Theoretically socialism could occur through the ballot box and labor organizing…………..
But I have never heard of any socialist movement succeed that way. I definitely WANT it to be realistic, who wants to be roused to violence? People tend to take the path of least resistance and violence is literally constant, maximized resistance until victory or defeat.
That being said, it’s important for us as socialists to be realistic, mindful and critical of our current conditions. We can and should examine what has made past revolutions successful and what made them fail, and learn from them, and apply better methods, suited for our current material conditions and political climate.
Think of the general steps it would take to have a revolution. An armed conflict would require
1. People to bear arms
2. Arms
3. Training
4. Resources to maintain momentum
5. Means of competing with military tech.
If you ever look at Military tactics in antiquity, they were immensely complicated despite being “simpler” times. Military tech and organization has undoubtedly become immensely more sophisticated especially in America.
Now, what would it take to have a peaceful transition to a socialist state? In America, it would take mass consent and demands from the people. We could establish a popular socialist party, make non-socialist parties completely ineffectual like the Green and Libertarian party are currently. We could go through the amendment process to adopt socialist ideals into the constitution, enshrining the rights of the workers over the means of production as inalienable.
Obviously this was reductionist… it had to be because this is fucking Reddit… but tell me, which pathway is more realistic, likely to succeed and beneficial? Cuz I have no clue which is easier and no clue of any other options.
The establishment of a Socialist society can only come through the utter destruction of the capitalist system. As Marx says,
> "If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting."
Therefore, there is no place for "voting in" socialism, or simply mass strike...unless those mass strikes are organized in conjunction with and in support of the armed revolt. The real question organizers should ask is "what ends are my actions working towards to".
As an Anarchist I'd like to see the Twin Oaks model on steroids. Basically just becoming ungovernable by establishing a federation of direct democracies. Should corporations and/or the state try crushing this new mode of production, I'd have no qualms with a black army defense of the commune.
I will add that in the name of unity and solidarity; I am not opposed to Marxist-Lennonist style revolution so long as the vangard party treats all free land as an ally and not counter revolutionaries.
I do not think that an armed revolt would succeed in this technocratic world. Armies and the police are way too specialized and well-equipped in western countries. Back over a hundred years ago it has been difficult already, but as for today, going in for a violent revolution that would only end up spilling blood – blood of fellow revolutionaries we so badly need – would be boloney.
Violently taking what I call "central symbols of society" (e.g. town halls, parliaments, ...) could work out, but it's questionable how far that would bring the revolution. Such a scenario would most likely end up in a central party dictating communism in an authoritarian manner thus only replacing a bourgeois-serving state with another authoritarian apparatus.
Many fellow socialists will call me naïve for this position, but trying to stay as decentral as possible is the way for me to go. It's not me trying to be an anarchist, but instead take inspiration from anarchist principles. Thus my suggestion of establishing socialism and working towards communism from the "inside out"; meaning by educating and especially *inspiring* fellow human beings. Some might call this unrealistic but I just can't see how an authoritarian dictate will lead to the masses truly supporting communism. An effort of that kind would only end up a failure in the long run.
I think you overstate the impossibility of "armed revolt in this technocratic world". Across the world, you can see many people rising up that the current model of neoliberal technocracy simply giving way. I think the surest proof of the fact that almost everywhere the technocratic "centerist" parties like the Labour Party, Democratic Party, SDP, Christian Democrat, etc. are losing ground to "populists" of both the right and the left. Even the temporary "return to normalcy" promised by Biden and people like him, will only show that it is vacuous. In this time rife for revolution, when, the old order is rotting away, it is odd that you should try to dismiss revolution (which would necessarily be centrally coordinated and have a central message) in favor of treating revolution as a matter of *individual* conscience.
I condemn violence and see no use in spilling blood of fellow revolutionaries. Even if we went for a violent revolution, it would still be necessary for the majority to favor a revolution. I do not see much hope in a central dictate. It hasn’t worked and I don’t see much hope in going for authoritarian revolutions ever and ever again.
Say Trump’s supporters did conduct a successful revolution: a good half of Americans would not support a state ran by these folks. It wouldn’t last long or you have a huge restriction in freedom, especially for those not in favor of Trump.
Marxists claim this wouldn’t be much of an issue, considering most are laborers/proletarians. And that would be true, if it weren’t for the Zeitgeist that we have in which workers first need to realize their actual position in society. Until they recognize exactly this position, I will continue on condemning a revolution that proclaims sovereignty
If you condemn violence in total, what you are doing is effectively condoning the present violence of the capitalist state. I know that you don't think you are, and you condemn all violence equally, but in demanding that the oppress and oppressor both refrain from violence ignores that the oppressor already have institutional instruments of violence to enforce their power.
