Is Revolution still possible?

[Knight of Cydonia]

a revolution that can only possible is Social Revolution...where there will be no classes,no discrimination (gender, race etc....), no arrogant dictator.

[redarmyleader]

So I have been preparing study on Communist Manifesto, and from me re-reading it convinced me more and more of the possibility of revolution. In the U.S. there is a growing mass movement led by black and Latina/o youth fighting against the New Jim Crow policies being putting forward. I mean did we forget in 2006 millions of undocumented immigrants marched throughout the U.S.? And what about the movement for Obama? Is he a bourgeois politician who is very prepared to screw people over? Yes. But this nation electing the first black President is not a small thing. And how about the recent struggles in California against tuition increases and the resegregation of the University of California system? I mean at UCLA thousands of students protested the Regents, and even at one point had them backed up in a corner. That is something.

Social upheaval is inevitable because the antagonisms within capitalism cannot be solved by it. A fairer question is can we take power. The answer to that is not without a revolutionary vanguard party. The Communist Manifesto goes through the history of the bourgeois in particular. That is because it is showing the evolution and consequences of society divided into classes. These classes clash and can not do otherwise.

Again, that is why you need an organization of professional revolutionaries who can give leadership to the masses. And now is such the time for revolutionaries to take themselves and the class struggle seriously. I know I will see revolution in my lifetime.

[Valeofruin]

Talk about complex..

I don't think it will be much work to convince the American or European people to join a revolution, the oppressive conditions of a failing capitalist system will speak for themselves.

That said; 1 step at a time. Don't get overwhelmed. At this point the best thing to do is get together a small, highly organized group of cadres, and build on that. Idealism has people sticking their heads in the clouds.

[Bud Struggle]

The answer to that is not without a revolutionary vanguard party.

I agree. And I'll even take on the burden of leading the Vanguard party.

I used to be a Capitalist, but I've reformed. Trust me. Hey I don't mean to be smarmy, but I'm well educated on Communism and jaded enugh to just pull a Revolution off. And then where will you be? Listen: you don't know who the Vanguard really is--Revolution has got to be the people together in solidarity or it's nothing.

Again, that is why you need an organization of professional revolutionaries who can give leadership to the masses. And now is such the time for revolutionaries to take themselves and the class struggle seriously. I know I will see revolution in my lifetime.

Hire me, Professional Revolutionaries, LLC, at your service (for a fee.)

[mykittyhasaboner]

Revolution has got to be the people together in solidarity or it's nothing.

Yeah so class struggle has nothing to do with it, it's just "people together in solidarity".

Please tell me this:

I'm well educated on Communism

was a joke. You could seriously do some good by reading basic literature on the subject.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah so class struggle has nothing to do with it, it's just "people together in solidarity".

Yup. Wait and see.

was a joke. You could seriously do some good by reading basic literature on the subject.

You miss my point. When it comes down to it after the Revolution MY Communism will be as good as anyone elses--and maybe I'll be a bit better salesman the some others.

When you start a Revolution EVERYTHING is up for grabs. Just as Lenin.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yup. Wait and see.

Yeah I'll wait for everyone to get together in solidarity while they sit around and do nothing to combat the capitalist state.

You miss my point. When it comes down to it after the Revolution MY Communism will be as good as anyone elses--and maybe I'll be a bit better salesman the some others.

That's probably the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. No wonder that little claim of yours, you know the one were you say your educated about communism, is either a joke or a lie.

"Your Communism" isn't communism, because communism cannot be your's or mine or belong to any individual.

When you start a Revolution EVERYTHING is up for grabs. Just as Lenin.

Not really everything, just class power, and that is almost everything.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I don't believe in the top-down versus bottom-up dichotomy anyway. I see the real dichotomy as: "democratically authorized by the majority" versus "forced on the majority by a minority." Abraham Lincoln received more votes than Stephen Douglas, so I consider his policy as a reflection of the wishes of the working class.

I'd say this dichotomy is a hell of a lot more accurate than top down vs bottom up. I simply have a bone to pick with that one, because the way it's used seems wholly unmaterialist imo.

[The Red Next Door]

Like i had told others, a revolution well not be possible unless people as a majority get tired of being abuse by the system and people are scare based on past revolutions; nothing good came out of most of them. plus people don't care. Like my friends. So unless people start to care there will never be a revolution. We do not live in the idealistic days of Marx and Lenin. We do not live in the days of Dr. King, Che, or Ho Minh chi or days where people had the passion for change in the world. We live in a society where me and friends only care about our xbox360s and people think politics are a wasted of time, we are the cynical generation who look down on those between the ages of 10-30 who want to revive the days of the revolutionary 60's and 70's. My friend believe that the ten year old boy who wouldn't say the pledge of bullshit until gays have equality was stupid. That just the world we live in now, i know i don't sound like much of a communist but i believe that it will happen someday but all depends if fuckers get out of 360 land and into caring about shit. running way to a fucking island isn't gonna prevent you from getting away from society, if you want to get away from society then you should kill yourself and i know it not a nice thing to say but that just how it is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the end though slavery was abolished top down--quite un-Marxian in its approach.

