A Conundrum For People To Consider

Let us say the leftist economic system is put to a universal vote in Country X. Yet the vast majority of the voters including the working class reject it and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Would you try to democratically convince the people to change their minds or work for a revolution?

I don't see how those two options are mtually exclusive - in fact, I don't see how you could work for a revolution without convincing people to change their minds. I'd go as far as to suggest your not really sure about what a revolution is in our terms.

That is if a revolution was planned even if the majority of the population did not support would you fight for it? IE like the Bolshevik October Revolution (majority of Russians were monarchists, Menshiviks etc.)

If the majority were monarchists then there wouldn't have been a revolution.

Bolshiviks weren't the majority, but that doesn't mean reactionaries were.

The majority were moderates which is why I said (monarchists, Menshiviks etc.).

I don't believe in vanguardism or a coup by small groups of party activists, but I don't believe that comprimises a revolution.

Revolutions are made by the working class so naturally I'd participate. They are by very nature democratic (as the goal of the libertarian communist revolution is absolute and true democracy, as are its methods - for example you can only revolt against workplace dictatorship by making it democratic).

That is not a very sophisticated view of the situation. The majority of the Russian population were anti-Tsar and anti-war. Different factions were competing for power and the one making up the provisional government failed to remove Russia from the war. The Bolsheviks were the most powerful alternative and had the most support in many of the big urban centres and so could succeed. They had little support in rural areas, but it is relatively easy for a Government with an urban power base to ignore rural concerns. If, however, the Bolsheviks had lacked urban support, they would not have lasted.

As for your initial question, it isn't a very practical question. Such a vote is extremely unlikely to be ever held and if it were and people voted no, then socialism simply would not be possible at that time. It is a system based on mass participation and democracy, if people are against the very structure of the system, it will not hold.

Or to put it another way. The success on a system is dependent on the support of the class it exists for. So capitalism is dependent on the bourgeoisie supporting it. If they didn't, we would never have left feudalism. Similarly unless and until the working class are conscious enough to prefer socialism, any revolution simply won't succeed. Our task as socialists is to work in the here and now to convince people and try to get concessions from those in power to improve our lot and to show people that positive gains can be achieved from our quarter.

I guarantee you, if both sides were allowed total fair explination of the circumstances and the outcome was entirely democractic, socialism would win.

There are way way more people that would benefit from socialism than would from Capitalism.

Problem is it would never happen, the ruling class puts a lot of time an effort into making sure socialism gets portraid in the worst way and does'nt get a voice.

thats exacty it comrade

It depends on a number of things: Who organized the vote? Were the resourced used for propaganda by the two sides roughly equal? Do most people in Country X have personal experience of living under both of the systems they are being asked to choose between?

The last question really underlines the reason why such a vote can never be fair. When asked to choose between the status quo and radical change that they've never experienced before, most people will come down on the side of the status quo, nearly all the time and in any country - no matter what the status quo is or what kind of radical change is being proposed. It is extremely rare for a majority of people to prefer a system of which they have no personal experience in place of a system they already know. "Better the devil you know..."

Thus, I can guarantee that if your vote is held in a capitalist society, 99% of the time capitalism will win. And if your vote is held in a socialist society, 99% of the time socialism will win.

And a revolution can only happen that 1% of the time when the people have turned against the status quo in large numbers.

How does this argument not apply to capitalism just as well?

Who would vote against freedom, apple pie and Coca Cola anyways? Not me. For the people love their liberty and they are not to be chained by tyranny of collectivism!

Well you can't have a revolution. Last time I checked, Rambo doesn't exist.

Right now the type of country I would see that happening in is Luxembourg where they have a massive banking industry and they have tons of rich people and they do not have much of a working class so ya I could see that country voting against leftism.

One of our goals as communists is to eliminate nationalism and the borders between countries and to unite the entire working class.

We would not make a vote were a group of rich people get to vote because that is a capitalist sort of behavior, rather, we would make a vote in which the general population is represented and in which case working people greatly out number the bourgeoisie rich capitalists so we would easily win a vote in which represents the general population.

"Revolutions are not made, they come." --Wendell Philips

Revolutions are social phenomena, not conspiracies hatched by professionals in dark basements. They occur at a time when all the social contradictions of a country meet at a co-joining point. As De Leon once pointed out, and quite preciently, too--when a social revolution is pending and fails to take place, reaction sets in. He could have been talking about post-WW1 Germany, except De Leon died in 1913.

Oh, and by the way, the premise of your initial question is defective. The question is not whether the working class will or will not support the revolution--by electoral or any other means. The correct question, IMO, is by what means the working class will BACK UP its revolutionary will to overthrow capitalism and establish economic democracy.

The Bolsheviks were only the majority in about 25% of the councils, they were a signifigant force, but not a majority.

This is stupid. No one believes we will hold a vote in which people vote for communism (except the Socialist Party of Great Britain), this question completely ignores how we see communism coming about.