Revolution+Democratic Socialism?

[RedFlagComrade]

Revolution, by the nature of the word, implies a complete transformation in society-a complete 'turnaround' (or revolution) in the way things are run.

However, why is this often percieved as unachievable without violence? The Industrial Revolution (the greatest mass change of society in the entirety of human history-a social revolution) was achieved, for better or for worse, without blood being spilt in anger.

The Left is in general pacifist, pro-free-speech and anti-capital punishment, yet often-on this site at least-cannot tolerate any other method of change except violent bloody revolution and mass executions of bourgeoisie simply for their political beliefs-hypocricy in my opinion.
(it would be fair to execute anti-revolutionaries who use violent means but murdering people for simply speaking their minds, simply for their personal opinions, -as Stalin and Mao, and dare I say it, even Lenin did-is despicable)

Just because a bunch of dead Russians did it this way (and unfortunately it looks like they failed-where is communism now?) and wrote about how revolution 'must' be achieved the way they did it doesn't mean we have to follow their dated doctrine like conservative, anti-progressive, navel-gazing robots unable to think for ourselves except to worship our respective idols (another symptom of the radical left that has horrifically fragmented and divided our struggle for equality).

Sure Lenin Trotsky etc were great even inspiring men but naming entire strands of thought after them begins to get ridiculous a hundred years later and alienates the possible sympathisers. Perhaps in Russia after the Revolution new gods to replace the old Orthodox Church were neccessary (admiring Lenin sure beats worshiping some God) but that neccessity is long past. We need a new generation of revolutionary literature that isnt over 40 years old. So please dont quote Lenin or whatever as irrefutable proof of my idiocy.

This fascination with blood and gore seems immature-the preconception that we have to kill people to achieve our ends-and many of the posters on this site seem to look forward to killing bourgeoisie because of their wealth.There is a contradiction here, to me at least, I was drawn to the left because I think it is wrong that some people must live in poverty as an inescapable result of their birth into a poorer class-but a lot of you seem to think we have a right to murder others simply because of their birth into a wealthier class and the way they are brainwashed from birth by the capitalist media and authorities.

So what I'm saying is this, why can't a complete reversal of the current political framework be achieved without violence. Political revolutions often require violence but social revolutions like the one we are trying to perpetrate can often be achieved bloodlessly.Why shouldn't we contest the system within the current constitutional framework instead of distancing ourselves from the masses as minor, marginalised, unknown parties synonomous with protest politics.We have logic on our side-the vast majority of 'the people' have much to gain from a successful (peaceful) communist revolution since the wealth that is in the hands of the few shall be spread among them-and therefore we would be given power with a democratic mandate. But our promises of blood, violence and fiery destruction, and our deification of a couple of dead thinkers aren't exactly luring followers to the cause.

I get the impression that there are others on this forum with the same opinions as myself but are afraid to speak out for fear of being bashed by the Stalinists and Hoxhaists. But just as many of the communist ideologies have similar economic policies (economic equality) despite having varied social liberty policies (Stalinism versus Left-Communism), I fully support financial equality and all other socialist norms but believe that the people should have complete social liberty (as far as possible-anarchy isnt realistically viable) in the form of freedom of speech and the ability to displace the government peacefully through free multi-party elections-if we are really going to provide social equality and freedom from economic chains than we have nothing to fear from the people who will be positively affected by these reforms (the vast majority).

Violent communist revolution has failed-where is the USSR now?-and non-violent if militant unionsim coupled with social democratic parliamentarian pressure have achieved more in a slow yet permanent, irreversible way for social equality and workers emancipation than any violent revolution-where is aristocracy now? I'm as radical as any of you-I believe in complete abolishment of private property etc. but I am of the opinion that this can be achieved peacefully through reform if there is widespread popular support-instead of under the iron fist of a dictator/leader.

