|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:13 am
State your views on:
Violence in the revolution
Can we get to communism gradually, or do we need a revolution
What part will the party play in the preparation for the revolutio
What part will the party play in the revolution
Gun control
Nuclear weapons
Tibet
Class struggle
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:17 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre State your views on: Violence in the revolution Can we get to communism gradually, or do we need a revolution What part will the party play in the preparation for the revolutio What part will the party play in the revolution In general, I'm in favor of nonviolence, as violence is counterproductive. I think that getting to communism will be gradual, but will involve some sort of social movement. History is a dialectic, and we can't skip steps by trying to jump from one system to another without any sort of process to transition. As for the party, it will probably be a case of the intelligentsia assisting the working class in developing consciousness of their situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:28 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre No u! Quote: Violence in the revolution Only to be advocated when necessary, people should be armed with intention of doing so in defense. Malcolm X had some quotes I cannot recall that fit this idea well. Quote: Can we get to communism gradually, or do we need a revolution Revolution. Quote: What part will the party play in the preparation for the revolution A role in partnership with another organ of revolution in order to achieve it. Quote: What part will the party play in the revolution A role of partnership with another organ of revolution in order to achieve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:34 am
Robson's Views on Revolution
All men and women know there is something wrong in which the way we live. We Marxists-Leninists know that such feeling are inherent in bourgeoisie society. And we are the first to promote the ruthless suppression of the bourgeoisie by means of force. They say that we must try peace first but i say nay! We all know that peaceful measure is pointless. The ruling class would never in a thousand years hand over their wealth and assets even if the whole of the proletariat was demanding it outside their doorsteps. One cannot be merciful with an enemy that is merciless!
Secondly, as a Leninist, i scoff at the ladies and gentlemen who are foolish to think we can magically transform our society into a communist utopia by pushing for petty reforms or trying to elect a communist into office. The president doesn't control the economy fools!. No, no society has shifted to a new mode of production without a violent, sudden upheaval and the proletariat revolution will be no exception!
The party plays one of the most important parts in a revolution both in preparation for and in the act. The party must be dynamic, have the proper tactics and be tightly organized and highly disciplined. Most importantly of all it must be filled with the most dedicated of revolutionaries ready and willing to do what it takes to see the revolutions success. It must also work along side the proletariat when they take power not to govern as a body above but as more or less a reference sheet, an organ if you will in which the power of the people may be focused in the direction in which it is needed....
Once the proletariat have seized power they will dismantle the army and police and replace it with a general arming of the people. In other words any laws promoting gun control is an attack against the people.
Nukes.....thats a hard one.... not sure what to do with them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:32 am
I'll answer some of those right now...
Civil disobedience before violence... but our opponents and their armies and police forces are inherently violent, so violence has its place.
Parliamentary politics only serves to patch a system that does not work. So... revolution.
