to their own cause in the long run. The purpose of this thread was to get people going about real ideas for reform. Maybe not for revolution, yet, but we have to have some ideas about realistic change. I never pretended to know everything, and I know I am actually rather ignorant in the depth of communist study. I just assumed people who supposedly were working toward the same goals under the same ideology wouldn't attack their allies. This hostility is not constructive. Then again, I'm not sure a lot of people here are trying to construct anything. I respect that this is a vent for people who are hopeless in the face of the imperialist, capitalist machine. I am almost there. However, I am an American and if we have any good quality, it is a kind of blind optimism in our youth. I can't let this go yet.

Let me first clear up what I was trying to say when I contended that all communist nations have failed. It was poor word use, it was just an easy way of stated a complex subject.

Furthermore, none of these so called "communist" regimes even had the gall to suggest that they were in fact communist. They were always "working towards communism", and claimed to be socialist. They knew too well that they were not communist; something which you don't seem to understand.
Thanks kurt, for your generous contribution. No communist nations have failed because, as kurt so politely pointed out, no revolution actually led to communism. They all got stuck on the way. This was my intended point. All communist revolutions have failed because none of them brought about their intended goal - that is, pure communism (if that was, in fact, the goal of the leaders).


Now as to Marx believing that revolution was 'imminent', this is not the whole truth. Marx believed that revolution would not only require a passive material basis — capitalist exploitation, stagnation, imiseration — but also an active, conscious element.
You're right. I abandon any of my points regarding the imminence of the revolution versus the contrived revolution. It seems cursory now anyway. The revolutions that did take place were catalyzed by both the degenerate conditions of capitalism a well as the efforts of the revolutionaries. This is what Marx foresaw. He also believed that he had discovered the inner secret of human politics and that the revolutions would come about (led by revolutionaries) of their own accord. Yes, the people would actively seek change and consciously try to bring about a better form of government. As I can see it, all is in agreement. And to set the record straight, if all I learned about communism was from an american history textbook I assure you, I would not be here now.

I'll be back later, so don't castrate me for what I haven't replied to yet. But by all means, replies to what I have said would be welcome.

[kurt]

There seem to be TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE THAN DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMUNISM IS ALL ABOUT AND YET THEY JOIN THE FORUM AND POST CRAPY and USELESS POSTS.

Indeed... :lol:


No communist nations have failed because, as kurt so politely pointed out, no revolution actually led to communism. They all got stuck on the way. This was my intended point. All communist revolutions have failed because none of them brought about their intended goal - that is, pure communism .

I think you missed the point completely, actually.

According to marxist theory, these revolutions could not have established communism; the material conditions were simply not in place for a communist revolution. A marxist should have known that these revolutions would merely lead to capitalism, you can't "skip" over a mode of production.

You see, in order for communism to take hold, there are a few pre-requisites. Firstly, the capitalist mode of production must be allowed to develop the basis for material abundance. Without this material abundance, we get a sort of "barracks communism", the kind we saw in the USSR, et al. Only capitalism can develop this abundance, so it follows that capitalism must be allowed to develop sufficiently before communism can take hold. There are a few other pre-quisites, but they are not necessary to explore in this thread.


(if that was, in fact, the goal of the leaders)

A true communist revolution won't have the same type of "leader" figures we saw in the revolutions of the 20th century.


The revolutions that did take place were catalyzed by both the degenerate conditions of capitalism a well as the efforts of the revolutionaries.

Capitalism had barely begun to develop in Russia, China, et al, so how could capitalism have been degenerate?

[Si Pinto]

You see, in order for communism to take hold, there are a few pre-requisites. Firstly, the capitalist mode of production must be allowed to develop the basis for material abundance. Without this material abundance, we get a sort of "barracks communism", the kind we saw in the USSR, et al. Only capitalism can develop this abundance, so it follows that capitalism must be allowed to develop sufficiently before communism can take hold. There are a few other pre-quisites, but they are not necessary to explore in this thread.

Yes, I can quote theory all day as well, but it gets us nowhere, it doesn't do anything, there is no end product, it just shows that you've 'read up' on the theories of communism'.

Reality - The point of the thread, if I'm reading it right is saying if your perfect, wholesome, 100% pure communist revolution wasn't possible then and isn't possible now, then what are the alternatives? Are there any alternatives?


A true communist revolution won't have the same type of "leader" figures we saw in the revolutions of the 20th century.

