election or revolution - which would you prefer

[WUOrevolt]

There are two ways that america could become socialist. The american socialists could elect the socialsit party or all socialist could overthrow american democracy. Which would you prefer.

[WUOrevolt]

i would prefer election. we should take advantage of our democracy.

[Jesus Christ]

election would be the way to go

[jjack]

Election would be ideal. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.

[Urban Rubble]

Anyone who would choose a bloody revolution over a peaceful election is a warmonget and an idiot. Of course we'd rather have an election, the thing is, will there be anyone worth voting for ? If not, then comes the revolution. Or at least it should.

[Dirty Commie]

Elewctions, to rub it in the face of all the cappies, but a revolution is more likely.

Both have very slim odds in the near future, maybe years from now when the evil stigma of the word 'communist' is washed away by intellectuals who get elected, then change may come.

[Pete]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 12:42 am on May 18, 2003
Anyone who would choose a bloody revolution over a peaceful election is a warmonget and an idiot. Of course we'd rather have an election, the thing is, will there be anyone worth voting for ? If not, then comes the revolution. Or at least it should.


Ahh how uneducated you are.

First of all there is no way that any Western nation will become communist via elections. The electorial process forces a party to become oppurtunist to win, and therefore it must betray its own ideals to achieve support. Aswell in America there are two major parties, which my eyes are two branches of the same party that is moving increasingly left. Any dissent does not have the funding to launch a successful campaign since America is the land of superfisciality: pretty people, pretty words.

The liberal way out is to, of course, assume that the current system will gets its act together and educate its people in such away that a peaceful revolution is possible, but I highly doubt that since capitalism acts in its own self interest and therefore those in power, while oppurtunist in nature, will act in a way that they believe will keep them in power. There is little room for alternative opinions there.

The Electorial College is set up as such that you vote for someone to vote for the president for you. It is to control the mob and keep the power in the hands of the wealthy few, America's Lords of the Robe. Communsim has also been shown as something that it isn't to the American people and they are afraid of it while ignorant of the ideals which communism displays.

Revolution is necassary. I see that in an industralized nation that a grassroot syndicist movement would be more successful than the traditional Leninist approach. Strikes in solidarty of other workers in strikes and the absolute refusal to listen to the government, there by removing it from power (since the workers are the people that run the nation) may be able to create a new system of government after a series of very very bloody battles (America has too many weapons). The state will either crush all opposition and install a regime of terror, or it will collapse under the wieght of dissent. This is the only possible solution. Eventually the United States of America may become a group of selfsufficent worker co-ops.

To say that an election could work now or in the future is to place your bets on a pipe dream. I hope you wake up.

[praxis1966]

There's no easy answer to your question. America is in the unique position of having only about 25% of the total population vote on a regular basis. This is why the country is in the state of Limbo that it currently finds itself.

As Alexis d'Toqueville, the French sociologist, once said in reference to America, "A nation that abhorres politics cannot sustain a democracy." This is the fundamental problem with the U$. The downtrodden masses are so reviled by and outcast from the political system that they ultimately do not participate in the political system, and probably never will.

As Pete said, the only way to foster a more egalitarian society in the U$ is by syndicalist revolution. The establishment of workers counsels within the trade unions, organisation of independant farmers, and pedagogy of the masses followed by an armed struggle are the only means by which the American people can achieve liberation.

In other words: The only way the citizens of the U$ will achieve freedom and the return of power is through open and armed revolt.

[ComradeJunichi]

Well said, Pete.

Elections or Revolution? I would side with revolution, even if the communists won elections it is likely there would be a civil war or something like it. How many times have peaceful socialist movements been wiped out?

[Umoja]

The reason peaceful socialist movements have been wiped out, is because they started on the fringe where powerful forces could attack them. If a peaceful socialist movement happens in the "belly of the beast", the Capitalist wouldn't wisely try and destroy their stomach, and personally I wouldn't want to try that either. Sorry for the metaphor.

[Sandanista]

Well you cannot have true socialism from an election, the workers must rise up...REVOLUTION!

[Dirty Commie]

JUnichi had a point, if a Marxist group won the elections, the government would fight back.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think Pete & Praxis pretty much got it.

[NeedForRevolution]

Yap i also support the revolution.... not because i want to kill people but because for the government communism is bad so it has to be wiped out........


Workers of all countries unite and fight!!!!

