Is Revolution Morally Wrong - Should we force are beliefs on

[Invader Zim]

I have restarted this thread because there are many new members who may have contrasing views on this subject.

I am more socialist than comunist, I believe that people should choose their government and that it is wrong to force communism on people like the soviots did, threatening war with those countries that did not comply.
Personally i am in favour of a democratic approach to socialism, this way you create a free state, morraly justified for its rule and with what i believe are fair opinions of government. I believe that this is the only way that communism/socialism/marcsism ect are going to survive the new centuary.

For example in the USA if a revolution was to begin and it succeded, then we would not be enforceing the will of the people, as most people in the USA are not communist.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from canikickit on 7:37 pm on Mar. 24, 2003
Why don't you bounce the other thread back up? I think I should lock this thread.

because its complete, finnished and done. It would be difficult to add more to it wheather you were new or not. This allows people to start a-new. However lock it if you want and i'll re open the old one and give it a go...

[sc4r]

You cant force socialism on people. If u do it is not socialism. Thgis does not rule out revolution only rule out unpopular revolution.

This does not even mean that democratic elections can be made available on red monday. (it noticeable that no 'democratic capitalist' thinks this is feasible when THEY overcome a country by force).

In samller countries revolution may be the fastest and most just way to achieve freedom for people. In larger established ones it does not matter whether it is justified it is impractical; the USSR was the last time I think that a mass revolution will occur in a large developed (for its time and in certain ways) nation; its so sad that Stalin perverted that opportunity. May he burn in hell forever for what he did to socialism's reputation as well as for what he did to people.

[Monks Aflame]

if revolution is morally unjust, then the US IS the Great Satan, forcing 'democracy' on every country they invade and take over. Then, the argument "two wrongs don't make a right" can be hurled back, but how many wrongs will the people stand by and watch? Change is necessary, and the most peaceful way to change is always the best, but if the guys on the top of the hill shut down any plans for change... then it seems only swift and affirmative action will make a difference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You can't force Communism without a revolution, and to have a revolution you would have to have popular support, and so therefore in a Communist revolution the opposition would be in a minority.

I could of course be talking utter bullpats.

[YerbaMateJ]

Doesn't a just Revolution meet the needs of the majority of the population? The thing about America is that sometimes the most oppressed are so brainwashed that they will be staunch supporters of the oppressors.

Sad shit.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from NoXion on 6:39 am on Mar. 25, 2003
You can't force Communism without a revolution, and to have a revolution you would have to have popular support, and so therefore in a Communist revolution the opposition would be in a minority.

I could of course be talking utter bullpats.


Not true. Full stop.

It only takes a few individuals to achive a revolution against a nation with either a limited army or a dictatorship with limited military support.

[Monks Aflame]

contras of nicaragua->not supported by the people, just the US gov. What kind of shape is Nicaragua in now?

[Moondog]

It's impossible to please all of the people all the time, so revolution would only benefit some. There will never be a place where all people are in support of their governments every action. We are not drones. Besides, violence breeds violence, and revolution breeds counter-revolution. Someone will always be upset.

[redstar2000]

Kind of a silly question, really.

Successful revolutions usually involve active support by a substantial minority and passive support by another substantial minority...and you end up with a majority anyway.

Unsuccessful revolutions last a few weeks, are clearly only supported by a much smaller minority and have little in the way of passive support.

When you get down to it, it's really impossible to oppose the majority for any length of time without drawing upon external military force.

The picture of communist dictatorship over a rebellious majority is a chimera...a myth. The 20th century communist governments clearly enjoyed the passive support of a majority of their citizens for most of their existence. Only in the cases of Berlin (1953), Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) could it be argued that a majority of people wanted an end to the communist governments...and only Russian military intervention kept them in power.

An additional borderline case might be that of Poland in the 1980s...though Russian intervention was only threatened.

If it is thought that communists are so "diabolically clever" that we can "sneak into power" against the will of the majority...I can only respond that such a scenario gives us more "credit" than we deserve.

Communist revolution is only possible with the active support of the working class...otherwise, it just can't happen.

And it certainly would never be permitted to happen through capitalist "elections". That perspective really is a hopeless dream.

