Does Britain need a revolution?

[stonerboi]

I would like to ask all of you if Britain is need of revolution? All of the current left-wing parties in the UK are reformist (including the Trotskyist parties) in that they believe in elections to gain power and implement socialism through parliamentry means.

Since all UK marxist groups are reformist in that sense, does Britain need a group that uses direct action or guerrilla warfare (cuban style a la Che)?

I personally believe that revolution is needed in the UK, but I don't know which revolutionary method would be best suited for th UK.

I would just ike to see in any of you have any ideas on this one!

[Invader Zim]

Revolutionary should only be used when the system is obviously halting socialist progress with violance and intimidation in a blatant attempt to keep power, Zimbabwe is an excelent example of a nation in need of a revolution, where as in britain the only thing that stops parlimentary socialist election is the lack of public opinion which favours socialism.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Britain as far as capitalism goes int too bad, if tories get voted in that might change, but for the moment its ok, I meen, free health care, dole, stuff like that. In the next few years it might well change a lot especially if we become closer with the U$, but for now i think we shud be reasonably content with Britain.

[Urban Rubble]

Violent revolution at this point in ANY western nation is impossible. We've debated this alot of times. Maybe in 50 years, but not now.

For revolution in the U.S I think we came up with 10 million active communists and 20 millions supporters. We're a little ways away.

[Nobody]

Of course the U.K. needs a violent revolution. The election process is corrupt, you can't use it to achieve communism. You have to go around it, and topple the ruling class and their thugs through force of arms. Only then can communism be created anywhere. Any communist party that tries to use the eletroral method to come to power is a traitor to the working class and will be toppled with their ruling class backers. Stonerboi, try and reform the communist parties in the U.K.. Find people who believe in the rvolution and form your own party, it is the only way to a workers Utopia.

[redstar2000]

The problem is that we have two old "models" of "revolution" from the 20th century, neither of which is very useful.

In the west, all of the Leninist parties are reformist...they all believe in the "parliamentary" road to socialism and that's what they do.

In the exploited countries, the Mao-Ho-Guevera model of guerilla warfare predominates...with varying degrees of success.

In the west, we need to figure out another "model"...I think the Seattle, etc. demonstrations are a small step in the right direction; militant struggle outside of the bourgeois rituals and involving significant numbers of people is the first step on the road to proletarian revolution in the west, definitely including the U.K.

And we should be clear to people exactly what we're talking about...not a Leninist coup but a massive uprising of most if not all of the working class.

Yes, there will be some laughter at our expense; we should be prepared for that.

In a decade or two, the laughter will cease.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

A violent revolution cannot happen in Britain.

The only way any revolution can happen here is by legitimate means. And that cannot happen untill the left-wing parties get their acts together. Do they actually have policies? All they seem to talk about is how anti-government and anti-everything else they are. They forget to point out their good points. Nobody is going to vote for a bunch of whingers.

What Britain needs to do is reclaim the Labour Party. It is the only way. In the 40's, Labour made the famous steps and created the Welfare State. Imagine what the country could do with another Clement Atlee or another Neu Bevan. If we can restore Labour to the glory days of the 1940's, then Socialism will be on the way. So long as we don't have people like Kinnock leading the party.

El Marko, have you not been keeping up? The passing of the Foundation Hospitals Act is going to privatise our health care. It's the first step, and a huge step at that. It is a Tory policy. Yes, we may receieve free health care, but health care which is poor compared to what you can pay for. The same with education. How the great British tradition of the public schools and private education lives on I do not know. We are still a Tory country so long as private education exists. Like with health, yes you can recieve free education, but compared to what you can get with some money it is poor. The standards of state schools are getting better however in parts, but on the whole it needs improving.

The Welfare State created by the Labour greats is being completely undermined by the Tories who now rin the party.

Reclaiming the party is what needs to be done.

[Kez]

Redstar i think u shud not meddle in affairs u know nothing about, please be quiet

stonerboi:
first off, not all trotskyist groups are reformist, just because the SWP is, doesnt mean we all are. eg the Socialist Appeal tendency is not reformist

secdondly, the che method was incorrect anyway, however it was only the general strike that overthrew the govt, and that is the only way that it shud be done, thru strikes

AK:
wtf, the capitalists are always gonna try and stop us, and its easily done thru parlaimentary road, so fuck that. Not to say we dont use Parliament, but we certainly wont try and use it to gain power, that bollocks

El Marko:
the only reason we have those services is from pressure from the working clas, once this pressure goes they will take these services away, the only way to ensure these things and more is to smash the state which forbids us from such good services

urban rubble:
all we need to do is strike, once we stop the works, the economy goes to shit, and they cant get the army on all of us, we march to capitol hill, urn place down, fuck em, thats that. It depends on how marxists educate the workers, possibly 5-10 years, possibly never, depends entirely on us

LevTrots:
this man knows his shit, except the reform the CP, i say fuck em, they are a rump of a 3-way split, so not worth it.

Redstar:
First off, not all leninist parties are reformist, u are an idiot.
u right bout the gueilla methods, although they are shitty
seatle was simply a symtom of a lack of leadership, the people got crushed, with leadership they cud have gone much further, and with many more people to do so
u go on about leninist coup? wtf u on about, simply a matter a general strikes, not coup.....

[Sandanista]

Well said Kamo, cept for the SWP part tho ;)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Kamo, trying to tell Redstar to not talk about things he knows nothing about will not work. He never seems to understand that one cannot debate reasonably on something one does not know about.

Again....reclaiming the party is what we need to do.

[redstar2000]

Redstar i think u shud not meddle in affairs u know nothing about, please be quiet .

Kamo, go piss up a stump. :cheesy:

Redstar:
First off, not all leninist parties are reformist, u are an idiot.

They look that way to me...they are all concerned primarily with the ceremonial rituals of bourgeois "politics". But, I'll grant the possibility that there may be an exception here and there. So what?

You've already gone into the views of the cretins that you hang out with. You want to "take over" the bourgeois "Labour" Party...a scheme so stupid that it practically drools. Naturally Sr. Muerte is in favor of that approach. Both of you really want "welfare capitalism" on the Swedish model and both of you would piss yourselves in the face of a real communust revolution.

seattle was simply a symtom of a lack of leadership, the people got crushed, with leadership they cud have gone much further, and with many more people to do so

Ah yes, if only your particular brand of Trotskyist reformists were running the show, everything would be so much better. (!)

And far from being "crushed", the Seattle model has spread all over the advanced capitalist world...causing the ruling class considerable irritation. As I said, a small step in the right direction...criticized by groups like yours which have not yet learned to walk at all.

u go on about leninist coup? wtf u on about, simply a matter a general strikes, not coup.....

The dubious heritage of 20th century proto-communism has had an impact on popular opinion, Kamo, not that I'd expect you to notice. When people consider communism as a political option, they think it means a tiny Leninist elite that has "seized power" (through a coup) and rules thereafter in a dictatorial fashion.

A large and massive uprising is what is really required, and I pointed out the need to make that clear to people.

Being clear to people, I suspect, doesn't rank very high on your list of priorities either.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 4:53 pm on June 17, 2003

AK:
wtf, the capitalists are always gonna try and stop us, and its easily done thru parlaimentary road, so fuck that. Not to say we dont use Parliament, but we certainly wont try and use it to gain power, that bollocks



I dont know when looking through the History of Britain there seam to be destict changes in national ideology, for example: -

Monarchism: Had lost the majority of its powers by 1700.

Reactionary Toryism: Started with the signing of Magna Carta stopped in 1700-1800's.

Conservatism: Began in the 1840's with the Peel ministry but has fading influence even today. Heavily tied with capitalism.

Liberalism: Main ideology is Britain today. Tied with capitalism.

As I see it socialism is the next logical step in that chain, none of the above really were due to a revolution, more reformism, natural progression. Of course I could well be wrong and I would never swear to that theory. I believe that socialism is enevatable but when it will occur and whether a revolution will be its cause i am unsure on.

Of course those who followed the outdated ideologys tried to protect what still existed, but they still reformed in the end, as will the capitalist liberal movments, the conservatives already have one foot in the grave.

[Eastside Revolt]

They still have to go through reform liberalism before they hit socialism.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redcanada on 11:42 pm on June 17, 2003
They still have to go through reform liberalism before they hit socialism.

Probably, I was just thinking out loud... Im sure that there are sevral ideologys ive missed as well, but the theory remains the same.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

What is your oh-so-wise label for the period when Labour dominated during the 40's? The period culminating in the passing of the Butler education Act, fulfilment of the Beveridge Report and creation of the Welfare State.

[atlanticche]

Britain is in need of revolution but it couldnt start in England it would have to start anywhere in europe that has an unstable government it would have to be farely feirce to knockover the government in an all out war to catch the attention of America Britain would follow in americas direction mobilising troops and so on in Britain protests would have to start but they would have to be quite big like shutting down a town for a week somewhere big enough to be really noticed in enough ways maybe an industrial suburb to show the government that a resistence is about
in return attacks would have to be made on MPs nothing serious to really make them think and also an protest in downing street but a fierce one to really give the government a problem

but the idea of doing a revolution in such a way would need to have a lot of supporters

[atlanticche]

all out war is needed on the government in always possible

a revolution is needed as the government is getting to obsessed with America and is to Thatercherist or however you spell it
the government wont deal with anything inside Britain
if a revolution is to be carried out it cant be war but could use Guerrilla warfare so not to attract America

[IPkurd]

i recall marx saying some were that britain had the most mature version of democracy so britain can turn communist with votes. but all other nations around the world would need revolutions because of there type of democracy. someone must of known this before cum on

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

atlanticche, get a grip my friend. That is ridicuolous.

IPKurd, that was my point. However I don't like to use Marx as a source. But we are a "legitimate" democracy to a greater extent than most other Western states. And votes will work. It's getting the people off their arses to vote which is the problem.

[redstar2000]

Here is the latest on the "Seattle model"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2997854.stm

i recall marx saying some where that britain had the most mature version of democracy so britain can turn communist with votes.

He did indeed say that...very late in his life. Engels entertained similar views with regard to the German Social Democratic Party, also as an old man.

Sometimes, those guys got it wrong.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 11:56 pm on June 17, 2003
What is your oh-so-wise label for the period when Labour dominated during the 40's? The period culminating in the passing of the Butler education Act, fulfilment of the Beveridge Report and creation of the Welfare State.


Early liberalism.

[Kez]

fuck me RedStar,
when will you learn that our tendency is not trying to drive the whole of the LP to viictory thru the parliement. fuckin idiot, as ive stated before election is not fuckin possible, and any attempts to win power are naive and a waste of resrouces

the swedish model can suck my dick, its still capitalism and therefore has to be smashed

again, ur ignorance is beyond understanding, we are not a reformist party u dumb fuck

"the seattle model"?? wtf, since when were protests exclusive to seatle? i suppose the chartists were following the seattle model too ey?

if ppl see leninism as a elite coup then we must "patiently explain" what we are, and show them what they are referring to is stalinism, and maybe u also (not just marx and engels as u arrgantly describe them) are becoming an old man and losing touch with reality and sensibility

AK:
Socialism is inevitable due to the contradictions within capitalism, however it will only be down to us to agitate for this change, no magic power is ognna do this for us


socialismo, fuck the "democratic" system
this is not deemocracy, who elected the board for the bank of england? is that dedmocracy? or what bout the judges? or how about the lords? or how about the workplace managers, this aint democracy, this is capitalism

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Redstar, your lack of knowledge on what the old Labour party was about is shinging through and completely eradicating any validity in your argument.


Also, I'd like to echo Kamo's sentiments with regards to the Seattle model.

[redstar2000]

when will you learn that our tendency is not trying to drive the whole of the LP to viictory thru the parliement. fuckin idiot, as ive stated before election is not fuckin possible, and any attempts to win power are naive and a waste of resrouces

Your words, Kamo, on June 18, 2003

What as marxists we should do is to uise the structure existing in the labour party and turn it back to the workers party is was built, maintain, and stood for in elections.

Your words, Kamo, in the "Sects" thread on April 24, 2003.

Changed your mind, have you?

"the seattle model"?? wtf, since when were protests exclusive to seatle? i suppose the chartists were following the seattle model too ey?

The Chartists were a peaceful, law-abiding, and (in their own eyes at least) respectable movement that sought reform through the mechanism of petition to parliament. (This was a common political activity in the 19th century, by the way...the abolitionists in the U.S. gathered signatures and petitioned the U.S. congress every year between 1840 or thereabouts and 1863.)

The "Seattle model" suggests a rather different and more "advanced" degree of militant struggle. I would agree to the proposition that it is not, at this point, a "magic bullet" that will "kill" capitalism. But I think it is a first small step in the right direction...that is, outside the formal rituals of bourgeois politics.

Which is why I think that you and Sr. Muerte "don't like it."

Redstar, your lack of knowledge on what the old Labour party was about is shinging through and completely eradicating any validity in your argument.

Back to St. Atlee and St. Bevin, eh? Those mice nibbling at the foundations of capitalism were truly an inspiration to those of limited imagination.

But resurrection, Sr. Muerte, as I'm sure you know all too well, is a theological concept. Old heroes don't come back to life in the real world and neither do obsolete political tendencies. The "Labour" Party is now and will remain a capitalist political party.

If you want a welfare state on the "Swedish" model in the U.K., you must "start from zero".

I won't even ask why you would want such a thing.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I understand you live in the USA, redtstar.

All I can suggest is that you are completely envious of what Clement Atlee and Aneurin Bevan created here. Envious that the types of "groups" (I won't call them political parties) that you support canot achieve what those great men acheived. Do you know anything about what they did?

Do you know what the climate of British politics was back then? Do you know what was in the minds of British people back then? What society was like in those years?

Clearly you do not, as if you did, you would commend Labour's achievements no end.

[redstar2000]

All I can suggest is that you are completely envious of what Clement Atlee and Aneurin Bevan created here. Envious that the types of "groups" (I won't call them political parties) that you support canot achieve what those great men acheived. Do you know anything about what they did?

If they didn't at least "walk on water", then your statement makes little sense.

Since I'm "ignorant" of the "achievements" of these "great men", how can I possibly be envious of them?

Of course, if I thought there was a reason to do so, I could look them up on google...but why bother? Whatever they did is dead or dying; to light candles to them now makes as much sense as lighting candles to Stalin or Trotsky.

You can venerate those moldy idols if you wish and no one will object. But when you suggest reviving their ideas as a strategy for achieving working class power, one can only conclude that you are another British eccentric, not without charm to some, perhaps, but definitely a little mad.

Hence, no doubt, your fascination with religion.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

redstar, you did not answer anything.

You have not backed yourself up with anything.

You appear to be losing grip on your debates of late.

Kamo and I await your response with some real debate comments. Not accusations of people being "mad". Show us how these great men, as I call them, were actually "mice nibbling at the foundations of capitalism".

[The Feral Underclass]

Im repeating what others have said, but I would like to add my bit. Britain indeed does need a revolution. there can be no entertaining the idea that we can win power through "democratic means."

The parlimentry system is in place to protect the bourgeoisie. Even if a communist goverment was elected to government, that would not stop all the ageing grey suited secret leaders who are the civil servents.

There was a film with Jim from 'The Royal Family' in it where he played a socialist prime minister, and the civil servents, who are not elected, and who stay in there jobs regardless of who is in government staged a coup at the end and took over power because they didnt like his socialistic policies.

Of course this was a film, but if we try and emancipate the working class through a parlimentry road we will not eradicate the bourgeois ideologists and champions, because they are embeded in the parlimentry system like a crab in ya pubes. In fact it would be extremely difficult to do anything remotly communistic or socialistic in the true sense of the word. There are too many laws and un written consitutions which would not allow the government to do anything governing the way policies, laws and objectives are dealt with. YOu would also have to sibject your policies to a commons debate and then have the tories, labour and the liberals all vote against you. Even nationalising indutries would be impossible as they are privatized and you could only take them by force, which would of course be illegal. You could stage a coup but then you would have all the bourgeois papers destorting your efforts and it would lead to demonstrations and riots, which you would end up having to suppress. Then you would have to ban the newpapers which would then mean you where a real dictatorship. ANd even if you where milder in your efforts you would be no better than the Labour Party...i just wouldnt work!

The only way to achieve our objectives is, to use a cliche, smash the state. With a big iron boot. kill all the cappies and start a fresh.

[Red Comrade]

England needs to be nuked off the planet.

I'm sorry, but the parliament, Tony Blair, the Torries, the monarchy, et al, make's me vomit.

(Edited by Red Comrade at 7:40 pm on June 29, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Red Comrade on 7:40 pm on June 29, 2003
England needs to be nuked off the planet.

I'm sorry, but the parliament, Tony Blair, the Torries, the monarchy, et al, make's me vomit.

(Edited by Red Comrade at 7:40 pm on June 29, 2003)


Well thanks for that highly constructive comment, it has opened whole new ideas on this subject that until now I was ignorant of.

[Red Comrade]

Haw Haw Haw.

I'm apoligize, I just had to say that. Sometime's my hate for imperialism drives me out of my mind, so whenever someone mentions the United Kingdom/Britain, I snap!

(Edited by Red Comrade at 9:54 pm on June 29, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well aren't you a brave fighter for the anti-imperialist cause.

"Libertarian Commie",

"YOu would also have to sibject your policies to a commons debate and then have the tories, labour and the liberals all vote against you."

Who put those people there? The only people at fault for the inadequacies and inequalities in government are those who do not bother voting.

Nothing is going to change untill the people see more in the world than celebrities, fashion, sport and feng-shui makeovers.

[stonerboi]

"The only way to achieve our objectives is, to use a cliche, smash the state. With a big iron boot. kill all the cappies and start a fresh."

Libertarian Commie, there are three different ways you could go about that!

1) Stage a left-wing coup.

2) Wage a campaign of urban guerrilla warfare.

3) A general strike which would overturn the government.

Which of these did you mean?

I personally think the last one is impossible as the trade unions are too wedded to the capitalist system to pose any real threat to it!

[The Feral Underclass]

It has to be a popular mass uprising and insurrection. So option three. Backed with option two if nexessary.

Socialismo, you have the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. Even if everyone did go out and vote the choice is not exactly mind bogglingly different is it. They are all capitalist parties who wish to undermine the workers as much as they as the other.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

There is a lot more choice than just the three parties. Say one half of the non-voters voted for, I dunno, the Socialist Alliance. What then? Then the Commons would be much more representative, as such.

The people are fundamentally the cause for the problems.

[Kez]

fuckin bollocks, theres not a chance in hell socialism can be "elected" through the tools of the bourgeoise, its bullshit, get it outta your mind

Atlee and Bevan were nice little reformists, but they werent socialist nor communist nor revolutionary.

Redstar, once we were to have established good roots within the labour party, then we could do a million and one things, we cud maintian the LP and call for revolution, or we could split a massive split and call for revolution, either way.

There would also be a chance technically that we cud use parliament. However, we all know this is almost impossible as it is a tool of the bourgeoise. In the meantime however while we were building the revolutionary cadres, we could also be pushing for socialist reforms in the parliament, so we wud be winnign on both sides, but our sole aim wud ultimately be the crushing of the capitalist state

[The Feral Underclass]

Here Here!