[Saint-Just]

'JUnichi had a point, if a Marxist group won the elections, the government would fight back.' Dirty Commie

Governments who are not communists but centre left, such as Chavez's Venezuala or Mugabe's Zimbabwe, that have won power by election have suffered a strong fight from opposition as the system still retains much of its previous liberal, democratic structure. They could start a more forceful revolution and change the system and wipe out the opposition, however I think they are reluctant as their ideals are not as such. Mugabe has attempted to create a one party system using substantial but not overhwelming force.

All previous communist movements have gained power through violent revolution. I would suggest this is largely because of the highly unstable situations in those countries such as Russia, China.

Electoral power can yield victories for communist parties, such as it did in Weimar Germany.

My points are these; at some point the most volatile sections of opposition must be suppressed. Victory, can come through electoral power although only if the conditions suit it. Therefore we should use the best policy for the circumstances of the socialist movement in a specific country.

Originally the question was suggesting that violent revolution is wrong. And a lot of the answers to that have been, no it isn't wrong, so yes we should use it if necessary, and as history has shown it has been highly necessary at many different times.

[Dirty Commie]

I meant the amerikkkan government in particular.

But any right wing puppet of the usa would fight, verbally and with guns, a legaly elected Marxist legislature.

[GCusack]

I would prefer election, war is the last resort!

[chamo]

Election would be nice, but it's been made practically impossible by greed. Not many are willing to support a communist party anymore as well after the Cold War. The only thing we can do is hope, like the seats won for the Socialist parties in Scotland. Revolution is the only way!

[jjack]

Remember, in the United States houses of congress, Communists have been elected fair and square, only to be told that they couldn't hold their seat. The state will just say, "no, sorry. You folks need to vote responsibly."

However, the conditions of revolution are not here, and I believe suppression in the electoral system is a way of creating it. No one is going to support a revolutionary force unless they see that it is necessary to overthrow the current government and create a new one. We could use the election process to win either way. If we succede in an electoral revolution, fine. But if our movement is repressed by the forces of the state, which is more likely, it lends credit to our opinion that the state needs to be drastically overhauled and creates sympathies in folks who truly believe in democracy. In effect, we'd be proving ourselves right to the masses.

[Urban Rubble]

Crazy Pete, if you would actually read my post instead of skimming it over and then calling me un-educated you would see that I acknowledged that election is unlikely. I said I would choose election over revolution IF there was a chance it could work. How does that make me un-educated ? Because I would rather vote someone into power than fight a war ? I realize that voting a communist into power in the U.S or any country like it is impossible but in 20 years if it was possible I'd rather do it that way.

Saying there is NO way but revolution is Trotskism. Are you a Trotsyite ?

[Urban Rubble]

I can't type, but you get the point.

[Pete]

I read your post, I just quoted it for a reason that I forgot when I was typing my reply :) It was directed to the people in full support of elections.

I am not a trotskyite. Don't bring up that silly arguement, it is a waste of breathe and only causes greater divisions to the left than there already is.

[Urban Rubble]

Ok, sorry, but I felt like you were calling me uneducated.

The U.S would never let the left take over through elections, the only realistic way to take over this country would be through war, which isn't really that realistic since we would be crushed within days.

Looks like we're fucked guys.

[praxis1966]

There are two basic problems in the U$:

1) The efficacy of the ruling classes at convincing the masses that they are free. The myth has been so ingrained for so long in this country that I have found it exceedingly difficult to explain it away in one on one conversations with friends who are left-leaning but not exactly communist. Even the civil rights movements for the most part cannot grasp this. They do not understand that rascism is mearly an offshoot of classism, a tool used to divide and conquer the intellects of working class people.

2) The overwhelming way in which the Republicrats have monopolized the electoral process. The rules for candidates, not only for reception of federal matching funds but also the criteria for appearance in the national presidential debates, are so astronomically stringent that it is nearly impossible for a third party candidate to get his/her message out. The McCain-Fiengold Bill is a good start towards remedying this problem, but doesn't go nearly far enough. I have, by the way, some ideas to this end if anyone would like to hear them.

For the record, I would rather avoid bloodshed if at all possible. Unfortunately, I think this is impossible. When our oppressors feel that there hegemony may be threatened, they will react with violent aggression in order to preserve the status quo.

There is a fine line we must walk here people. On the one side lies the moral high ground, the other the necessity for immediate and decisive liberatory action.