Social democracy might be a bad choice of words-I dont mean the bourgeouis reformist bullshit but full-on communism achieved democratically-Democratic Communism anybody? We need to reeducate people as to what communism really means-not gulags showtrials and Stalinism but complete unreserved equality.We need a Democratic Revolution!We need a Democracy of the Prolatariat!We need a democratic parlaimentarian Vanguard party!We need a socialist transitional phase under the watchful eyes of a democratically-empowered public!

We also need to stop talking in terms of prolatariat and peasants-dated terms that carry little meaning in todays society. People simply dont think of themselves as peasant or prolatarian anymore. The class lines have blurred a bit since the 1800s and we need to simplify our rhetoric-we are trying to help the poor classes reach the same level as the rich, nothing more, nothing less. The notion of the dictatorship of the prolatariat is also dated-replacing the current minority authorities with another majority rule will only create a new (albeit larger) ruling class with all the wealth in their hands, even if only temporarily. It will achieve economic freedom for the onetime 'workers' from having to sell their labor but it will create a new lower class from what used to be the bourgeosie and ensure a continuous cycle of dissatisfied revolutions and counter-revolutions. Also in a large populous country such a government system (organized by workers' soviets) is practically impossible and is only asking for despotism and corruption to emerge (although local community government should certainly have increased powers). Instead we should be advocating a system where everybody is equal-not one where the old working class is 'more equal' than others.

So thats my spiel-anybody convinced?Please reply with your opinions.Maybe thats why Ive been restricted-Its not called revleft for nothing I suppose.But I would advocate violence if thought it would be more successful-in the third world many conditions are ripe for violent revolution and whatever your politics you cannot deny that a communist revolution in African countries would be a step up from the autocratic poverty-ridden states they are now. However in the developed world a successful violent revolution is inconcievable in the near future.

[Bud Struggle]

That was a pretty good post. The "Greens" have caused an entire revolution in the way people think by just changing people's consciousness. Meanwhile Communism is falling into the tank. Something like what the Enviormentalists are doing might work better than the continual "Communism is going to eat your babies" approach taken by some posters here.

[freakazoid]

I don't think anybody is wishing to have to use violence against the system. But the problem is that the .gov is going to use violence against us, and we are going to have to defend ourselves. Also in my opinion using only reform is not a good approach. We won't really get anywhere with it, if not make things worse.


Something like what the Enviormentalists are doing might work better than the continual "Communism is going to eat your babies" approach taken by some posters here.

But I like my babies marinated.

[pusher robot]

So what I'm saying is this, why can't a complete reversal of the current political framework be achieved without violence.

Because they're not patient. Capitalism probably will eventually be outmoded, as technology eventually enables us to start breaking free of materialistic bonds. It will happen, naturally, without violence, when the time is ripe and people choose change.

But the time isn't ripe yet, and may not be in the foreseeable future. If you want results now then the only option is to force the change, and the only way to force people is with violence.

[Bud Struggle]

Because they're not patient. Capitalism probably will eventually be outmoded, as technology eventually enables us to start breaking free of materialistic bonds. It will happen, naturally, without violence, when the time is ripe and people choose change.

But the time isn't ripe yet, and may not be in the foreseeable future. If you want results now then the only option is to force the change, and the only way to force people is with violence.

Nah. I see Capitalism as ever changing--ever adapting to situations. It's meld with socialism during the last century is a good example of that. Communism is like Fascism, something that's been tried but ultimately is flawed and unworkable except by coercion.

BUT! Communism does raise some good issues, fairness in pay and working conditions for all workers as an example--these ideas need to be co-opted by Capitalism and melded into a workable program for the future.

[pusher robot]

Nah. I see Capitalism as ever changing--ever adapting to situations. It's meld with socialism during the last century is a good example of that. Communism is like Fascism, something that's been tried but ultimately is flawed and unworkable except by coercion.

BUT! Communism does raise some good issues, fairness in pay and working conditions for all workers as an example--these ideas need to be co-opted by Capitalism and melded into a workable program for the future.

