THE NEXT UPRISING - how will it come about?

[Floyd.]

Everyone keeps asking for new revolutionaries to follow, but int his current materialistic world where the masses would not have the skills to live in the wild.... Where the fuck are we going to find the next three cubans as it were. Everybody keeps asking for action but will ant of us actually step up to the proverbial plate? Or will we all just sit idly by and segregate ourselves with different terms refusing to unite? What is to be done about the current predicament, how exactly will the next uprising come about where and who will stage it? What is often forgotten is that people lik che actually fought hand-to-hand combat gor the greater good of the people. Will anyone out there do that for me or do I offer my life to you with nothing in return. No-one seems to want to lead only follow. Are we all lost?

[Floyd.]

* By the way I apologize about the the spelling mistakes and typos, I was in a rant.

[bluerev002]

who will lead, and who will follow? only that one person who will learn, hwo will be educated and who will turn down all materialistic things in the world. ony the leader who will arm up all the ppl so all their voices will be heard. i dont nkow who will lead...why dont you? im not ready to do such a thing, i need to learn more on marxism, captalism, and all other systems, i need to know their flaws, so i wont commit them.

its a hard question to answer, but atleast you know this, i am not ready. maybe i will lead someday, life takes some crazy turns.

[MJM]

I hope to lead one day. For now I'll make sure I know my shit when the time comes. Like bluerev002 I want to make sure I don't make the same mistakes others have.

Personally I think the driving force for the next big revolution will be enviromental destruction.

[Kehoe]

Marxs theory described the idea of socialism and communism coming about by means of a somewhat evolutional course in which capitalism will burn itself out in a manner of speaking.Lenin advocated the necessity of a revolutionary elite whose function it is to excite the masses towards the overthrow of imperialism and thus force circumstances rather than wait on the idea situation which Marx predicted would present itself in the turmoil caused by the collapse of capitalism.Victor Hugo wrote that there is nothing greater than an idea whose time has come,and I also recall reading once that the spirit of the times will produce the man.As long as the people concern themselves with their own material contentment they shall stop their ears to egalitarian words but once the wind blows through their own houses ... then they ll be ready to listen.The current situation among the socialist community is shameful,various factions,each attempting to outshout the other in the name of their personal cult-hero.I myself admire and enjoy variety in all things,for were there but one type of tree,flower,plant,animal,etc,it would be a boring existence.Shapes,colors,patterns and designs are arranged so as to compliment one another,and so it must be with humanity.How can anyone denounce a carnation of being a flower simply because it hasnt the same qualities as that of a rose?Most of the worlds evil is brought about by this sense of oneness expressed by exclusionism,whether it be individual selfishness or the promotion of one group of people at the expense of others.I have studied Marx,Lenin,Stalin,Trotsky,Bukharin,Mao,Guevara,as well as earlier socialists,Ive studied Plato,Hegel.Descartes,Heidegger,Nietzche,Sartre and many other philosophers,Ive studied the writings of Bertrand Russell,Freud,Adler,Perls,the Bible,the BhagavadGita,the Analects of Confucius,the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tze,the teachings of Buddha,Jewish Kabbalah,Islam(especially the Sufi mystics),and the poets such as Omar Khayyam,Rumi,and others.I have read the writings and teachings of Mohandas K Gandhi,Pythagoras the Greek mathmatician and mystic,and so many many others that Im quite confident in saying that I could never categorically list them all,and all this I stated merely to point out that I would like to think that each and every one has contributed to my personal belief system and collective ideology.I only realized how remarkably young the majority of this community is when viewing the concensus of ages in a certain thread and it made me at once feel somewhat old but moreover immensely proud of each and every one of you for your devotion to the socialist cause,may you increase insomuch that your numbers are as the stars of heaven and as the sands along every shore ... I salute you my young Comrades.

[redstar2000]

It worries me when people wish for a "leader". Can't you do what you think the right thing to do is RIGHT NOW?

After all, we can't BE Che...or Marx or Engels or anyone but ourselves. But the thing about those people is that they didn't WAIT for someone to "lead" them; they simply went ahead and did what they thought needed to be done. (And they had no more guarantees of success than we do.)

If we are unable to do something BIG, then let's do something small...and maybe later there'll be a chance to do something big.

Even just talk--like on che-lives, po, etc.--is a tiny step in the right direction to the extent that you learn from it and teach others. The Russians, you may remember, were TALKING about overthrowing the czar back in the 1820s...nearly a century before they did it.

The (potentially) best thing about the internet is that when the time for revolution finally arrives, we won't be dependent on a small number of educated "leaders"--there will be tens of millions of us who know a whole LOT of shit! And maybe then, we'll finally get it right!