[Sandanista]

Well first of all, a revolution the socialist sense isnt armed, its a workers revolution where the workers seize control of the means of production.

Guns have nothin to do with it unless the ruling class attack us!

Revolution IS the only way, any other way is just top down socialism...STALINISM, STATE CAPITALISM!!!

[Pete]

Explain Sandinista.

[Sandanista]

right, deep breathe, the proles have mass strike thus bringing the country to a stand still, the workers demand that they control the means of production, once granted this they return to work.

So what next?

well the government and the businesses cease to make money, this destroys the capitalist economic system then comes the abolition of the wages system, then come the workers communes.

any socialist worth his salt should know this.

If u elect a "socialist government" then they control everything, and at the end u have a small ruling elite, who control everything top-down.

Socialism is about bottom up!

ppl seem to think that guns and ammunition are the way to win, hahahaha we dont even have to get out of bed.

[Sandanista]

Ok i guess i have everyones full agreement then?

[Pete]

I meant that stalinism is state capitalism. I knew that other part, I explained it an earlier post of mine. I should have been more specific.

[Sensitive]

Execllent posts Pete.

Also, I agree with Chairman Mao that elections might work in some countries at some times, but the US is not one of those countries!

[Camarade Eli]

viva la revolution!!! (I think in Switzerland 't would be necessary as well!!!)

[scott thesocialist]

i think in the western world only politics would work for the government and armed forces have to much control. in asia or africa it may be possible with a armed struggle or other developing countries. but in a armed struggle you also need politics so in some cases you need both.

[Kez]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:39 am on May 21, 2003
I meant that stalinism is state capitalism. I knew that other part, I explained it an earlier post of mine. I should have been more specific.


not state capitalism, deformed workers state

[Sandanista]

Stalinism, state capitalist

[Vinny Rafarino]

hmm. interesting dove signature. Am I a socialist? Absulutely. Do I wish the revolution could be sustained? Of course. Do I believe in elections. Well I believe they speak for themselves. Only politically inept, undereducated individuals bother to vote...Unfortunate but true. They will continue to vote whatever they were tought by their McCarthyist parents and continue to pass on to their children. I personally know homesexual, minority and women republicans in America. They have no idea they are at the top of the list of the party's most hated. Ignorant fools. These are the people who vote. Revolution will ALWAYS be the only answer. Only, as we all know we lost the war in '61.
However as we also all know, capitalism cannot sustain itself indefinately. It will crumple in on itself leaving the only workable alternative IE; Socialism. We have all been aware of this since Einstein penned it years ago. HAVE PATIENCE COMRADES!

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 4:41 am on May 23, 2003)


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 4:46 am on May 23, 2003)

[praxis1966]

Well first of all, a revolution the socialist sense isnt armed, its a workers revolution where the workers seize control of the means of production.

Guns have nothin to do with it unless the ruling class attack us!

Revolution IS the only way, any other way is just top down socialism...STALINISM, STATE CAPITALISM!!!Ideally, you're right. Unfortunately, anytime the ruling class feels its power is threatened, it will inevitably react with violence. I refer you to the entire decade of the 1960s in Amerikkka. When this occurs, the only solution is for the revolutionaries to defend themselves.

[chamo]

You have to arm the people. The ruling classes have the military under their belt. They fund the military and the army makes invasions for more resources and exploitation to fund the bourgeois. The country would have to be in dire economic straits for the military to rise up against the government, and as long as the soldiers are keep paid and fed, they will not revolt. The USA is as far away from a military uprising as is possible in a country, the soldiers are gun-nuts, who are "brainwashed" into thinking they are fighting the good fight and are nationalistic idiots. If attacked, the bourgeois will respond by emobilising the military, who have the sufficent firepower and numbers to quash most armed revolutions. The fight would be a hard one as in Cuba, and other ongoing revolutions.

[vox]

"not state capitalism, deformed workers state"

The workers had not say and were monitored by the KGB. That's not a "worker's state" of any kind. It was Authoritarian Collectivist, two of the very things Marx himself opposed.

vox

[CompadreGuerrillera]

overthrow democracy? are u insane? are you saying you would take away the peoles right to rule?
i know that the American "democracy" isnt representative of the people, its a bunch of white male block head cappies, but to do away with democracy is insane and stalinist, but perhaps i misinterpreted what u said

anyway, if it could be accomplished peacefuly that would be great, but i really dont think that is likely, the ruling class fascists will not even be willing to let go of even a half-percent of their power.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I cannot say it any better than this.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before
-Albert Einstein 1949

We all share the vision and will see the fruits of our labour eventually. I for one would rather not wait until Elections provide it. Piss on capitalism...Arm yourselves!