Well, what I am referring to is super-abundance, i.e., the things that people want, they can have at a cost approximating zero. At that level of supply, the price declines to approximately zero and the demand goes off the supply/demand chart.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, what I am referring to is super-abundance, i.e., the things that people want, they can have at a cost approximating zero. At that level of supply, the price declines to approximately zero and the demand goes off the supply/demand chart.

Could be. It would be interesting to see how all that would play out. We really should be in a time like that now. We have the food-we have the resources, but we have distribution problems. Hopefully we won't always have them.

[Demogorgon]

Change is not achieved through violence no matter how much people here like the romantic fantasy of an armed revolution.

However violence is often unavoidable during change because the circumstances under which society evolves cause friction and also, of course, because disastrous circumstances can spark change on their own.

A good example of change in political economic systems comes from the transition from feudalism to capitalism in England (and latterly Britain). There was no single revolution or defining point where the latter system replaced the former. Rather it was a drawn out process of several centuries, book-ended I would say by Watt Tyler's uprising (where severe political pressure to end serfdom appeared for the first time) and the Glorious Revolution (when the modern system essentially formed).

During the intervening period all sorts of things happened to push along change. The Plague had the ironic effect of rendering peasants far more important, them being fewer in number meant they were more valuable to their masters and hence feudal restrictions on them were substantially eased. The English Civil War marked the flash point of a major power struggle between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy and so on.

Make no mistake the end of capitalism will likely follow a single path. There will be no romantic single uprising, nor will there be a clean break from the old system to new system. Rather revolution will be a protracted and at times scrappy affair. There will be times when major change can be quickly achieved and times when nothing good happens for decades. I despise the worship of violence for violence's sake, but at the same time I find it difficult to conceive of a means by which class tension will be resolved without at least some flare ups.

[RedFlagComrade]

I don't think anybody is wishing to have to use violence against the system. But the problem is that the .gov is going to use violence against us, and we are going to have to defend ourselves. Also in my opinion using only reform is not a good approach. We won't really get anywhere with it, if not make things worse.


That is sort of my point-if a small, marginalised, badly connected, poorly armed group of activists with little popular support try to have an armed revolution the current authories will certainly fight back with the massive resources and power at their disposal.But if we enact change within their system there is nothing that they can do about it-they'll be fighting a losing retreat.

And I believe that the peaceful reforms of Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King have achieved far more in terms of equality than any acts perpetrated by the likes of Lenin or any other revolutionary.

And in my country Charles Stewart Parnell advanced the cause of Irish freedom, through peaceful parlaimentarian means, further than the the previous 800 years of consistent armed struggle.

[Bud Struggle]

That is sort of my point-if a small, marginalised, badly connected, poorly armed group of activists with little popular support try to have an armed revolution the current authories will certainly fight back with the massive resources and power at their disposal.But if we enact change within their system there is nothing that they can do about it-they'll be fighting a losing retreat.

And I believe that the peaceful reforms of Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King have achieved far more in terms of equality than any acts perpetrated by the likes of Lenin or any other revolutionary.

Over thae past 20 years PETA has done a lot more to make the lives of animals better than Communists have done to make people's lives better. Envirmentalists have made trees and polar bears part of a good segment of the world's daily concern while sweat shops and child labor are almost a non issue because no one pays attention to what Communist have to say on the issue.

Communists really need to get a new mentality and a new vision for the future if they want to do any good and running around quoting the president of Albania in the 1950's just isn't it. :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

Could be. It would be interesting to see how all that would play out. We really should be in a time like that now. We have the food-we have the resources, but we have distribution problems. Hopefully we won't always have them.

Actually, that is what we technocrats are trying to explore. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

What many people forget here is that the social-democratic October revolution itself was relatively "peaceful" ("social-democratic" in the revolutionary sense of referring to non-bourgeois classes). The state collapsed long beforehand.


Because they're not patient. Capitalism probably will eventually be outmoded, as technology eventually enables us to start breaking free of materialistic bonds. It will happen, naturally, without violence, when the time is ripe and people choose change.