That's a lovely looking quote, but you and I both know (at least I hope you know), that it just isn't going to happen that way, the masses are not going to suddenly emancipate themselves, and march as one towards a communist utopia. The masses can't even be bothered to get up off their arses and vote, let alone march along with anything.

Reality - The masses need someone (or some people) to lead them, certainly at the beginning anyway, to start the ball rolling, to give the movement a 'focal point' at least until victory has been won.

Look at the situation in Britain now, the Labour party has moved over to the right, to such a degree that the Lib Dems are proposing a pact with the Conservatives at the next general election. The political situation in Britain now more and more resembles that in the US, the only options are to vote for Conservative capitalism, or New Labour Capitalism. The socialist movement is virtually non-existent, particularly at election times, there are loads of small socialist parties and of course the UK Communist Party but these are all seperate groups, there is no 'unity' at all, no real sense of purpose.

Now...Let's say that I got a few thousand like-minded people to pick up arms and all scream 'revolution' at the same time, the masses would barely look up from their TV sets and me and my friends would be cut down in a matter of days.

So the reality of the situation is that people are going to have to create a new Socialist party, by either getting all of the small socialist groups to merge to create one new true socialist party, or start one afresh and get them to join you.

At this moment, there is a huge gaping hole in the British political scene, where a party of the left should be. If we wait for perfect conditions so we can have the perfect revolution, that hole will be filled in, the political spectrum will simply not move that far left anymore, much like the situation in the US.

I don't want a parlimentary socialist government to be the best we can achieve. I want a communist world, but the reality of the situation is that 'a communist world' is a million miles away, so I'll settle for a socialist government and take it from there.

Now that might not be a 'communist utopia' (at least in the short term), but it's a realistic approach to the situation at-hand now!

[Gojo]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 26 2006, 04:47 PM

Here we are 5 posts later and you guys are at each others fucking throats again!!

What the opening post said was that communist nations have all failed, it's just poor word use, so why don't you say it's just poor word use instead of saying things like 'If you knew anything at all about Communism' which is patronising, and highly derogatory, to say the least.

Too many people on this forum seem to think themselves above others (which is far more anti-communist than poor word use), and exercise this belief by 'pulling apart' peoples statements before they've even had chance to be answered.

Have a real close look at the title of this thread, and get REAL!!!
What I said about posting meaningless posts meant that we should BE DISCUSSING matters on this forum SERIOUSLY and posts that say that communism has failed in all countries SURE AS HELL WON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.
There seem to be a few kids around here that saw the red star and the hammer and sickle and all those armies marching that got them into "communism" which they practice by wearing Che t-shirts and posting threads about something they just meet with.

In my viewing of things these countries failed to protect the communism although they succeded in puting it up ; ex-USSR, ex-Yugoslavia

Coutries like east Germany, Albania, Romania etc. failed to bring it up and make it work.

Cuba, Lybia, China and North Korea have all succeded in both things the previous groups haven't: bringing it up, making it work and protecting it from the inside/outside influence, agression, sabotage, espionage.
But these 4 countries have, like someone said stuck somewhere along the way and the problem for each of this coutryies is the way of finding the way out.
I think that Cuba, Lybia and NK have the good communism roots based withnin their system but China is of great concern. If that giant falls to capitalist hands the communist countries will lose so much. It will threaten their very survival, just like the fall of USSR did.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:26 PM
What I said about posting meaningless posts meant that we should BE DISCUSSING matters on this forum SERIOUSLY
Gojo, I completely agree with that statement, I REALLY do.

However, endless and pointless theorising is not discussing things seriously, to me.

Just because someone doesn't quite phrase their question right doesn't make them a 'poor communist' and he shouldn't be labelled as such in his opening post on the forum, we are more likely to frighten away people who may have strong leftist beliefs, but who may be uncertain about particular details.

We should be educating and emancipating people, not patronising them and driving them away.

;)

[Gojo]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 27 2006, 07:35 PM
Gojo, I completely agree with that statement, I REALLY do.

However, endless and pointless theorising is not discussing things seriously, to me.

Just because someone doesn't quite phrase their question right doesn't make them a 'poor communist' and he shouldn't be labelled as such in his opening post on the forum, we are more likely to frighten away people who may have strong leftist beliefs, but who may be uncertain about particular details.

We should be educating and emancipating people, not patronising them and driving them away.

