Obtaining nation-wide power.

[Fiskpure]

I started to think about this matter and thought about how it would be possible? I'm unsure if it's legit to post here, but take actions if you see that you must...

Now, I see many people complaining on the theory of an armed uprising, which without doubt would require the lives of multiple persons.

Now I'm sure we all are familiar with theories that were adopted during the 20th centuary all across the globe, maybe we could bring these out and discuss them.

Let's begin with the so-called armed uprising. I guess if you choose this doctrine and go for a guerilla war you are to fail unless this is quick with your objectives, like the october revolution.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to share your influence with some army ops, and getting their support in the revolution.


There's also this peaceful and 'official' way, whatever you prefere, party elections. This seems to be less-unlike year after year. In Russia we've been witnessing less rights in Duma/president elections, while in most east-european nations communism and / or are communist parties totally banned without justification.

I see this option coming available in a couple of decades again, when the hate towards 'communism' (rather totalitariancy) has decreased.

In todays world launching the revolution should not be in just one nation, but in many nations. Seeing that if we launch 1 or 2 revolutions in a nation will only get that nation it's much needed support from the states or the emerging super power, Russia. But that's another thing...

Cheers,
Fiskpure.

[silentprotest]

As you state there are obvious possibilities for significant damage being done in an armed uprising, however, with the correct support it would be a very effective method of revolution.

Problems also arise from the prospect of a peaceful revolution, as you pointed out, this notion of 'communism' is completely disregarded in most states because of the so-called atrocities of Soviet Russia.

There are however, other options which I think are worth discussing.
The first being a small scale armed revolution. It is my understanding (I may be mistaken) that in the UK the Monarch has the authority to dissolve parliament at will, and instate a new prime minister without the authority of the people. If, say the queen, could be 'persuaded' to instate a new leader who is one of us then that would open the road to transformation into a socialist/communist nation. It would most likely require some sort of violence, but with minimal casualties, and would be legitimate under the UK constitution.
On the other hand, the ideals that we hold dear could be dressed up to seem more moderate. A propaganda campaign along the lines of "You need <insert necessity here>, you need <insert necessity here>. We will give them to you, we will provide it all." Then subtly implying that this is what communism/socialism is, and that it is nothing to be afraid of. Rather than just stating, "We are communist, these are our ideals." We explain our ideals, they are not unreasonable, and when people are convinced that they are the way to go, we then explain that they are communist ideals, removing the veil from their eyes so to speak, and breaking the perceptions that have been forged by the west.

What do you think?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:52 am
Let&#39;s begin with the so-called armed uprising. I guess if you choose this doctrine and go for a guerilla war you are to fail unless this is quick with your objectives, like the october revolution.

The october revolution wasn&#39;t a gurrilla war.


There&#39;s also this peaceful and &#39;official&#39; way,

No there isn&#39;t.


I see this option coming available in a couple of decades again, when the hate towards &#39;communism&#39; (rather totalitariancy) has decreased.

Yea, the ruling class will be more open to the idea of dying in a couple of decades. I mean, they obviously won&#39;t want thier wealth and power as much, and will let us get closer to having it.

[Fiskpure]

You may have mis-understood my point there, William (or then I just typed wrong :o), I mean&#39;t that a revolution must be fast and effective.

And as protest said, we should consider minimizing the casulties to create a better image of communism (of course the world will be manipulated that the "communist revolution" is the beginning of a new era of mayhem..).

A large scale "armed-civil-uprising" could not however succeed in any larger nation today, unless you have military on your side.

However to bring forward the idea of a communist revolution should be brought forward when the world is living in hard times, economical problems and such, as I see that bringing communism ouy now would not get us many supporters. Yeah, exploiting a bad situation that has been used throughout history...