You have an overly mechanistic view of history. :glare:

Did you not consider the possibility that bourgeois capitalism itself (as opposed to worker-controlled capitalism) could have been implemented in Europe much earlier than it actually was (perhaps to out-do the non-European "Asiatic-mode" neighbours who were doing all the scientific and engineering advances, while taking advantage of the decentralized nature of feudal-mode relations)?


We really should be in a time like that now. We have the food-we have the resources, but we have distribution problems. Hopefully we won't always have them.

That's why bourgeois capitalism has outlived its usefulness (already the micro-planning technologies are there for workers to go beyond mere Gosplan directives).


Communism does raise some good issues, fairness in pay and working conditions for all workers as an example--these ideas need to be co-opted by Capitalism and melded into a workable program for the future.

As long as the bourgeoisie and major segments of the petit-bourgeoisie exist, full "fairness in pay" can NEVER occur. Why? Because that goes against the very heart of the M-C-M process: Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!

[Bud Struggle]

That's why bourgeois capitalism has outlived its usefulness (already the micro-planning technologies are there for workers to go beyond mere Gosplan directives).

It needs to be socialized a bit, to be sure. PETA and the environmentalist are leading the way in changing Capitalism for the better--I'm sure the Marxists will soon follow once they figure out that the Revolution ain't gunna happen--or rather it did happen and now is gone.


As long as the bourgeoisie and major segments of the petit-bourgeoisie exist, full "fairness in pay" can NEVER occur. Why? Because that goes against the very heart of the M-C-M process: Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!

Jacob: SERIOUSLY you are singing the wrong song, the Bourgoise, the Prolitariat?--who the hell cares about that crap? You really well intentioned people are DROWNING yourselves in 150 year old language and fights. You really have some good and decent intentions in what you do, but I guarentee you, no one will ever hear about them.

When people here the word "Communism" they think this:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2634767.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=B43C13524355E92818D25E20C5C51A79A55A1E4F32AD3138


They should be thinking this:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/terrorism/assets/starving_children.jpg

(FYI: those are North Korean children!)

You need a marketing plan.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

They should be thinking this:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/terrorism/assets/starving_children.jpg

(FYI: those are North Korean children!)

You need a marketing plan.

Yes.

Copied and pasted from an article (http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/terrorism/north_koreans_eating_human_flesh.htm) claiming that North Koreans are cannibalistic.

The only other media sources I could find regarding the article, were forum posts linking to the article.

Don't you think the mainstream media would report on those inhumane barbaric North Koreans resorting to eating themselves? Wouldn't it be in their interests?

Or would it be more likely that this story was made up (and an unrelated picture of starving children (North Korean or otherwise) used as 'evidence)...

What a disgusting exploitation of otherwise horrible human suffering.

[Die Neue Zeit]

SERIOUSLY you are singing the wrong song, the Bourgoise, the Prolitariat?--who the hell cares about that crap? You really well intentioned people are DROWNING yourselves in 150 year old language and fights. You really have some good and decent intentions in what you do, but I guarentee you, no one will ever hear about them.

Except that they're hearing about them right now: the "war on the middle class" and the "war on the working class" :p

If you're so "compassionate," why not encourage your workers to unionize so they can strike against you? Why not vote for the presidential candidate who's gonna let the Employee Free Choice Act pass (and that isn't McCain, BTW)? :glare:

[Bud Struggle]

Except that they're hearing about them right now: the "war on the middle class" and the "war on the working class" :p

If you're so "compassionate," why not encourage your workers to unionize so they can strike against you?

Actually, it's pretty interesting what I'm doing--I've started worker's soviets (don't actually call it that :rolleyes:) on May 1. Worker meeting--no managers. More to it than that--I plan to report back as soon as something takes hold.

I have a five year plan, Comrade:hammersickle:. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Yes.

Copied and pasted from an article (http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/terrorism/north_koreans_eating_human_flesh.htm) claiming that North Koreans are cannibalistic.