Nukes have no place in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre State your views on: Violence in the revolution Can we get to communism gradually, or do we need a revolution What part will the party play in the preparation for the revolutio What part will the party play in the revolution Gun control Nuclear weapons Tibet Class struggle I believe in nonviolence. Just like MLK and Ghandi proved the urgency of their cause by nonviolence and the media, so can we. I belive that Communism will gradually evolve from this tattered world. There need not be a violent revoution, only education and understanding. Even though I'm for nonviolence, I feel that gun control is evil. This is taking away a person's liberty and giving them saftey. Franklin said: The man who gives up his freedoms for security soon loses both. Nuclear weapons on the other hand, are simply a tool of brinkmanship and eventually that boat is going to crumble and the world will suffer from a few idiots who thought that they should imperialize or terrorize the world with nuclear weapons. Tibet has won the game. They should get their freedom, once and for all, combined with a UN seat and a flag of their own. The working class should come out on top, but as long as there are greedy people in the world, they will seek to find loopholes in the system and corrupt it. Sure, the world has come a long way in trust busting and political machines, but we still have a bit more to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:32 am
X-Raziel Hotokashi-X Louis-Auguste Robespierre State your views on: Violence in the revolution Can we get to communism gradually, or do we need a revolution What part will the party play in the preparation for the revolutio What part will the party play in the revolution Gun control Nuclear weapons Tibet Class struggle I believe in nonviolence. Just like MLK and Ghandi proved the urgency of their cause by nonviolence and the media, so can we. I belive that Communism will gradually evolve from this tattered world. There need not be a violent revoution, only education and understanding. Even though I'm for nonviolence, I feel that gun control is evil. This is taking away a person's liberty and giving them saftey. Franklin said: The man who gives up his freedoms for security soon loses both. Nuclear weapons on the other hand, are simply a tool of brinkmanship and eventually that boat is going to crumble and the world will suffer from a few idiots who thought that they should imperialize or terrorize the world with nuclear weapons. Tibet has won the game. They should get their freedom, once and for all, combined with a UN seat and a flag of their own. The working class should come out on top, but as long as there are greedy people in the world, they will seek to find loopholes in the system and corrupt it. Sure, the world has come a long way in trust busting and political machines, but we still have a bit more to go. REEEEFFFFFFOOOOORRRRRRRMMMMMMMIIIIIIIISSSSSSSTTTTTT!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 2:48 pm
s**t... Data vampires ate my ******** this, I spent ages on that post...
Summary of post:
Violence necessary, the bourgeoisie is not going to give up its property and position.
Communism cannot be made gradually. The bourgeoisie will restist it at every turn.
The party is the vaguard of the proletariat. It comprises the most conscious elements of the class and will serve as the 'tribune of the people' voicing the demands of the oppressed, and fighting for the repeal of oppressive laws in order to show the oppressed: It isn't this or that law that causes your oppression, but capitalism itself!
Once done, and capitalism enters a crisis, the vanguard party will be the organ of the most conscious layers of the proletariat, and will lead the seizure of power.
In the interests of self-defence of the oppressed, it needs guns. The founding fathers of the United States recognised this.
At every step I oppose imperialism, the imperialism of 'my own' country first. To this end, I recognise the need for all countries to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Tibet has benefitted greatly since uniting with China. There is nearly double life expectancy (formerly 35, now 69), there is actually a literacy rate above 2%, and THEY HAVE A ******** TRAIN LINE NOW! I cannot stress that last part enough. But you know what, so ******** what, who cares. The fact is that the only reason the west gives a s**t about the situation of tibet is because it is a means to strike at China. As part of my demand for 'unconditional military defence of the deformed workers states' I defend the territorial integrity of the PRC because any attack is an attack on the deformed WORKERS STATE and the proletarian property relations there-in.
Not as good as my original post, but way more concise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 4:24 pm
Violence:
Nowadays, a violent revolution is a shaky option. The United Nations will not like it when it's only great contributor gets knocked out all of a sudden and replaced just as quickly. A sudden revolution requires intense adjustment for the rest of the world, and some will not want to cope with the change. However, a violent revolution does give military and organizational credibility to the new government, and in the ensuing onslaught it will eradicate any doubts or dissent from both the proletariat and the capitalists... but thinking along those lines may as well be a reversion to the b*****d Castro's and Mao's tyrannical Communist falsehood. Non-violent legislative take-over is the only plausible way.
Legislative take-over
A legislative take-over is absolutely possible in a country with respectable civil rights and political freedoms. However, if the people are being oppressed, or the government trying to eradicate or silence the voice of the worker's, then a revolution is best.
Preparation and the Partisans
Communist leaders should be wary of the desires of the people at that point in time. Of course, Communist doctrine is a good set of guidelines. However, Marx and Engels saw the doctrine and their beliefs as more reformationary theory.
