Do ordinary people want revolution?

[Dimentio]

One very important question which we must ask ourselves, is if ordinary people (workers and "the majority") want to have control of the means of production, or if they simply want a fairer share of the resources.

Even if they may hate a government or a leader, the majority seldom hate the hierarchic system in itself but just its representatives. You know the conception of the "good white king" and the "wicked black king" inherited from medieval Europe and the late Roman Empire.

They may want more influence or at least oversight over decisions as well, ut generally accept differences in social positions as long as they could survive and prosper.

Discuss.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's a choice between being exploited, working for little reward and having no freedom or the opposite?

What do you think!

[Dimentio]

It's a choice between being exploited, working for little reward and having no freedom or the opposite?

What do you think!

I think that people generally are content if they are allowed to have the opportunity to have an own little sphere, an own income and some social safety, and that they gladly relinquishes the burden of political authority to various types of elites.

If the majority of people had been like you, then capitalism would have been dead a long time ago.

The majority of people in society are largely non-political, and make political choices after how they think it will affect their own survival skills. During crises, political engagement increases in the fringe (both left- and right-wing fringes) at the expense of the centre (where the liberal and urban elite is concentrated), but as long as the elite is able to give the impression that it provides the opportunity for social advancement or at least social safety, the majority of people are happy with the order of things.

This is not a defense for reformism, I should add, but an attempt to analyse how the "mass" in mass-movements think in order to decide to join the mass-movement.

Or we could just lean back and for ideological reasons assume that the majority of workers find the capitalist system outrageously despotic, and that they just wait for the moment to tear it down with their hands.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you should read The German Ideology and generally educate yourself about revolutionary politics.

[Dimentio]

I think you should read The German Ideology and generally educate yourself about revolutionary politics.

I do not believe in scripture of dialectal processes. The world is not dualistic, but evolutionary in its structure. But I agree with materialism, that people are most driven by material concerns (for their survival and social advancement).

What we must do is to understand people. To hold overtly idealistic or dogmatic views of to what extent the workers are wanting a revolution does'nt help the revolution along.

From my viewpoint reading human history, it strikes me as people generally only reluctantly overthrow elites (except maybe for new, not yet established elites like the Jacobins in France and the transitional government in Russia).

[BIG BROTHER]

Well actually I've been thinking about that stuff too. To me it seems that a lot of people would want change in the goverment, but like you said they just expect that change in the form of a "good" politician.

But I have also seen in Mexico a good number of people who really don't believe in the system all together.

And yea most people also hate war, and sometimes prefer peace and "stability" even if that means we continue to live in the sytem that we do.

[Dimentio]

Well actually I've been thinking about that stuff too. To me it seems that a lot of people would want change in the goverment, but like you said they just expect that change in the form of a "good" politician.

But I have also seen in Mexico a good number of people who really don't believe in the system all together.

And yea most people also hate war, and sometimes prefer peace and "stability" even if that means we continue to live in the sytem that we do.

The reason why many people in Mexico hate the Mexican system is that it is terribly intrusive and despotic, and that the Mexican elite is quite stupid. An elite which is smart tries to give the masses the impression that they are in command, while an elite that is stupid simply represses the masses.

It might be so that Mexico is not capitalism proper, but rather a former semi-feudal rural state recently industrialised, and that the Mexican national bourgeoisie has been absorbed into the cultural values of the previous landed hacienda owners. I do not know.

[The Feral Underclass]

I do not believe in scripture of dialectal processes. The world is not dualistic, but evolutionary in its structure. But I agree with materialism, that people are most driven by material concerns (for their survival and social advancement).

What we must do is to understand people. To hold overtly idealistic or dogmatic views of to what extent the workers are wanting a revolution does'nt help the revolution along.

From my viewpoint reading human history, it strikes me as people generally only reluctantly overthrow elites (except maybe for new, not yet established elites like the Jacobins in France and the transitional government in Russia).

Like I said, read The German Ideology. Also look into Marx's theories of alienation.

[Dros]

A lot of people don't want to control the means of production because they think they already do. The answer to this question lies in simultaneously bringing about revolutionary class consciousness while promoting a revolutionary understanding of the state as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As long as people buy in to bourgeois democracy, there's not going to be a real revolutionary movement.

[Psy]

One very important question which we must ask ourselves, is if ordinary people (workers and "the majority") want to have control of the means of production, or if they simply want a fairer share of the resources.