The only other media sources I could find regarding the article, were forum posts linking to the article.

Don't you think the mainstream media would report on those inhumane barbaric North Koreans resorting to eating themselves? Wouldn't it be in their interests?

Or would it be more likely that this story was made up (and an unrelated picture of starving children (North Korean or otherwise) used as 'evidence)...

What a disgusting exploitation of otherwise horrible human suffering.

OK, I did read the article, I just googled "starving children": I WAS JUST POINTING OUT that Communism has a bad image in the world.

About time you all got a plan to help starving children and workers and all that, because while you guys are arguing over who should or should not be a card carrying Communist, PETA is sure doing a better job helping opossums have a happier healthier life than you are helping people get a decent life in third world countries.

Also check out this series about North Korea from Vice TV: http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1438428757

Wanna be a tea girl? :)

[freakazoid]

That is sort of my point-if a small, marginalised, badly connected, poorly armed group of activists with little popular support try to have an armed revolution the current authories will certainly fight back with the massive resources and power at their disposal.But if we enact change within their system there is nothing that they can do about it-they'll be fighting a losing retreat.

That isn't what I believe how it should be done. If you don't mind reading through here, http://www.revleft.com/vb/setting-up-militia-t54170/index.html?t=54170&highlight=militia then you will see what I believe in in regards to the militia and there role in bringing about class consciousness. Hint, think about how the Black Panthers went about it coupled with the Weatheman, :)

And I believe that the peaceful reforms of Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King have achieved far more in terms of equality than any acts perpetrated by the likes of Lenin or any other revolutionary.[/quote]

Here are my thoughts on the peace movement in relation to a more militant movement, http://www.revleft.com/vb/peace-movement-bp-t70969/index.html?t=70969&highlight=Black+Panther


Actually, it's pretty interesting what I'm doing--I've started worker's soviets (don't actually call it that http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif) on May 1. Worker meeting--no managers. More to it than that--I plan to report back as soon as something takes hold.

Man you sure are a strange capitalist, :p

[RedFlagComrade]

That isn't what I believe how it should be done. If you don't mind reading through here, http://www.revleft.com/vb/setting-up-militia-t54170/index.html?t=54170&highlight=militia then you will see what I believe in in regards to the militia and there role in bringing about class consciousness. Hint, think about how the Black Panthers went about it coupled with the Weatheman,

Here are my thoughts on the peace movement in relation to a more militant movement, http://www.revleft.com/vb/peace-movement-bp-t70969/index.html?t=70969&highlight=Black+Panther


Who do you think achieved more to annihalate rascism and segregation in the U.S.-The Black Panthers or Martin Luther-King and Rosa Parks?

TomK has pretty much nailed it in one sentance-We need a marketing campaign!

[pusher robot]

Man you sure are a strange capitalist, :p

It makes total sense if it works. If he can effectively get the workers to manage themselves, essentially taking on a job they don't currently perform, then he can eliminate the managerial workers and reduce his labor costs, helping him compete more effectively or increase his profit margin.

[freakazoid]

Who do you think achieved more to annihalate rascism and segregation in the U.S.-The Black Panthers or Martin Luther-King and Rosa Parks?

They are both important. I talked about it in that thread.


TomK has pretty much nailed it in one sentance-We need a marketing campaign!

Yeah, but what?

[RedFlagComrade]

Yeah, but what?

Well first of all we have to stop obsessing about an violent struggle-which romanticizes and glorifies the revolution but does absolutely nothing to achieve it. Such a strategy draws a few angry teenagers but isolated the majority of working class people. The truth of the matter is that most people dont want a violent, bloody, revolution in their backyard.

We have to strengthen our weakening traditional grass-roots support bases in trade unions, amongst the rural peasantry of the third world and amongst the activist/anarchist milieu, but also to extend our program to all those dispossesed (consciously or not) or dissatisfied by the capitalist system.