;)
good point. You're right, I know how would I have felt if I was in their place

[totem23]

youre all brilliant. im drunk and youre still brilliant. i love you all

[Delta]

In my opinion the idea that we should simply avoid elections is completely wrong. Revolution is not around the corner. In the US, we have Republicans (!!!!) getting elected all the time and people are defending torture, wars of aggression, tax cuts for the rich on primetime TV. Revolution will not happen now, and if it did, it would surely turn out horribly. We must swing the political debate to the left. Voting for Democrats is not going to do this either. We must vote for parties like the Greens so that the Dems look to the left for votes. Ultimately, we must get a proportional representation system, so that we could more easily elect those with true progressive positions to government.

Once we've swung the political debate to the left enough, then perhaps we'll have our revolution.

[Sasha Suvorov]

Greetings, Comrades-

I'm new to the forum and saw this thread; I'd like to add my two cent's worth if I may:

Unless there is a MASS movement, obviously the revolution will not occur. How do we build a mass movement? By providing an organized, determined, practical-minded, and legal political party for starters. People will come and go in 'social clubs' but if they have something concrete to do and are kept at it- and they see results- they are far more likely to stay.

I see the problem as two-fold: first, resistance to anything labeled 'Communism' or 'Socialism' is so ingrained in the American mind that it's giong to be difficult to break, unless we can reach the youner crowd and educate them before it's too late. Second, the Left is so splintered into a thousand different factions, each souting to the heavens that they are right and everyone else is wrong- this is where we are going to stagnate.

I believe we have a great need for retrenchement in our organizations, our plans, and our goals on a large scale. We need to be able to put aside labels of 'Leninist' or 'Trotskyist' or 'Maoist' or whatever you have and come together under one Red Banner. Of course, it would help if an overall organization such as the early Internationale could be reformed without dominance from any particular group. Even better, if all the factions could agree on a single platform and join into one great Party things could get better very quickly. The Internationale would then be free to concentrate on global issues instead of refereeing spats between tendencies.

Of course, I absolutely realize I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times but I wanted to get it out there just one more time.

[kurt]

Reality - The point of the thread, if I'm reading it right is saying if your perfect, wholesome, 100% pure communist revolution wasn't possible then and isn't possible now, then what are the alternatives? Are there any alternatives?

If you want to "do something" right now, you have one of two options as I see it.

You can engage in reformism, maybe run for parliament if you're feeling really ambitious. Maybe you and others like you will be able to "squeeze" out a reform or two, but this is highly unlikely in modern capitalist countries, as the trend is quickly moving in the opposite direction. In the end however, you may just end up doing more harm to a true revolutionary movement.

Or, you can do the communist thing: educate and agitate. Encourage working people to take matters into their own hands, and think for themselves. Do your small part in raising class consciousness. Don't think that you alone, or that even you and most of the entire radical left can do much harm or good one way or the other; material conditions are what trigger social upheavals, not a "battle of ideas".


That's a lovely looking quote, but you and I both know (at least I hope you know), that it just isn't going to happen that way, the masses are not going to suddenly emancipate themselves, and march as one towards a communist utopia.

I don't "need" a leader to emanicipate me. Myself and other proletarians can do just fine without your "benevolence".


The masses can't even be bothered to get up off their arses and vote, let alone march along with anything.

That's actually a good thing; voting is useless when it comes to revolution (that thing communists want).


Reality - The masses need someone (or some people) to lead them, certainly at the beginning anyway, to start the ball rolling, to give the movement a 'focal point' at least until victory has been won.

So you keep asserting, and so it keeps falling on deaf ears I'm afraid. Why would working people seek to overthrow their bosses by following new ones?



Look at the situation in Britain now, the Labour party has moved over to the right, to such a degree that the Lib Dems are proposing a pact with the Conservatives at the next general election. The political situation in Britain now more and more resembles that in the US, the only options are to vote for Conservative capitalism, or New Labour Capitalism. The socialist movement is virtually non-existent, particularly at election times, there are loads of small socialist parties and of course the UK Communist Party but these are all seperate groups, there is no 'unity' at all, no real sense of purpose.

Voting in elections never achieved anything conducive to revolution. In fact, most social-democratic parties eagerly participated into the imperialist blood bath that was WWI. How "progressive" of them.


Now...Let's say that I got a few thousand like-minded people to pick up arms and all scream 'revolution' at the same time, the masses would barely look up from their TV sets and me and my friends would be cut down in a matter of days.

Material conditions prevail...


So the reality of the situation is that people are going to have to create a new Socialist party, by either getting all of the small socialist groups to merge to create one new true socialist party, or start one afresh and get them to join you.

And it would either decay into utter servility or have the same effect as your above illustration.