Even if they may hate a government or a leader, the majority seldom hate the hierarchic system in itself but just its representatives. You know the conception of the "good white king" and the "wicked black king" inherited from medieval Europe and the late Roman Empire.

They may want more influence or at least oversight over decisions as well, ut generally accept differences in social positions as long as they could survive and prosper.

Discuss.

Most don't even understand feudalism as the schools gloss over class relations even under feudalism and emphasize individuals, schools teach it is never the system and always the individual (unless your talking about communism then they claim it is away the system and never the individual).

It boils down to capitalism being so effective because workers don't really know they are being exploited systematically and instead think they are being exploited by power individuals.

[Zurdito]

The reason why many people in Mexico hate the Mexican system is that it is terribly intrusive and despotic, and that the Mexican elite is quite stupid.


wrong. this is an idealistic explanation. the mexican elite, like all semi-colonial bourgeoisie, is constrained by imperialism and therefore cannot offer the same social model as first-world elites can.

regarding your question: did most feudal serfs want an end to feudalism?

[piet11111]

most people are content for as long as capitalism manages to pay their wages and they can pay all their expenses with those wages.

why risk anything while things are not bad ?
we as communists/anarchists know that things will eventually get bad and from what i hear from everyone around me they know too but they do not want to do anything risky until they are forced to do so.

if people still have a roof over their heads clothes on their backs and not going hungry they will not risk anything until they think they do not have a choice anymore.

[Zurdito]

"events will make the truth clear. in lieu of events, there are bolsheviks". ;)

[EscapeFromSF]

most people are content for as long as capitalism manages to pay their wages and they can pay all their expenses with those wages.

I think this is true. I also think that a value of individualism leads many people to identify particular individuals as bad rather than to consider even a possibility that the system might be flawed.

And as I think someone else was pointing out in another posting somewhere--with a quote from JP Morgan, if memory serves--the rich calculate that they can always buy off enough members of the lower class to diffuse any rebellion. Reading Das Kapital is real slow going, particularly when I have so many other things I need to be doing. I've barely gotten a few pages in, but I don't have a sense that Karl Marx anticipated this.

I think it poses a real problem for those who advocate change, whether through prefigurative politics or through rebellion.

[EscapeFromSF]

A lot of people don't want to control the means of production because they think they already do. The answer to this question lies in simultaneously bringing about revolutionary class consciousness while promoting a revolutionary understanding of the state as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As long as people buy in to bourgeois democracy, there's not going to be a real revolutionary movement.

I disagree. If they thought they already control the means of production, surely they would use the leverage they do in fact possess--nothing happens without labor, regardless of how many resources one controls.

[Destroy capitalism]

the desires of the masses who have access to mass communication are coldly manipulated by the media-military-industrial supra-national complex -the ruling ideology shall be the ideology of the ruling class, : gimme more stuff and someone to look down on sums it up. the racism of the dublin working class that I hear every day on the bus is gut churning. and replacing 'what do you work at ' as the social placement signifier is 'Are you going anywhere nice on yer holliers' -not on my higher education grant, no, actually.I need it for furniture.

[Dimentio]

wrong. this is an idealistic explanation. the mexican elite, like all semi-colonial bourgeoisie, is constrained by imperialism and therefore cannot offer the same social model as first-world elites can.

regarding your question: did most feudal serfs want an end to feudalism?

No. Most of them saw feudalism as nature's order. Most often, when they rebelled, they did it in the name of the king, for surely, the king would end the injustices if he wanted to ;)

That might be partially true, yet the elites in some other Latin American countries are behavinh in a much more subtle way.

[Vanguard1917]

Reminds me of Marx's statement in The Holy Family:

'It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do.' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm))

The working class today, on the whole, does not possess revolutionary consciousness. It accepts, perhaps to an unprecendented degree, that there's no alternative to the status quo. But does this mean that capitalism is in the objective interests of working class people? We should all know that it doesn't.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

At the moment, a good number of people are alarmed by wealth inequality, market instability, and corporatism. I don't think many workers in the developed world are opposed to small businesses, but I can't seem them cheerfully defending corporations - unless, of course, they're a warped Rand and Mises form of libertarian.

Not that I place my such stock in assumptions, but America's score on the Gini coefficient graph flirts with .5, which is the (assumed) point when social unrest occurs.