The Big One and the partisans:
Partisans should not be allowed in the government. I think the revolutions of the past should teach this to all: politicians are easily corruptible, particularly those in power. I really don't believe in a federal government, but I feel that in countries as big as there are in the world, it is probably the only way to control the needs of the population.
Gun control:
Well... I'm not going to say guns are absolutely unnecessary and should be outlawed. I am going to say this: murder rates in countries with stringent gun control are lower than countries with lax gun control, apparently. In comparison with the U.S., Europe and Japan, who have air-tight gun bans, have a 500% smaller rate of murders and violent crimes involving a firearm. However, notice that Europe and Japan have a significantly smaller population than the U.S., which I think would be a factor in the number of murders.
Nuclear weapons:
Global disarmament. Nothing more need be said.
Tibetan Genocides:
I find it absolutely horrendous that the Chinese government is allowing this to continue, and I would be even more shocked if they are actually encouraging it. I spit at the feet of the Buddhist oppressors.
Class struggle:
I find this whole "my money, my things" mentality of America really ridiculous. What is the true measure of a man: the greatness of his contributions, his kindness, his devotion, his help to society... or the make, model, and price of his car, of his house, of his shoes? I see these girls on the street and I feel disgust. Buying a thousand pairs of shoes and texting on a $500 phone. My own parents criticize me for not being materialistic, because I don't want a Ferrari when I grow up. The capitalists need only be reformed and they will accept Socialist ideals. Greed is disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 5:19 pm
Quote: Violence:Nowadays, a violent revolution is a shaky option. The United Nations will not like it when it's only great contributor gets knocked out all of a sudden and replaced just as quickly. A sudden revolution requires intense adjustment for the rest of the world, and some will not want to cope with the change. However, a violent revolution does give military and organizational credibility to the new government, and in the ensuing onslaught it will eradicate any doubts or dissent from both the proletariat and the capitalists... but thinking along those lines may as well be a reversion to the b*****d Castro's and Mao's tyrannical Communist falsehood. Non-violent legislative take-over is the only plausible way. The UN? "The den of imperialists and their victims"? The UN is a collective organisation of world imperialism. Witness Korea. We do not care what the UN says, because in the end, it is just a soap box for the imperialists t let their victims stand on and voice grievences from. As for violence. ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Do you think the rich will give up their factories and mansions and everything else? Not at all. Even if communists did gain power democratically, there would still be a 'slaveholders rebellion' as Engels called it in one of the prefaces to the Manifesto. If we gain power and legislate expropriatin, they will resort to fascism. They will get the army against us and they will try to kill us. We will have to resot to violence. And do you think the international community will be on our side? Again, NOT AT ALL. The capitalists in other countries will see us as a threat, and in order to protect their own riches, will seek to kill us before their own working class gets any ideas. [there are other things,, but I will keep them for later] Quote: Legislative take-over A legislative take-over is absolutely possible in a country with respectable civil rights and political freedoms. However, if the people are being oppressed, or the government trying to eradicate or silence the voice of the worker's, then a revolution is best. The state is capitalist (I am assuming you are in the US?) It will not let us pass any decent legislation. If we pass certain laws, then the court system will over-rule them or make a precedent which will nullify our laws. To enforce those laws, we would have to purge the state apparatus, but then that is against those same laws, and those same judges would deny us. In the end, it will come down to a civil war. IT ALWAYS DOES. Quote: Preparation and the PartisansCommunist leaders should be wary of the desires of the people at that point in time. Of course, Communist doctrine is a good set of guidelines. However, Marx and Engels saw the doctrine and their beliefs as more reformationary theory. Marxism is a revolutionary method of thought and worldview, not a set of guidlines for parliamentary reform. Quote: The Big One and the partisans:Partisans should not be allowed in the government. I think the revolutions of the past should teach this to all: politicians are easily corruptible, particularly those in power. I really don't believe in a federal government, but I feel that in countries as big as there are in the