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 4:01 am on May 24, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Stalin went against all that socialism stood for. The workers had no power, it was all in the power of one individual, in this case stalin. Who just happened to be as bad as Hitler if not worse, Hitler killed because he was a racist, Stalin killed because he was paranoid to the point of insanity. Only a very misguided individual would ever support such a maniac's actions.

overthrow democracy? are u insane? are you saying you would take away the peoles right to rule?

Excelently said.

But to get to the point, revolution would never work in western countrys as the military would crush any armed revolt. The only way to achive socialism in highly economicaly developed western nation would be to elect a socialist government.

[kylie]

Stalin was not paranoid. He was thorough(spelt wrong?) in his securing of his own future. The killings of those who supported Trotsky, through to those who had a very weak link to him, were due to it being Stalins thinking that for him to be safe all traces of Trotsky and his ideas needed to be destroyed, or if not possible, altered so no-one would ever support them. But how is it that it would be worse to kill if a person was paranoid, a mental disorder, over a person killing because they are racist?

[Pete]

overthrow democracy? are u insane? are you saying you would take away the peoles right to rule?

Excelently said.

But to get to the point, revolution would never work in western countrys as the military would crush any armed revolt. The only way to achive socialism in highly economicaly developed western nation would be to elect a socialist government.


I disagree with you completely. We have seen governments elected on socailist platforms before. Some times they are truly socialist and try to make a difference (as Chavez is now) but other times they are merely oppurtunists and abuse the power given to them (the best example is Hitler). For those who do try to make change, (in the case of Canada the NDP), they are rarely elected to consequtive terms, and after they are removed from office all of their changes are undone. This is not the way.

Syndicism, although it creates a new class (so does violent revolution aka marxist-leninism), is a much better way of creating change. What if the workers, using Comrade RAF's definition, protested in usion against the current system? Even 100 000 would do the trick I think. If they set up 'governments' sort of like the Seatle Protests, what would the US government be able to do with a clean consious without having a coalition for against them in the world? Very little if anything. Anyways there are so many guns in America if the police/soldiers/whatever starting shooting, workers would shot back.

For other nations, well Canada too I suppose and America, I see Marxist-Leninist revolutions as a real answer. Lets say a 'horrible incident' happened in Canada that required teh US army to come and 'assist' (as they can under a new treaty) and all of the sudden Canada is occupied by the Americans, if not in name but in reality. Geurrilla Warfare is an option, and one that many people (right and left alike) would pursue. This, although not a, well, smart idea could be used. The NDP have proved that elections will not. The CCF have proved this as well as the Creditors and the CPC ML.

For those reasons and alternatives I disagree with you completely AK.

[Nobody]

Revolution is the only way to setup a communist government. Firstly, it lets all the workers ban together to fight for something together, make them fell like brothers fighting for a common casue. Secondly it is a safty vavle. A revolution by the working class normally requires the mahority of people to at least be sympathiec to the workers. If the support is not there the revolution will fail becasue of lack of support. That is a sign that the workers are not ready to sieze control of the means of production. When enough support is there revolution is invieble.

[Iepilei]

Revolution will be the end result.

[Pete]

I just thought of this.

Any ideological change of government is a revolution. Whether it is violent or not is the question here, not whether 'revolution or election.' Revolution may come peacefully, but I highly doubt that is possible, especially in the dogmatic west (as I have stated), or violently as is most likely in my opinion.

[Kez]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 11:12 pm on May 27, 2003
I just thought of this.

Any ideological change of government is a revolution.

wtf are you on about, you have no idea what your on about do you?
your making marxism look like an amatuers piece of work, be quiet and read up on the subject
in 1997 Labour Party came to power in the UK, was this a revolution??????
no, so shtumm
Revolution is the destruction of the state and its apparatus, and a communist revolution would be one where the means of production move from the private to public



Revolution may come peacefully

no, again, where you smoking dope when u wrote this?
No, do you expect the capitalists to lay down the army, police and courts and let you take over their companies?? fuck are you on about?
Or do you think if we send a few greetings cards to the local business owner saying

"please let us put your company into public ownership, taking away ur huge profits salary, kiss kiss

thanking you in anticipation
REvolutionary X"

no, dont come out with comments like, that

i apologise for picking your post out, since there were so many fucked posts up on here, but urs was the last one

comrade kamo

[Pete]

Fuck off Kamo. I guess you have not read my previous posts on this subject.

