Revolution: an idealist thought?

[R_P_A_S]

I've heard many times that to be a revolutionary one has to be a dreamer. The more I read on Che Guevara the more I realized that the guy was heavily driven by his dream. I guess our dreams too. Of a fairer democratic system and society.

I asked my self today, "what did you get your self into?" Last year, Ignorance was a bliss. Being introduced the Marxism and communism not only opened my eyes and put many things into place for me. It has allowed me for the first time in my life to think for my self. Something I wouldn't trade. Not even if i could have that bliss.

The deeper I get into this, and the more I learn that this struggle has been here centuries before me, and It will probably be here after I leave this earth. It's overwhelming... The amount of information, theory, ideas and discussion. No I am not throwing in the towel. But I can see how most "communist" and "socialist" wind up becoming Liberals or some other dip shits. The task is immense. That job of a revolutionary and the responsibly that being class conscious carries is not one for the weak.

There is soo many debates on how to do things. on how exactly the working class should liberate themselves, or how revolution should be carried out and how to reach socialism. that I just see us sitting around a table arguing and "philosophizing" as opposed of getting things done.

So I'm thinking.. Ok was Marx way ahead of his time? did he come up with all this too soon? should he had even came up with this? What leads me to say this? Well for one,
was there a revolution to establish Feudalism? Was it some well thought out idea and planned for? NO. it just happened.

How about Capitalism? Was this system well thought out? years before it actually 'took power'...I understand the French Revolution was the starts of Capitalism. But There was no "leaders" that wrote about "a capitalist revolution" years before it actually happened. I feel that this events that changed social order just happened. without any deep theory or LONG planning for it.. Like we have been planning for socialism.

Maybe when you talk about something for so long it just becomes static(socialist-communist revolution)... and leads to procrastination. I mean we been planning for this revolution since the mid 1800's... and nothing...
"the plan" is all drawn up and we have all this theory and history to back our plate up. But nothing.. it doesn't happen...

I find my self debating people about how much better socialism would be. yet I'm arguing for something that has never existed and that no one has experienced. So what the fuck am I talking about? how the hell do I know?

How DO YOU know?

Then you got those of you who opposed any type of movement that dares to call it self a revolution, If is not a text book movement by what Lenin or Marx wrote exactly.:rolleyes:

So I ask you; Isn't that just as bad as believing the world will end how the bible says it will?

I know this might seem like a rant. But I am not disappointed. I think is good that I'm weary. It shows that I've learn a lot in the last year and that I still have a long way to go.

I hope this gets some good conversation going.

thank you![B]

[BobKKKindle$]

Just some general comments.


I've heard many times that to be a revolutionary one has to be a dreamer.

I think being a revolutionary and not a reformist is, more than anything else, based on the recognition that our objectives cannot be achieved through 'legimiate' means - participating in existing political institutions etc - because our aims directly challenge the power and interests of the ruling class. From this one can say that, far from being idealistic, advocating revolutionary change is realistic - it is the reformists who are deluded, as they do not really understand the character and function of the state. Whether the objectives that we aspire to are dreamy is another matter though.


But There was no "leaders" that wrote about "a capitalist revolution" years before it actually happened

I am not so sure about that. There were certainly important philosophers and political thinkers who supported Capitalism or principles that entailed Capitalism, even before it became the dominant form of production and economic organisation - John Locke, for example, first forumlated the concept of private property as a natural right during the 17th century. And the French Revolution was certainly influenced by figures such as Voltaire. I personally feel that the idea that revolutionary change is dependent on abstract and underlying economic forces and contradictions ,whilst correct in a sense, could be described as too simplistic - ideas, individuals, and even the specific material and historical conditions of a country are also important, especially when it comes to determining the precise character and outcome of a revolution.


"the plan" is all drawn up and we have all this theory and history to back our plate up. But nothing.. it doesn't happen...

What do you mean 'it doesn't happen'? There have been countless workers' struggles in the course of Capitalism's development and based on these we have adapted our strategies and learnt from our mistakes - our ideas have certainly not been stagnant. Capitalism has continued to develop in the way Karl Marx predicted and the intensity of struggle seems to be increasing.


yet I'm arguing for something that has never existed and that no one has experienced.

