Revolution: The final resort

[Invader Zim]

Revolution should not be used until there is no choise but for its use so elections are not an option and have been tried many times. This is where I believe Marx was fundermentaly wrong. His teachings suggest that a revolution is necessary for a successful socialist socioty... Why, why should it be any more successful after revolution than election?

It makes no sence to me to have a revolution when an election is a definate option. Many leftist leaders have been dead against revloution and violant force ranging from early chartist thinkers such as William Lovett to Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen. Why are they wrong and Marx right.

Of course in a situation like Zimbabwe elections have been tried and failed. They were rigged and the voters beeten and the leader of the opposition party is being tried for two counts of Treason. In a situation where a dictator controls the majority by force and crushed democracy then a revolution of forign intervention must be used to give the people back there freedom. But in nearly al cercumstances peaseful opposition should be used opposted to violant revolution.

[bluerev002]

Its not like people accually WANT a violent revolution to start. It is the final resort, yes, it should only be used after words dont get throught the goverment. it should only be used when the oppression is too great and people cannot take it anymore!

It is always much easier to build ANY society, wether it be Socialist or not, when you completly destroy the goverment first, tehn have the people build their own.

[canikickit]

Revolution should not be used until there is no choise but for its use so elections are not an option and have been tried many times. This is where I believe Marx was fundermentaly wrong.

The thing about revolutions like the Cuban one, AK47, is that for the Cuban revolution to succeed, it was necessary fpor it to have the full support of the people.
Without the locals in the Sierra Maestra, the revolutionaries would have been crushed by Batista.

In that sense revolution can be democracy at its core.

The revolution is not just about an actualy battle, or an war. The revolution is on every level on which the human mind and body operate. Many would say that the revolution is still happening in Cuba.

Other than that, I agree with what bluerev said.

[redstar2000]

Revolution should not be used until there is no choice but for its use so elections are not an option and have been tried many times.

Why?

That is, do "elections" have some "cosmic virtue" in and of themselves such that no one is "allowed" to make revolution until "elections" have clearly failed?

I don't comprehend that "reasoning".

This is where I believe Marx was fundermentaly wrong. His teachings suggest that a revolution is necessary for a successful socialist society... Why, why should it be any more successful after revolution than election?

No, that's a misunderstanding of Marx. What Marx observed was that old ruling classes rarely gave up their power to new ruling classes peacefully. It has happened, but it is extraordinarily rare.

What happens after the transfer of power is that the old state apparatus is dissolved and a new one set up specifically for use by the new ruling class. In a few cases, the forms of the old state apparatus are retained but completely remodeled for the same purpose.

Marx assumed on the basis of observing the transition from feudalism to capitalism that the working class would come to power by revolution and would proceed to smash the old bourgeois state and set up a new one, designed for the working class to use.

It makes no sense to me to have a revolution when an election is a definate option. Many leftist leaders have been dead against revolution and violent force ranging from early chartist thinkers such as William Lovett to Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen. Why are they wrong and Marx right?

Because the folks you mention did not understand the nature of the state as an organ of class rule. They thought of it as simply a tool in the abstract, that anyone could pick up and use any way they wished.

That is not true, of course. The modern capitalist state has been refined over the last two centuries to serve ever more closely the interests of the ruling class while giving the appearance of being subordinate to popular soverignity.

The old feudal lords claimed to be ruling "by grace of God"; our rulers today claim to be ruling "by grace of a popular majority at the polls". Both are lying.

"Revolution as a last resort" seems to me to be a policy that turns out to mean, in practice, revolution never. There is always "another" election, always "another" reform to make elections more "democratic", etc. It is an unending diversion of time and energy that could and should be spent in other ways.

How? In the simplest formula, by simply telling people that revolution is the only solution.

You understand, of course, that by "revolution" I don't mean an attempted coup by some pathetic Leninist sect. I mean an enormous uprising of nearly the entire working class, such as that of February 1917 in Russia.