I do not think change will come peacefully, I think that is just a dream some people have and will never be a full reality. But it is possible. Hitler did it, he completely changed the state apparatus. Was that not a revolution, ablet a fascist one? He did that through elections and brainwashing, and some violence. None of the current political parties that hold any influence in Canada, the US, and I'm going to say Britian as well (Labour is a fucking rightwing party, or is portrayed as one anyways), are willing to revolutionize the political system anyways.

The earliest percieved 'revolution' that I know of was the Glorious Revolution, and it isn't even a revolution in the modern sense. It was bloodless. But seriously, you misinterpreted my attempt. I am not some social democrat/democratic socialist who sees what we have today as pure or just in need of a few reforms.

As a point of my opinion read my 3rd to last post in this thread.

Pete

(Edited by CrazyPete at 8:07 pm on May 27, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I had no Idea Kamo was such a "tough guy"....Forgetaboutit!

So we all agree that elections are out of the question.
Ravolution will have to be attempted within US soil-as any revolutionary practises outside the US will be swiftly met and dealt with under the cloak of "combatting terrorism to preserve "our" way of life. With the extreme rate at which capitalism is spreading (it's the fucking SARS of the political world) mass mobilisation efforts will not be enough; as we will have to start from square one. I compare it to combatting an avalanche by hurling snowballs at it. Workers in the US are under the impression they "have it made" and quite simply lack the resources to "rise up" against their oppressors as they will be replaced from an ever increasing labour pool of "good capitalists" at the first sign of rebellion.
Given this realityand the reality of not being able to feed their families, the workers will absolutely choose to keep their heads down and eyes shut. This will lead to the only possible alternative- A massive offensive within US borders, alleviating the fear of nuclear or conventional retaliation as the capitalists themselves will be the catylists and shields...Creating a new avalanche that will pale anything they have ever witnessed.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 2:07 am on May 28, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I continuation to my previous post-

At this point the goal would be to create as much instability within the capitalist systemas possible. Once this is acheived, the workers will have no choice
but to begin to mobilise. Their heads will have to come up. Their eyes will have to open . With their infrastructure in such an unstable state, the affects will formalise in the form of trading. As all the corporation's values continue to plummet, foreign investors will begin selling their investments at an alarming rate, creating a mass depression. Workers will no longer be able to "accept their fate" as slaves to capitalism. Simply because corporations will no longer be able to afford their salaries...leading to mass layoffs. The labour pool is now severely increased...but not with the usual "loyal capitalists". The majority will now be angry dissenters. these will be the new soldiers of the revolution We cannot make the error of centralising at this point. that would leave a simple target of "last effort" eradication for the now failing capitalist governmet. Mobilisation must be swift and broad. The movement will gain the favour of the working class at an alarming rate if we leave no alternantive for them. The education phase can now begin and unfortunately we will now have to begin dealing with subversionists appropriately. The message must now be sent to the former capitalists that the people's revolution will not be silenced.

[Kez]

Hitler did not win in a peaceful manner,
neither did he revolutionize germany

the state strucure was the same, just bent 2wards a slighltly differnt ideology

and if u think he was peaceful, u musta not read about the riots and mobbings and smashings that were conducted by the nazis

comrade kamo

[inessa1917]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 1:06 am on May 28,
I do not think change will come peacefully, I think that is just a dream some people have and will never be a full reality. But it is possible. Hitler did it, he completely changed the state apparatus. Was that not a revolution, ablet a fascist one?

No, it wasn't a revolution. that's why it's called contrarevolution. (even the nazis themselves admitted this, calling the whole "Völkisch" movement "conservative revolution")

i think anyway that communist change is impossible with elections. it will get the same shit back soon, by bureaucratizing the revolutionary forces, and this'll produce the same class structure, as Trotsky has foresaid it. (about this topics Georg Lukacs has great articles anyway)

[Pete]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 7:14 am on May 29, 2003
Hitler did not win in a peaceful manner,
neither did he revolutionize germany

the state strucure was the same, just bent 2wards a slighltly differnt ideology

and if u think he was peaceful, u musta not read about the riots and mobbings and smashings that were conducted by the nazis

comrade kamo


I see it more as reverting to the older structure of the German Empire, which is quite reactionary.

