Results 1 to 20 of 45
Is Revolution still possible?
Do You believe Revolution is actually possible in nowadays, or it is considered only as theoretical, wishful alternative?
Do You believe it is possible to convince an average American or European citizen to join the Revolution?
What can Communists (or Anarchists) offer to society to convince it the Revolution is best solution?
Could Revolution be justified if minority of population installs a dictatorship over majority of population? (If population support Communistic ideas, why Communistic Parties do not win elections?)
Thanks in advance.
No.
The Proletarians are content (with as John Lennon said: religion, sex and TV.) The Poor aren't happy--but they aren't Proletarian, they're Peasantesque. And the Bourgeoise has the arms technology that can quell any hint of uprising.
I see no rise from the Left ( in the Revolutionary sense) in the forseeable future. The endgame was 100 years ago--then Revolution had a chance.
Not so much now. There's still a lot to be learned form Communism. But for now it has no real future.
How many times must this question be asked before the answer finally sinks in?
Gee. The guy has 11 posts and Restricted already! He's learning.
Welcome to RevLeft K9.
Exactly, he/she is learning. So what is the point in posting your inane opinion that has little bearing in reality? I won't even bother with "peasantesque". To claim that revolution is impossible is to deny simple facts and ignore events that are actually going on today. Though this is unlikely of you to do, because your to high up on your pedestal to really care.Gee. The guy has 11 posts and Restricted already! He's learning.
Welcome to RevLeft K9.
It is in every way possible. Right now, things are really "heating up" in Nepal, for example, and a showdown between the Maoist-led mass movements and the Nepali government is imminent and approaching.Originally Posted by 9K116
Yes. Historically speaking Europeans and Americans have been very "revolutionary". Working people in America and Europe have just as much of a stake in creating their own revolution as with workers from more exploited and underdeveloped parts of the world. Many communist parties and leftists of all kinds are active in America and Europe. Not all are very effective or headed by individuals who have a well versed understanding of socialist theory.
It's been said before, a lot, but it's to the point. Communist offer education, agitation, and organization. The point of communist organizations is to organize a fighting workers movement--one capable of carrying out political and economic struggle, as well as the eventual seizure of state power.
Could Revolution be justified if minority of population installs a dictatorship over majority of population?Because the idea is not to win a simple election, like for the US congress or something. Revolutionaries only use capitalist elections as a platform and medium for delivering the kind of education and agitation needed to build a mass movement. This may not be a good tactic, it really depends. Most communist parties don't win elections however, because in most cases, you need tons of money to win or even run in elections. Communists are working people and can't spend thousands even millions of dollars like Obama or Bush could with their campaigns.
Your welcome.
Woah! Don't use John Lennon to support your shit!
Johnny was a Commie himself.
"America is ready for another revolution" - Sarah Palin
Maybe I'm missing a point--but do YOU see any real Revolutions of the Proleratiat taking place? I don't. Maybe and old king moved off the throne (Nepal) every now and then by pesants--but Proletarian Revolution--you have to be kidding.
Where? When? Actually where was there ever a Proletarian Revolution? Russia, China? Korea? Vietanm? Nepal? Cuba? Mexico?
So tell me exactly what is going on today? For real. A couple of guys here and there with guns running around in jungles in their underwear does not a Revolution make.
Communism is a great idea--it's time to realize that the Revolution stuff is long gone but Communism could be melded into Capitalism to create a vibant and worthwhile society for everyone involved.
Was it possible for Americans to abolish slavery in the 1780s? No, not enough opposition to it. 1820? No, not enough opposition. 1850? Still no. But suddenly, for some reason, a lot of opposition to slavery appeared around 1860.
In the end though slavery was abolished top down--quite un-Marxian in its approach.
By attributing this kind of "anti-authoritarian" view to Marxism, you have completely misunderstood the "Marxian approach". The abolishment of slavery was completed to rid the US of it's backward agrarian slave-based economy and to spread industrial, private production--where the workers worked for wages. That's pretty much why. In this sense it was a step forward. No proletarian revolution, but a step forward. It took time to reach this goal though, because society doesn't just change according to the whims of individuals. Instead, society changes as a result of development over time. I think this is what mike was trying to say.
I personally don't see them because I live in an area where the proletariat is unorganized and in a lot of cases wholly reactionary in their political stance.
Obviously you haven't been following a thing happening in Nepal. It's not your fault though. You probably rely mainly on bourgeois media for your own source of information, and they don't say a thing about it.
Russia and the former Soviet Republics, China, and Cuba definitely had significant, and to certain degrees, successful proletarian revolutions. In Nepal the Maoist led movement is really challenging the government at this point, and all signs point to a people's revolt. They have actually declared autonomous regions.
No one here ever claims that, if they are to be taken seriously that is. I don't know why you even bother mentioning this.
Still thinking in terms of ideals eh? No surprise.
Come on. You really haven't realized that this view is totally abhorrent? You can't "meld them together". You simply mis-understand politics, history, and economics. In my perfectly honest opinion.