Such uprisings are, in my view, inevitable; their success in part depends on how well we communists have done our job...educating our class in what is really required to "make that revolution stick."

That sort of thing is much more "difficult" than playing at politician in elections that you need never worry about winning...unless, of course, you turn into a real politician in which case you will be just another corrupt piece of shit with an excellent chance of "winning".

Hell of a choice, ain't it?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:48 pm on June 9, 2003)

[Sandanista]

Cant u see, revolution is the only way, u cant just elect socialists bcoz ull still have parliament and a ruling class.

Marx doesnt talk about us starting a violent revolution, he suggest we need to use other means, general strikes and such to acheive our goals.

Violent revolution (junta) only brings in another small autocratic ruling elite, a la cuba

[Invader Zim]

Sorry about the length...


Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:44 am on June 10, 2003
Revolution should not be used until there is no choice but for its use so elections are not an option and have been tried many times.

Why?

That is, do "elections" have some "cosmic virtue" in and of themselves such that no one is "allowed" to make revolution until "elections" have clearly failed?

I don't comprehend that "reasoning".

This is where I believe Marx was fundermentaly wrong. His teachings suggest that a revolution is necessary for a successful socialist society... Why, why should it be any more successful after revolution than election?

No, that's a misunderstanding of Marx. What Marx observed was that old ruling classes rarely gave up their power to new ruling classes peacefully. It has happened, but it is extraordinarily rare.

What happens after the transfer of power is that the old state apparatus is dissolved and a new one set up specifically for use by the new ruling class. In a few cases, the forms of the old state apparatus are retained but completely remodeled for the same purpose.

Marx assumed on the basis of observing the transition from feudalism to capitalism that the working class would come to power by revolution and would proceed to smash the old bourgeois state and set up a new one, designed for the working class to use.

It makes no sense to me to have a revolution when an election is a definate option. Many leftist leaders have been dead against revolution and violent force ranging from early chartist thinkers such as William Lovett to Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen. Why are they wrong and Marx right?

Because the folks you mention did not understand the nature of the state as an organ of class rule. They thought of it as simply a tool in the abstract, that anyone could pick up and use any way they wished.

That is not true, of course. The modern capitalist state has been refined over the last two centuries to serve ever more closely the interests of the ruling class while giving the appearance of being subordinate to popular soverignity.

The old feudal lords claimed to be ruling "by grace of God"; our rulers today claim to be ruling "by grace of a popular majority at the polls". Both are lying.

"Revolution as a last resort" seems to me to be a policy that turns out to mean, in practice, revolution never. There is always "another" election, always "another" reform to make elections more "democratic", etc. It is an unending diversion of time and energy that could and should be spent in other ways.

How? In the simplest formula, by simply telling people that revolution is the only solution.

You understand, of course, that by "revolution" I don't mean an attempted coup by some pathetic Leninist sect. I mean an enormous uprising of nearly the entire working class, such as that of February 1917 in Russia.

Such uprisings are, in my view, inevitable; their success in part depends on how well we communists have done our job...educating our class in what is really required to "make that revolution stick."

That sort of thing is much more "difficult" than playing at politician in elections that you need never worry about winning...unless, of course, you turn into a real politician in which case you will be just another corrupt piece of shit with an excellent chance of "winning".

Hell of a choice, ain't it?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:48 pm on June 9, 2003)


That is, do "elections" have some "cosmic virtue" in and of themselves such that no one is "allowed" to make revolution until "elections" have clearly failed?

I don't comprehend that "reasoning".

It is quite simple the reason why an election is better than a revolution is because people dont die in an election.

I think that that is more than enough justification.

What Marx observed was that old ruling classes rarely gave up their power to new ruling classes peacefully. It has happened, but it is extraordinarily rare.

Mrax was alive in a time years before modern democracy and is therefor was in a position to only the situation judge what was best when he was alive. Times have changed Western countrys in particular have become more liberal and democratic. In these nation election is a far more viable way of altering the political situation than revolution, simply because the revolutionarys would get defeated. So I conclude that what Marx has to say on what is possible or not possible is meaningless as times have moved on. So what Marx observed of the ruling classes is meaningless except from a historical point of view.