world, it is probably the only way to control the needs of the population. Government during and after the revolution will be through soviets. Councils of workers. These councils will elect representatives to go to higher level soviets, so the factory soviets would elect reps to the local soviets, and they would elect reps to the state soviet and they would elect reps to the all-[whatever country] soviet. These representatives can be recalled and replaced at any time, and owuld recieve no more money than an average worker. That, and the fact that they entire working class will be armed will be a good start in heading off corruption. Quote: Gun control:Well... I'm not going to say guns are absolutely unnecessary and should be outlawed. I am going to say this: murder rates in countries with stringent gun control are lower than countries with lax gun control, apparently. In comparison with the U.S., Europe and Japan, who have air-tight gun bans, have a 500% smaller rate of murders and violent crimes involving a firearm. However, notice that Europe and Japan have a significantly smaller population than the U.S., which I think would be a factor in the number of murders. And with no weapons, how is the working class meant to defend itself from the capitalist state? When workers are on strike and the cops threaten then, if the workers have guns, the cops are less likely to be belligerent. Quote: Nuclear weapons:Global disarmament. Nothing more need be said. And how are countries going to defend themselves against the Imperialist nations (US, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the last two being suck and really local imperialists, but still...) Quote: Tibetan Genocides: I find it absolutely horrendous that the Chinese government is allowing this to continue, and I would be even more shocked if they are actually encouraging it. I spit at the feet of the Buddhist oppressors. Wait... What exactly are you saying? Quote: Class struggle:I find this whole "my money, my things" mentality of America really ridiculous. What is the true measure of a man: the greatness of his contributions, his kindness, his devotion, his help to society... or the make, model, and price of his car, of his house, of his shoes? I see these girls on the street and I feel disgust. Buying a thousand pairs of shoes and texting on a $500 phone. My own parents criticize me for not being materialistic, because I don't want a Ferrari when I grow up. The capitalists need only be reformed and they will accept Socialist ideals. Greed is disgusting. um... Yeah... Ok. Not the question, but ok? For the record, I am all for women getting buy however they can. If that means being a 'gold digger' then go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:23 pm
My friend... you are STRESSED... nah, joking. But I see your point on all sides. As for the Tibetan Genocides, I just think that it is horrifying and that the Chinese government must change it's ways, policies, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:47 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre Quote: Violence:Nowadays, a violent revolution is a shaky option. The United Nations will not like it when it's only great contributor gets knocked out all of a sudden and replaced just as quickly. A sudden revolution requires intense adjustment for the rest of the world, and some will not want to cope with the change. However, a violent revolution does give military and organizational credibility to the new government, and in the ensuing onslaught it will eradicate any doubts or dissent from both the proletariat and the capitalists... but thinking along those lines may as well be a reversion to the b*****d Castro's and Mao's tyrannical Communist falsehood. Non-violent legislative take-over is the only plausible way. The UN? "The den of imperialists and their victims"? The UN is a collective organisation of world imperialism. Witness Korea. We do not care what the UN says, because in the end, it is just a soap box for the imperialists t let their victims stand on and voice grievences from. As for violence. ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Do you think the rich will give up their factories and mansions and everything else? Not at all. Even if communists did gain power democratically, there would still be a 'slaveholders rebellion' as Engels called it in one of the prefaces to the Manifesto. If we gain power and legislate expropriatin, they will resort to fascism. They will get the army against us and they will try to kill us. We will have to resot to violence. And do you think the international community will be on our side? Again, NOT AT ALL. The capitalists in other countries will see us as a threat, and in order to protect their own riches, will seek to kill us before their own working class gets any ideas. [there are other things,, but I will keep them for later] Quote: Legislative take-over A legislative take-over is absolutely possible in a country with respectable civil rights and political freedoms. However, if the people are being oppressed, or