Well, no it wasn't a marxist revolution, it was the last bourgoise revolution in the US. Like all non-working class revolutions, even when progressive like the American Civil War or the French Revolution, are revolutions "from above" but they also must involve lower classes as well. Also it wasn't 100% top-down considering that the abolitionists had been gaining ground in the 1950s and John Brown tried to spearhead a nation-wide slave-revolt in a very insurrectionist sort of way.

Additionally, Lincoln resisted the fact that the underlying cause of the conflict was the salve system for the majority of the war. Marx said that Lincoln was sort of a hapless revolutionary figure who resisted the historic moment he found himself in. But the slaves in the south and the abolitionists recognized immediately that the civil war was not a conflict over some constitutional procedural question. Slaves almost immediately began work slow-downs and generally sized every opportunity to liberate themselves thanks to disruptions in the slave system brought-on by the war.

At any rate, in regards to the original post... it would be silly to think that 20 years of relative stability means that there will be no revolutions of any kind. In my lifetime I saw the end of the USSR empire which few saw coming and so I know that changes happen quickly and tend to happen in groups or "revolutionary waves". The French and American revolutions happened around the same time and influenced other rebellions throughout Europe, the revolutions of 1948 were another wave, the Paris Commune and the American Civil War were relatively simultaneous, The Russian Revolution happened as a wave of revolutions swept through Europe, the National Liberation struggles of the 60s and 70s all happened more or less in a wave, so did the revolts against Stalinism in the late 60s happened while students and workers were protesting in Paris, Mexico City, Chicago in 68, revolts against the state-capitalist countries in Eastern Europe and Russia and China happened all at once too.

Few people ever saw any of these revolts happening 10 or often even a year before and so because these things happen quickly but also because ruling classes put a lot of effort into making their systems or regimes seem immortal and unchallengeable.

So to me, there is no question that as long as class societies exist, there will be revolts and revolutions. What's not guaranteed is if these are going to be popular revolutions, who will win, what politics will be involved.

Personally, i would love if there was a way to really have a democratic and worker-run society without revolution, but history shows that no ruling group has given up power of its own free choice, there has never been a peaceful transfer of power from one class to another. If the bosses are afraid of the loss of their power that comes when workers try to unionize or fight for healthcare at work, and have used the federal government, the cops, militias, and even armed thugs to stop this - just imagine their reaction when we say, we want all of what's our, we want to run things ourselves. If they think Obama is a socialist and will encourage nuts to protest with guns in DC because of his "socialist" policy of giving the banks billions of dollars at the expense of the working class, imagine how they will react when we want to take billions of dollars from corporations and use it for working class people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Like i had told others, a revolution well not be possible unless people as a majority get tired of being abuse by the system and people are scare based on past revolutions; nothing good came out of most of them. plus people don't care. Like my friends. So unless people start to care there will never be a revolution. We do not live in the idealistic days of Marx and Lenin. We do not live in the days of Dr. King, Che, or Ho Minh chi or days where people had the passion for change in the world. We live in a society where me and friends only care about our xbox360s and people think politics are a wasted of time, we are the cynical generation who look down on those between the ages of 10-30 who want to revive the days of the revolutionary 60's and 70's. My friend believe that the ten year old boy who wouldn't say the pledge of bullshit until gays have equality was stupid. That just the world we live in now, i know i don't sound like much of a communist but i believe that it will happen someday but all depends if fuckers get out of 360 land and into caring about shit. running way to a fucking island isn't gonna prevent you from getting away from society, if you want to get away from society then you should kill yourself and i know it not a nice thing to say but that just how it is.

No offense, but you need to get out more and away from your downer friends.

If you were "living in the days" of MLK, guess what, people went to see shitty Doris Day and Elvis movies to entertain themselves. In 1968, some people just smoked dope and thought that protesting was pointless and "authoritarian" and "harshing their buzz".

Yes, activism is down, revolutionary sentiment is down, but we are living in a situation where the 1960s-70s movements fell apart or were destroyed, the remaining organized left was confused about the end of state-capitalism, and unions have become embattled shells of what they were a generation ago thanks to a conscious offensive on the part of the ruling class (union busting) and a terrible tradition of business-unionism in the trade-union movement.