I don't want a parlimentary socialist government to be the best we can achieve. I want a communist world, but the reality of the situation is that 'a communist world' is a million miles away, so I'll settle for a socialist government and take it from there.

The reality of the situation is that a "socialist" government is just as capitalistic as a "liberal" government. While you settle for bourgeois hegemony, us communists will be advocating revolution.

[Si Pinto]

I don't "need" a leader to emanicipate me. Myself and other proletarians can do just fine without your "benevolence".

If that was the case why haven't they done it already, the vast majority don't know about the 'perfect' conditions required for a 'perfect' communist revolution, so why haven't they erroneously tried? because they're not interested in politics, they're interested in the trappings that capitalism brings them, watching and reading the garbage that the bourgeois media throw at them and being 'good citizens'.

Now you and I could spend the rest of our lives trying to make people understand and believe, but the likelyhood is that we will be treated like a couple of JW's by most people, they'd be polite, take the leaflet we have for them, then shut the door, bin the leaflet and carry on as before. I've been there and done all that, it can be a little soul destroying believe me!

That doesn't mean we give up!

You might not need a leader to emancipate you (the fact that your on this webiste is proof enough of that), but take a look at the people around you (not the like-minded people), they do.

and I wasn't volunteering myself ;)


That's actually a good thing; voting is useless when it comes to revolution (that thing communists want).

But it proves that they are simply not interested, if they can't even be bothered to put an 'x' on something, or even write 'none of the above' on their ballot paper (I've done this myself at the last few elections), are you really expecting them to take part in a revolution?


Why would working people seek to overthrow their bosses by following new ones?

Because the 'new ones' would be preaching communism, and hopefully the masses would believe it, get up of their arses and revolt.


Voting in elections never achieved anything conducive to revolution. In fact, most social-democratic parties eagerly participated into the imperialist blood bath that was WWI. How "progressive" of them.

Nice use of sarcasm at the end there.

I agree, most parliamentary systems are corrupt, but most capitalist countries have a parliamentary system of government, so if we can't have a revolution, get inside their system and bring it down, dismantle it and rebuild it.


And it would either decay into utter servility or have the same effect as your above illustration.

Well, any movement, be it revolutionary or parliamentary depends on the 'commitment' of the people involved, the Revolution could go exactly the same way!


The reality of the situation is that a "socialist" government is just as capitalistic as a "liberal" government.

History would certainly lend weight to that viewpoint I would agree, but there is always a first time for everything, as I said before, for any 'action' to succeed you are relying on the commitment and solidarity of the people in it.


us communists will be advocating revolution.

and the best of luck with it!

Please believe me when I say that I don't support anything, be it revolutionary or parliamentary that 'settles for bourgeois hegemony'. If I did I wouldn't be here now.

ever onward to victory ;)

[kurt]

If that was the case why haven't they done it already, the vast majority don't know about the 'perfect' conditions required for a 'perfect' communist revolution, so why haven't they erroneously tried? because they're not interested in politics, they're interested in the trappings that capitalism brings them, watching and reading the garbage that the bourgeois media throw at them and being 'good citizens'.

This has already been explained to you. If you decide that material conditions "don't matter", then fine, but don't go preaching the need for a realistic approach to communism when you're preaching idealism.

There has been plenty of working class resistance in the last 5 years.. the class is learning everyday. Sure, some may be interested in the "trappings" that capitalism brings them, but that doesn't mean they can't or won't fight for their own emancipation.

And I never said anything about a "perfect" communist revolution. The working class may fail several times before it succeeds, just like the bourgeois before them.



Now you and I could spend the rest of our lives trying to make people understand and believe, but the likelyhood is that we will be treated like a couple of JW's by most people, they'd be polite, take the leaflet we have for them, then shut the door, bin the leaflet and carry on as before. I've been there and done all that, it can be a little soul destroying believe me!

Well, if the material conditions don't manifest themselves during our lifetimes (which I doubt), then yes, we'll largely be ignored.

However.. if they are present..


You might not need a leader to emancipate you (the fact that your on this webiste is proof enough of that), but take a look at the people around you (not the like-minded people), they do.

You seem to think the present situation cannot change, while I am confident it can. Class consciousness can arise very quickly in a revolutionary situation.


But it proves that they are simply not interested, if they can't even be bothered to put an 'x' on something, or even write 'none of the above' on their ballot paper (I've done this myself at the last few elections), are you really expecting them to take part in a revolution?

I can't even be "bothered" to waste my time with bourgeois "democracy" either, why should we expect the working class to believe in that crap as well?