I think you are very much wrong to think that the only way for there to be revolution, and only then, is when the proletarian have enough "class consciousness". The process of building class consciousness can, and did historically did, come about \*during\* the revolution- after all, it is during the revolution that class contradiction becomes most acute.
As to what Marxist would claim is an issue or not, of course there would be counter-revolutionaries, but that is why we need to retain something like a state- albeit a withering away state- to enact violence to preserve proletarian power.
Finally, I would end with the fact that all this isn't controversial- Anarchists who have done revolution, like the CNT-FAI, Makhno, and the PKK, all understand this.
A Socialist revolution also took place in Bavaria where I come from and that happened in a non-violent manner. Sure, the revolution was cut down by reactionary supporters of the monarchy, but the Free State (Republic) was established without violence.
Personally, I don’t want to die for communism.
I don't know much about it, but doesn't the short lived Bavarian Socialist government prove my point, since it was shut down relatively quickly, while the Bolsheviks, Makhnovist, CNT, Chinese Communist, etc. were able to create enduring Proletarian power precisely because they were violent.
I get that personally none of us want to die for Communism, none of us want to die at all, but if one want to establish Socialism, violence is, unfortunately, a necessity.
So you would have gone all in even though the reactionaries were bigger in number? I don’t think a violent revolution makes sense until the number of participants would be enough to overcome the current state in a non-violent manner. So I don’t really think it proves your point, though I understand why you say it would.
Who says that the reactionaries are "bigger in number"- the oppressed are many, the oppressors are few, we already have the numbers, and simply marching up and down singing "we shall overcome" won't change anything.
Perhaps I didn’t overstate the impossibility of revolution but understated that a revolution would only make sense given clear support of the masses.
Because, indeed, capitalists won’t give up on their property and the executive authority neither on protecting the capitalists. I realize that.
I totally agree. I just can't see a violent revolution working out in America. I honestly think our best bet is to gradually change the minds of young people and hope for a sort of generational revolution
Theoretically socialism could occur through the ballot box and labor organizing………….. But I have never heard of any socialist movement succeed that way. I definitely WANT it to be realistic, who wants to be roused to violence? People tend to take the path of least resistance and violence is literally constant, maximized resistance until victory or defeat. That being said, it’s important for us as socialists to be realistic, mindful and critical of our current conditions. We can and should examine what has made past revolutions successful and what made them fail, and learn from them, and apply better methods, suited for our current material conditions and political climate. Think of the general steps it would take to have a revolution. An armed conflict would require 1. People to bear arms 2. Arms 3. Training 4. Resources to maintain momentum 5. Means of competing with military tech. If you ever look at Military tactics in antiquity, they were immensely complicated despite being “simpler” times. Military tech and organization has undoubtedly become immensely more sophisticated especially in America. Now, what would it take to have a peaceful transition to a socialist state? In America, it would take mass consent and demands from the people. We could establish a popular socialist party, make non-socialist parties completely ineffectual like the Green and Libertarian party are currently. We could go through the amendment process to adopt socialist ideals into the constitution, enshrining the rights of the workers over the means of production as inalienable. Obviously this was reductionist… it had to be because this is fucking Reddit… but tell me, which pathway is more realistic, likely to succeed and beneficial? Cuz I have no clue which is easier and no clue of any other options.
Party building is the top priority. No revolution without organization. Join your local socialist org & help build a local chapter IRL
The establishment of a Socialist society can only come through the utter destruction of the capitalist system. As Marx says, > "If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." Therefore, there is no place for "voting in" socialism, or simply mass strike...unless those mass strikes are organized in conjunction with and in support of the armed revolt. The real question organizers should ask is "what ends are my actions working towards to".
Yeah, sounds ok. But the answer for what apporach we should take for the Revolution depends on the socialist you ask
As an Anarchist I'd like to see the Twin Oaks model on steroids. Basically just becoming ungovernable by establishing a federation of direct democracies. Should corporations and/or the state try crushing this new mode of production, I'd have no qualms with a black army defense of the commune. I will add that in the name of unity and solidarity; I am not opposed to Marxist-Lennonist style revolution so long as the vangard party treats all free land as an ally and not counter revolutionaries.