Why can't communism be "melded" with capitalism? Because "capitalism" and "communism" are not simply ideas. Rather they are stages of development, and completely different types of development at that.
For homework you should look up "Historical Materialism" or as Marx called it the "materialist conception of history".
i am not sure that, if there is a revolution that it will be violent and bloody
i believe in evolution, and there is Many path a species could take over a fews thosand/million year.
If you look 1000 year from now, we are way more socialist now than we used to be.
something tell me that eventually, when our species will be mature enough we will be completly socialist.
I wont see it in my living time tho, and i doubt you will live to see it either.
maybe our grandchildren will.
but seriously, revolution itself dosnt really matter, what really matter is knowledge and humanist values.
the more those two will be spread, the more closer we will be from changing this world.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Actually, you're wrong. Marxism states that economic changes shape history, and that's clearly what occured during the Civil War.
A radical abolitionist many libertarians know named Lysander Spooner (1807-1887...he wasn't a Marxist) characterized the Civil War as the culmination of a long conflict between burgeoning industrial interests in the Northern part of the country and the antiquated agrarian system in the Southern part of the country. I think that's accurate...thinking that slavery ended solely as a result of Abraham Lincoln feeling generous with freedom privileges is ridiculous.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Well, Asia, Africa and maybe Latin America could be places where revolution is more likely to happen. However, Revolution in remote part of world most likely won't influence remaining world significantly.
Yes. But that's not the point.
Literally, people won't support revolution if they already live good enough - people must be in dispair to join any kind of revolution. And so far, as I have seen in Western Europe, most people live good enough to leave tings as they are.
Yes, it is significant argument. I agree.
Imho, the event of October, [email protected] qualifies, maybe Cuba too. Not sure about all other examples.
I also think evolutionary changes are more realistic and effective, while having less troubles and harm, as revolutions (any kind of) usually do.
Well, I hope something similar will happen soon with left ideas too.
Revolution could be bloodless, too. I witness a collapse of Soviet Union, which could be as capitalistic revolution. Despite of few people get killed, in general it still was bloodless (if compare with other revolutions), however, lives of many people was ruined in economic field.
I totally agree!
Hi Comrades!
My first post, so be gentle.
I am inclined to agree with Bud Struggle in that revolutions have always been top-down (or some would say upside down). What I mean is: first of all, getting millions to believe in the exact same thing, whether it's socialism or anything else, is going to be next to impossible. On the other hand, if a few people at the top start a revolution, that would have a devastating effect, simply because they have the means and the opportunity. The guy at the bottom doesn't, so his dream of revolution will be a dream and nothing more.
Hope that's clear. I am not mocking genuine revolutions at all, but history reveals that almost all revolutions have been led by the bourgeois, including the so-called workers revolution in Russia and elsewhere. The leaders have always been members of the upper-class and intellectuals.
Conclusion: Change always comes from the top (because when rulers change, rules also change, and so do the masses), never from the bottom.
I am still learning, so if people feel I am mistaken, they can correct me gently. I don't like to be attacked, and I don't like harsh speech.
Perhaps not the kind of significance to ignite a worldwide revolt, or even significant political changes in the "West"--but a revolution, even in the most remote part of the world will always carry significance. Let's say Nepal undergoes a worker's revolution and installs their dictatorship of the proletariat. This would carry over into India, Bangladesh, and even China with huge backlash. Since, revolutions aren't isolated events that are done behind the backs of imperialists (or behind anyone's back for that matter), there is always a chance of other exploited peoples taking the cue from a given revolution to initiate their own.
I think this is wholly untrue. Most revolutionaries are actually from more privileged backgrounds than the average worker. Marx and Lenin were trained lawyers. Engels had family business connections. Mao was born to fairly well off peasants. Even Che could afford to become a doctor.
But besides leading revolutionaries, people don't need to be in utter destitution or despair to be interested in bettering their own conditions. For example why do people fight for reforms in the government all the time in the US and in Western Europe? All were talking about is taking that a few steps further to actually organize as workers and exploited peoples to overthrow the existing order that puts us at a disadvantage.
Most people? Yeah right. Most people in Western Europe and the US live paycheck to paycheck, are in some kind of debt, do not have health insurance (this goes for the US), and are constantly faced with the rising cost of living. That's not good enough. There are plenty of folks who have modest wealth, aren't swimming in bills and debt, and who have a fairly steady financial situation; but frankly those people do not make up a majority of any country and probably are exploiters of labor themselves.
This is one of the most volatile time in world history. The Maobudi in Nepal are fighting and dying every day for the sake of a better world to live in and that should not just be tossed aside. That revolutionary spirit is showing signs of spilling into India, which has no monarchy. They are being oppressed by a class, and this could have incredibly revolutionary potential. Places like Egypt and Greece are becoming extremely militant and unionizing rapidly. It is just a matter of time until this very fertile ground becomes ripe for revolution to grow. In hondourous, and other parts of Latin America, the struggle against the ruling class is also coming to a head. I had heard a few months ago that the Hondourous CP was calling for soviets. A few months ago we had the demmonstration in Iran. Though not a revolution by any means, here in America we had Barrack Obama elected into office by an wave of poular support. Though this means that American workers are not seeing the capitalist class as the problem yet, this also means that they are NOT content with TV, religion, and sex. They DO want change, they DO want to do something about it. The only question is What Is To Be Done.