[BOZG]

The next revolution will not come from the leaders, it will not come from a vanguard, it will come from the bottom up and from the grassroots when people finally realise how much they are being exploited. Leaders and Vanguards are too highly corruptable because they will be a minority group holding the majority of power. The power for revolution lies within the people as a whole and that is where the revolution will come from. Just look around us, at the growing anti-capitalist/corporate movement and you see a non-hierarchal movement growing and growing. The fact that there is no leader in the movement is why it is so strong and will never be destroyed.

[Iepilei]

my guess is there will not be one leader, but many - to boost morale and to organise and unify.

[Jaha]

i would like to be the leader, but i need to develop my leadership skills. need more confidence. need to be a better public speaker.

but you all wait and see, i'll be a part. and i wont be a sheep.

[Kehoe]

I remember as a young boy watching the movie"The Ten Commandments"and then hiking alone through the woods with a small branch as a staff and dreaming of liberating my people as Moses had led the Israelites out of Egypt.Then,as a teenager I was baptized into the church mainly to please my grandparents who had raised me and of telling them that I felt that I was to be a prophet though they didnt seem to share my enthusiasm.I committed myself to read the entire Bible and would ask church leaders disturbing questions in regard to scripture and church policy to which they would respond by saying that these were Satan trying to dissuade me from the truth and so I began studying other religions which led me to investigate philosophy and the full realm of socio-political thought,then having witnessed the prolonged suffering and death of my beloved grandmother(who was a devout Christian)I delved more deeply into secular studies and come to embrace socialism as the only means of social salvation.My cousins,I and friends would often camp in the woods for days and discuss social issues as well as playing boyhood games of hoopy-hide(a version of hide-n-go seek)at night in which we attempted to track down and surprise the opposing team.All my cousins and friends went on to pursue a petty bourgeois existence leaving me to continue a somewhat ascetic and recluse life.I have been a non-conformist from my youth which has caused people to label me as being peculiar,strange,and outright crazy.I have found that when people possess a large quanity of materlistic things they likewise have an abundance of friends,but strip them of their possessions and oddly their friends likewise vanish.Why should I have more than another?as long as there is poverty what true man would dare be rich?We come into this world empty-handed and shall depart it in like manner,while it is true that we must obtain the necessities which sustains life,all else comes by the false-reasoning that we somehow are more worthy than others to live an opulent life.As for the idea of leadership,this must not be considered a small matter.A leader must be decisive,disciplined,strong-willed,critical of unacceptable behavior,morally dignified,able to identify goals and priorities,determine and conduct policies,initiate and promote vital activities,manage a staff,and conduct himself at all times in a manner that is beyond reproof,for above all else a leader must have the loyalty of his people because devided devotion and devided command are factors of failure.A leader must be endowed with intelligence and courage and enraptured with a fanatical belief in himself and his cause.I realized that those men whom I admire all possessed one undeniable trait ... complete commitment to their beliefs.

[redstar2000]

More reasons to worry.

Kehoe, aren't you aware that all those things you say about "leaders" could be copied verbatum from the fascist/Nazi press of the 1920s and 1930s?

They called it the "leader principle" (fuhrerprinzip). It's all horseshit! (I couldn't think of a diplomatic way to say it.)

Those things don't even DESCRIBE a human being, ANY human being, EVER. Plenty of people PRETENDED to be like that...and, whatever their temporary successes, their names are now enrolled in history's ASSHOLE HALL OF SHAME. What they mostly succeeded in was killing a whole LOT of people. Is this something to be ADMIRED? Is this something to be IMITATED?

(By the way, this is one of the things that happens to people's heads when they are exposed to religion at too young an age. Talking religion to people under 12 is, in my opinion, child abuse.)

[Jaha]

the only requirement for leadership is that you dont let yourself follow. a leader leads. he or she is not infalable. confidence is all a leader needs.

if the leader is wrong or unacceptable, he will have no followers (or few).

[Floyd.]

I thank you all for your beautifull words. Kehoe you bring a sentimentality with your words one of experience. I have only recently turned seventeen and have not had the years to do your reading, I can only hope that as I walk my path I can listen and analyse what others say to me so as to form an individual opinion of my own and one which I can justify to others but more importantly to myself and to explain my actions. May we all educate each other and kill the demon of segregation. ONCE WE ARE UNITED NO FORCE WILL STOP US.