I know of the riots and mentioned the violence in my post, although probaly not to the extent that it deserved with Krstylnaucth and the night of long knives and the Riechstag fire or just the fighting between political mobs.

[Kez]

so, you see it neither a revolution, nor coming to power through electoral means

[Pete]

What is it called, then, when the government mode moves backwards? Since foreword is a revolution?

[Kez]

as has already been mentioned.....its calleed a counter-revolution

or a reactionary revolution

[Pete]

Yes. The Counter-Revolution would be going back from a Revolution to the status quo, but Reactionary Revolution makes more sense. Still a revolution but a reactionary one. I wonder where Islamic Revolutions would fall? Surely reactionary I would think...

[Kez]

Truly reactionary, any "progressive" moves wud be merely to quell the genine workers upsurge, which wud later be taken away (such as is the case in iran)

[Armand Iskra]

Choosing revolution and election is like choosing an armalite and a ballot box, for me if you want to create a successful revolution, I'd choose both. But have the ones in armalite and ballot box be properly guided by the party, which is situated in the underground. Conducting Parliamentary and Armed struggles within the revolution must be coordinated, having the armed struggle acts as a sword, the ballot box as a shield and the party as the one who carry in it in order to create a successful revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

Um, you can only have socialism by revolution, no matter whether by the ballot or the bullet.


right, deep breathe, the proles have mass strike thus bringing the country to a stand still, the workers demand that they control the means of production, once granted this they return to work.

So what next?
Nothing pleasant.


ppl seem to think that guns and ammunition are the way to win, hahahaha we dont even have to get out of bed.
I don't think that even most syndies would agree with you on that last part.


no, again, where you smoking dope when u wrote this?
No, do you expect the capitalists to lay down the army, police and courts and let you take over their companies?? fuck are you on about?
Well, at least he's not saying to go and fight them.


Syndicism, although it creates a new class (so does violent revolution aka marxist-leninism), is a much better way of creating change.
Do you mean 'syndicalism'? Because anarcho-syndicalism most certainly does not create a 'new class'.


dogmatic west
The what?


For those who do try to make change, (in the case of Canada the NDP), they are rarely elected to consequtive terms, and after they are removed from office all of their changes are undone. This is not the way.
I'm hoping that you're not trying to imply that the NDP is socialist.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Does it have to be by revolution or election?

how about we sit down and sort things out over a nice cup of tea huh?

[teenagebricks]

We need a revolutionary election, or a revolution followed by an election.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't get the "Americans don't vote so revolution is the way" argument.

You're telling me that it's too much to ask for enough people to go to a polling station and cast a ballot, so the viable option is to get enough people to overthrow the govt via armed revolution....

riiiight

[Coggeh]

I don't get the "Americans don't vote so revolution is the way" argument.

You're telling me that it's too much to ask for enough people to go to a polling station and cast a ballot, so the viable option is to get enough people to overthrow the govt via armed revolution....

riiiight
Its not election or revolution because their is no choice . If elections were at all possible in bringing about a real change their would be no need for revolution . But the simple fact is that bourgeois elections cannot be used for a real revolutionary change , they may be used to highlight your ideas , as a platform etc etc . Revolution isn't what you think it is , its not everyone charging down the streets with ak-47's its a united working class movement to bring about radical change thats it .

The violence only comes with bourgeois reaction .

[Revy]

This is not an either-or deal.

In the US, a third party (even a capitalist one) has it extremely hard when it comes to being elected. The socialists have it even harder, because we are not commonly recognized as part of the "major third parties" (Green, Libertarian, and Constitution).

However, refusing to take part in elections and use them as a tool for raising revolutionary consciousness, will condemn any group to irrelevance and isolation, within this system. In the US, politics are DEFINED BY elections and the idea that political parties can wholly avoid the electoral sphere is virtually non-existent.

Therefore I favor a strategy that combines both.

