What works better?

[The New Left]

Would the spread of communism/ socialism work better through a revolution? Or through democratic votes?

[cenv]

Would the overthrow of capitalism work better through the overthrow of capitalism or the continuation of capitalism?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

It would work better through a revolution. It would be impossible to achieve communism through "democratic votes" or bourgeois electoralism because the ruling class won't allow their system to be smashed without putting up a fight, this is what the revolution is, the fight to smash the old system. At best, "democratic votes" could lead to increased social welfare and a small amount of progress but the essential system of capitalism won't be done away with through "democratic" voting.

[The New Left]

Well, I mean the overthrow in Tsarist Russia was run by a minority of the people.

With democratic votes meaning people are leaning towards the left.... But I can see your point (kind of) Cenv.

[Cheung Mo]

Never have the symbols of revolution been so degraded than by your avatar. Jack Layton even said that he would have backed Rosales in Venezuela's latest election.

[The New Left]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 01, 2007 12:20 am
Never have the symbols of revolution been so degraded than by your avatar. Jack Layton even said that he would have backed Rosales in Venezuela's latest election.
We'll thats news to me... I support the NDP and so does most of my community, however, I believe the NDP is the way (right now) to show the masses what the left side of the spectrum, I think Social democracy and Democratic Socialism will eventually lead to socialism. Thats why the hammer and sickle in in the background. But I really don't know why I had to justify my avatar to you.

I do not agree with Jack Laytons policies most of the time, but hell, that goes for most government reps.

[Ol' Dirty]

Why not both?

[The New Left]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:14 am
Why not both?
How would you go about doing that?

[Random Precision]

If there has been anything the past century has taught us, it is that a workers' revolution is the only reliable way to build socialism. Workers' power was established and succeeded in Russia until the Civil War left the country with a workers' party but hardly any workers, leaving it susceptible to the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Workers took control of most of the Catalan economy during the Spanish Civil War, but their leaders refused to extend the revolution by leaving the bourgeois state in power, ensuring their demise.

On the other hand, we have seen the failure of all reformist methods of establishing socialism. There is no better example than the Socialist parties of Europe, for example the Labour Party of Britain, which in its early history could be considered socialist but has now become neo-liberal and a clear enemy of the working class. The fact is that working within the system adapts the socialists to the system rather than the system to socialism. In other cases, attempts to build socialism through the bourgeois democratic state have resulted in disaster, for example Allende's Chile. While I for the most part admire the current experiments of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, I believe his democratic revolution has only succeeded because he has left the vast part of bourgeoisie profits alone, thus they are tolerating his system for the time being. His attempts to form a united socialist party and reduce the power of the unions are also a bit frightening to me.

We have also seen the failure of non-proletarian revolutions in the struggle for socialism, for example the guerilla movements in Cuba and China. The Soviet Union's attempt to establish socialism in Eastern Europe through use of its own military power ultimately failed as well.

Although this is only a short summary of why, I believe the only way to establish a socialist society is through a revolution that puts the workers in full control of both the economy and the government. Our job as socialists is to hasten the day of that revolution.

[CornetJoyce]

If we had Democratic votes, we would have a Revolution.
However, all we have is votes for politicians.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

A real workers' revolution would be the most democratic thing to ever happen. As it is, voting for millionaires is not democracy.

Anyways, reformism is utterly doomed because if we fight for greater wages they can just raise the prices of goods and we're no better off. If we fight for better conditions they'll think of some other way to screw us.

And of course, the gains of any two-bit social democratic party like the NDP can be overturned in the blink of an eye by any asshat who prattles on about "privatisation."

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think "social democracy"/"reformism"/etc is going to get us anycloser to communism.

It's been tried (especially in Europe) and it went no where (IMO) in reaching communism.

P.S. Where's this NDP from?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, if the workers were [largely] united behind socialism/communism, that would constitute a democratic majority.

I say, by whatever means comes first.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:09 am
P.S. Where's this NDP from?
It's a social democratic party in Canada.

[Tatarin]

I really don't see how communism can be brought forward by voting. Radical movements in the past century (the 20th) have shown that the most popular and radical questions were never voted on. Like the rights of black people, the overthrow of apartheid South Africa, women's rights and so on. They all had to protest and fight for their rights. They never voted on them.

So, in a sence, a communist revolution would be the ultimate liberation, and thus such a thing can never just be given. All people have to fight for it.

[Dr Mindbender]

you cant 'vote' in a revolution. It has to be actively seized because the current capitalist parliamentary systems are set up to defend their own skewed version of democracy.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by The New Left+August 01, 2007 12:24 am--> (The New Left @ August 01, 2007 12:24 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 01:14 am
Why not both?
How would you go about doing that?[/b]
A revolution run by a democratic government.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfRed+August 01, 2007 07:59 pm--> (LovelyShadeOfRed @ August 01, 2007 07:59 pm)
Originally posted by The New [email protected] 01, 2007 12:24 am

[email protected] 01, 2007 01:14 am
Why not both?
How would you go about doing that?
A revolution run by a democratic government. [/b]
a revolution by definition is democratic because it requires the will of the majority to happen.

Im not sure i understand the distinction you are trying to make.

[RedHal]

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." --Henry Kissinger, June 27

just try it, it will piss off Uncle Sam and we know what happens.......


edit: lol just noticed your avatar, hammer and sickle with the NDP

[redflag32]

I hate reformists more than i hate capitalists,atleast capitalists stand on one side of the fence. Reformists are a sneaky bunch who use the ills of society to get into power and once they are in they turn their backs on the people. Withouth reformists i think we would be very close to revolution,no middle man,just us against them.