[Kehoe]

redstar2000 ... I see no need in pasting your 2:05 post in order to respond,its there for all to see.These inductees into your historical Asshole Hall of Shame includes men such as Comrade Lenin,Comrade Trotsky in his role with the Red Army,El Comandante Che,among many other great socialist leaders.Liberals with their exaggerated intellectualism will accomplish nothing more than promoting the need of freedom separated from any sense of responsibility.There shall always be need for responsible leadership just as the body depends on the brain to regulate its system and determine its movements,something that is quite obvious to anyone except one with his head up his ass.In your post you stated that,"those things you say about "leaders" could be copied verbatum from the fascist/Nazi press of the 1920s and 1930s" ... what a fine load of shit to dump on the issue of leadership,are you likewise willing to state that since Hitler and the Nazis also were able to read and write that literacy can and must be deemed a corrupt form of human expression and therefore must be labeled vile and that anyone possessing such abilities are not worthy to be called a human being? I didnt fall off a turnip truck yesterday and can easily see through this ploy of yours to associate leadership with fascism and religion in an effort to tarnish what is by nature an essential trait in the maintenance of society.



(Edited by Kehoe at 6:13 am on Nov. 15, 2002)

[Kehoe]

One other thing I wish to say in regard to redstar2000s proposition of the Nazis link to leadership ... were you to study the organizational structure of the Nazi Party you will find that it was largely based on the Communist model and with this in mind ... who then in reality are you indicting with your claims? ... a gun is only as deadly as the one who aims it.

[Jaha]

Quote: from Kehoe on 6:37 am on Nov. 15, 2002
One other thing I wish to say in regard to redstar2000s proposition of the Nazis link to leadership ... were you to study the organizational structure of the Nazi Party you will find that it was largely based on the Communist model and with this in mind ... who then in reality are you indicting with your claims? ... a gun is only as deadly as the one who aims it.

nazis were facist. and you are comparing nazis to the soviet union or china, then, i say they are all facist. the soviets and chinese never reached anything resembling communism.

"a gun is only as deadly as the one who aims it"

lol. ever hear of a hunting accident? maybe not... did you know police wear vests to stop their own bullets because most get shot in accidents with their own gun?

a gun that exists is a gun that kills. doesnt matter who uses it.

[RGacky3]

One thing is every one want's to lead. The leader should be the one with the initiative and charisma to start something and get people to follow him.

[redstar2000]

On the contrary, Kehoe, I think Lenin and Trotsky and ESPECIALLY Che would have been utterly repulsed and disgusted by your characterizations. And rightly so!

Yes, it's true that the early Nazis, Hitler among them, "borrowed" some of their organizational ideas from Lenin--and that's no credit to Lenin. But they borrowed even more from the Catholic Church...especially the absolute authority of the top dog.

"The body depends on the brain, etc...." If I'm not mistaken, this absurd analogy first showed up in the time of the early Roman Empire and was intended to justify the absolute authority of the Emperor (surprise!).

The Nazis could read and write and therefore literacy is a bad thing--nice of you to put (stupid) words in my mouth, but I'd appreciate it if you would at least give yourself the appropriate credit as the source thereof.

As to having my head up my ass, your own words show there are WORSE places to be. And as for you not having fallen off a "turnip truck"...I'm afraid that truck contained a much more odious substance. And you still stink of it.

[Kehoe]

Upon Ches arrival in the Bolivian backwoods the first cause for contention arose when Che annouced that he was to be chief(leader)which didnt sit well with the local CP leader.Che was a Stalinist-Maoist who firmly believed in Party leadership displayed in the field by the initiative of those exhibiting traits such as austere discipline,boundless determination and reckless daring.One who clings to an ideology divorced from any need of leadership cannot rightly postulate himself as being a Leninist but rather is merely one who wishes to employ Bolshevik-Communism in order to promote libertine doctrine.In the process of irrigation a sysem of canals and ditches act as channels by which to direct the flow of much-needed water,in the reorganizatiom of society the socialist wishes to reclaim streams of material distribution,to destroy the dams built by greed and charter a new course of flow,this is a rudimentary example of the need for leadership in that,as channels,leaders create the course or pathway of future activity.It appears redstar2000 from your protests against the idea of leadership that you would prefer to wonder aimlessly on your own rather than give heed to defined directives of any acceptable form of leadership ... so wonder on little libertine.

[redstar2000]

Guilty as charged, Kehoe. But if one of your "great leaders" takes over, I won't be wandering (that's spelled with an "a", Kehoe, not an "o"), I'll probably be running like hell. I know what you have in store for me and digging your irrigation ditches is the BEST part.

As it happens, I've read Che's Bolivarian diary...he was NOTHING like you say. I also met him in Havana; he would have regarded you as a nutball.