the government trying to eradicate or silence the voice of the worker's, then a revolution is best. The state is capitalist (I am assuming you are in the US?) It will not let us pass any decent legislation. If we pass certain laws, then the court system will over-rule them or make a precedent which will nullify our laws. To enforce those laws, we would have to purge the state apparatus, but then that is against those same laws, and those same judges would deny us. In the end, it will come down to a civil war. IT ALWAYS DOES. Quote: Preparation and the PartisansCommunist leaders should be wary of the desires of the people at that point in time. Of course, Communist doctrine is a good set of guidelines. However, Marx and Engels saw the doctrine and their beliefs as more reformationary theory. Marxism is a revolutionary method of thought and worldview, not a set of guidlines for parliamentary reform. Quote: The Big One and the partisans:Partisans should not be allowed in the government. I think the revolutions of the past should teach this to all: politicians are easily corruptible, particularly those in power. I really don't believe in a federal government, but I feel that in countries as big as there are in the world, it is probably the only way to control the needs of the population. Government during and after the revolution will be through soviets. Councils of workers. These councils will elect representatives to go to higher level soviets, so the factory soviets would elect reps to the local soviets, and they would elect reps to the state soviet and they would elect reps to the all-[whatever country] soviet. These representatives can be recalled and replaced at any time, and owuld recieve no more money than an average worker. That, and the fact that they entire working class will be armed will be a good start in heading off corruption. Quote: Gun control:Well... I'm not going to say guns are absolutely unnecessary and should be outlawed. I am going to say this: murder rates in countries with stringent gun control are lower than countries with lax gun control, apparently. In comparison with the U.S., Europe and Japan, who have air-tight gun bans, have a 500% smaller rate of murders and violent crimes involving a firearm. However, notice that Europe and Japan have a significantly smaller population than the U.S., which I think would be a factor in the number of murders. And with no weapons, how is the working class meant to defend itself from the capitalist state? When workers are on strike and the cops threaten then, if the workers have guns, the cops are less likely to be belligerent. Quote: Nuclear weapons:Global disarmament. Nothing more need be said. And how are countries going to defend themselves against the Imperialist nations (US, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the last two being suck and really local imperialists, but still...) Quote: Tibetan Genocides: I find it absolutely horrendous that the Chinese government is allowing this to continue, and I would be even more shocked if they are actually encouraging it. I spit at the feet of the Buddhist oppressors. Wait... What exactly are you saying? Quote: Class struggle:I find this whole "my money, my things" mentality of America really ridiculous. What is the true measure of a man: the greatness of his contributions, his kindness, his devotion, his help to society... or the make, model, and price of his car, of his house, of his shoes? I see these girls on the street and I feel disgust. Buying a thousand pairs of shoes and texting on a $500 phone. My own parents criticize me for not being materialistic, because I don't want a Ferrari when I grow up. The capitalists need only be reformed and they will accept Socialist ideals. Greed is disgusting. um... Yeah... Ok. Not the question, but ok? For the record, I am all for women getting buy however they can. If that means being a 'gold digger' then go for it. Okay, so on the whole UN thing, first of all... the UN is pretty much powerless at this point. In general, a revolution needn't worry about the UN. It would, however, have to fear the imperialist powers of the world, so expect any organized bodies with economic power to try to stamp it out. Any country aside from the US that would have a revolution would have to worry about US invasion. Otherwise, maybe the EU? G-8? Etc. And I'd see a more Sun-Tsu approach anyway, in not seeking victory until the battle has already been won. Spread influence first, and gain social acceptance of your movement. If you have enough people behind you, you could have strikes shutting down important sectors, and cut off bourgeois power at it's roots. But you have to have a transition, things don't just happen overnight. Again, the key is to have an educated and class-conscious populace, and that will take time. Internationally, most of the world isn't on the same economic level as the West, and most people of the world don't gain any real benefit for their labors. Nukes... disarmament in general is probably unrealistic. It's 1940s technology. We could all disarm right now, and that wouldn't stop anyone from building more nukes. It would merely shift the dynamic from governments to NGOs. And I don't feel like typing anything else, because I'm tired. Once I'm semi-coherent again, maybe I'll write more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:55 pm