[redSHARP]

as long as a man has 3 meals a day and a job, there can be no revolution or reform in that matter.

[Knight of Cydonia]

i agree with piet11111 on this. and from my experience, in my place, ordinary peoples (who mostly don't give a shit about politic) is already satisfied with what they got, though sometimes they realize that they've been extremely exploited by the bourgeouis, they still feel satisfied.

i once have done some research on the working class (and i mean real working class) and most of ordinary people (in my pathetic country called Indonesia) would say the same thing as what piet have said: "why risk anything while things are not bad ?"

[Voice_of_Reason]

Average American = Sheep...Blind Sheep...Blind Deaf Sheep

[Schrödinger's Cat]

By the way - I don't want to sound like an arse, but the thread titlle should be "Do ordinary people want revolution?"

[Voice_of_Reason]

Hehe that was annoying me as well

[Dimentio]

Reminds me of Marx's statement in The Holy Family:

'It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do.' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm))

The working class today, on the whole, does not possess revolutionary consciousness. It accepts, perhaps to an unprecendented degree, that there's no alternative to the status quo. But does this mean that capitalism is in the objective interests of working class people? We should all know that it doesn't.

Of course it is'nt. But when you talk communism with a random person out in the city, and they are positive or from a working class environment, in 80-90% they think it will be just a more progressive variation of a social welfare state, with high taxes and many socialised public services. In short, still basically the same system which they have been grown up with, just more progressive.

Even many members of communist parties I've met here reasons in the same way. They have not been joining these parties because of any understanding of the ideology, but because they want a bigger share of the economic pie, simply.

[Vanguard1917]

Of course it is'nt. But when you talk communism with a random person out in the city, and they are positive or from a working class environment, in 80-90% they think it will be just a more progressive variation of a social welfare state, with high taxes and many socialised public services. In short, still basically the same system which they have been grown up with, just more progressive.


This is because, for much of the 20th century, the words 'communism' and 'socialism' were seen to simply mean nationalisation and the welfare state - due to the fact that leftist movements were dominated by the politics of social democracy on the one hand (e.g. Labour in Britain, the SPD in Germany) and that of Stalinism on the other (the 'official' CPs). Both of these influential currents within the workers movement rejected, in practice, revolutionary workers' control of the economy and favoured top-down state solutions. Unfortunately, the workers' movement throughout the West couldn't really manage to shake off these reformist influences, hence the dominance of bourgeois ideology to which you're referring.

[Die Neue Zeit]

True dat. Moreover, few people seem to understand the need to put a COMPLETE end to the exploitation of labour.

[chegitz guevara]

Yes, they do, they just don't know it all the time.

[manic expression]

The majority of the people I talk to DO want to drastically change things, there is no doubt about that. However, they don't know what alternative would work. It's our job to prove to them that socialism does work, and we should do this by using historical and present examples as well as sound theory. "Revolution", in itself, means nothing to most people, but if you specify what it means to make a revolution and what it would result it, you get a much different reception.

[Mariner's Revenge]

This is a simple version of the way I see it. There are two factors that can determine when a revolution or any social change will happen: one's realistic personal life and one's idealistic personal life.

If a human lives in shitty conditions and truly believe that this is the best they can get, we cannot expect a revolution. For example, when looking back at pre-industrial ages the idea that serfs could live a better life than what they had simply did not exist or was not strong enough to produce a full out revolt (there are other factors as well but this is a main one). You can also look how social doctrines such as racism play this out. If a black man engulfed in white supremacy believes that he is not worth the same as a white man and should have the same living conditions as a white man, a revolution or revolt will not follow. If a woman in Saudi Arabia believes that she should not get the same rights and treatment as a man then she will not revolt, etc.

But looking at the other side, when one sees the living conditions she or he is in now and dreams of a better future by taking down a social system or changing it from within, that is when you will start to see political unrest within the masses that can lead to revolution.


Do ordinary people want a revolution?

The answer will come when the people (just enough to overthrow the current system) can dream of a better future and are willing to risk their jobs, futures, and lives for it.

[rampantuprising]

i feel that the masses believe that an economic revolution (in the United States at least) is hopeless...a lost cause. This is the understanding of many people i have spoken with. i quote 'Profit Over People' by Noam Chomsky : "In U.S. electoral politics, for just one example, the richest one-quarter of one percent of Americans make 80 percent of all individual political contributions and corporations outspend labor by a margin of 10-1." (and this is quite an obstacle to overcome)

So, my personal opinion on the matter is that society does wish to have at least SOME control of the means of production, it's just that they feel they don't expect any form of a revolution in their lifetime. Unfortunately i think that's why more people don't get involved.