Once we get a claw into any government through armed struggle or peaceful democratic means we shoud have three priorities-Education, Education and Education. We have to provide high quality education to the poor. Not only will other essential services stem from that such as healthcare, and we will have an army of highly educated, literate, politically aware,technologically empowered citizens and a multitude of skilled professionals such as doctors, engineers, technologists, programmers, journalists, analysts and scientists (who will collectively be the keystone in the building of a new communist nation) but perhaps most importantly-an educated working class will soon realise that a communist agenda is the most beneficial to them. If we are going to put forward a policy of abolishing private property and enterprise we'll need massive popular support behind us and to achieve that we need an educated people who stand to benefit. In the occupied north of Ireland catholics endured decades of sectarianism and apartheid-style segragation until the British social welfare system provided free education for all (a collosal error for them). Within years a successful struggle-both peaceful and violent-for equal rights had erupted among the oppressed catholics.

If there was a armed communist revolution in my town today I'd join it-but there isnt and there wont be in the near (or far) future (and even if there was it would be a futile failure). Our best hope is to contest elections. Why don't communist parties contest elections-are we afraid that we'd lose (or that we'd win)? Considering our retrospective policies of the past couple of decades no doubt we would lose the first couple of times. But we'd be in the spotlight and theres no such thing as bad publicity. People would be curious and finally we would have an opportunity to inform people that we stand for the eradication of poverty and not for world domination and paranoid mass-murdering dictators-a message thats currently very had to promote given many comrades fixations with dead leaders like Stalin, Mao and Hoxha.

We need to become synomous again with the fight to help the poor and the dispossed throughout the world-a benevolent cause that will get us more support and publicity than talk of bloodshed and Bukharin. Not only is it a noble cause-but in the end of the day its our original cause-forget divisions on moot ideological points and unite behind an effort to restore true social justice to the world in whatever way possible. Being divided as we are into a range of similar ideologies with identical aims but no communication between us plays directly into the hands of the cappies.

And-this could be my most controversial point-I believe we should try to dissown dictators like Stalin, Mao and Hoxha as communists, we should set up a massive campaign to inform people that Stalin, Mao etc. were not real communists dedicated to equality but power-hungry opportunist psychopaths and to prove that countries like China, North Korea and the Khmer Rouge are/were not communist. The capitalist propaganda machine is tarring us with the same brush as fascism and we cant lie back and accept that. Most importantly we need to highlight that our agenda is the eradication of poverty and dead communists, good or bad, are irrelavent to that now. The Khmer Rouge was a lunatical experiment in Nazi-style genocide (people with glasses were hunted down as intellectuals and executed) and North Korea is a police state with no freedom whatsoever within it and modern China is a mixture of the worst aspects of authoritarian Stalinism and laissez-faire capitalism. We have to stop letting these despots hijack communism as a means to justify there dictatorships-simulaneously further reducing the 'image' of communism all over the world.

[Killfacer]

your also going to have to prove to people that "power hungry psychopaths" will not take over next time.

[RedFlagComrade]

your also going to have to prove to people that "power hungry psychopaths" will not take over next time.

That was the central point of my first post. If communists obtain power democratically than they can be relieved of it in the same manner. The people will truly wield the control-not a power-hungry dictator.

[pusher robot]

If communists obtain power democratically than they can be relieved of it in the same manner.

That doesn't follow, unless you are naive enough to believe that a leader democratically elected would never subvert the democratic process that elected him. What is the basis for this assumption?

[RedFlagComrade]

If it was a developed country with free media and speech and a plurality of political parties not relinquishing authority would be difficult. Imagine for example if elected (democratically or not) politicians like George Bush or the Labour Party in Britain continuing to rule the country after their term in office was over or they were were voted out of government. Admittedly, like Hitler being elected to power and refusing to relinquish it, the possibility is always there that a totalitarian party will try to remain in charge, but in reality that simply doesnt happen.

[Bud Struggle]

power hungry psychopaths

Guilty as charged!!! ;) :lol: