Log in

View Full Version : Ripe for Revolution?



MiniOswald
28th February 2007, 18:24
Basically I wanted to see what people here think about areas that are ripe for revolution I suppose.

Personally I can see revolution, at first, only starting in the 3rd world, as the people there, are the most exploited in the world. I think nowadays that we cant think exactly like Marx, as when he began his writings, the workers were, in a worse off position in the first world. I think that Capitalism adapted, made enough concessions to the workers of the first world to keep the people there down, so that the people wouldnt rise up and would still grant the leaders the power they wanted, and I think instead the rulers began to oppress those who could not hold them to account, in the resource rich 3rd world.

So basically, I think that, the best place for revolution to begin, would be in the 3rd world, preferably a resource rich nation that could use the power of those resources post-revolution, to aid the people. I think its only once the 3rd world has moved to the left and can no longer be manipulated by the first world that the majority of people in the 1st world will be knocked out of their comfort zones and will much more readily embrace leftist ideas.

It just seems to me that especially in the wake of the cold war and the failure of the soviet experiment and any 'socialist' nations that cropped up in the 20th century, and with the growth of a reasonably comfortable middle class in places like Europe and North America, people just arent willing to try anything with the left.

Anyway I just wondered what people think, anyone agree, or do you think that its possible to bring about revolution in any of the first world nations and if so, how to bring it about? Do you think our main problem nowadays is a lack of education about our cause? or what..

Also, and I suppose this mainly applies to the leninists of the board, I was thinking, that if a revolution is to have a vanguard, which, personally I think could be beneficial for organising and spreading the revolution, and also protecting the revolution, particularly in an armed struggle once theyve overthrown the old system, anyway, if there is to be a vanguard, how can it best be made accountable? What do people think would be the best way to halt an abuse of power? and the habit of presidents for life etc...

Or does anyone think that a position of power like that will inherently be abused? and so should not exist, obviously more input from the anarchists there.

TheDifferenceEngine
28th February 2007, 19:02
I think that revolution will have to happen in a sufficiently nuclear-and-conventionally armed nation.

If a third world nation establishes a socialist/communist/anarchist "government" (sorry, no other words).

Then under the guise of "the war on terror", a red white and blue Blitzkreig ™ is not far on it's jolly mass murdering way.

And even in the event a revolution gains sucess in a decently armed country (which has an incredibly small chance of happening, by the way.), they will be eventually either starved out by an economic blocade or put back down by stupid counter- revolutionary fucks.

There are a massive amount of factors to consider.

And it's a million to one chance the good guys don't get screwed.

But they can't stop us unless they stop the idea of freedom.

Or replace it...

I digress.

There might be another way than revolution though.

MiniOswald
28th February 2007, 19:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:02 pm
There might be another way than revolution though.
So you think the move to the left is a more evolutionary than revolutionary sort of process? what other ways you have in mind?

TheDifferenceEngine
28th February 2007, 19:33
Originally posted by MiniOswald+February 28, 2007 07:08 pm--> (MiniOswald @ February 28, 2007 07:08 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 07:02 pm
There might be another way than revolution though.
So you think the move to the left is a more evolutionary than revolutionary sort of process? what other ways you have in mind? [/b]
No idea, that's why I said "might"

Well, there could be a massive advance in technology that renders capitalism obsolete (Nanotech much?).

Or aliens/pandimensional beings could take over humanity and teach everyone to accept the most logical form of society.

Or a head of state could just decide to hand power over to the people.

(Ok the last one was a little out there).

Fawkes
28th February 2007, 19:39
Well, there could be a massive advance in technology that renders capitalism obsolete (Nanotech much?).

Or aliens/pandimensional beings could take over humanity and teach everyone to accept the most logical form of society.

Or a head of state could just decide to hand power over to the people.
I don't know about you, but I don't have sufficient trust in aliens to change our world for us, so I'm opting for revolution.

dannthraxxx
28th February 2007, 19:49
revolution starts in the heart my man. and in the minds of the people. until the people have it in their hearts and minds, it'll never happen or start.

the way the world is now, we're fucked.

then again, this post would really depend on your definition of revolution.

TheDifferenceEngine
28th February 2007, 19:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:39 pm

Well, there could be a massive advance in technology that renders capitalism obsolete (Nanotech much?).

Or aliens/pandimensional beings could take over humanity and teach everyone to accept the most logical form of society.

Or a head of state could just decide to hand power over to the people.
I don't know about you, but I don't have sufficient trust in aliens to change our world for us, so I'm opting for revolution.
It was kind of a joke, Babbage...

RedLenin
28th February 2007, 20:37
I think that revolution will happen in a few third world nations and then, hopefully and with good leadership, spread to a first world nation. It would then spread to other third and first world nations. I think that Latin America is by far the place in the world that is most "ripe for revolution".


if there is to be a vanguard, how can it best be made accountable?
I assume you are refering to when the party is in power. There is a very easy way to make party officials accountable, as Lenin layed out. Election of all officials with right of recall, and no official to receive a wage higher than an average worker. That is also not to say that other parties cannot participate in the state, I think diversity is a good thing, though capitalist parties should be banned.

With multiple socialist parties and democratic control of the state by the working people, the vanguard party can exercise it's dictatorship in harmony with the overall dictatorship of the class. We want as many party members in office as possible, but they are subject to the same rules; election, recall, and an average wage. In this way, when a party official is recalled, the party can see this decision as an act of criticism and adjust itself accordingly. Democratic control will improve the quality and accountability of the party. With such democratic measures, I feel that the dictatorship of the vanguard party and the dictatorship of the overall class can exist harmoniously.


and the habit of presidents for life etc...
I really don't see the point of term limits. If an individual is a spectacular leader, and is consistently elected, why should it be a problem if he/she is in office for a long time? He/she is obviously doing a good job!