What happens after the transfer of power is that the old state apparatus is dissolved and a new one set up specifically for use by the new ruling class.

That is a hypocracy, Marx's theorys clearly stated that a socialist socioty would be classless, so after the transfer of power there would be no ruling class. So if there is no ruling class how can the "new ruling class" set up any form of political/state apparatus? The only way of achiving this is electing the ruling class from the people by the people. So it is OK to create a new parlimentary system through election etc, but wrong to use election to create the transfer of power? That is illogical.

Marx assumed on the basis of observing the transition from feudalism to capitalism that the working class would come to power by revolution and would proceed to smash the old bourgeois state and set up a new one, designed for the working class to use.


That is another example of how Marxism is obsolite at least in the western world. Feudalism is no-longer a system in use in the west. Marx's theorys revolve around the over throw of a feudal socioty, how can this be done in a socioty which is not Feudalistic. Also the Bourgeoisie, as in the French rich middle classes, are no-longer in existance as are the landed or Émigré’s. How can you overthrow a group which no-longer exists in any practical forms.

Because the folks you mention did not understand the nature of the state as an organ of class rule. They thought of it as simply a tool in the abstract, that anyone could pick up and use any way they wished.


I think you will find that you are fundermentaly mistaken if you reaserch Utopian socialism or chartism. When you look up Chartism do view the chartist leader Feargus O'connor, I think that you would learn something.

The old feudal lords claimed to be ruling "by grace of God"; our rulers today claim to be ruling "by grace of a popular majority at the polls". Both are lying.

I see a fine description of devine right of Kings, however I take issue with your view of election, the system exists to enable the election of a socialist party the poll's are not rigged, well perhaps they are in Florida, but not in the UK. Independant forign investigators all British elections to see if they are rigged. The people however have been convinsed that socialism is bad. This could be from socialist History such as Stalinism and government advertising and brain washing, so if the socialist movment was to go out on a massive advertising campain before an elecetion then perhaps they would do better in the polls.

You understand, of course, that by "revolution" I don't mean an attempted coup by some pathetic Leninist sect. I mean an enormous uprising of nearly the entire working class, such as that of February 1917 in Russia.

The working class no-longer really exists in the western world, the majority have blended to become a large middle class, with different sects within that one class developing into the ruling class. These groups are not going to overthrow the ruling section of that class either. Can you really see a group of office staff getting up from there keyboards and wielding assault rifles?

Such uprisings are, in my view, inevitable; their success in part depends on how well we communists have done our job...educating our class in what is really required to "make that revolution stick."


Again how can you eduacate our class to overthrow there own class. Also view the military strength of the ruling class, any revolution would be quickly crushed, unless the military like the office workers decided to revolt.

That sort of thing is much more "difficult" than playing at politician in elections that you need never worry about winning...unless, of course, you turn into a real politician in which case you will be just another corrupt piece of shit with an excellent chance of "winning".

As I have said with a well organised and funded advertising campain in a local area that area could be convinced to vote for the socialist party. Where as I doubt you could ever convince the majority of the USA or the UK to join a revolution.

Cant u see, revolution is the only way, u cant just elect socialists bcoz ull still have parliament and a ruling class.

No because if a socialist majority was elected to parliment then the socialist movment could be controling the ruling classes instead of the "Bourgeoisie". (I do realise the irony of using the term Bourgeoisie even though I believe that the term is obsolite.)

Marx doesnt talk about us starting a violent revolution, he suggest we need to use other means, general strikes and such to acheive our goals.

Im pritty sure he talks of the revolution of the proletariat. However the use of Strikes and boycotting are forms of peacseful protest and I fully support uch movments. If the ruling class decided to use violance against such protestors then it would be time for revolution, in my poinion. As it is obvious that the class has reached the point where election is impossible.

In conclusion I would say that revolution is never going to happen in nations such as the USA of the UK, simply because the people do not feal that they are being oppressed. It is simple as that.

