Socialism and the necessity of revolution

[Reuben]

I have traditionally followed Marxs line on revolution, am now wondering what specifically can be acheived through rvolution which cannot, with a communist majority be acheived through a electing a socialist government in the context of a bourgoir democracy.

I am currently read The State and Revolution by Lenin and he argues that the state is formed to moderate inreconcilable class antagonisms and thus to benieift bourgour interesta. I also realize that the modern state was formed to protect their interests.

Yet, could somebody explain what is it about state apparatus mean that they would costantly side with the bourgoirsie rather than elected government. What interest do they have in bourgoir democracy, if the govenrnment is socialist, what is it about them that means they will CONTINUALLY side with the bourgoirsie, and thus why is a revolution necessary?

I am not putting it forward as an argument, as I realise that historically state apparatus has defended bourggoir interests, I simply wish to know why ths is the case in the light of what I have said above.

[ArgueEverything]

the thing that springs to mind is ADVERTISING. if were somehow to miraculously gain enough seats through the ballot to form a government, the bourgeois would outspend us with a blitz of propaganda. they've got the cash to do this, not us. also, again with their money, they can buy over the courts, media etc to turn public opinion against us.

as a side note, here are a couple of quotes by marx on this issue which you might find interesting:

"We do not deny that there exist countries like America, England, and, if i knew your institutions better, i would add Holland, where the workers may be able to attain their ends by peaceful means."

[Reuben]

interesting, never heard of that quote before, what book is it from

[Kez]

a good book is "the involvement of the people in govt" and this talk about the issue.

How i see it, the state is not there to help the beurjous (i will spell this right one day), but the bourjoir (christ! wtf), actually creates the state and then holds it up to protect them.

[Conghaileach]

Venezuela is a good example. The burgeoisie (through the media church and those who control the unions) are fucking up all the good work that the democratically-elected Chavez government is trying to do.

[Rodrigo]

From my point of view, the human being is one species that stops in some sense the physical evolution, and the social evolution becomes more important than the other.

Part of these evolution, remains on how some societies interact between social and economic self-dynamics. In the developing countries ("emerging market economies!!!"), using the Washigton Consensus, rich countries impose a "model" in societies which are far from the market structure and the "invisible hand", instead the social dynamics lies more on commuty and social trust, something that capitalism doesn't understand, or maybe doesn't accept.

Perhaps, how social dymanics interact and interest of some groups move, the capitalism can be developed in rich countries. These things are completely different from poor countries, except for the corrupted politicians that become muppets of the money and those interest groups.

More over I feel that human being is in some sense selfish and "enjoy" the suffer of other people (e.g. read a book of social phycology). And thats why this violent system looks eternal and not vulnerable.

I think the challenge, is based, on continue the evolutionary process, expaning the horizons of poor people, that at these moment it is only tomorrow, thinking how to build a new men. And understand these evolutionay process and shape it, maybe in a violent form.