:cool:

[Felicia]

haha, I love your avatar ak47, lol :biggrin:

(Edited by felicia at 1:40 pm on Mar. 26, 2003)

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Redstar, I agree with your point that in most nations communism was at least passively supported. Even in the Prague Spring, which you mention as a possible exception, there was not really an attempt to abandon communism. The Czechs merely sought to develop it in their own manner (as Tito, Mao, Castro and many others had done).

[El Che]

"Kind of a silly question, really."

I don`t think it`s silly at all. You should really think about that one.

[peaccenicked]

Revolution is not about imposing things on the majority, it is about the majority imposing one thing and one thing only on a tiny specific minority, the capitalist class, and that is one thing namely: There shall no longer be capitalist power.
Revolution is about getting people to agree to unite and that creates a social union among the oppressed.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:36 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[El Che]

The "majority imposing" is the foundation of my political thinking. So, I agree with you, the majority should be able to impose the end of Capitalism. I don`t know about revolution though.

[El Che]

In case there is any doubt, not only should the majority be able to end Capitalism but it is also my view that the majority should indeed follow up on that option. But that again is irrelevent to the point of this thread.

[peaccenicked]

Revolution is a term that evokes many images, but in terms of socialism it merely means the overturn of the ruling class by the working class. As we learned with Pol Pot not all revolutions are even relatively progressive. Marx pointed to this in his writings when he talked of ''crude communism''. The revolution he supported had to have a social character rather than anti-social and undemocratic.

[El Che]

Of couse this sort of thing always begs the question of our understanding and usage of the term Revolution. But I think we all understand each other here and I hope those to whom my message, in the form of stated personal opinion, is addressed will find it in their hearts not to precieve it as a hostile act. That really helps no one since the reaction that follows from that is anything but constructive.

[革命者]

Quote: from AK47 on 10:03 pm on Mar. 25, 2003

Quote: from NoXion on 6:39 am on Mar. 25, 2003
You can't force Communism without a revolution, and to have a revolution you would have to have popular support, and so therefore in a Communist revolution the opposition would be in a minority.

I could of course be talking utter bullpats.


Not true. Full stop.

It only takes a few individuals to achive a revolution against a nation with either a limited army or a dictatorship with limited military support.
i don't agree-- it does take the favor of the majority of the ppl.

[革命者]

Quote: from NoXion on 7:39 am on Mar. 25, 2003
You can't force Communism without a revolution, and to have a revolution you would have to have popular support, and so therefore in a Communist revolution the opposition would be in a minority.

I could of course be talking utter bullpats.
overlooked your post, sorry.. but what you stated is correct and imo you're not talking bullpats..

[honest intellectual]

the answer to your question depends what is meant by a revolution. I've been working on "H.I's super-duper theory of leftist revolution". Enjoy.
The way I see it, there are at least three distinct types of leftist revolution: A minority coup d'etat (October 1917, Russia), a popular uprising (May 1968, France) and a guerrilla war ('the Cuban Model').

Russia
A minority clique overthrowing a democratically elected government is wrong, because it is against the will of the people and is motivated by power-lust. It is one political group striking at the leadership of the ruling political group. It is aimed directly at the ruling party, the politicians.

France
A popular uprising is really the 'ideal' revolution, the workers taking control of their own lives, refusing to take any more shit and directly seizing political power, either through non-violent resistance (India) or violent uprising (France). (In the case of the violent uprising, the violence isn't serious because the people are generally unarmed and the police/army/powers that be are powerless against a willing mob, because they can't fire on unarmed people. No one was actually killed in the May 1968 revolution, although hundreds were injured)

Cuba
If the government is more brutal and not elected, or the people too afraid to rise up, it is necessary for the state powers to be 'softened up' by armed violence. The ideal method is guerrilla warfare, because it cannot succeed without the help of the people, so it is a 'democratic' revolution. When the guerrilla operations have beaten back the state, the people will rise up and finish the job.


Agree? Disagree? Comments? Criticism?

[Wolfie]

As lomg as its a popular revolution, and if you educate combatants on the social and political changes that will occur after victory then it moraly right.