Che's discipline came from within himself; he needed no great leader to give him "defined directives". I'll never do all the things that he did, but in one respect I have lived like him: I call no man MASTER!

And, good grief, if you've read a single post I've ever made, it's OBVIOUS that I am a MARXIST and NOT a Leninist!

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:11 am on Nov. 17, 2002)

[Kehoe]

redstar2000 ... I assure you that I know very well how to spell wander ... this was merely a homonymic attempt to relate that the cause of your confusion lies mainly within the sphere of thought rather than any actual course you may have embarked upon.So you say you met Che once in Havana and this supposedly qualifies you as an authority on the man and thus you feel secure in stating that Che wouldve regarded me as a nutball,I think its highly pretentious of you to assume the right to judge by proxy of a dead man who neither met me nor gave you such authorization.Che operated under the directives of the revolutionary protocol of Comrade Lenin,the doctrine of guerilla tactics as fomulated by Chairman Mao,the revolutionary concepts of Fidel Castro,all of which he himself redefined in his idea of the focos.As for your Marxism being detached from Leninism,this exposes your confusion in socialist thought and thereby you stand in a barren wilderness apart from the majority who lay claim to the communist ideology.

[Raakesh J Natraj]

hey...u two...dont turn the discussion forum into a personal battlefield...revolution will come about only through social awareness,passionate involvement of the masses and the existance of a firm ideological belief with which we can hope to overcome immense odds and create a new society based on equality and universal brotherhood.it defenitely will not happen overnight.the governments of today have the muscle power to wipe out any ill organized efforts..we have to wait untill the time is ripe..effecient planning and intelligent administration can go a long way in making a difference between a damp squib and a revolution...as regards the leader though not absolutely necessary can make the revolution more effective...the leader has to b selfless,driven by ideology and at the same time not immune to emotions and suffering..as some one already pointed out we cant keep waiting for a leader...all of us have to do our part and success is ours if we stand together...

[Emmanual Goldstein]

For real, Raakesh. And Kehoe, I believe that it's worth mentioning that there are many respected Marxist theorists (Rosa Luxemburg for example) who were hardcore anti-Lenin.

Maybe you and Redstar should chill out a bit. I have a great deal of respect for you both, the articulate way that you present your arguements, and the vast pool of knowledge you both seem to possess. However, startin arguements with potential comrades, especially arguements that include overt or implicit personal insults, ain't gonna speed up the revolution.

Redstar, comparing Kehoe's opinions with Nazism was strait up demagoguery (and not in the ancient greek sense "teacher of the people")

However, calling redstar "confused" and implying that he "stands in a barren wilderness" doesn't lend much to your arguements, Kehoe. Also, I take it as a personal insult because I seem to share some opinions with Red (can I call you Red?).

Debate is important. It allows us to share our opinions with people, receive (constructive) criticism, and help us to present our views in more effective ways. Childish name calling doesn help us do any of those things.

PS... Did you really meet Che? that's fuckin sweet!!! When? What was he like?

[kingbee]

a leader doesnt have to be anything.in an ideal leadership, the people around him would make a collective decision. a leader isnt important- the will of supporters and neutrals is.

[redstar2000]

EG, I met Che in Havana in June of 1964. He was EXTREMELY patient and unassuming, willing to listen to and consider what others had to say, thoughtful in his responses. And so was Fidel, Raul, Rodriguez (land reform guy), even Blas Roca (Cuban C.P. before it merged with 26th of July movement). They were ALL the exact opposite of the stereotypical "great leader", the wild-eyed fanatic determined to steamroller the planet. You know that I am in no sense a Leninist, but if I were, the Cuban revolutionaries are the ONLY Leninists I would want to associate myself with. (I should add that I saw them in public as well as in private: they didn't do any of that "great leader" shit with the Cuban people either.)

But, EG, I didn't say that Kehoe WAS a nazi/fascist; I said his glorification of "leadership" was parallel to the views of the nazis/fascists on THAT subject. And, dammit, that is a TRUE statement. I even ASKED him if he realized what he was saying, if he realized that it had all been said before by some very unsavory folk. It didn't faze him a bit. It didn't make him stop and think: where do those ideas come from and who benefits from them?

Of course, I do get carried away sometimes and respond to personal attacks ("head up ass") with counter-attacks ("fell off a shit-wagon"). That's wrong; I apologize to Kehoe for that. Also, I have no reason to suggest that Kehoe IS a nazi/fascist and nothing I've said should be taken to mean that.