[( R )evolution]

When has true change ever come from the ballot box? One of the condition for revolution is the masses no longer believing/trusting in the civil framework to achieve change, and there are still people here attempting to validate the government by advocating for elections. The bourgeois will NEVER allow true change (socialism/communism) to come about through elections. Get your heads out of the clouds, please. FUCK ELECTIONS OF THE BOURGEOIS

[( R )evolution]

Anyone who would choose a bloody revolution over a peaceful election is a warmonget and an idiot. Of course we'd rather have an election, the thing is, will there be anyone worth voting for ? If not, then comes the revolution. Or at least it should.


You're on a website called "RevLeft", come on comrade. I want real change, and that will only come through armed struggle.

Marx said it best; "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them"

[Pogue]

Why necro?

[Communist]

The violence only comes with bourgeois reaction .

And the capitalists will, inevitably, come down hard.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

An election wouldn't be socialist. It is bourgeois inherently. Only revolution can bring REAL socialism.

[redarmyfaction38]

There are two ways that america could become socialist. *The american socialists could elect the socialsit party or all socialist could overthrow american democracy. *Which would you prefer.

there is no preference or choice, the only way an effective "socialist govt." could be "elected" is with the mass backing and industrial action of the working class.
without the direct participation of the working class any "electoral" success would be short lived.

e.g. allende, any "labour" govt any where in the world.

[redarmyfaction38]

Does it have to be by revolution or election?

how about we sit down and sort things out over a nice cup of tea huh?


:D

[ZeroNowhere]

You're on a website called "RevLeft", come on comrade. I want real change, and that will only come through armed struggle.

Marx said it best; "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them"
I don't see how the hell your quote has anything to do with UR's post. Then again, you were trying to quote Marx to support your argument, so it's understandable that you'd stretch the meaning of that sentence into places where it was never meant to go.


FUCK ELECTIONS OF THE BOURGEOIS
HAIL TO THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLES


An election wouldn't be socialist. It is bourgeois inherently.
As is, my resident primmo notes, industry.


One of the condition for revolution is the masses no longer believing/trusting in the civil framework to achieve change, and there are still people here attempting to validate the government by advocating for elections.
"I do not see what violation of the social-democratic principle is necessarily involved in putting up candidates for any elective political office or in voting for these candidates, even if we are aiming at the abolition of this office itself." Oh, right, advocating the use of the ballot as a destructive force is validating the state. :rolleyes:


You're on a website called "RevLeft", come on comrade.
Yes, which pretty much just means 'socialists', regardless of whether they wish to take on the army, use purely the ballot, use karate, or use knitting.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What are you trying to say though. I don't agree with Primitivists. What he says doesn't affect me.

[Bitter Ashes]

Hmmm. Well, currently, it's not possible. The problems are that the bourgeois hold the power over the parties. Hypothetically, if you could:
- Abolish the houses of parliment as the lawmakers of the country and instate local councils to the position, operating like soviets.
- Parties to be abolished and all candidates to become independants. Conferring outside of a monitored debate forum is forbidden.
- Totaly forbid any donations to candidates and have their campaigning exclusivly funded by public money.
- The ability for there to be a "vote of no confidence" for each of those local councillors called after a petition by its contitutiancy.

These are massive reforms and would never get passed as any MP who voted for it would be shooting themselves in the foot. So, it is hypothetical. However, if by some miracle that situation ever arrose, you would be able to make the nessicary changes through reform. Not that it would ever happen.

[Hoxhaist]

Hoxha calls for a legal party to campaign for issues and raise people's class consciousness in order for a clandestine wing of the party to mobilize for revolutionary activity

[( R )evolution]

I don't see how the hell your quote has anything to do with UR's post. Then again, you were trying to quote Marx to support your argument, so it's understandable that you'd stretch the meaning of that sentence into places where it was never meant to go.


That quote is directly related to how the bourgeois control the elections and the people can only chose from who the bourgeois chose. It directly counters the claim that UR's post was advocating, using the ballet box to achieve socialism. Anyone who believes that real socialism can come about through bourgeois elections is a dumbass. Especially in the Western world.


"I do not see what violation of the social-democratic principle is necessarily involved in putting up candidates for any elective political office or in voting for these candidates, even if we are aiming at the abolition of this office itself." Oh, right, advocating the use of the ballot as a destructive force is validating the state. :rolleyes:


Get your head out of the clouds, please let me know when the bourgeois allow socialism to come about through their own ballot boxes. It isnt gonna happen.