[Marxist Napoleon]

In the developed world, armed revolution makes little sense. You have to consider the strength of imperialist armies. It would be impossible to launch a guerilla war, because the localized cells would be isolated and destroyed. We need to use peaceful means, but not just protests. We need large-scale civil disobedience, building a vanguard party, and unionizing. When we grind their economy to a halt, we&#39;ll take away their political power. Setting up a parallel government, organized by the vanguard party, like soviets, could prove to be very effective. We in the developed world should look towards the October Revolution more than Fidel&#39;s or Mao&#39;s.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:33 pm
You may have mis-understood my point there, William (or then I just typed wrong :o), I mean&#39;t that a revolution must be fast and effective.
It doesn&#39;t have to be. All wars are preferably fast and effective, it avoids morale concerns, which are attached to things like food shortages and loss of life which are attached to prolongued war. And of course, it means you win quicker and your ideas can be realised.


And as protest said, we should consider minimizing the casulties to create a better image of communism

In other words, it&#39;s better if less people die. :mellow:


A large scale "armed-civil-uprising" could not however succeed in any larger nation today, unless you have military on your side.

Of course, this has always been the case.


However to bring forward the idea of a communist revolution should be brought forward when the world is living in hard times

Yea, because the world is doing just fine right now&#33;


In the developed world, armed revolution makes little sense. You have to consider the strength of imperialist armies.

According to Karl Marx it is the only place a succesful revolution could happen. I have Incorrectly assumed that as you call yourself a &#39;marxist&#39; you agree with Marx.

[Marxist Napoleon]

I am a Marxist, but you also have to realize the first successful socialist revolution occurred in Russia, so Marx wasn&#39;t always right, obviously. I never said we don&#39;t need revolution, but you&#39;re not much of a revolutionary if you think a revolution is fought only with guns and armies. Revolution has to be a mass upheaval of the people; a battle of ideas. Could you please explain to me how a revolutionary group could defeat the United States Army in the United States? It&#39;s going to take a lot more to topple imperialism than petty armed conflicts.

[Fiskpure]

If a guerilla war starts, we won&#39;t just have the state against us. I belive it will launch a chain-event of communist revolutions across the globe, but not just communistic, facist ones too, just like in the early 20th centuary, which might become a serious problem.

When we make the first step (peaceful or non-peaceful), we will alert and encourage the facist parties to take action against their local state aswell, which might turn up to another terrible massacre...

Imo, if you are to start a world wide revolution, it should not start like the october revolution, but instead as Napoleon said, a strong vanguard party.

But we should never just consider a peaceful solution, but keep a powerful and carefully planned armed-uprising in our backpocket.


According to Karl Marx it is the only place a succesful revolution could happen. I have Incorrectly assumed that as you call yourself a &#39;marxist&#39; you agree with Marx.

If that&#39;s directed to me, I have to confirm your statement. I agree with many of his ideas, but as said "many", not entirely.

And Napoleon, from my evaluation, USA is the country that has been fed the most patriotic and capitalist propaganda in the entire world.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 12, 2007 07:07 pm
Could you please explain to me how a revolutionary group could defeat the United States Army in the United States?
Large sections of the army will desert, or we will loose. This is the case in any revolution. Even in the third world, the capacity of the revolutionary group to topple the US backed millitary is roughly proportionate to the strength of the army.


It&#39;s going to take a lot more to topple imperialism than petty armed conflicts.

I don&#39;t even think we should discuss armed conflict, that should be for marxist students and intellectuals.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:44 pm
If a guerilla war starts, we won&#39;t just have the state against us. I belive it will launch a chain-event of communist revolutions across the globe, but not just communistic, facist ones too, just like in the early 20th centuary, which might become a serious problem.
Sigh. Probably.


Imo, if you are to start a world wide revolution, it should not start like the october revolution, but instead as Napoleon said, a strong vanguard party.

I have already expressed my views on this matter in another thread you started. revolutions led by vanguard parties are inherantly anti-working class, as the power of that party will always be in tension with the power of the working class.


But we should never just consider a peaceful solution, but keep a powerful and carefully planned armed-uprising in our backpocket.