[RebelDog]

i agree with piet11111 on this. and from my experience, in my place, ordinary peoples (who mostly don't give a shit about politic) is already satisfied with what they got, though sometimes they realize that they've been extremely exploited by the bourgeouis, they still feel satisfied.

It is my opinion that this is a highly simplified, naive, childish, version of history. Why on earth would people ever be content with subordination to something so ridiculous? You mistake satisfaction with apathy and discontent. It is actually racist and classist. You actually think a section of the population exist to be exploited and another to exploit them.

[DancingLarry]

Objective external factors still matter in the shaping of the consciousness of both individuals and groups/classes. For instance, in Marx's day, the organization of the means of production was all heading in one direction, toward increasing concentration of capital and productive forces, ever larger industrial facilities bringing together ever larger work forces under a single roof. In those conditions it was not unnatural for the consciousness of industrial workers to be "socialized" into awareness of their common interest, their shared place in the relations of production.

The organization of "production" in the modern economy isn't like that. The industrial behemoths are increasingly a thing of the past. In the west industrial production, industrial capitalist relations of production are increasingly a thing of the past. What industrial production continues tends to be on a smaller scale, more dispersed physically and geographically, and more capital-intensive than labor-intensive, requiring smaller physical work forces. there are modern industrial plants I've been in where it's possible to work an entire shift and never see another worker.

But most workers today will never see the inside of an industrial facility. Retail, services, technical support such as call centers, how do the conditions and relations of production in those conditions affect the consciousness of working people? Does working in a mall make one more or less susceptible to the appeals and imperatives of consumer culture? When the fries buzz and you all jump simultaneously to fill little paper pouches with them, does that does that shared workplace experience develop an awareness of shared class status as fast-food workers?

Then there's more subjective factors. My great-grandfather was an old school, pre-1917 revolutionary socialist. Throughout his life he held that the worst thing that could possibly have happened for the revolutionary potential of the western working class was the Russian Revolution. If you look at the way working class organizations in the west were by and large herded with the prime directive to reject and denounce the Soviet Union, I can see that he had a very valid point. As the Soviet Union fades from memory, will the waning of that bugaboo allow for a reconsideration of revolutionary and socialist ideals in the years ahead?

If we're serious about revitalizing a revolutionary left in the 21st century, we would be well served to start addressing these sorts of questions on both a theoretical and practical level.

[piet11111]

It is my opinion that this is a highly simplified, naive, childish, version of history. Why on earth would people ever be content with subordination to something so ridiculous? You mistake satisfaction with apathy and discontent. It is actually racist and classist. You actually think a section of the population exist to be exploited and another to exploit them.

highly simplified yes i do not like to waste words when i can do with a single sentence.

but how it is naive racist and classist ?


It is my opinion that this is a highly simplified, naive, childish, version of history

:ohmy: AGEIST !!!! BAN

and no i do not believe a section of the population exists to be exploited i believe that those people do not feel the pressing need for revolution because they are still able to afford living in a house and paying their bills and groceries and maybe even go on a vacation if they safe up some money.
they have a lot to lose without any guarantee that the revolution will succeed.

[Svante]

people are t o fear o f revolution.there dont want t o protest the war i n Irak becuase there are fear o f the gouvernement s o what make you think people want revoluton? the militare will be out of nato nest year.

[Asoka89]

A lot of people don't want to control the means of production because they think they already do. The answer to this question lies in simultaneously bringing about revolutionary class consciousness while promoting a revolutionary understanding of the state as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As long as people buy in to bourgeois democracy, there's not going to be a real revolutionary movement.

Yes this is more or less true, and something that the topic poster said before is untrue... a good ruling class, conceal the fact that they are/there is a ruling class... and in most cases don't even consciously know that they are the ruling class. They are just guided by their class-privilege and class-interests, which at times even conflicts with their humanism/ other parts of their consciousness.

Revolutionary consciousness among workers is obviously the goal, and the death of capitalism will also mean the emancipation of the bourgeoisie from the thralldom of capital itself!