In poorer countrys which do not actualy use real elections and are run by despots and dictators, then an election would be impossible, so in that case I would say that those countrys are far closer in the political sence to the Time of Marx. So only in these remaining nations could a revolution be a viable option.

[Sabocat]

Elections will never eliminate the ruling class in the U$.

For that to happen, the Senate and House would have to be voted out as well. Voting in a "Socialist President" would accomplish nothing without change there as well, and that will be extremely difficult.

The illusionary democracy that we have here now, has convinced most that they control the course of the politicians. It will be very hard to change that.

I think for those reasons, a revolution, or uprising is the only way to achieve a true change. I think if it's done correctly, the office worker will never have to pick up an Ak-47. It's about changing hearts and minds. At some point, you have to hope that the military will not fire on large groups of their own citizens, and they will change sides.

Nothing will ever change here in the U$ by peaceful elections. The deck is stacked against any real appreciable change. The corporations control the media, and through lobbyist groups, unfortunately, our politicrits. They are not going to go peacefully.

Bottom line...."Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make and omelet".

Or maybe more appropriately...."The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few"

[Invader Zim]

A revolution or violant actions would never succeed in the USA, for the simple reason that the capitalists would violantly crush any revolution in its Infancy. Especially if they control the nations arms.

[redstar2000]

It is quite simple the reason why an election is better than a revolution is because people dont die in an election. I think that that is more than enough justification.

How touching. Anyone who wishes can go to Opposing Ideologies and see for themselves how you regarded the civilian casualties of U.S. imperialist aggression against Iraq as "nasty but necessary".

Yes, some people will inevitably be killed in a revolution...if the February 1917 uprising in Russia is any measure, the dead will almost all be members of the ruling class and its lackies. I can see why that would make you nervous.

Times have changed Western countrys in particular have become more liberal and democratic. In these nation election is a far more viable way of altering the political situation than revolution, simply because the revolutionarys would get defeated.

Times have indeed changed. Elections are now far more ceremonial than they once were and have much less to do with real decision-making at the highest levels. A "socialist majority" in the British Parliament would probably be informed (privately, of course) that it could do nothing because both the permanent civil service and the Bank of England would flatly refuse to cooperate.

A massive uprising by the working class, however, would be extraordinarily difficult to "defeat" militarily...how do you, in practice, gun down 10 or 20 or more million people. Even if the army attempted it, demoralization would set in very quickly...and they'd end up saying "fuck it!"

Marx's theorys clearly stated that a socialist socioty would be classless, so after the transfer of power there would be no ruling class.

Not exactly. Obviously, there would be a transition period between the revolution and the establishment of a completely classless society. What forms of public authority would exist is debatable...but certainly some "state" functions would be performed and they would take place under the full control of the working class.

But Marx and Engels went to some lengths to explain that a classless society would no longer require a "state apparatus" as an organ of class rule...and would allow it to "wither away" for lack of purpose.

I suspect, in fact, it won't be that easy; that conscious and deliberate efforts will have to be made to make sure the "dictatorship of the proletariat" shrinks while its powers are devolved to bodies more directly representing the working class and, through the internet perhaps, to the class as a whole.

But we shall see.

Marx's theorys revolve around the over throw of a feudal socioty, how can this be done in a socioty which is not Feudalistic...How can you overthrow a group which no-longer exists in any practical forms.

How can you fail to understand the obvious; if feudalism was overthrown by capitalism through the mechanism of revolution, why should it happen differently when the time comes for the working class to overthrow the capitalist class?

however I take issue with your view of election, the system exists to enable the election of a socialist party the poll's are not rigged, well perhaps they are in Florida, but not in the UK. Independant forign investigators all British elections to see if they are rigged.

It's not simply a matter of crudely "stealing" the election, though that's happened. It's a matter of arranging things in such a fashion that a "socialist" candidate for public office "has no credibility", "is not a serious candidate", etc. Preferably, the bourgeois media accomplishes this task...but other measures are available if needed.