If you believe, as I do, that Marx was correct when he said that the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class, then it is natural that most people are going to generally see history they way they are taught in schools and in pop-culture, politics the way the Democrats and Republicans frame it, and so on. The way out of this is not hoping that, for some unexplained reason, people suddenly adopt different values or behavior and stop playing video-games, but by actively rebuilding a left-opposition in the US and every other country we happen to be in.

Through winning small battles and wining ideological arguments, we can begin to build a counterweight to all the ruling class ideas that permeate our society. If the ruling class says to workers: "Unions only take your money" it only works if there are no existing counter-examples of militant, fighting unions with rank and file leadership. If the ruling class says protests don't accomplish anything, this only works if people aren't protesting or just go to one large protest and expect that their job is done - if people are sitting-in and wining integration or occupying campus buildings and winning demands, then there is an obvious counter to the ruling class arguments.

Also, as the French say, with the eating comes the hunger. When people see that union actions can win, that organizing around radical demands can win, they develop a taste for it and demand more and expect more the next time. People are really demoralized since the early 00s because they have seen one loss after another and so this causes them to become less demanding and more willing to compromise (and liberals in power are all too happy to argue for the most compromised version of any demands). Anything we can do now to show how liberal compromising is part of the problem and build people's confidence through small wins will help train people how to fight and win and this will be what breaks people from accepting their lot or accepting ruling class ideas.

[The Red Next Door]

No offense, but you need to get out more and away from your downer friends.

If you were "living in the days" of MLK, guess what, people went to see shitty Doris Day and Elvis movies to entertain themselves. In 1968, some people just smoked dope and thought that protesting was pointless and "authoritarian" and "harshing their buzz".

Yes, activism is down, revolutionary sentiment is down, but we are living in a situation where the 1960s-70s movements fell apart or were destroyed, the remaining organized left was confused about the end of state-capitalism, and unions have become embattled shells of what they were a generation ago thanks to a conscious offensive on the part of the ruling class (union busting) and a terrible tradition of business-unionism in the trade-union movement.

If you believe, as I do, that Marx was correct when he said that the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class, then it is natural that most people are going to generally see history they way they are taught in schools and in pop-culture, politics the way the Democrats and Republicans frame it, and so on. The way out of this is not hoping that, for some unexplained reason, people suddenly adopt different values or behavior and stop playing video-games, but by actively rebuilding a left-opposition in the US and every other country we happen to be in.

Through winning small battles and wining ideological arguments, we can begin to build a counterweight to all the ruling class ideas that permeate our society. If the ruling class says to workers: "Unions only take your money" it only works if there are no existing counter-examples of militant, fighting unions with rank and file leadership. If the ruling class says protests don't accomplish anything, this only works if people aren't protesting or just go to one large protest and expect that their job is done - if people are sitting-in and wining integration or occupying campus buildings and winning demands, then there is an obvious counter to the ruling class arguments.

Also, as the French say, with the eating comes the hunger. When people see that union actions can win, that organizing around radical demands can win, they develop a taste for it and demand more and expect more the next time. People are really demoralized since the early 00s because they have seen one loss after another and so this causes them to become less demanding and more willing to compromise (and liberals in power are all too happy to argue for the most compromised version of any demands). Anything we can do now to show how liberal compromising is part of the problem and build people's confidence through small wins will help train people how to fight and win and this will be what breaks people from accepting their lot or accepting ruling class ideas.

They not downers except for my best friend but he not a downer on the outside but inside because he had a tragic year

[Green Dragon]

something tell me that eventually, when our species will be mature enough we will be completly socialist.

Why? Socialism is an absurd theory that has no basis in logic or fact. Why think humans should will be "mature" enough to accept such an intellectually vapid idea?

[Jimmie Higgins]

something tell me that eventually, when our species will be mature enough we will be completly socialist.

I don't think a species can "mature" in terms of behavior or views. In regards to humans not being "mature" enough for a communist society... well humans lived in a classless and stateless way for the majority of our history and throughout the world. Sharing and cooperation and democratic decision making are just as much features of human behavior as war or competition. In fact, things like competition between workers or "greed" as we think of it has really only existed for a few hundred years and larg-scale organized warfare is also a very recent development.

So the way society is run has nothing to do with how "mature" we are as a species, it has everything to do with who runs society and how it is organized.

[danyboy27]

I don't think a species can "mature" in terms of behavior or views.

well, the general behavior of our species moved for exemple to bloody full scale million of death war to more smaller concentrated conflict. From dumping ton of chemical into the water to finding out way to recycle our ressource.

this happen in nature has well. Certain species such h as monkey use tool, certain groups of monkey gradually learn to use them more efficiently.

