Peaceful Revolutions - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
User avatar
By Beren
#13161482
If you can overthrow the financial system through the internet (which you can), then you can overthrow any capitalist government. And if you can really organize the working class through or by the internet, then you just need to combine the two and you get a falling system and an uprising working class. Which really means a revolution of the proletariat I guess.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13161537
If you can overthrow the financial system through the internet (which you can), then you can overthrow any capitalist government. And if you can really organize the working class through or by the internet, then you just need to combine the two and you get a falling system and an uprising working class. Which really means a revolution of the proletariat I guess.


This is still missing something. Hypothetically one can sabotage the financial system, but this is not the purpose of socialist revolutions. The purpose is to transfer ownership of the means of production from one class to another. This is a prospect which can only be secured by taking over the government. The internet cannot achieve this in and of itself. When you 'organize the working' class... well sure, but organizing them to do what? And just because the working class is uprising doesn't mean you will end up with a revolution. You're assuming, at this point, that somehow the militarized segments of a bourgeois society will not react to the collapse of a financial system and the uprising of a working class. At this moment, it is the militarized elements of society which will take over the government (as we have seen) and embark on an anti-liberal attempt to salvage capitalist production.
User avatar
By Beren
#13161560
The military should get involved too. Most of the military consists of underclass people, right? And perhaps some military leaders would join too. Recent North America is not Chile of the 70's. Do you think the military would shoot if (tens of) millions of very well organized people infested the streets of all North American major cities and the whole system seemed to fall?

but organizing them to do what?

To take action simultaneously and united.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13162095
Beren, I am puzzled by your line of reasoning. You seem to think that the revolution is just the "uprising" or the "sentiment".... Just because people take to the streets does not mean a revolution is under way. My point was not that the military arm will shoot civilians, but they will take on the role of policing civilians if the system has collapsed, for example.

Nowhere do you suggest that the element of organization or sabotage that the internet can afford can actually overturn the system. And by that I mean is to effect a socialist revolution where the means of production are transferred from the bourgeoisie to the working classes.
User avatar
By Beren
#13162564
Vera Politica wrote:Just because people take to the streets does not mean a revolution is under way.

If those people are dedicated, united and very well organized, really self- and class-conscious and can form such a magnitude on the streets (I mean perhaps tens of millions of people) of all major cities in North America that it can reach the level of the critical mass which a proletarian revolution needs to get ignited, then I guess a revolution is under way in that moment indeed.

Vera Politica wrote:but they will take on the role of policing civilians if the system has collapsed, for example.

At least some parts of the military should be involved and be ready to support the revolution. However, I don't think the miltary would dare to or could really resist the critical mass. And the military can be quite well disorganized through the internet either.

Vera Politica wrote:Nowhere do you suggest that the element of organization or sabotage that the internet can afford can actually overturn the system. And by that I mean is to effect a socialist revolution where the means of production are transferred from the bourgeoisie to the working classes.

All participants of the revolution should be aware of the real aims of the revolution. The main goal would not be only infesting the streets of course. After the collapse the revolution should go on and the working classes should take over the means of production.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13162856
After the collapse the revolution should go on and the working classes should take over the means of production.


Precisely, but in no way does the internet make this particular process (the important one, in fact - I would venture even to say that this particular process is the revolution) a non-violent one.
User avatar
By Beren
#13162875
Well, we're talking about a revolution of the future, who knows what can be done through the internet then? I guess it would be possible to collect all the shares of the major companies of the world right now either. I have some shares and I have them on a computer controlled by a bank.
By LetsTalkAboutIt
#13472705
why is it that, according to Marx, a peaceful revolution can be attained in a place like the United States or England but 'in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force?' Did he answer that question himself?


Because the way the system is set up allows it to be hijacked through peaceful means, where political violence by non-government and citizens entities only serve to further the legitimization of the use of force by the state.

In any struggle for political control, all efforts should be focused on the area of society which creates the most effect, the most gain for the least amount of trouble. Why people constantly think that blowing up x amount of buildings, or x in amount and intensity of violence equates in change is beyond me, when any one who read a counter insurgency manual would know there is more to it then that. A lot what makes any type of military campaign (revolutionary or not) work is the non-violent and psychological methods employed along side with use of force. Warfare is pretty much like election campaigning, except with guns.

In the US, the capitalists have already figured how to do this and exploit these systematic weaknesses for their own benefit, at the expense of everyone else. If you can figure how they do it, then it should be easy how to come up with a method for others wanting to fulfill an agenda based on ending exploitation. It would also be easy after figuring out these weaknesses to create an organization suited to the task and based on one's ideals without compromising either.