Since human beings (capitalists included) are rich, diverse, individuals with their own needs, why should the capitalist be limited to pursuits within the range of profitability and be forced to maintain his lifestyle through the exploitation of others?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Meh, I'm not sure in regards to the "emancipation of the bourgeoisie" (luxurious lifestyle and what not). There are tons of money-capitalists who start out as business magnates or functioning capitalists before "outsourcing" the profitability worries to others, such as Paul Allen.

[Svante]

By the way - I don't want to sound like an arse, but the thread titlle should be "Do ordinary people want revolution?"

pour cette pensée, d o people want powver.this i s the same thing.there need educaton t o get this but we are brainwash i n the school.

[Peacekeeper]

As long as the middle class remains a large enough economic class to have any political power, and as long as they have their toys (consumer goods), then I don't see much changing. We've got to do something to eliminate them as a class or make them very angry with the capitalist exploiter class.

[BobKKKindle$]

then I don't see much changing. We've got to do something to eliminate them as a class or make them very angry with the capitalist exploiter class.

Marxism locates the proletariat as the only class capable of leading the revolution - and so it remains unclear as to why creating discontent within the middle class (by which you presumably mean the petty-bourgeoisie comprised of professionals and enterprise managers - "middle class" is not a term used in Marxist class analysis) is a necessary prerequisite for proletarian revolution. The petty-bourgeoisie may choose to side with the bourgeoisie when faced with the danger of serious unrest, because the interests of these two classes are closely linked and are dependent on retaining the current economic system.

[Hawksarepointless]

First off, define ordinary person.

[BobKKKindle$]

First off, define ordinary person.

In this context, "ordinary person" would mean someone who is a member of the working class but is not part of the vanguard - the section of the proletariat with a developed class consciousness. In response to the question expressed in the thread title, the objective conditions for revolution already exist in many developed nations - as is evident from the widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of established political parties - but the subjective conditions for the development of class consciousness do not yet exist, as socialists have not been able to engage with the working class and present an effective alternative to the present system.

[Vanguard1917]

In this context, "ordinary person" would mean someone who is a member of the working class but is not part of the vanguard - the section of the proletariat with a developed class consciousness.

To speak strictly, the vanguard of the working class does not necessarily have 'a developed class consciousness'. In times of class conflict, the vanguard of the working class is simply that section of the working class which is most militant and possesses the most advanced level of conscious out of all the other sections of the working class. But that level of consciousness does not necessarily have to be 'developed', communistic or revolutionary.

For example, the vanguard of the working class in Russia 1917 had a highly developed level of class conciousness, i.e. it was communist. The vanguard of the working class mid-1980s Britain - made up to a large extent by the striking miners - possessed a reformist, Labourist class consciousness, i.e. a low level of class consciousness, even though it was the most advanced section of the working class in Britain at that time.



In response to the question expressed in the thread title, the objective conditions for revolution already exist in many developed nations - as is evident from the widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of established political parties - but the subjective conditions for the development of class consciousness do not yet exist, as socialists have not been able to engage with the working class and present an effective alternative to the present system.


While i agree that subjective factors are vital, i don't think that it's correct to separate them from objective realities. The capitalist system has stablised in the past two decades, with the defeat of the working class movement, the expansion of capitalism into the new territories of the former Soviet bloc, industrial development in parts of the Asia (e.g. China and India), and the introduction of the labour power of millions, especially women, into industrial production.

But you're correct that socialists aren't able to engage with the working class, and that this is a key reason for capitalist stability. We have lost, to a great extent, the political language of socialism. As a result, the idea that There Is No Alternative to the capitalist status quo is perhaps more prevalent today than ever.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But you're correct that socialists aren't able to engage with the working class, and that this is a key reason for capitalist stability. We have lost, to a great extent, the political language of socialism. As a result, the idea that There Is No Alternative to the capitalist status quo is perhaps more prevalent today than ever.

In spite of my obsession with "language," I suggest you read my article submissions and WIP (PM me). When "socialism" is equated with "corporate bailouts," something's wrong.


As a result, the idea that There Is No Alternative to the capitalist status quo is perhaps more prevalent today than ever.

You're late on that. TINA was most prevalent before 9/11. However, it won't drop significantly if the current "circle spirit" of sectarianism continues to exist.

[BobKKKindle$]

The vanguard of the working class mid-1980s Britain - made up to a large extent by the striking miners - possessed a reformist, Labourist class consciousness, i.e. a low level of class consciousness, even though it was the most advanced section of the working class in Britain at that time.Surely the vanguard (as a section of the working class) is comprised of the members of vanguard organizations? The miners were more radical (in terms of industrial militancy) than other workers in Britain but they were not the most radical as they did not recognize the need to engage in political (as distinct from solely economic) class struggle against the capitalist class - the members of vanguard organizations were able to recognize this, and so were more advanced than the miners. There may have been individual miners who were part of the vanguard, but to identify all (or most) of the miners who went on strike as the vanguard is incorrect.

[Dystisis]

I think it is important to be constructive in our arguments, as opposed to not constructive or destructive. For example, highlight the opportunities and possibilities of humanity when we are not constrained by capitalistic tendencies. Also, be precise, lay out goals, etc. People have heard enough castle in the sky communist romanticism.

[Vanguard1917]

Surely the vanguard (as a section of the working class) is comprised of the members of vanguard organizations?

Not necessarily, if by 'vanguard organisation' you mean communist organisations. The vanguard refers to a section of the working class, as opposed to self-appointed 'vanguard organisations'. The most militant and dedicated working class fighters in 1980s Britain possessed, on the whole, a reformist consciousness and were still loyal to the Labour Party (even though the latter was by Kinnock's time already in the process of losing its base in organised labour as the workers' movement was disintegrating). In short, the vanguard was not one which was won over to communism. And, btw, like Lenin points out, 'proletarian vanguard has [to be] won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made.' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch10.htm)) The inability to win over the vanguard of the working class to communism - not helped by leftwing allegiance to Labour - was one of the key causes of political backwardness in the British working class.

[dirtycommiebastard]

One very important question which we must ask ourselves, is if ordinary people (workers and "the majority") want to have control of the means of production, or if they simply want a fairer share of the resources.

Even if they may hate a government or a leader, the majority seldom hate the hierarchic system in itself but just its representatives. You know the conception of the "good white king" and the "wicked black king" inherited from medieval Europe and the late Roman Empire.

They may want more influence or at least oversight over decisions as well, ut generally accept differences in social positions as long as they could survive and prosper.

Discuss.

What we must understand is this. Human beings are very conservative beings. We enjoy keeping things the way they are until we are forced to change.

It is only when the workers realize they must take control of the means of production(highest level of class consciousness) that they will. Otherwise, no, workers do not want revolution.

[Holden Caulfield]

i'm an ordinary plebian bottom of the food chain shit-education, shit area, shit grammer type,

i think revolution would be spiffy,

[dirtycommiebastard]

i'm an ordinary plebian bottom of the food chain shit-education, shit area, shit grammer type,

i think revolution would be spiffy,

Due to the nature of your understanding of class relations.

Isn't Marxism just dandy? :)

[subham]

In order to become a true Marxist skepticism should be discarded!

[dirtycommiebastard]

In order to become a true Marxist skepticism should be discarded!

What do you mean by scepticism?

If you are calling me a sceptic for not thinking ordinary people want revolution, then you are mistaken.

We must understand that the working class cannot constantly be in a state of agitation,but when they are in this state, it will be the result of quantitative steps toward this, and these step explode into a qualitative difference in consciousness.

In this period, it is possible for the working class to come to revolutionary conclusions.

This is not an every day occurrence, otherwise, we'd be seeing revolution all the time.

[punisa]

Hi,
I've been checking your conversation and would like to contribute. People, masses or whatever we're calling them these days have the revolutionary "spark", but we must look into the carefully planned distractions which are working hard everyday to keep that spark dim.
Your average revolutionary-wannabe needs about 2 hours of crappy TV comedy to forget any feelings that would result in even thinking about revolution.
Another fact that you failed to state is the geographical location where the revolution must take place.
Are the communist revolutions in Croatia or Serbia going to bring world closer to the marxsist ideals? Yeah right.
The only chance for a worldwide revolution is firing that spark inside the capitalist heaven - US.
Roman empire crumbled from the inside, as were all the imperialist empires.

The only problem with the US is that it would be the most difficult place for a revolution to exist. Up to this point there is millions of obstacles to face.
Media and propaganda is making sure everyday to keep the people down. By practising detailed manipulation techniques it's making masses more and more apolitical.

One solution that some of you brought up is the further decline of life standards which would naturally spark the revolution among people. It probably would, no doubt about it. When the majority starts lacking food it will stand up to any force.
They will even call it a "revolution" cause you stuffed them with various leaflets just days before it took place. But is it a revolution? A revolution such as we discuss? Hell no, it's just an animal instinct to survive and get food - not something we fight and wish to accomplish (maybe some do?).

Try to think of it this way - would such a revolution be a long term success? For how long? You think that this society (today) would produce honourable leaders that wouldn't even dream about taking the advantage of a newly political situation for their own personal good?
Knowledge and cause is something that masses should embrace and be very informed of before any revolution starts. Once it does it will go smoothly, much less bloodier then it would if it starts tomorrow.
Police, military and arm holders are crucial here as well (for obvious reasons).

Sounds hard?
But then again, wise man said: "Let's be reasonable and demand impossible".

Now throw some rocks at me for saying too much what's on my mind right now (I even deserve it) :lol:

[Wraith]

If there were a socialist revolution in my country I would fight to the death...........




against it.

[GPDP]

If there were a socialist revolution in my country I would fight to the death...........




against it.

cool story bro

[Bright Banana Beard]

If there were a socialist revolution in my country I would fight to the death...........




against it.

Yes, you have to oppress the masses because they clearly stupid. :thumbdown:

[Wraith]

Yes, you have to oppress the masses because they clearly stupid. :thumbdown:

Its not about "opressing the masses" its about fighting for your rights as an individual against a totalitarian socialist state :cool:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Its not about "opressing the masses" its about fighting for your rights as an individual against a totalitarian socialist state :cool:
then you should add totalitarian since socialism is a broad term and it may confuse to some of us.

[hekmatista]

In order to become a true Marxist skepticism should be discarded!
In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences# Miscellaneous_spelling_differences)) refers to

an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
the doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine) that true knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I have to say "no". My proof: "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila"

I'm not trying to be a pessimistic, but it is true.


The only chance for a worldwide revolution is firing that spark inside the capitalist heaven - US.


Agreed.


People, masses or whatever we're calling them these days have the revolutionary "spark", but we must look into the carefully planned distractions which are working hard everyday to keep that spark dim.


I agree with most of what you say punisa, however, I must disagree on this "carefully planned" part. I really and truly don't believe that the creators of distractions really get together at meetings and plan it all out; or even think of those things when they are planning these distrations.

TGOW

[The Feral Underclass]

After considering the term "ordinary", I'd like to understand how that word is being used? The term ordinary implies that something is plain and not usual. Presumably it is referring to those people who are not already revolutionaries, but the term strikes me as being quite patronising.

"Ordinary" people live their daily lives being exploited and alienated from the society that they live in. Revolution is change and if you speak to anyone they will talk of changing being a thing that is necessary to make their lives better. Of course a lack of confidence is inherent in disempowerment so that idea of change is considered a "dream".

I am an ordinary person, and I want revolution and I would say that every person who can feel that palpable indifference to their lives desire revolution. People just need to realise it.

[Mersault]

Isn't it rather presumptuous of you all to assume that anyone is ordinary at any time. I would say that most people probably consider themselves to be far from ordinary. Culture has stopped people from being ordinary. Although there are many cultures and everyone usually subscribes to one or the other so in that sense they're probably ordinary. Having said that every individual is inherently different to the next so the word ordinary is a pretty stupid way to describe a person.

[Dimentio]

Most people are not politically active in a direct way. There is empirical evidence for that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Even TAT implicitly recognizes the need for vanguardism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1180351&postcount=20) (link), even if he hates using that word. :)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm


Thus there has gradually formed from skilled and unskilled workers a body of proletarians who are in the movement of labor, or the labor movement. It is the part of the proletariat which is fighting for the interests of the whole class, its church militant, as it were. This division grows at the expense both of the “aristocrats of labor” and of the common mob which still vegetates, helpless and hopeless. We have already seen that the laboring proletariat is constantly increasing; we know, further, that it tends more and more to set the pace in thought and feeling for the other working classes. We now see that in this growing mass of workers the militant division increases not only absolutely, but relatively. No matter how fast the proletariat may grow, this militant division of it grows still faster.

But it is precisely this militant proletariat which is the most fruitful recruiting ground for socialism. The socialist movement is nothing more than the part of this militant proletariat which has become conscious of its goal. In fact, these two, socialism and the militant proletariat, tend constantly to become identical.