Because the 'new ones' would be preaching communism, and hopefully the masses would believe it, get up of their arses and revolt.

I'll be opposing your "leader" until the bitter end I'm afraid. I hope the working class does it themselves without your help. They don't need it.



I agree, most parliamentary systems are corrupt, but most capitalist countries have a parliamentary system of government, so if we can't have a revolution, get inside their system and bring it down, dismantle it and rebuild it.

Ok, so you agree that parliament is a sham, yet you propose "getting inside" the system? As history has shown us, being determines consciousness. Participate in bourgeois politics, and you too will become a bourgeois politician. Despite all the historical evidence that lies in your way, you propose to try it again.



History would certainly lend weight to that viewpoint I would agree, but there is always a first time for everything, as I said before, for any 'action' to succeed you are relying on the commitment and solidarity of the people in it.

Do you need to jump off a cliff to know you'll fall? You strike me as an idealist, or profoundly stupid...

Go ahead, try it again. I, however, won't be suprised when you're bought off by a CEO, or end up supporting another silly imperialist venture.


Please believe me when I say that I don't support anything, be it revolutionary or parliamentary that 'settles for bourgeois hegemony'. If I did I wouldn't be here now.

"Parliament" is a bourgeois institution. Participating in it is recognizing bourgeois hegemony whether you like to admit it or not.

[Si Pinto]

My dictionary says - "An ideal is a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal."

So yes I'm an idealist aren't you?


There has been plenty of working class resistance in the last 5 years.. the class is learning everyday.

We could debate the definition of 'plenty' but that is only a matter of personal opinion. You have a lot of faith in the masses, one might almost say a romantic view of the situation, and jesus do I hope your right, but I don't see it, I really don't, if that makes me a pessimist then ok, I'd prefer to call myself a realist, trying to think/deal with the situation at hand now, and the situation which is liable to pervade for a long time to come, you say that yourself.


I can't even be "bothered" to waste my time with bourgeois "democracy" either, why should we expect the working class to believe in that crap as well?


Oh come on! The vast majority of people who don't vote are not doing it because they reject the bourgeois 'democracy', they just can't be arsed! Lethargy pure and simple.

Now we can debate the reasons for this lethargy if you like, but the reasons appear fairly obvious, they 'generally' have reasonably comfortable lives, compared to their 'class' in Asia, Africa, Latin America etc. Modern homes, good and plentiful food, luxuary items, holidays etc. Plus the continued influence of the ruling class controlled media, who's aim (I've thought this for years) is exactly to create this lethargy within the masses.


I'll be opposing your "leader" until the bitter end I'm afraid. I hope the working class does it themselves without your help. They don't need it.

Then the revolution will fail, or never happen at all, in my opinion. It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


Ok, so you agree that parliament is a sham, yet you propose "getting inside" the system? As history has shown us, being determines consciousness. Participate in bourgeois politics, and you too will become a bourgeois politician. Despite all the historical evidence that lies in your way, you propose to try it again.

No, I propose a revolution as well, but I'm also open to other suggestions. Which is the basic question of this thread.

I said it before and I'll say it again, any movement, revolution, is dependant on the commitment of it's people.

Man creates history, not the other way around - Marx

You have faith in the masses rising to the revolutionary call, I have faith that 'with the same commitment levels' a movement entering a parliament with a majority could dismantle the 'bourgeois democracy'.


Do you need to jump off a cliff to know you'll fall? You strike me as an idealist, or profoundly stupid...

For the reasons I've already given, I don't think it would fail, in the same way you don't think a revolution would fail.

Yes, I'm an idealist because I have ideals, goals that I'd like to see accomplished for the benefit of everyone not just the select few.

As for me being profoundly stupid, well your probably right. I've been called far worse believe me.

I might add though that your use of insults does nothing for your argument and nothing for your cause, which is my cause, and more importantly some people will be offended by your insults and not feel comfortable posting on this site anymore (thankfully I'm blessed with the thickest of thick skin).

You will be driving away people who have an interest, but not an understanding of communism, exactly the people we need.

In your first post on this thread you used the line "If you knew anything at all about communism" which to my mind is an insult 'by any other name'.

By making statements like that you are putting yourself on a platform, raising yourself above the 'lesser communist' herd, and 'dare I say it' proclaiming a form of leadership or 'elite group'.

[kurt]

My dictionary says - "An ideal is a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal."

So yes I'm an idealist aren't you?

No, because that's not really what an idealist is in this context. In this context, the word idealist applies to you because you believe in the primacy of "ideas" over material reality (the committment of the people can "fix" bourgeois democracy).