Lady Merewyn Louis-Auguste Robespierre Quote: Violence:Nowadays, a violent revolution is a shaky option. The United Nations will not like it when it's only great contributor gets knocked out all of a sudden and replaced just as quickly. A sudden revolution requires intense adjustment for the rest of the world, and some will not want to cope with the change. However, a violent revolution does give military and organizational credibility to the new government, and in the ensuing onslaught it will eradicate any doubts or dissent from both the proletariat and the capitalists... but thinking along those lines may as well be a reversion to the b*****d Castro's and Mao's tyrannical Communist falsehood. Non-violent legislative take-over is the only plausible way. The UN? "The den of imperialists and their victims"? The UN is a collective organisation of world imperialism. Witness Korea. We do not care what the UN says, because in the end, it is just a soap box for the imperialists t let their victims stand on and voice grievences from. As for violence. ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Do you think the rich will give up their factories and mansions and everything else? Not at all. Even if communists did gain power democratically, there would still be a 'slaveholders rebellion' as Engels called it in one of the prefaces to the Manifesto. If we gain power and legislate expropriatin, they will resort to fascism. They will get the army against us and they will try to kill us. We will have to resot to violence. And do you think the international community will be on our side? Again, NOT AT ALL. The capitalists in other countries will see us as a threat, and in order to protect their own riches, will seek to kill us before their own working class gets any ideas. [there are other things,, but I will keep them for later] Quote: Legislative take-over A legislative take-over is absolutely possible in a country with respectable civil rights and political freedoms. However, if the people are being oppressed, or the government trying to eradicate or silence the voice of the worker's, then a revolution is best. The state is capitalist (I am assuming you are in the US?) It will not let us pass any decent legislation. If we pass certain laws, then the court system will over-rule them or make a precedent which will nullify our laws. To enforce those laws, we would have to purge the state apparatus, but then that is against those same laws, and those same judges would deny us. In the end, it will come down to a civil war. IT ALWAYS DOES. Quote: Preparation and the PartisansCommunist leaders should be wary of the desires of the people at that point in time. Of course, Communist doctrine is a good set of guidelines. However, Marx and Engels saw the doctrine and their beliefs as more reformationary theory. Marxism is a revolutionary method of thought and worldview, not a set of guidlines for parliamentary reform. Quote: The Big One and the partisans:Partisans should not be allowed in the government. I think the revolutions of the past should teach this to all: politicians are easily corruptible, particularly those in power. I really don't believe in a federal government, but I feel that in countries as big as there are in the world, it is probably the only way to control the needs of the population. Government during and after the revolution will be through soviets. Councils of workers. These councils will elect representatives to go to higher level soviets, so the factory soviets would elect reps to the local soviets, and they would elect reps to the state soviet and they would elect reps to the all-[whatever country] soviet. These representatives can be recalled and replaced at any time, and owuld recieve no more money than an average worker. That, and the fact that they entire working class will be armed will be a good start in heading off corruption. Quote: Gun control:Well... I'm not going to say guns are absolutely unnecessary and should be outlawed. I am going to say this: murder rates in countries with stringent gun control are lower than countries with lax gun control, apparently. In comparison with the U.S., Europe and Japan, who have air-tight gun bans, have a 500% smaller rate of murders and violent crimes involving a firearm. However, notice that Europe and Japan have a significantly smaller population than the U.S., which I think would be a factor in the number of murders. And with no weapons, how is the working class meant to defend itself from the capitalist state? When workers are on strike and the cops threaten then, if the workers have guns, the cops are less likely to be belligerent. Quote: Nuclear weapons:Global disarmament. Nothing more need be said. And how are countries going to defend themselves against the Imperialist nations (US, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the last two being suck and really local imperialists, but still...) Quote: Tibetan Genocides: I find it absolutely horrendous that the Chinese government is allowing this to continue, and I would be even more shocked if they are actually encouraging it. I spit at the feet of the Buddhist oppressors. Wait... What exactly are you saying? Quote: Class struggle:I find this whole "my money, my things" mentality of America really ridiculous. What is the true measure of a man: the greatness of his contributions, his kindness, his devotion, his help to society... or the make, model, and price of his car, of his house, of his shoes? I see these girls on the street and I feel disgust. Buying a thousand pairs of shoes and texting on a $500 phone. My own parents criticize me for not being materialistic, because I don't want a Ferrari when I grow up. The capitalists need only be reformed and they will accept Socialist ideals. Greed is disgusting. um... Yeah... Ok. Not the question, but ok? For the record, I am all for women getting buy however they can. If that means being a 'gold digger' then go for it. Okay, so on the whole UN thing, first of all... the UN is pretty much powerless at this point. In general, a revolution needn't worry about the UN. It would, however, have to fear the imperialist powers of the world, so expect any organized bodies with economic power to try to stamp it out. Any country aside from the US that would have a revolution would have to worry about US invasion. Otherwise, maybe the EU? G-8? Etc. And I'd see a more Sun-Tsu approach anyway, in not seeking victory until the battle has already been won. Spread influence first, and gain social acceptance of your movement. If you have enough people behind you, you could have strikes shutting down important sectors, and cut off bourgeois power at it's roots. But you have to have a transition, things don't just happen overnight. Again, the key is to have an educated and class-conscious populace, and that will take time. Internationally, most of the world isn't on the same economic level as the West, and most people of the world don't gain any real benefit for their labors. Nukes... disarmament in general is probably unrealistic. It's 1940s technology. We could all disarm right now, and that wouldn't stop anyone from building more nukes. It would merely shift the dynamic from governments to NGOs. And I don't feel like typing anything else, because I'm tired. Once I'm semi-coherent again, maybe I'll write more. What about the police and the military? All the state needs are those two things. So even if the workers went on strike in certain areas of industry it wouldn't make a diffrence because in the end they would just get shot... Which is why violence is in fact necessary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:00 pm
Comrade Robson Lady Merewyn Louis-Auguste Robespierre Quote: Violence:Nowadays, a violent revolution is a shaky option. The United Nations will not like it when it's only great contributor gets knocked out all of a sudden and replaced just as quickly. A sudden revolution requires intense adjustment for the rest of the world, and some will not want to cope with the change. However, a violent revolution does give military and organizational credibility to the new government, and in the ensuing onslaught it will eradicate any doubts or dissent from both the proletariat and the capitalists... but thinking along those lines may as well be a reversion to the b*****d Castro's and Mao's tyrannical Communist falsehood. Non-violent legislative take-over is the only plausible way. The UN? "The den of imperialists and their victims"? The UN is a collective organisation of world imperialism. Witness Korea. We do not care what the UN says, because in the end, it is just a soap box for the imperialists t let their victims stand on and voice grievences from. As for violence. ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Do you think the rich will give up their factories and mansions and everything else? Not at all. Even if communists did gain power democratically, there would still be a 'slaveholders rebellion' as Engels called it in one of the prefaces to the Manifesto. If we gain power and legislate expropriatin, they will resort to fascism. They will get the army against us and they will try to kill us. We will have to resot to violence. And do you think the international community will be on our side? Again, NOT AT ALL. The capitalists in other countries will see us as a threat, and in order to protect their own riches, will seek to kill us before their own working class gets any ideas. [there are other things,, but I will keep them for later] Quote: Legislative take-over A legislative take-over is absolutely possible in a country with respectable civil rights and political freedoms. However, if the people are being oppressed, or the government trying to eradicate or silence the voice of the worker's, then a revolution is best. The state is capitalist (I