But I will stand on my contention that Kehoe's concept of "revolutionary leadership" would be, if it came to pass, an absolute horror of the first magnitude. But more than that, I want to argue against the idea that "nothing" can happen unless we can find or create a "great leader" to show us the way.

There's a quote from Gene Debs that sums up my feeling: "I would not lead you into the promised land even if I could; because if I could, then some other sonofa***** could lead you right back out again." There's a great summary of 20th century Leninism...made before 1917!

USSR,PRC, et.al. R.I.P.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:36 pm on Nov. 17, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

Dam Redstar2000 you have to be the oldest member around here. I couldn't give a dam about you meeting Che the far more interesting question is what was it like to be part of the generation (don't go telling us your even older) which had to go through the whole 'Duck and cover' thing in the 1950's?

I heard a story once that during one of these practice's for Nuclear War, involved going out on the school bus looking for alternative shelters. I mean as if there's gonna be anything left after a 75,000 megaton Nuclear blast.

[Kehoe]

redstar2000 ... my" concept of revolutionary leadership" isnt motivated by a supposed glorification of leadership but rather based on the necessity of leadership which is by nature essential to organized human endeavor.As Adler himself has pointed out that the key function of the mind is determination of movement in that the life of man is the life of a moving being.A plant is rooted in one place and cannot move,for a plant to have a mind in any sense,if it could foresee or project consequences,the faculty would be useless to it,to know that it soon will be treaded on,it would be unable to move out of the way.All moving things can foresee and reckon up the direction in which to move and this fact makes it necessary to postulate that they possess a mind,and the reality of this scientific fact supports the leadership principle in that as the mind determines direction of movement,likewise social movements are themselves the product of determined directives carried out by those displaying initiative.In this sense leadership is nothing more than the proclamation of an accepted ideology by initiative which ignites and accelerates collective activity,for we cannot expect the masses to spontaneously leap to action,thus the need for a highly committed group which is the nucleus of such action.I do not claim to be anything other than a socialist,still, I will not deny the beneficial contributions made by such Comrades as Lenin,Stalin,Mao and others.Comrade redstar2000 ... although we differ on select issues this should not stand between us as men for I respect your commitment to the socialist cause ... and on a lighter note I appreciate your presence in that I no longer feel like a lone old fart in a barrel of fizzles ... but then again mi amigo we re only old once we allow our idealism to die.

[Floyd.]

I am not the first nor the last to pass judgement, however let me say these words for the argumentative here to reflect upon: No man is without flaw, EVERY man is a hypocrite and he who claims the opposite is a hypocrite. Being human we are all bound by this idea that for some reason we are all right, it seems to me that it would make a lot more sense if we could just listen to each other and acknowledge their opinion, as opposed to trying to convert them to ours. What we need is a cool-headed outlook here and people working together for a greater good. We should at least tell others why we gisagree as opposed to attempting to discredit their arguments. By the way I'd say that the succint way is always the best, I try to avoid it but at times everyone gets long-winded. I think of you all as my brothers let their not be a need for excommunication from the family as it were.

[Palmares]

Let it be know that this is a discussion, not an argument. With regards to leadership, I think there may be no suitable contender, but perhaps one that may give some way to hope. Many leaders who have been deemed as successful or similar have only used communism/socialism as means to achieve personal agendas. This is not as bad as it may sound, some leaders used it as a means to break free from foreign ownership, however others used it for personal gain. Libertarians on a whole perhaps would like the idea of a socialist anarchy (power with the people socialism), but true leftists would see the neccessity of a leader. As commonly know, the leader should not be of the proletariat (this can be argued however) and would rule during the transitional stages of revolution. Once communism is in place, that is when 'power to the people' as such, can take effect. It is a question of long-term or short-term revolution, a lead communist revultion or a socialist anarchy. There will never be the right leader (or perfect), just whoever can gather the masses to the cause (however 'imperfect' the leader may be). If you think you are a worthy leader, gather your strength, but only when you are ready. Yes nobody is actually ever ready, but I am simply implying it must be soon, not neccessarily now.

[Floyd.]

Cthenthar I agree.

[redstar2000]

Ah, comrade Clay, when I was young and dinosaurs still roamed the earth...

No, scratch that. But I will tell you that yes, it was routine in schools in the U.S. in the 1950s to hold "air raid" drills...we all were supposed to take cover under our desks! I seem to recall we all thought it something of a joke...but there certainly may have been kids who were really frightened by it. No one in school talked about what a nuclear bomb could really do...but I knew by the 5th grade. The real "bad spot" came during the "Cuban missile crisis" in 1962 when it really did look like our asses were fucked--I and some other kids headed for the mountains of eastern Kentucky for a couple of weeks, not that that would have saved us. In a real emergency, some action is better than none...or so we thought.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"we cannot expect the masses to spontaneously leap into action" -- actually, they sometimes do. The March 1917 revolution that overthrew the Russian Czar was a spontaneous act. The general strike and workplace occupations in France in May 1968 were spontaneous. It DOES happen.