Imagine if there were a "real" "socialist" party in the U.K. that early polls suggested might win a majority in parliament. Desperate times call for desperate measures, do they not? Why not simply "detain" all the "socialist" candidates under "suspicion of planning terrorism" until after the elections take place?

I know, in your view, they would never do such a thing. It would be...unEnglish. Ha!

The working class no-longer really exists in the western world, the majority have blended to become a large middle class, with different sects within that one class developing into the ruling class.

Yeah, the Maoists have the same position. Both you and the Maoists have fallen for the great lie of the "great middle class".

It is such a comfortable lie, after all.

In conclusion I would say that revolution is never going to happen in nations such as the USA of the UK, simply because the people do not feal that they are being oppressed.

And they never will feel oppressed...you hope.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:40 am on June 10, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:35 pm on June 10, 2003
It is quite simple the reason why an election is better than a revolution is because people dont die in an election. I think that that is more than enough justification.

How touching. Anyone who wishes can go to Opposing Ideologies and see for themselves how you regarded the civilian casualties of U.S. imperialist aggression against Iraq as "nasty but necessary".

Yes, some people will inevitably be killed in a revolution...if the February 1917 uprising in Russia is any measure, the dead will almost all be members of the ruling class and its lackies. I can see why that would make you nervous.

Times have changed Western countrys in particular have become more liberal and democratic. In these nation election is a far more viable way of altering the political situation than revolution, simply because the revolutionarys would get defeated.

Times have indeed changed. Elections are now far more ceremonial than they once were and have much less to do with real decision-making at the highest levels. A "socialist majority" in the British Parliament would probably be informed (privately, of course) that it could do nothing because both the permanent civil service and the Bank of England would flatly refuse to cooperate.

A massive uprising by the working class, however, would be extraordinarily difficult to "defeat" militarily...how do you, in practice, gun down 10 or 20 or more million people. Even if the army attempted it, demoralization would set in very quickly...and they'd end up saying "fuck it!"

Marx's theorys clearly stated that a socialist socioty would be classless, so after the transfer of power there would be no ruling class.

Not exactly. Obviously, there would be a transition period between the revolution and the establishment of a completely classless society. What forms of public authority would exist is debatable...but certainly some "state" functions would be performed and they would take place under the full control of the working class.

But Marx and Engels went to some lengths to explain that a classless society would no longer require a "state apparatus" as an organ of class rule...and would allow it to "wither away" for lack of purpose.

I suspect, in fact, it won't be that easy; that conscious and deliberate efforts will have to be made to make sure the "dictatorship of the proletariat" shrinks while its powers are devolved to bodies more directly representing the working class and, through the internet perhaps, to the class as a whole.

But we shall see.

Marx's theorys revolve around the over throw of a feudal socioty, how can this be done in a socioty which is not Feudalistic...How can you overthrow a group which no-longer exists in any practical forms.

How can you fail to understand the obvious; if feudalism was overthrown by capitalism through the mechanism of revolution, why should it happen differently when the time comes for the working class to overthrow the capitalist class?

however I take issue with your view of election, the system exists to enable the election of a socialist party the poll's are not rigged, well perhaps they are in Florida, but not in the UK. Independant forign investigators all British elections to see if they are rigged.

It's not simply a matter of crudely "stealing" the election, though that's happened. It's a matter of arranging things in such a fashion that a "socialist" candidate for public office "has no credibility", "is not a serious candidate", etc. Preferably, the bourgeois media accomplishes this task...but other measures are available if needed.

Imagine if there were a "real" "socialist" party in the U.K. that early polls suggested might win a majority in parliament. Desperate times call for desperate measures, do they not? Why not simply "detain" all the "socialist" candidates under "suspicion of planning terrorism" until after the elections take place?

I know, in your view, they would never do such a thing. It would be...unEnglish. Ha!

The working class no-longer really exists in the western world, the majority have blended to become a large middle class, with different sects within that one class developing into the ruling class.

Yeah, the Maoists have the same position. Both you and the Maoists have fallen for the great lie of the "great middle class".

It is such a comfortable lie, after all.

In conclusion I would say that revolution is never going to happen in nations such as the USA of the UK, simply because the people do not feal that they are being oppressed.

And they never will feel oppressed...you hope.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:40 am on June 10, 2003)


How touching. Anyone who wishes can go to Opposing Ideologies and see for themselves how you regarded the civilian casualties of U.S. imperialist aggression against Iraq as "nasty but necessary".

7000 dead to save a million more? How is that immoral or are you just naturaly dim witted?

Yes, some people will inevitably be killed in a revolution...if the February 1917 uprising in Russia is any measure, the dead will almost all be members of the ruling class and its lackies. I can see why that would make you nervous.

Why would I be worried??? Ahh yes I see you are implying that I am a capitalist, more fool you. Your pathetic jibs are laughable as are the majority of your posts.

Times have indeed changed. Elections are now far more ceremonial than they once were and have much less to do with real decision-making at the highest levels. A "socialist majority" in the British Parliament would probably be informed (privately, of course) that it could do nothing because both the permanent civil service and the Bank of England would flatly refuse to cooperate.

Your obvious lack of understanding of British political and econimic systems is as clear as crystal. The government of the UK has the power to control the B of E directly from westminister, if necessary the bank can be altered, managment replaced policys altered. The same applys for the body of civil servants, they form no barrier to political change as it has been proved countless times in the past, not that British history would interest you.

A massive uprising by the working class, however, would be extraordinarily difficult to "defeat" militarily...how do you, in practice, gun down 10 or 20 or more million people.

But thats never going to happen, even if the possibility existed the leaders of such uprisings would be arrested before any uprising. A perfect example is of Danial O'connel. However I doubt you have ever heard of him.

How can you fail to understand the obvious; if feudalism was overthrown by capitalism through the mechanism of revolution, why should it happen differently when the time comes for the working class to overthrow the capitalist class?


This again highlights your ignorance of History, the capitalist system which we have to-day was not the result of a revolution but the result of centurys of parlimentary reform which excelerated in the 19th century. The Feudal system was never overthrown it was mearly transformed into the capitalist systems you see.

Imagine if there were a "real" "socialist" party in the U.K. that early polls suggested might win a majority in parliament. Desperate times call for desperate measures, do they not? Why not simply "detain" all the "socialist" candidates under "suspicion of planning terrorism" until after the elections take place?

We do not live in Zimbabwe, and only the most paranoid of fools wold believe that that would occur. If such a situation were to occur the capitalists would be in no posistion to "arrest" the socialist candidates as that would be to create political myrtars of them. This would cause the revolution you want.

I know, in your view, they would never do such a thing. It would be...unEnglish. Ha!


I doubt that you have ever been to England and are in no position to make such a generalisation of a culture and its beliefs. However your obvious view on what you believe to be my blindness to the obvious capitalist conspiricy that shrowds all are lives in that happy glow of brain washed ignorance. Well im sorry perhaps your right maybe it is one huge world-wide conspiricy designed on a whole to confuse all us plebs... However I doubt it.

And they never will feel oppressed...you hope.

How long did it take you to think of that mildly clever line? You really are getting witty in your old age, sharp as cotten wool infact.

I however refuse to take part in your petty battle of witts as I feal that it is morraly incorrect to attack the unarmed.

May you never be woken up from your foolish Marxist dream and be faced with the real world.

AK47

[redstar2000]

I doubt that you have ever been to England and are in no position to make such a generalisation of a culture and its beliefs.

Well, I spent an hour between planes at Heathrow once. Does that count? :biggrin:

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:58 am on June 11, 2003
I doubt that you have ever been to England and are in no position to make such a generalisation of a culture and its beliefs.

Well, I spent an hour between planes at Heathrow once. Does that count? :biggrin:

:cool:


..it's certainly good enough for me

[synthesis]

I however refuse to take part in your petty battle of witts as I feal that it is morraly incorrect to attack the unarmed.