Well that's not really true. Many Socialists argue that the republican-controlled areas in the Spanish Civil war and even Cuba are examples of where Socialism has been implemented successfully and so we certainly have examples from which we can draw to demonstrate and support our ideas. Examples even exist within the framework of Capitalism - take the worker-controlled enterprises of Argentina for example.

[R_P_A_S]

I am not so sure about that. There were certainly important philosophers and political thinkers who supported Capitalism or principles that entailed Capitalism, even before it became the dominant form of production and economic organisation - John Locke, for example, first forumlated the concept of private property as a natural right during the 17th century.

Yes.. that's true but none of these guys wrote a manifesto on how to get to capitalism. They didn't proposed a plan on how to do it. They had ideas and and what not. But John Locke wasn't rallying up the petty-bourgoisie for example.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yes.. that's true but none of these guys wrote a manifesto on how to get to capitalism. They didn't proposed a plan on how to do it. They had ideas and and what not. But John Locke wasn't rallying up the petty-bourgoisie for example.

No, the change was because in some European countries the new universities, where the bourgeoisie sent their sons, educated the bourgeoisie in how to rule, it taught them about mathematics, science, biology and history. And, as it came out of the enlightenment, the education was a bourgeois interpretation.

The mass workers party, is supposed to be the workers version of the universities, they are the universities of the proletariat, they teach the workers about Marxism, and learn from the workers past struggles.


So, the universities of the bourgeoisie taught the members of the bourgeoisie that they were not only richer than the aristocracy, but that they were better than the aristocracy.

So, the universities of the bourgeoisie did actively fight for capitalism, just like the workers need to actively fight for socialism.

[R_P_A_S]

So, the universities of the bourgeoisie taught the members of the bourgeoisie that they were not only richer than the aristocracy, but that they were better than the aristocracy.

So, the universities of the bourgeoisie did actively fight for capitalism, just like the workers need to actively fight for socialism.


OK. well perhaps you are right. I mean I never heard of this.. but if you are correct if these were the teachings and exact methods of this Unis. still though. did they call it "capitalism" and did they have the plan all set, like a blue print?

"ok everyone. its going to be call Capitalism and Its going to involved the ownership of private property. we can always get random people to work for us and increase our profits. bla bla bla"

As opposed to socialism and communist,.. how its all thought out and shit. there's a manifesto and all this "plans" on how to do it and what not.

I dont even know what the hell im arguing no more. lol i lost my place.. (BRB rice is burning!!!)

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

OK. well perhaps you are right. I mean I never heard of this.. but if you are correct if these were the teachings and exact methods of this Unis. still though. did they call it "capitalism" and did they have the plan all set, like a blue print?

"ok everyone. its going to be call Capitalism and Its going to involved the ownership of private property. we can always get random people to work for us and increase our profits. bla bla bla"

As opposed to socialism and communist,.. how its all thought out and shit. there's a manifesto and all this "plans" on how to do it and what not.

I dont even know what the hell im arguing no more. lol i lost my place.. (BRB rice is burning!!!)

Well, as far as calling it capitalism, i'm not sure, because that implies an ability to look at history in stages of human development, which is really what Marx did.

But, they did know lots of things, like the communist manifesto for the bourgeoisie was probably Adam smiths Wealth of nations, or something similar that i don't know about.

Remember that the ideas that come out of a society, are largely determined by the economic base of that society.

So, they needed ways to justify and rationalize capitalism. For one, they rejected the absolute rulers of feudalism and wanted means to have the capitalist society function in their interest, but they were not really interested in ruling directly.

[R_P_A_S]

I don't know. but like I said maybe Marx was way ahead of his time. I mean was the conditions of a young a capitalist society at his time that harsh? YES it was. now that I think of it. being that they were no Unions, 8 hours day, and benefits at the time....

