Results 1 to 20 of 31
A Destructive Revolution?
Ofcourse we all see a revolution as perhaps the best way to make our aims realised but do you see the revolution as being violent and destructive of most or all of the existing infrastructure, etc. or do you see it as seizing everything from the present government and our enemies?
I personally see it as a more a peacefulish seizure of what we need o provide us with a stable base with what we need, followed by quite a violent war I'm which they would soon be beaten due to our substantional base provided by the quick revolution.
So peaceful and seizing or violent and destructive? Or something else all together?
Seizure will most likely not come peacefully. Do you think the bourgeoisie and its allies will just willingly hand over the means of production? I'd like to hear your explanation as to how this will be so.
Most likely, there will be a mass movement that may result in some violence in order to make the seizure of production and property, not the other way around.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
"I can only see a new world built upon the ashes of this one"
lulz
But for real, shit's gonna get hairy. The bourgeoisie are not gonna give up that easily. People are gonna be locked up and killed. Guarantee it.
The defeat of the revolutionary movement was not, as Stalinists always complain, due to its lack of unity. It was defeated because the civil war within its ranks was not worked out with enough force. The crippling effects of the systematic confusion between hostis and enemy are self-evident, whether it be the tragedy of the Soviet Union or the groupuscular comedy.
formerly Species Being
Speed would really be important. A small group of people could easily take over factories, government buildings, etc. if they know what they're doing. In fact avoiding confrontation at the very beggining would be key.
The problem isn't seizing the infrastructure, it's defending it once you've got it.
But I would hope that many important bits would be seized at once and leaving them nowhere to go.
All revolutions are violent, some will just be less violent than others. The more entrenched the system is and the more determined the old ruling class, the more radical the upheaval will have to be.
But now we must pick up every piece
Of the life we used to love
Just to keep ourselves
At least enough to carry on
All revolutions are violent - however do you see this violence extending to the destruction of factories, schools, hospitals, governtment buildings, etc. and starting againg afterwards.
Or would you seek to keep these?
I don't see much deliberate destruction, but there may be some accidental destruction. However, we may demolish houses to make really nice apartment buildings and we'll definitely be converting police stations and public buildings into something more useful.
But now we must pick up every piece
Of the life we used to love
Just to keep ourselves
At least enough to carry on
What you seem to be describing is basically a takeover of a factory that has been done by unions before.
It's not like once such an occurrence happens, the state is going to be all "Shit well they're seizing it so we can't do anything!"
They will forcibly remove the workers from the building, and most likely incarcerate them.
I don't know why you think it's so easy - if it was this way, then why hasn't it happened yet? There are plenty of proles in the US, and a good number of them are armed. There have been factory sit-ins and takeovers, but they were short-lived due to the bourgeois state intervening.
It makes no sense to destroy factories, schools, etc. What's the point? The violence would be in defense; defending the working class against the bourgeoisie that will try and reclaim their property by force.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
That would only happen if it was a smaller scale - sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I would imagine these 'seizures' to happen on a huge scale and to seize shops, hospitals, schools and government buildings etc. then with the police and army being without any primary targets or anything to attack they would move out in the open for a largescale offencive where we could in turn fight them and with our resources from what we have seize the state and capatalists would be at quite a disadvantage.
It hasn't worked yet because it has never been on such a huge scale required.
I agree, however I know some 'revolutionaries' who would prefer to just smash stuff up.
Nah, apartments suck to live in...
Suburbs could be tweaked to accomodate vastly more people. Just knock down some walls, alter some rooms here and there, and voila, quality readymade communal housing.
But after that, excess suburbs should be demolished, the materials salvaged for future projects, and the land broken in for agriculture.
I would like to see a democratic solution to the problem. If we have enough people ready to throw down and revolt violentley, couldnt we try to get a good socialist party with a functional platform elected. Maybee not in Canada, and deffinatley not in the states, but if A country could switch over to socialism peacfully the Imperialist couldnt properley place embargoes and sanctions on them without exposing them as baby killas. Im sure they would still try to hinder the economy as much as possible, but with co-operation between a socialist state and the rest of the capitolist markets, said country would be well on thier way. All we need is one example of a modern communist state to prove that the model works and we would be golden right?
I've been think about just how peacfull it could be, but for a socialist government to be completely peacefully installed it would have to be in a country where buisness, etc. is quite small so it would have to be a third world country. What first world country would look to a communist third world country for advice?
I do believe a slow transition towards communism is possible to achieve through the present political apparatus in several phases (eg. Liberalism --> Welfare state --> state capatalism --> socialism --> communism) but even that can't be completely peaceful as the capatalists would still try to continue, but only difference is that the state would be guiding us - but if you have a workers state then it should be ok.
Progressive taxes. By such means they already do hand over their property peacefully.
The bourgeoisie may have a negative institutional role, but they are still people. They will not become criminals and go to jail, most times, to avoid paying an extra 10% tax. They also do, generally, follow laws. Some even believe they are good bourgeoisie, and advocate higher taxes.
The US is behind the rest of the world on this, but already Northern Europe, France, Canada, and England are marching steadily towards socialism, and are, according to some, already very much there.
I'm not saying they won't put of a fight, but this can be overcome democratically as other nations have shown.
A probable transition is from capitalism to market socialism and then from market socialism to socialism proper. This is already underway to various degrees in various nation states. Northern Europe being a key example, where education and health care are virtually free. Likewise they have extensive welfare and public programs. Things I can only dream of living in the States.
Might be violent, might not be, we aren't fortune tellers. I would say though that much as pacifism is ideologically bankrupt you do question the motives of those who completely fetishise violence to the extent that their concept of revolution is solely confined to ak's and grenades.
I'm bound to stay
Where you sleep all day
Where they hung the jerk
That invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
Caudwell:
If the slave passively accepts his or her servitude, then yes, there is no need for force or violence.
Note, force and violence can be different. A revolution may require the use of force without violence.
Well yes, I agree with that, like I said pacifism is bankrupt. The rest of my post still stands.
I'm bound to stay
Where you sleep all day
Where they hung the jerk
That invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
That's still a long, long way from socialism. If you want to see what happens when a socialist government gets democratically elected, look at Chile in the 1970s. Or Spain in the 30s, for that matter. Elements of the British bourgeoisie were prepared to consider the overthrow of Harold Wilson in the 1970s as well.
But in a social democracy where institutions such as health-care and education are nationalized, that's not necessarily the same as handing over property to the working class.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
i agree europe seems to be a lot further in the process of socialism than the US, but i see a worrying trend to imitate america (for example the privatisation of the railways, telephone companies etc.). so we could actually be taking one step forward but two steps back.
i don't think revolution will come peaceful, but i think we should use the least possible violence. it makes me think of a brecht-quote which goes something like this: "we who prepared the world for friendliness couldn't be friendly ourselves, but please remember us with some good will."
