why revolution is necessary

[akshay]

now at present, poority is reducing,percentage of people suffering from hunger is reducing.medical infrastructure is becoming better. and this changes are world wide.
in short condition are improving in capatilist economy too.so why we need a communist revolution if we can lift standard of living of poors by just proper management.
one thing is sheore if we want a communist revolution in major economies then this revolution will convert into a civil war and thousands of people will be killed.so why we need such violent war.

[Fiskpure]

First of all, try to compare the capitalist ideology with communist. Once you've done this properly, you will know why.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by akshay+--> (akshay)now at present, poority is reducing,percentage of people suffering from hunger is reducing.medical infrastructure is becoming better.[/b]
No, this is wrong. The gap between rich and poor is widening, and in so called developed nations, and in this country, hospital waiting times are increasing.

Originally posted by [email protected]

in short condition are improving in capitalist economy too.so why we need a communist revolution if we can lift standard of living of poors by just proper management.
Because the onus of capitalist infrastructure is to protect the interests of an elite few. It can not provide equality from the bottom up.

akshay

one thing is sheore if we want a communist revolution in major economies then this revolution will convert into a civil war and thousands of people will be killed.so why we need such violent war.
As another poster correctly pointed outin OI, the primary cause of bloodshed during revolutions are reactionary resistance. The Russian civil war of 1917 would not have happened without the intervention of capitalist invaders.

[akshay]

we can not make a revolution just for equality. we can make revolution only if some people are not getting there basic right. if we start a revolution just for equality then it would be a act caused by jealousy only.

[Ramachandra]

[QUwe can not make a revolution just for equalityOTE]
Are you a communist? or at least socialist?
Eqality among the man kind was the supreme goal of the progressives,We should do the revolution to acheive eqality.From the history every progressive struggle was took place to acheive that goal.Take the slogan of the french revolution."FREEDOM EQUALITY AND BROTHERHOOD"
(Sorry for the poor status of translating as im not english)
Homever revolutioneries such as Marat insisted on equality.But capitalism could not fulfill that demand as it is based on the private ownership of property.It leads to the existence of classes.You speak about decreasing of poverty.Just go through the facts and statistics even of the UN.I don't remember the exact stats but as 20% of the population consume around 80% of the resourses of the world the poorest 10% only gets 1.1%.This ineqality should be eliminated!And that's why a revolution is needed!For that the private ownership on the means of production also should be eliminated!
[/QUOTwe can make revolution only if some people are not getting there basic rights]
Do the people of the current world under the existing system acheive their basic rights?You can say that the living standards of the poor in imperialist countries has been increased.(but the relative poverty is still there.The theory of surplus value still exists)But through what?Through inhumanly exploiting other millions of people in third world countries for centuries!.Nations such as sudan are rich from natural resources.But what about the sudanese people?Have their poverty decreased?Have their living conditions increased?Even the basic needs of millions around the world have not been fulfilled dear comrade!I dont know where do you live.Just come to the asian or african countries which suffers from absolute pverty,malnutrition and thousends of other fucking problems.Then you won't ask about the need of a revolution.

[akshay]

Just come to the asian or african countries which suffers from absolute pverty,malnutrition and thousends of other fucking problems.Then you won't ask about the need of a revolution.
i am from a third world asian country and here percentage of people living below poority line is reduced to 10% with in 10 years,and it is first time in our history.

[Sam_b]

and here percentage of people living below poority line is reduced to 10% with in 10 years

That sounds like a policy pledge to me rather than a result. What country are you from? Do you have any sources to back up your claims?


we can make revolution only if some people are not getting there basic right

Capitalism deprives millions and millions of people of their basic rights. If equality is interpreted as everyone gettin their basic rights, then what is the problem?