But for him to taught of it so early on.. while Capitalism was barely getting "the ball rolling" maybe that was the mistake? I mean... shit many Marxist argue that the next stage in Human society is socialism and that it will come after a communist revolution. But what makes us so confident that "is just a matter of time".. because the dialectics part of Marxism "predicts it" or "history says it will (just look at the past)"

doesn't this thought contradict materialism? for us to sit here expecting certain events in the world, something huge like a revolution to just happen because Marx or Engels said it would? :wacko:

or an other thing. I don't know what the hell im talking about LOL. :unsure:

[bezdomni]

We do not have a plan set for what socialism or communism will look like. We say some vague things like "worker management of the means of production" and "stateless, classless society" but we really cannot invision every detail of life in communism any more than the proto-bourgeoisie could invision every detail of life under modern capitalism.

[R_P_A_S]

An one more thing... They say that a revolution is more ideal to happen in a modern country or region. where the means of production have been fully develop, an industrialized place. unlike when it happened in The USSR.

However the countries or regions that are more industrialized are also places where capitalism has a tighter grip and a heavier chain on the working class. Being that they have Bills to pay, credit cards, they worked they entire fucking lives to buy their house, their car or pay their college tuition so they can get a better paying job. These people. in this parts of the world are not as desperate as lets say the rural working class in a 3rd world country... unfortunately their region is not develop, or fit for a successful transition or revolution.

You guys see where I'm getting at? every part of the world and every proletariat situation is different. Some can be reached. but some just don't want to.

Maybe "we need to go back to the drawing board"???????

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

RPAS, Marxists don't think that socialism or communism are inevitable, but merely that capitalism will inevitably collapse, and that, within capitalisms almost permanent crisis' (which is why it has to change so often, from state intervention to full on privatization etc.) the workers have the potential to take over the means of production and from their begin to construct a society on their terms.



doesn't this thought contradict materialism? for us to sit here expecting certain events in the world, something huge like a revolution to just happen because Marx or Engels said it would? wacko.gif

Well, we know capitalism will collapse, just like be know the sun will one day burn out and destroy our solar system. But, we don't know that socialism will ever come, because we really are not that deterministic.

Revolutions will likely be radically different to one another, some may look reformist, some may be in the guise of Islamic anti imperialism, some in the guise of nationalism. But, what can come out of it is, and overall weakening of capitalism via all those struggles.

The workers not only have to reject capitalism, because they don't like it, but also because they feel the current class system is holding back the productive potential of society. And, there are plenty of countries where that is true.




or an other thing. I don't know what the hell im talking about LOL. unsure.gif

me too pretty much, i think other more knowledgeable comrades could answer you questions much clearer than me.

[Rawthentic]

RPAS, Bob Kindles and the other comrades have made good explanations, so I won't go into that.

I think by getting active in the community and worker's struggles do the prospects of revolution come clearer into our mind.

In fact, in the last issue of Working People's Advocate of the Communist League, we had a great article called, Talkin' About a Revolution. (http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/wpa/wpa200705.pdf)

The WPA is about 12 pages, so such look through it to find the editorial.

[bezdomni]

Maybe "we need to go back to the drawing board"???????

Lenin has already been at this metaphorical drawing board. I emphatically recommend that you read Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.


However the countries or regions that are more industrialized are also places where capitalism has a tighter grip and a heavier chain on the working class. Being that they have Bills to pay, credit cards, they worked they entire fucking lives to buy their house, their car or pay their college tuition so they can get a better paying job. These people. in this parts of the world are not as desperate as lets say the rural working class in a 3rd world country... unfortunately their region is not develop, or fit for a successful transition or revolution.

It is because of the desperation of third world workers and peasants that first world workers have higher standards of living. Countries like the United States have a labor aristocracy that thrives off of foreign labor, along with its own internal hyperexploited colonies (ie: black workers).

The United States, the United Kingdom and other imperialist powers live far beyond their own productive means. The "American way of life" sustains itself on the labor and resources of third world countries and is not self-sustaining. Finance capital will inevitably collapse (due to the development of socialism and resistance to imperialism in the third world) and workers in ex-first world countries will either have to resort to fascism or have a socialist revolution.


You guys see where I'm getting at? every part of the world and every proletariat situation is different. Some can be reached. but some just don't want to.