Come on, you can do better than that.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 7:39 am on June 11, 2003
I however refuse to take part in your petty battle of witts as I feal that it is morraly incorrect to attack the unarmed.

Come on, you can do better than that.

I refuse to rise to the challange.

[Sandanista]

AK47 the fact of the matter is, you cant reform capitalism, for the simple fact that once any ruling party, be they socialist or otherwise, wont just give up power.

The workers themselves have to seize power. the bourgeousie took power through violent revolutions, they didnt win it thru or for democracy, they won it for business and profit, all regimes afterwards are based on the same principle.

[Kez]

Ak, wtf are you on about, save urself the embarrasement of being taught basic knowledge, if the bourgeoise let sopcialism in thru election we WOULD go thru election, since we are not allowed, then we can only go thru violent revolution

Sandista, correct me if im wrong, but are u not a member of the SWP? which goes thru electoral path and NOT revolutionary, to which it (literally) laughs at.

comrade kamo

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 6:36 pm on June 12, 2003
Ak, wtf are you on about, save urself the embarrasement of being taught basic knowledge, if the bourgeoise let sopcialism in thru election we WOULD go thru election, since we are not allowed, then we can only go thru violent revolution

Sandista, correct me if im wrong, but are u not a member of the SWP? which goes thru electoral path and NOT revolutionary, to which it (literally) laughs at.

comrade kamo

Want to talk about basic knowladge do you, when you talk about the bourgeoise, if you had any knowladge you would know that the bourgeoise does not even exist anymore.

Also you talk about basic knowladge in that demeaning manner as if you are such a great expert. Then how do you accept the fact that no revolutionary transfer has actualy succeeded in produsing true socialism.

Do not try to patronise me, thank you very much, and good day.

[Kez]

theres no bourgeosie?
the bourgeoise came from the middle classes in the feudal times, to become the ruling class in capitalist society ie our bosses

sorry about patronising tone, a lot of ppl sed that, im not like that in real life, just the way ppl interpret it online

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 12:16 am on June 13, 2003
theres no bourgeosie?
the bourgeoise came from the middle classes in the feudal times, to become the ruling class in capitalist society ie our bosses

sorry about patronising tone, a lot of ppl sed that, im not like that in real life, just the way ppl interpret it online



Ok Im sorry about snapping at you then.

Back to the point, the bourgeoise is aparticular section of the French middle classes which dissapeared or transformed into the liberal section of the French middle class in the reign of Luois Napoleon in the 1850-70's. They transformed to a liberal group after Louis turned into a despot...

They no-longer exist in todays socioty, its just a common misconseption among leftists that they do. What we have now are mearly capitalists, most of whome are probably not even French... But you pissed me off (by accident it seams) so I was being Facetious and picky.

[Sandanista]

The SWP is part of the international socialist tendency who are an international revolutionary socialist group.

The SWP argue that theres nothing wrong with having a voice in parliament, but its ultimately the workers who are the revolution.

I dont know what propaganda u have read or are tryin to inseminate amongst the british comrades, but its basically bollox.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Sandanista on 12:58 am on June 13, 2003
The SWP is part of the international socialist tendency who are an international revolutionary socialist group.

The SWP argue that theres nothing wrong with having a voice in parliament, but its ultimately the workers who are the revolution.

I dont know what propaganda u have read or are tryin to inseminate amongst the british comrades, but its basically bollox.

There are entire socialist movments which condem all violance which have had equil if not more success in the creation of true socilist sociotys, infact the closest that has ever been was in a utopian socialist socioty run by a Man who was extreamly anti violance, to say what you have said is to ignore Democratic socialism, Christian socialism, Libertarian socialism.

As far as I know the SWP are a democratic socialist party and are against all violance, I could however be mistaken.

[Sandanista]

The SWP is an international revolutionary socialist party, try and shy away from combining the words revolution and violent becoz in terms of revolutionary socialism they dont match