*edited for atrocious grammar on my part*

[akshay]

i am from india.
and in support of my data you can check this link statics of poority in india (http://www.economywatch.com/indianeconomy/poverty-in-india.html) ( go to the end of the page and check data (1993 onwards))

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:42 pm
we can not make a revolution just for equality. we can make revolution only if some people are not getting there basic right. if we start a revolution just for equality then it would be a act caused by jealousy only.
its not about jeolousy, its about people not having a leg up the system because of an accident of birth. Why should children of equal ability but of different economic circumstances not have the same chances? This is not about jeolousy or greed, it is about social justice.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

To start with: capitalism is certainly a preferable alternative to agrian civilizations. Leftists are not refuting this fact; indeed we should be hoping that restrained capitalism bring the world population out of absolute poverty. Any communist who wants to create a boogeyman out of capitalism needs to think how fortunate he or she is to be living in an age where you no longer have to worry about many of the problems that exist during the feudal periods. Economically, we are far better off than even our grandfathers could have guessed in their youths.

However, there comes a time when you wish to keep the economic equation and end the social ills that come with it, while perfecting the wealth conditions. It's not enough to live better than past generations and work yourself into divorce and insanity because of it; we want people to live rich and have fun. To live in peace. To do what they want and still get what they want. To be a homemaker and not have to worry about the bills (or their right to work).

These wants are not viable under a capitalist system. I can't speak on behalf of the Indian market, but in the West the market has adapted in a way that working-class women must hold a job or collectively give up their right to work. This should not be. Over time this problem with the market creating more problems than it solves will only become more apparent.

No one can be certain how communism will be achieved. We throw out our different theories, but detailed speculation rarely bears all the fruits you expect. Adam Smith, the "founder" of capitalism, for every idea he got right, had an idea that was outdated or impractical. If we can achieve communism without a revolution, that's brilliant. However, the case for whether or not there is a revolution, and if so if it will be bloody or not, will be determined by the capitalist class and how resilient they are to settling for a life where they must live within comfortable means.

[Sam_b]

i am from india.


OK, I spent six months in Pune, Maharashtra, this year; and also visited other places in the country. Didn't look to me like poverty was decreasing.

And your figures, well, prove little if nothing. I disagree with the website's definition of poverty for one; and anyway, it shows that there are still 220.1 million people below its defined 'line'.

Does this look like progress to you?

[Ramachandra]

i am from india.
And Im from sri lanka.Neighbors.ryt?Here the rate of absolute poverty is around 22%.Inflation rate is over 16%.Sorry for adding a personal experience.When one of our relations came there baranasi on pilgrimage she explained how dozens of young beggers surrounded her.According to her it was worse than sri lanka(Personally i dont agree with that comment).I have gone through the writings of your authours R.K.Narayan as an example.sorry comrade i don"t see development.Real development cannot measure through facts such as experimenting on misiles.While the capitalist indian state spend millions on such fucking things millions in bihar,punai,thamilnadu,uttar pradesh etc.suffers from hunger avd poverty.{I remember pulan devi.She is a symbol of oppression}.
So that is the problem!and thas why we need a revolution!
Infalad sindabad! :rolleyes:

[akshay]

development is not a magic. it needs time. india is developing there is no doubt in it. indian are poors,every body is agreed with it. but we should first look on past and then on present, only then we can make a comment on development.
you should compare condition in early 90's and present condition. then easily you will see differences.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:39 pm
development is not a magic. it needs time. india is developing there is no doubt in it. indian are poors,every body is agreed with it. but we should first look on past and then on present, only then we can make a comment on development.
you should compare condition in early 90's and present condition. then easily you will see differences.
Of course. Here's to hoping India's industrialization process continues to be a success. :cool:

I think too many Leftists are forgetting Marx's statement that the revolution is only for the most advanced capitalist countries. He even listed them as being the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (we could add Japan, Canada, and most of West Europe now). While I personally don't refer to myself as a Marxist, nor do I take his words as prophetically as some like to, I think he was spot on.

Grassroot capitalism will be a great success compared to where India was twenty, fifty, and a hundred years ago. One day India will reach a point where the problems of capitalism become clear. We want to move beyond capitalism. India isn't there yet. Few countries are.

Remember, other than Hong Kong, the United States is the most capitalist Western country, and it suffers from poor education, health care, crime rates, and energy plans compared to its European allies. Capitalism will not solve all problems.