Some "don't want to" because socalism is not in their immediate best interests. A large section of workers in imperialist countries have been bourgeoisified because of imperialism. That is not to say that there are no workers in first world countries, or that there is no point in organizing or struggling for revolution in first world countires...it is just that revolutionary situations are much more rare in first-world countries because the bourgeoisie have co-opted a large section of the proletariat.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:13 pm
RPAS, Marxists don't think that socialism or communism are inevitable, but merely that capitalism will inevitably collapse, and that, within capitalisms almost permanent crisis' (which is why it has to change so often, from state intervention to full on privatization etc.) the workers have the potential to take over the means of production and from their begin to construct a society on their terms.
[/quote]
that sounds better. in fact yes I have read that before. It's the downfall of Capitalism that it's most likely inevitable. as we are experiencing now more than ever the contradictions and harm that come from it.

I also have to agree with what some of you pointed out. I can't find the post now. but I think it was something like: different parts of the world would have their own revolutions. some would be Islamic/anti-imperialist. others reformist, and some "Bolivarian" and so forth.

Che Guevara said something similar. "Many Vietnams, will bring down Imperialism"

Who do we think we are? when we have the nerve to sit here and type on our little computers what a "real revolution" should be like???

That's some nerve. to try and discredit working class movements or just any type of social movement against their oppressors and dismiss it as "none legitimate" because it's not what YOU and your "comrades" read about. or is not attainable because is NOT what YOU "isms" say?

I like to think that if we get enough revolutionary movements around the world to grown and gain more and more mass support, regardless if they are Marxist or leninist, or maoist or what ever the hell. we can eventually weaken the grip of oppression and capitalism.

lay off the preachy theory tactics.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:12 pm

I am not so sure about that. There were certainly important philosophers and political thinkers who supported Capitalism or principles that entailed Capitalism, even before it became the dominant form of production and economic organisation - John Locke, for example, first forumlated the concept of private property as a natural right during the 17th century.

Yes.. that's true but none of these guys wrote a manifesto on how to get to capitalism. They didn't proposed a plan on how to do it. They had ideas and and what not. But John Locke wasn't rallying up the petty-bourgoisie for example.
Actually it's untrue: Locke saw property as merely civil right, derived from natural right and secondary.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+July 06, 2007 10:49 pm--> (CornetJoyce @ July 06, 2007 10:49 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 04:12 pm

I am not so sure about that. There were certainly important philosophers and political thinkers who supported Capitalism or principles that entailed Capitalism, even before it became the dominant form of production and economic organisation - John Locke, for example, first forumlated the concept of private property as a natural right during the 17th century.

Yes.. that's true but none of these guys wrote a manifesto on how to get to capitalism. They didn't proposed a plan on how to do it. They had ideas and and what not. But John Locke wasn't rallying up the petty-bourgoisie for example.
Actually it's untrue: Locke saw property as merely civil right, derived from natural right and secondary. [/b]
I know he did. but he wasn't viewed as a revolutionary. nor there were people parading them selves around as "LOCKEIST" or some shiit.

[hajduk]

WE MUST DO THE MIND REVOLUTION IN PEOPLE HEADS THAT CAN BE FOR REAL ONLY YOU MUST TELL THEM ALL THE TIME YOUR OPINION ABOUT WHAT YOU NEED TO BE A HAPPY

[RGacky3]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI

My answer is incapsulated in this old jews little speach, its not all about winning or loosing, its about morality and ideals, that what is right is right and one will always support what is right even if he is the last one doing so on earth.

[Ol' Dirty]

I understand the French Revolution was the starts of Capitalism.

The capitalistic modes of production started more around the begining of the African slave trade, (c. 14-15 hundreds), the rise of the bank (c. 15-16 hundreds,) the age of colonialism (16-17 hundreds,) and Adam Smiths' The Wealth of Nations.

But I suppose I'm just nitpicking? :D


WE MUST DO THE MIND REVOLUTION IN PEOPLE HEADS THAT CAN BE FOR REAL ONLY YOU MUST TELL THEM ALL THE TIME YOUR OPINION ABOUT WHAT YOU NEED TO BE A HAPPY

OMGZZZ RLY? i THINK THAT TOOOO! LOL !!!111!!!!11!!!

:lol:


My answer is incapsulated in this old jews little speach, its not all about winning or loosing, its about morality and ideals, that what is right is right and one will always support what is right even if he is the last one doing so on earth.

<_<