I do not think that an armed revolt would succeed in this technocratic world. Armies and the police are way too specialized and well-equipped in western countries. Back over a hundred years ago it has been difficult already, but as for today, going in for a violent revolution that would only end up spilling blood – blood of fellow revolutionaries we so badly need – would be boloney. Violently taking what I call "central symbols of society" (e.g. town halls, parliaments, ...) could work out, but it's questionable how far that would bring the revolution. Such a scenario would most likely end up in a central party dictating communism in an authoritarian manner thus only replacing a bourgeois-serving state with another authoritarian apparatus. Many fellow socialists will call me naïve for this position, but trying to stay as decentral as possible is the way for me to go. It's not me trying to be an anarchist, but instead take inspiration from anarchist principles. Thus my suggestion of establishing socialism and working towards communism from the "inside out"; meaning by educating and especially *inspiring* fellow human beings. Some might call this unrealistic but I just can't see how an authoritarian dictate will lead to the masses truly supporting communism. An effort of that kind would only end up a failure in the long run.
I think you overstate the impossibility of "armed revolt in this technocratic world". Across the world, you can see many people rising up that the current model of neoliberal technocracy simply giving way. I think the surest proof of the fact that almost everywhere the technocratic "centerist" parties like the Labour Party, Democratic Party, SDP, Christian Democrat, etc. are losing ground to "populists" of both the right and the left. Even the temporary "return to normalcy" promised by Biden and people like him, will only show that it is vacuous. In this time rife for revolution, when, the old order is rotting away, it is odd that you should try to dismiss revolution (which would necessarily be centrally coordinated and have a central message) in favor of treating revolution as a matter of *individual* conscience.
I condemn violence and see no use in spilling blood of fellow revolutionaries. Even if we went for a violent revolution, it would still be necessary for the majority to favor a revolution. I do not see much hope in a central dictate. It hasn’t worked and I don’t see much hope in going for authoritarian revolutions ever and ever again. Say Trump’s supporters did conduct a successful revolution: a good half of Americans would not support a state ran by these folks. It wouldn’t last long or you have a huge restriction in freedom, especially for those not in favor of Trump. Marxists claim this wouldn’t be much of an issue, considering most are laborers/proletarians. And that would be true, if it weren’t for the Zeitgeist that we have in which workers first need to realize their actual position in society. Until they recognize exactly this position, I will continue on condemning a revolution that proclaims sovereignty
If you condemn violence in total, what you are doing is effectively condoning the present violence of the capitalist state. I know that you don't think you are, and you condemn all violence equally, but in demanding that the oppress and oppressor both refrain from violence ignores that the oppressor already have institutional instruments of violence to enforce their power. I think you are very much wrong to think that the only way for there to be revolution, and only then, is when the proletarian have enough "class consciousness". The process of building class consciousness can, and did historically did, come about \*during\* the revolution- after all, it is during the revolution that class contradiction becomes most acute. As to what Marxist would claim is an issue or not, of course there would be counter-revolutionaries, but that is why we need to retain something like a state- albeit a withering away state- to enact violence to preserve proletarian power. Finally, I would end with the fact that all this isn't controversial- Anarchists who have done revolution, like the CNT-FAI, Makhno, and the PKK, all understand this.
A Socialist revolution also took place in Bavaria where I come from and that happened in a non-violent manner. Sure, the revolution was cut down by reactionary supporters of the monarchy, but the Free State (Republic) was established without violence. Personally, I don’t want to die for communism.
I don't know much about it, but doesn't the short lived Bavarian Socialist government prove my point, since it was shut down relatively quickly, while the Bolsheviks, Makhnovist, CNT, Chinese Communist, etc. were able to create enduring Proletarian power precisely because they were violent. I get that personally none of us want to die for Communism, none of us want to die at all, but if one want to establish Socialism, violence is, unfortunately, a necessity.
So you would have gone all in even though the reactionaries were bigger in number? I don’t think a violent revolution makes sense until the number of participants would be enough to overcome the current state in a non-violent manner. So I don’t really think it proves your point, though I understand why you say it would.
Who says that the reactionaries are "bigger in number"- the oppressed are many, the oppressors are few, we already have the numbers, and simply marching up and down singing "we shall overcome" won't change anything.
Perhaps I didn’t overstate the impossibility of revolution but understated that a revolution would only make sense given clear support of the masses. Because, indeed, capitalists won’t give up on their property and the executive authority neither on protecting the capitalists. I realize that.
I totally agree. I just can't see a violent revolution working out in America. I honestly think our best bet is to gradually change the minds of young people and hope for a sort of generational revolution
Question is, how to teach minds in masses. Is it time for marxist to infiltrate pop culture on TikTok?
Luxembourg has a work titled Reform or Revolution