But I honestly wonder (with an "o" this time) what people really mean by the words "leader" and "leadership"--what baggage are they packing on those carts? What (perhaps unconscious) assumptions are they making when they utilize those concepts?

For example, "true leftists would see the necessity of a leader" who "should not be of the proletariat". That's Leninism (though Lenin himself would not personalize it that way). Is Leninism the only form of "true leftism"? Indeed, how "left" has Leninism proved in practice to be at all???

"Once communism is in place, that's when 'power to the people' as such can take effect." But that didn't happen anywhere (Khrushchev talked about it a little in the early 1960s). Once an elite is in power, why, on the basis of a Marxist analysis, should they give up that power and the privileges that go with it? Historically, ruling classes fight furiously to retain power...why should a Leninist elite be any different?

"social movements are themselves the product of determined directives carried out by those displaying initiative." I would agree that such often, though not always, APPEARS to be the case. Yet without appropriate material conditions and class consciousness resulting from those material conditions, directives and initiative are meaningless. Revolutions cannot be "commanded" into existence; unfortunately, Che found that out in Bolivia.

If a small group takes initiative, I see nothing wrong with that...UNTIL they assert that the road to communism means putting state power in THEIR hands. Then, I become VERY suspicious. If it turns out, upon close examination, that even within the small group, there is an inner circle that makes all the important decisions, I become even MORE suspicious. And the "great leader" is a dead give-away; however well-meaning such a group might be, the end result will be futility at best and a hopelessly inadequate "revolution" at worst.

Unlike many "ultra-leftists", I do not "condemn" the Leninist revolutions of the 20th century; they did the best they could in the light of the knowledge of their era. They were not "devils"--they were truly dedicated revolutionaries...even Joe.

But we should KNOW now that Leninism didn't work; we should KNOW that it's time to move on. And we OUGHT to know that a revolutionary communist organization must, first of all, be ultra-democratic internally--controlled in every significant respect by its membership. No policy of the organization and no member of the organization is "above" criticism, private or public. Communism, like charity, begins at home. If we want the working class to rebel, we must begin by being rebellious ourselves.

If such a genuinely communist organization does win the support of massive numbers of the working class, there will no question of an elite running things for their own benefit...the communist principles of the revolutionary organization will naturally be extended to the new society as a whole.

Somehow, I think that's what Marx and Engels really had in mind.

[sibling]

There's a reason that there hasn't been a communist revolution recently: every time that a nation happens to undergo a communist revolution, the United States, the heart of the fascist, limiting, capitalist civilization, either bombs, threatens, or lays an embargo onto them.

For a country to succesfully become communist and move beyond the first stage of communism, it must be able to provide for itself, trade with other nations and succesfully protect itself from---the United States!!! Don't expect a revolution, an uprising, not soon.

[Kehoe]

Revolution is by no means a half-hearted task and one having determined such a course of action has indeed crossed the Rubicon.In the U.S. such an endeavor would be met with swift and complete destruction ... the U.S. would squash you like a bug,notes Ruby Ridge and Waco as prime examples in the isolated sense.A man who is willing to kill must first be willing to die.What is expedient at this time is the formation of a United Front to be utilized for the spread of socialist propaganda,not this school of fish swimming in a pool of idealistic intellectualism,but committed Comrades dedicated to the education of the masses.As for leadership,consider a sports team without a coach,or a football squad who refuses to respond to a play-call or the quarterbacks signal.It is of utmost importance that youth are not motivated by mere heroic-romanticism thinking that Ches actions were those of an egoist wishing to achieve personal fame.Ches actions were of a man who saw wrongs and tried to right them,he determined within himself that as long as a portion of the world is in bondage no man is truly free(note:redstar2000 ... again,this is a personal conclusion based on my perception of Che and not a presumption to speak for another)."We should never dare speak of unifying the masses until we ourselves are united." - Karo

[redstar2000]

I apologize to readers outside the U.S.--Americans love sports metaphors and if you are not familiar with the sport (American football, for example), what follows may sound utterly senseless. Again, sorry!

There may, Kehoe, be very good reasons that a football player might suddenly abandon his assignment in a particular play, from blocking a blitzing linebacker from an unexpected direction to having to suddenly recover a fumble. In fact, if you watch a football game closely (especially with someone that really knows the game), you'll find that most "designed" plays break down in some respect, either due to the skillful play of the defense or sheer human imperfection.

A football team without a coach? Well, what does a coach actually bring to a team? Is he needed because he knows more than the players and they will benefit from his experience? Or is his main purpose to MAKE DECISIONS?

One does not necessarily imply the other. I've never seen it done--it lies far outside the sports paradigm--but I see no practical obstacle to collective decision-making regarding plays, game plan, player personnel, etc. If you've played on a team, you KNOW who's good and ought to be in there and who should be sitting on the bench until they improve. Yes, learning and experience count for a lot (at my age, I HAVE to say that)...but that is NOT the same as the power of command. After all, if if I am really so "wise", so "knowing", then I OUGHT to be able to PERSUADE others of the correctness of what I propose. Any moron can "give orders" (they seem to often gravitate to that position)...but to EXPLAIN to people why a given course is the best one so they will adopt it with real conviction (and NOT mindless obedience), that's HARD. It's also the only way that really works.

But there are, it must be said, SOME human activities where we do grant temporary power of command to individuals. Heart surgery is one...though a really good chief surgeon will, from time to time, consult with the other doctors present. Airline pilot is another...again, the really good pilot will consult with the co-pilot from time to time.

The question before us: is revolution and all the activities leading up to it one of those kinds of activities? Do we need someone (or a very small inner circle of someones) to do that? My answer is no.

On the matter of educating the masses in communist ideas: YES! In fact, I suspect that's our MAIN job and the only one that really counts.

On Che's call for unity: it's an ideal, but not very realistic. Contradictions and controversies abound and in a revolutionary period will be FAR more intense. Revolutions by their very nature "suddenly" involve millions of people in political dialogue who were silent under the old regime. They MUST be heard.

[Kehoe]

Comrade ... I myself played football in school though I was smaller than most others and my greatest contibution it seems was my personal tenacity and willingness to bleed and suffer pain.I recall coming out of the huddle and taking my position only to ask what the play-call was from a fellow teammate who was as lost and I.Its true that in the act of carrying out a play all doesnt go to plan,the opposing team counters in such a manner that one must readjust to the situation,but still,the overall directive of the play itself remains intact whereas action becomes as abstract as the initial play itself.In the discourse of our conflicting thoughts Comrade redstar2000 we may appear to be enemies but always remember I consider you my friend. - Karo

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The revolution will only occur when the exploited proletarian classes uprise and revolt against the oppressive Capiatlist system. "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves. "
Sibling, you are wrong. The Chinese regime became a piece of crap when the tension between China and the Soviets grew. To have a succesful revolution, everyone must join together in a united regime. It is not always America's fault. Well, actually, it normaly is.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 4:38 pm on Nov. 18, 2002
The revolution will only occur when the exploited proletarian classes uprise and revolt against the oppressive Capiatlist system. "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves. ".........
..............To have a succesful revolution, everyone must join together in a united regime.


Right on. A revolution can only happen with the full support of the workers. A premature uprising will prove fruitless (i.e. one led by the middle class, or one without support from the majority of the population). It will either be:

1. A waste of human lives. A small portion of a population cannot take on the authorities alone.

or

2. A scenario where the middle class becomes the new ruling class, meaning a waste yet again.

It may take 100 or 1000 years before people are ready for a revolution, but it will happen. And when it happens, it must be done properly (i.e. by the workers).



(Edited by Neutral Nation at 5:47 am on Nov. 19, 2002)

[Floyd.]

Are we pehaps deviating from the issue from time to time? I do not think it is true that no more countries will go communist. In the recent German elections it was made clear that Schroeder would be working in conjucntion with the smaller communist parties and would implement some of the policies and ideologies. For Germany it seems to be a case of the people not necessarily wanting a return to communism but feeling somewhat disenfranchised with the current sytem. So perhaps it will be more of a general transition as opposed to a revolution. It has been made clear recently in the Fijian coup staged by George Speight that people are still willing to rebel in the name of the downtrodden. What we need is the combination of the two things being the iniative and the communist factor. If it were not for Australian interference this coup would have been successfull. Even in Australia we are seeing a return to communist values with two parties appearing fresh on the scene, this has not been seen since the likes of Gough Whitlam who was the only socialist leader Australia has seen. However it is not working at a rapid pace and action would be preferred over words being exchanged. In a country as dumbed down as mine (Australia) who loves spectator sports so much; pehaps what we need is a revoulution with tv cameras to inspire the people. With media controlling such a large chunk of educational learning, Gil Scott-Heron could be wrong; in that maybe it would work better if the revolution were televised. If it's in the media everyone starts to form an opinion thus making the spectator a player in the long-run. But leading back to my initial question where is the next revolution most likely to take place and by who?