We shouldn&#39;t make a moral distinction between peaceful and violent action, as you have done. One is not better than the other. We take whatever action is most useful at whatever time, we are pragmatists.

[Fiskpure]

It doesn&#39;t matter what we think, since it will only earn us enemies. If we start to execute owners of huge companies and right-wing politicians we will not gain a positive picture of us, we are only scaring away people then, if you want a world without any other views, you know it&#39;s impossible.

Peaceful movements are working all the time to bring forward our ideology, unlike an armed one can&#39;t.

And yes, I am a strong leninist, I should know that vanguard parties may and did lead to dictatorship in reality, but I am pretty sure that a mistake like this won&#39;t happen next time.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:57 pm
It doesn&#39;t matter what we think, since it will only earn us enemies. If we start to execute owners of huge companies and right-wing politicians we will not gain a positive picture of us, we are only scaring away people then, if you want a world without any other views, you know it&#39;s impossible.

Most of the workers I know wouldn&#39;t mind killing their boss and a few polititians mate, so I&#39;m not sure about that.


Peaceful movements are working all the time to bring forward our ideology, unlike an armed one can&#39;t.

Again with the distinction. It&#39;s not a choice between one or the other, predominantly, using violence in a non-violent context shows a lack of connection with current affairs in the contemporary eye. So we should predominantly avoid extreme violence for now, but it is the only way we will get anywhere.


And yes, I am a strong leninist, I should know that vanguard parties may and did lead to dictatorship in reality, but I am pretty sure that a mistake like this won&#39;t happen next time.

It wasn&#39;t a one off. Authorotarian communism has failed in 100% of applied circumstances, over a period of 90 years... this is basically because the idea of party rule is completely antagonistic to the idea of class rule.

:rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Most of the workers I know wouldn&#39;t mind killing their boss and a few polititians mate, so I&#39;m not sure about that.

If you think most workers are "willing to kill" their bosses, you have been meddling with a very strange crowd, indeed.

[Fiskpure]

In Balt states every "communist" citizen are classed as "non-citizens", which means 30% of the balt states population.

In Bulgaria many parties consisting of tens of thousands members were banned without justification.

In Germany communists cannot be employeed in the public sector (Not sure if it&#39;s changed..)

In many east-european nations wearing soviet era symbols or talking positive of communism results in many years in prison.

Bringing forward communism is going to have to be brought forward in a violent way, but that doesn&#39;t mean we should abondend the way of a peaceful and "non-ideological" way in the meantime...

Launching a violent uprising just in Russia gives NATO a good reason to "help" Russia by sending in "peacekeeping forces" with the reason "Many thousand nukes in risk of falling into terrorist hands".

And I&#39;m not just talking about the proletariat (which the idea is all about), this matter concerns the entire nation, I&#39;m not talking about rich, I&#39;m talking about non-workers, children everyone not connected to the proletariat or "upper people".

Let&#39;s assume we are ready to launch a full civil-uprising against the state, in order to prevent what I just said, we need to launch it in many nations (which I belive I&#39;ve stated before somewhere =o), then when the revolution in a nation is ready, you back up the rest of the revolutions.

Europe should not be a hard piece, what worries me is the "good-ol free nation" in the west...

And why the USSR failed such a big time was because all labour unions were dismissed and Lenin failed to trust the Russian people to control itself, which I belive most of us would do today (No offence, it hurts me when I say this..).

Not to argue against our political differences, but I&#39;m just trying to be as realistic as possible.

[Organic Revolution]

I&#39;m always quite concerned when Leninists talk about state power.

[Raúl Duke]

I am a Marxist, but you also have to realize the first successful socialist revolution occurred in Russia, so Marx wasn&#39;t always right,

It might have arguably brought a socialist state; but did it reach to communism, the real indicator of success?

[Fiskpure]

Let&#39;s take a large and powerful nation, like Russia for an example. From my point of view you can&#39;t just remove the state, police and all this and immediatly there after let the nation into peoples controls, you will have the same problems as in post-soviet Russia...