I have only recently began to get into Marxism, so please help me with any inaccuracies I may have. A communistic society is a society where everyone shares everything based on need correct, thus ending the class differences? Would a group who recently immigrated to the US who operates according to that basic assumption I stated be considered Marxist or communistic to a degree, if only on a micro scale?
User avatar
By Fitzy
#13475193
A communistic society is a society where everyone shares everything based on need correct, thus ending the class differences?

In the final stage of communism, yes, everyone shares based on need. But this is not what makes it classless. Classlessness is achieved under socialism, the first or lower stage of communism, in which the means of production, not the product, is held in common.

Would a group who recently immigrated to the US who operates according to that basic assumption I stated be considered Marxist or communistic to a degree, if only on a micro scale?

It is unlikely that they would be marxist. But they might be able to call themselves communist, and they could definitely call themselves communistic.
By LetsTalkAboutIt
#13475200
So they are organizing and operating (knowingly or unknowingly) in the spirit of communism on a small scale within a capitalistic system?
User avatar
By Fitzy
#13475968
I suppose so. But the commune movement dates back further than communism, back to Robert Owen and perhaps further.
By LetsTalkAboutIt
#13476812
Yes, it does but this falls in line with why the idea of armed struggle needs only violence to work is false. Strategy requires more then just how many mailboxes you can blow up to get what you want.

Now I have no idea about how it is where you live, but if you live in the US, go look around in your town or nearest city and tell me who are the majority of small business owners.

According to my observations, it is immigrant families who work as a collective and are the majority of these small business owners. Restaurants, Inns, car lots, corner stores and other stuff. They pool their resources together, buy up a small business, and none of them get paid unless their business makes a profit. The result is everyone one works their ass off and since they are mutually dependent on each other, they less likely rip each other off unlike a regularly hired employee who has no connection to the family. They work as a whole.

Now what happens when they are successful?
They buy up more businesses other wise known as means of production (if I am interpreting this correctly).
Then as a collective they end up making more money as a collective. Soon they end up dominating the local economy to a degree. When I first entered the work force, my supervision and the owner was an Lebanese employer who was Muslim. Due to his family operating in said pattern I mentioned above, due to the tightly knit Lebanese community in my town and due to the community services and connections the local Mosque offered to members (including him) gave him an economic edge over his competition. When I first worked for him he had only one used car lot and paid me minimum wage. He would constantly brag about how he came to the US, he had only 20 dollars in his pocket and is now on his way to being rich and would constantly remind me I was a minimum wage slave and would always tell me I will always be poor because "You are a stupid American". Nice guy but he liked to try to push people's buttons cause he thought it was funny.
Now he owns 5 car lots and is slowly edging out the competition in my area. It seems in a capitalistic society, a collective will always outperform an individual provided they are mutually depended on each other for economic survival.

So what do they do now they have all this money? Why they give to the local politicians in forum of campaign donations of course to influence law makers to pass laws in their favor. Any one paid attention to the bail outs lately? Look who gave currently elected America leaders the most and the connections of why those who got the most in bailouts to amount donated to campaigns becomes very obvious on why these capitalists got "help" from the government.

Now as a person wanting to bring about radical social change, think about what you could do to make these changes occur if you had the ability to change the law as you see fit.

I know what I would do. After a collective gained economic dominance, I would have the laws altered so my group would get political favors given to my collective (such as bailouts) while at the same time encouraging law makers to cut the social benefits to anyone not part of the collective. If they want them, they should join, or you want to gain legitimacy, be the group to dispense those dollars to those in need and claim credit for your charitable deeds and say the government did not.
So in short, use the new found wealth to persuade law makers to channel tax payer dollars meant for social programs for the overall public funneled through your collective.

To keep the government at bay, the collective with its new found wealth should buy up means of mass media broadcasting. If you own the airwaves, you pretty much own the nation.

Eventually the collective will grow and replace the old system with the new.

The advantage of this approach is the American legal system is based on dealing with individuals, not collectives. A collective can get away a lot more in such a legal system then an individual can, especially concerning financial matters dealing with bankruptcy. When enough dominance is gained, people who are not part of the collective will be black listed. Meaning non-collective members will not be able to work nor buy anything until they join.

You can argue with these points but most of this idea is based on things that can be observed. In the US, it is very noticeable how the laws get changed to benefit those who donate the most to political campaigns (who donate to both main parties to hedge their bets) at the expense of everyone else who does not. Immigrants from collective based societies who come to the US do have an economic and political edge over the home grown citizens who don't operate as a collective and this is something that can be observed.
The idea the media effects society based on what is broadcasts is an observable effect.