Your right, communism IS a great idea. However it is incompatible with capitalism. We reject his bullshit sudeo-chrisitian philos of "Why can't we all just get along?" I'll tell you why: because in a soicety rulled by class distinction it is IMPOSSIBLE for eveyone's intrests to be met. You CANNOT love the master and the slave. You can CANNOT love the customer and the company. You CANNOT love the boss and the employee. Their intrests are directly opposed to eachother. You cannot appease them both, and even if you could, why would you want to? Why keep around the parasite that is the bourgeoisie? He contributes nothing to society. All he does is collect a living solely through his control of the means of production. He is a leech and he needs to be done away with.
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” You cannot wage a battle of ideas with a capitalist. There will never come a day when they turn around and say, "You know what? You're right! I have too much money! Here! Take it all!" Why not? Because his world view is imbedded in hi class conciousness, which is that of the bourgeoisie. He sees it as his right. It is way things outh to be with him. Don't be mistaken danyboy, we are not bloodthirsty. We don't want to kill anybody. But we will not be oppressed either. We refuse to watch the best of us have their lives taken from them from birth till death. We will organize, and take control of the wealth we produce. If the bourgeoisie want to surrender, that's fine. But this system is upheld through violence, and it is only the threat of violence that will bring it down. Like Rosa Luxembourg said, someone who believes in reforming our way into socialism, doesnt have a diffrent means to the same goal, they have a diffrent goal.
I will try to keep a civil tounge.Hi Comrades!
My first post, so be gentle.
I am inclined to agree with Bud Struggle in that revolutions have always been top-down (or some would say upside down). What I mean is: first of all, getting millions to believe in the exact same thing, whether it's socialism or anything else, is going to be next to impossible. On the other hand, if a few people at the top start a revolution, that would have a devastating effect, simply because they have the means and the opportunity. The guy at the bottom doesn't, so his dream of revolution will be a dream and nothing more.
Hope that's clear. I am not mocking genuine revolutions at all, but history reveals that almost all revolutions have been led by the bourgeois, including the so-called workers revolution in Russia and elsewhere. The leaders have always been members of the upper-class and intellectuals.
Conclusion: Change always comes from the top (because when rulers change, rules also change, and so do the masses), never from the bottom.
I am still learning, so if people feel I am mistaken, they can correct me gently. I don't like to be attacked, and I don't like harsh speech.
We don't need to convice people about socialism. Millions of people all over the country already are for socialism. I have been hard pressed to find one person at ny workplace who is working class who DOSEN'T think socialism is the shit. As Marx said, communism is not some rigid ideology that the world will have to conform to, we call communism the real movement because it is naturally expressive of the character of the working class. That is why you would be hard pressed to find a working class person who is not down with socialism. The only question, is what is to be done about it.
And no, not all revolutions are top down. All revolutions have leaders, absolutely. But Marxism teaches us that the bourgeoies had a revolution to bring about capitalism and break feudalism. Even this is sometimes a popular movement. The russian revolution was NOT top down. The working class organized themselves and took power on their own. Even if you want to argue that this WAS top-down, the february revolution in 1917 that deposed the czar was a radical spazum of violence rooting from the czars incompentent execution of the WWI. This barely had any leaders at all. The truth is, no only do revolution happen bottom-up, they MUST happen bottom-up. Only the people can free themselves.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of bears." - Karl Marx
"It's not power that corrupts, but bears." - VI Lenin
"Political power grows from the mouth of a bear." - Mao Zedong
"Bears are more dangerous than ideas. We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have bears?" - Josef Stalin
where did i said that we should stay idle and do nothing?
has i said in my last post the spreading of knowledge and humanist values will lead us (probably) to a full blown socialist world.
we should also learn to people that we shouldnt take shit from our governement or from various figure of authorities.
you can be a humanist and protest against your governement.
you seem to understimate the pressure we, worker have on society. Cooperatives, unions, worker right, all those stuff didnt happened beccause of a revolution but beccause a massive amount of worker put pressure on society.
we will win one day, we just have to keep the pressure. But you cant keep the pressure if you dont educate your folks.
Education is crucial.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
i am sorry mate, but this is bullshit. People need to be informed, the war on ignorance will never be completly won, that why education about science and socialism must continue forever.
the more a person learn about science and history, the more he become self aware, the more a person become self-aware, the more he likely to evolve and transmit his knowledge to other folks.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
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 absolutely agree. Education is incredibly important. I was just making the point that convincing people what the next step needs to be will be easy, because socialism is indicative of the natural character of the working class. Our job is to convince them about revolution.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of bears." - Karl Marx
"It's not power that corrupts, but bears." - VI Lenin
"Political power grows from the mouth of a bear." - Mao Zedong
"Bears are more dangerous than ideas. We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have bears?" - Josef Stalin