In regards to humans not being "mature" enough for a communist society... well humans lived in a classless and stateless way for the majority of our history and throughout the world.

in dire and miserables condition where the average living age where around 20.
we evolved and learned how to organise society better to manage ressources, better medecine. But on that road, problems appeared ;exploitation, elitism, serfhood etc etc. the moments people beccame more self aware and intelligent. there is no form of evolution that come only with advantages. We got more self aware and smarter, we got people using it to control other.
this will eventually be fixed.

So the way society is run has nothing to do with how "mature" we are as a species, it has everything to do with who runs society and how it is organized.

on the contrary, its have everything to do with that, globally, we mature, we create more technology and we develop different mindset.
the world is evolving in a way that we are getting together. All those wonderful mean of communication; cellphone, internet, tv etc etc.

we are slowly getting closer and closer from other people, But there is not enough discontent for now to actually have short term effect.

governement might be toppled in a matter of year, or their influence might worn off in a matter of decades, centuries with the continous discontent of their citizens.

[Jimmie Higgins]

well, the general behavior of our species moved for exemple to bloody full scale million of death war to more smaller concentrated conflict. From dumping ton of chemical into the water to finding out way to recycle our ressource.

I don't dump toxic chemicals in the water or start wars neither does anyone else I know personally - this is not a problem with "the species" this is a problem with the priorities of people who run society and the way in which society is run.

this happen in nature has well. Certain species such h as monkey use tool, certain groups of monkey gradually learn to use them more efficiently.

There can be social evolution in terms of society learning new technology, but this isn't the same as biological evolution where something inherent in the species changes altogether. But if it's social or technological evolution we are talking about, humans have had the potential to live in a more democratic way with collective and democratic control of production, but the structure and the interests of the people at the top of society is the barrier - not human evolution. The Bourgeois fought against feudalism from the 1400-1900s and the failures of the early revolutions weren't due to people somehow not being inherently ready to get rid of the feudal monarchies, it was because of conditions: the church backed feudal monarchies were stronger than the Bohemian or Dutch revolutionaries and were able to crush those early revolutions.

in dire and miserables condition where the average living age where around 20.

I agree and this is why I reject primitivism as a viable or desirable alternative to capitalism.

we evolved and learned how to organise society better to manage ressources, better medecine. But on that road, problems appeared ;exploitation, elitism, serfhood etc etc. the moments people beccame more self aware and intelligent. there is no form of evolution that come only with advantages. We got more self aware and smarter, we got people using it to control other.
this will eventually be fixed.

I think I agree, although I don't think that things will "fix themselves" because of the structure of class society where some actually benefit from the status quo that causes suffering for many others.

[danyboy27]

I think I agree, although I don't think that things will "fix themselves" because of the structure of class society where some actually benefit from the status quo that causes suffering for many others.

neither do i. People should do what they can to change the way things are done. I know i am repetitive and stuff, but that evolution, or at least the way i see it.

we just push the limits further, some people will push it more than other, doing a lot of dirrect action, other will fight, some will talk. all that shit together will have result in a verry verry long run, and maybe even at a smaller run.

the key is innovation. if we want the left to progress then we have to innovate stuff. Even tho the basics of leftism are simple, the methods used and the way we communicate the message should be constantly revised.

things might advance anyway, innovation or not, but innovation will make it simplier.

[9K116]

Socialism is an absurd theory that has no basis in logic or fact.

Why so categoric point of view? Society of nowadays is much more socialistic than society was centuries ago.

Even more, society must act in a socialistic way to survive during catastrophes, wars and other crysis. Totaly capitalistic society won't be able to handle it.

For example - only socialistic Russia was able to stop fascists and eventually defeat them. If there still was a monarchy in Russia at the beginning of WW2, Germany certainly would succeed the `Barbarossa` offensive plan. Only fact that saved Russia from defeat was its socialistic regime.

[RGacky3]

For example - only socialistic Russia was able to stop fascists and eventually defeat them. If there still was a monarchy in Russia at the beginning of WW2, Germany certainly would succeed the `Barbarossa` offensive plan. Only fact that saved Russia from defeat was its socialistic regime.

And a really cold winter, socialism had nothing to do with it, stop talking about of your ass.

[9K116]

And a really cold winter, socialism had nothing to do with it, stop talking about of your ass.

`Barbarossa` was planned to end before fall. Even if the winter was crucial (which is not an absolute truth) - the dealying of German advance eastwards by Red Army is still an achievement of socialistic regime.