I am just combining these notions together into an idea for change. I think by combining a bunch of ideas I have seen to work for others time and time again can be made into a idea that will work.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13476951
A peaceful revolution is obviously preferable to a violent one.

If "peaceful" means not damaging too much infrastructure or productive labor, then yes.

But the current power elite has to be permanently deconstructed (which is traditionally violent), because to leave any trace of them would mean that they would reorganize very quickly - like the metal-blobs in Terminator 2.

The elite and their value system needs to be permanently closed down. Can this be done with no noise or pollution?
By LetsTalkAboutIt
#13476956
If "peaceful" means not damaging too much infrastructure or productive labor, then yes.

But the current power elite has to be permanently deconstructed, because to leave any trace of them would mean that they would reorganize very quickly - like the metal-blobs in Terminator 2.


Revolution is nothing more then an attempt to gain dominance over a political system in order to change it.
Meaning the route that guarantees the realization of this goal can be violent, non-violent or a combination of both. If one wants to figure out which approach is best in realizing dominance, they have to look at how those with de facto gained power and maintain dominance over society with out actually holding office, then the revolutionary should incorporate what they did as the overall strategy for their movement.

In some societies, violence is the only way of change.

In other societies for all practical intentions and purposes, any use of violence leads to failure of a revolution even before it begins and leads to further persecution (or marginalization) of those who held similar beliefs or traits of those held by the revolutionaries.

The US is the latter.
User avatar
By Le Rouge
#13476961
The term "peaceful means" covers a lot of activities that fall both inside and outside of legal-political means. Vera Politica noted that a mass strike could topple capitalism. I believe in the current era, mass movements pushing for rearrangement of capitalist structures to their benefits could be a prelude and stepping stone for mass movements pushing for the introduction of socialist economic structures and ultimately the socialization of the means of production. I think this requires us in the present moment to be both engaged with electoral politics but not necessarily participating collectively in elections. On the one hand we must be flexible, pragmatic, democratic, and reformist and on the exact other we must have rigorousness, militancy, "utopian" trajectories, and an exigent approach.
By LetsTalkAboutIt
#13476974
The term "peaceful means" covers a lot of activities that fall both inside and outside of legal-political means. Vera Politica noted that a mass strike could topple capitalism. I believe in the current era, mass movements pushing for rearrangement of capitalist structures to their benefits could be a prelude and stepping stone for mass movements pushing for the introduction of socialist economic structures and ultimately the socialization of the means of production. I think this requires us in the present moment to be both engaged with electoral politics but not necessarily participating collectively in elections. On the one hand we must be flexible, pragmatic, democratic, and reformist and on the exact other we must have rigorousness, militancy, "utopian" trajectories, and an exigent approach.


Here what the news coverage of a massive communistic demonstration by unions would look like on American news channels:

[Image taken out, because it's just black and taking up a lot of space. Find a smaller image]
User avatar
By Le Rouge
#13476982
Because we've taken them offline and are in the middle of reprogramming them. 8)
By LetsTalkAboutIt
#13476986
Funny, but the point am making is capitalists own the media stations.

Even if a massive large event is going on, is political and does not support their interests, its going to be ignored and put into the memory hole.

That or be demonized, effectively turning the populace against you.
User avatar
By Euthyphro
#13626029
"peaceful" revolution? Absurd! To realise a truly Communist, classless society it is necessary for the transition from Capitalist-bourgeois state to the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a violent transition. The capitalist will not simply give up his political sway because you hound his doorstep like beggars, nor will he sit idly by and twiddle his thumbs waiting for the proletariat to strike. No, the only way he will acquiesce is if we show him the hangman's noose and a last glimpse of the ancien regime he once presided over.
User avatar
By Beren
#13646460
QatzelOk wrote:If "peaceful" means not damaging too much infrastructure or productive labor, then yes.

It's absolutely clear that when he talks about the possibility of a peaceful revolution, then Marx means a revolution without force. It's also clear, that he thinks it's possible only in the most developed capitalist countries, especially in the Anglosphere, where feudalism is totally eradicated and the worker dominates.

I think there is another notable issue in the La Liberte Speech:

Finally, the congress of The Hague has moved the headquarters of the General Council to New York.

In my opinion Marx's vision was a chain of peaceful revolutions in the most developed capitalist countries (the US, Britain, Western Europe perhaps) followed by not peaceful ones world wide. And he knew it would and had to begin in America.

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]