(Edited by Comrade La Vista at 11:09 pm on Nov. 19, 2002)

[Man of the Cause]

A succesful democratic socialist revolution can only be done by a whole, democratic and unified socialist front, where there isn't feuding factions. We must debate now, when we have time, but when the revolution (violent or parlamentic) will come we must be a unified socialist front for the good of all human beings of the world, because, as history has told us, only weapons talk during revolution. There's no time for debate then.

[Man of the Cause]

Quote: from sibling on 1:04 am on Nov. 18, 2002
There's a reason that there hasn't been a communist revolution recently: every time that a nation happens to undergo a communist revolution, the United States, the heart of the fascist, limiting, capitalist civilization, either bombs, threatens, or lays an embargo onto them.

For a country to succesfully become communist and move beyond the first stage of communism, it must be able to provide for itself, trade with other nations and succesfully protect itself from---the United States!!! Don't expect a revolution, an uprising, not soon.
Or then, like our forefather Marx said, communist revolution must be commited in a CAPITALIST country, not in a medieval or a development country, which was the trend those damn Bolshevik scmucks started. So, a communist revolution could (NOT in the near future) succeed in, and only, in a CAPITALIST(USA, Finland, England etc.) country, once again NOT in a medieval country (Nepal), or NOT in a developing country. I repeat myself and use THE CAPITOL letters because it seems like it's the only way to make some of you realize that, a Communist system could, like Marx said, only succeed in a CAPITALIST country, not in a medieval and NOT in a developing country. Capisce?

[redstar2000]

"only weapons talk during revolution...there's no time for debate then."

Well, not exactly...though it might appear to be the case sometimes. Even in combat, the guns aren't firing MOST of the time. What will people do "in between" battles? Argue like hell, most likely.

Let me make this point again: revolutionaries are NOT soldiers. The soldier (until he mutinies) is a machine which, ideally, obeys orders with mechanical precision.

Revolutionaries have, by virtue of rebelling, RECLAIMED their humanity--which means they now REFUSE to be machines even "in the name of the revolution". Revolutionaries insist on THEIR OWN ABILITY to acquire information, evaluate it, and make decisions based on it.

Professional soldiers (that is, mercenaries) just HATE this kind of attitude. How can you move soldiers around (like pieces on a chessboard) when the soldiers have minds of their own? Goddammit, it's "inefficient" and downright "unmilitary".

We have forgotten (it's been too long) the occasions when the military power of the old ruling class turned out not to matter all that much...when the time comes for soldiers (machines) to confront revolutionaries (humans), the machines sometimes decide that being human is a BETTER IDEA.

And that is where our REAL strength lies. The ruling class always has 99% of the military power; we'd NEVER beat them in a soldier vs. soldier conflict. Our power is a BETTER IDEA--be human instead of be a machine.

I saw this great scene in a movie years ago. The last Czar is sitting in his private railroad car when a lackey enters. "Sire," says the lackey, "the rabble have taken over Petrograd and proclaimed a republic." The Czar says in a stern voice, "Send the 3rd Army to crush those insolent scum." The lackey murmurs, "Sire...the 3rd Army no longer exists."

When we win, it won't be because of our guns; it will be because "the 3rd Army no longer exists."

[Cassius Clay]

Exactly Comrade Redstar, for once in my life I'm going to support Trotsky when he said something along the lines of 'The soldier will only obey orders if he has the fear of being punished when he doesn't obey orders' he was ofcourse reffering to the Feb Revolution.

It happened in Romania in 1989, almost happened in China the same year and will happen again. The question is are we prepared to sacrafice ourselves, because the soldiers will fire as long as they have that fear in the back of their mind that if they refuse to fire they will be punished. It just takes one battalion to say no, and the rest fall like milkbottles. But in Britian atleast the military is professional and as such is more likely to obey orders.

Who knows the moment may come soon here, if Blair orders the army to cross the picket lines, then who knows. It just takes one 40 year old fireman to stare into the eyes of a 18 year old private and say 'Son do you really want to be doing this'.

[IrieLittleDub]

If ther were to be insurrection i dont think it would happen any time soon at least not where i am ("USA")
even though i talk sh*t about it and so does the world it has not gottin to the point of a mass uprising and wont any time soon its salf to say that if you are waiting to see it happen here you should kill you self now the "US" as a hole has conformed and is fine with it its a sad world isnt it marx
lives