We could debate the definition of 'plenty' but that is only a matter of personal opinion. You have a lot of faith in the masses, one might almost say a romantic view of the situation

There's been enough resistance to discredit your idea that the masses need to "get off their arses".

And my view isn't "romantic" in the slightest. It's based on a solid understanding of how class struggle throughout history has worked, and how it is likely to work in the context of the struggle between the bourgeois and proletariat. There's no room for romanticism in historical materialism.


Oh come on! The vast majority of people who don't vote are not doing it because they reject the bourgeois 'democracy', they just can't be arsed! Lethargy pure and simple.

Yet they find plenty of time to do other things, which shatters your notion that the masses are "lethargic". They're not lethargic, they just understand that they don't really have anything vested in bourgeois democracy; something you fail to grasp.


Then the revolution will fail, or never happen at all, in my opinion. It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Well at least we know what side you'll be on should the proletariat rise up for itself...


No, I propose a revolution as well, but I'm also open to other suggestions. Which is the basic question of this thread.

To be honest, the "basic" question of this thread is based on the faulty premise that revolution is not possible. There's nothing wrong with being open to other suggestions, but there is something wrong with repeating failed tactics; ones that are truely harmful to a true working class movement.


You have faith in the masses rising to the revolutionary call, I have faith that 'with the same commitment levels' a movement entering a parliament with a majority could dismantle the 'bourgeois democracy'.

Parliament is an instrument of bourgeois class rule. The proletariat cannot "turn it against" the bourgeois. Better to just work outside it, and smash it.


As for me being profoundly stupid, well your probably right. I've been called far worse believe me.

It was an OR clause, you're either a.. or b..

I guess you chose stupid? (I wasn't intending on that) :P

[Si Pinto]

No, because that's not really what an idealist is in this context.

Well it is in the context I used it, if that's ok?


Yet they find plenty of time to do other things, which shatters your notion that the masses are "lethargic". They're not lethargic, they just understand that they don't really have anything vested in bourgeois democracy; something you fail to grasp.

I meant politically lethargic.

Can I ask you a question. Have you actually ever canvassed? If you really believe that people aren't voting because they reject 'bourgeois democracy' then I can only assume you haven't because that is a million miles away from reality. Join me on a tour of working class areas of the UK and I'll prove it.


Well at least we know what side you'll be on should the proletariat rise up for itself...

Don't put your words in my mouth, at no point have I said I would do anything but join a revolution, leaderless or not, your the one who said.....
I'll be opposing your "leader" until the bitter end I'm afraid.

You are the one creating an 'opposing faction' before the things even started. Some solidarity that!


Parliament is an instrument of bourgeois class rule. The proletariat cannot "turn it against" the bourgeois. Better to just work outside it, and smash it.

At the risk of repeating myself (this argument is going around in circles, so this will be my last post on the matter).

I have faith that it would work if the committment was there, as is my right. Obviously you don't, as is yours.


It was an OR clause, you're either a.. or b..

I guess you chose stupid? (I wasn't intending on that) :P

Nice try....

Your statement "Idealist or profoundly stupid" is clearly an indication that you consider 'idealism' (as you see it) to be stupid. Now I may have read that wrong, but that's the perception I got/get.

and if I might just add....using a :P at the end of your statement is terribly childish, especially when none have been typed in your direction.

I'm afraid your proving every word of what I said earlier.

Shame.

Your helping to destroy the very thing you profess to long for!

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Parliament is an instrument of bourgeois class rule.

In capitalist nations, perhaps.


The proletariat cannot "turn it against" the bourgeois.

That is exactly what is happening in Bolivia, no?

The people are strengthening themselves through the bourgeois-"democratic" state, and are starting to weakening the capitalist class.


Better to just work outside it, and smash it.

And that will be done by a small group of men who claim to be fighting for the people?


It didn't work for ETA, which the people do not like. It hasn't worked with FARC or ELN, which the Columbian people do not really like, either.


Why not try it peacefully as long as there is a light in the end of the tunnel?

If a socialists/communists are elected by the people, then the people should embrace all the arms they can get their hands on, establish workers and peasant militia's, which will fend of the bourgeois military's tanks with anti-tank rockets, if the military would try to coup the nation.

And the workers and peasant militia's should acquire mobile land-based air defence if the military sets in helicopters and/or warplanes.

We could set up safety nets, like special commisions that could do surveillance on the top generals.

For example. These were just some ideas on top of my head.