am assuming you are in the US?) It will not let us pass any decent legislation. If we pass certain laws, then the court system will over-rule them or make a precedent which will nullify our laws. To enforce those laws, we would have to purge the state apparatus, but then that is against those same laws, and those same judges would deny us. In the end, it will come down to a civil war. IT ALWAYS DOES. Quote: Preparation and the PartisansCommunist leaders should be wary of the desires of the people at that point in time. Of course, Communist doctrine is a good set of guidelines. However, Marx and Engels saw the doctrine and their beliefs as more reformationary theory. Marxism is a revolutionary method of thought and worldview, not a set of guidlines for parliamentary reform. Quote: The Big One and the partisans:Partisans should not be allowed in the government. I think the revolutions of the past should teach this to all: politicians are easily corruptible, particularly those in power. I really don't believe in a federal government, but I feel that in countries as big as there are in the world, it is probably the only way to control the needs of the population. Government during and after the revolution will be through soviets. Councils of workers. These councils will elect representatives to go to higher level soviets, so the factory soviets would elect reps to the local soviets, and they would elect reps to the state soviet and they would elect reps to the all-[whatever country] soviet. These representatives can be recalled and replaced at any time, and owuld recieve no more money than an average worker. That, and the fact that they entire working class will be armed will be a good start in heading off corruption. Quote: Gun control:Well... I'm not going to say guns are absolutely unnecessary and should be outlawed. I am going to say this: murder rates in countries with stringent gun control are lower than countries with lax gun control, apparently. In comparison with the U.S., Europe and Japan, who have air-tight gun bans, have a 500% smaller rate of murders and violent crimes involving a firearm. However, notice that Europe and Japan have a significantly smaller population than the U.S., which I think would be a factor in the number of murders. And with no weapons, how is the working class meant to defend itself from the capitalist state? When workers are on strike and the cops threaten then, if the workers have guns, the cops are less likely to be belligerent. Quote: Nuclear weapons:Global disarmament. Nothing more need be said. And how are countries going to defend themselves against the Imperialist nations (US, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the last two being suck and really local imperialists, but still...) Quote: Tibetan Genocides: I find it absolutely horrendous that the Chinese government is allowing this to continue, and I would be even more shocked if they are actually encouraging it. I spit at the feet of the Buddhist oppressors. Wait... What exactly are you saying? Quote: Class struggle:I find this whole "my money, my things" mentality of America really ridiculous. What is the true measure of a man: the greatness of his contributions, his kindness, his devotion, his help to society... or the make, model, and price of his car, of his house, of his shoes? I see these girls on the street and I feel disgust. Buying a thousand pairs of shoes and texting on a $500 phone. My own parents criticize me for not being materialistic, because I don't want a Ferrari when I grow up. The capitalists need only be reformed and they will accept Socialist ideals. Greed is disgusting. um... Yeah... Ok. Not the question, but ok? For the record, I am all for women getting buy however they can. If that means being a 'gold digger' then go for it. Okay, so on the whole UN thing, first of all... the UN is pretty much powerless at this point. In general, a revolution needn't worry about the UN. It would, however, have to fear the imperialist powers of the world, so expect any organized bodies with economic power to try to stamp it out. Any country aside from the US that would have a revolution would have to worry about US invasion. Otherwise, maybe the EU? G-8? Etc. And I'd see a more Sun-Tsu approach anyway, in not seeking victory until the battle has already been won. Spread influence first, and gain social acceptance of your movement. If you have enough people behind you, you could have strikes shutting down important sectors, and cut off bourgeois power at it's roots. But you have to have a transition, things don't just happen overnight. Again, the key is to have an educated and class-conscious populace, and that will take time. Internationally, most of the world isn't on the same economic level as the West, and most people of the world don't gain any real benefit for their labors. Nukes... disarmament in general is probably unrealistic. It's 1940s technology. We could all disarm right now, and that wouldn't stop anyone from building more nukes. It would merely shift the dynamic from governments to NGOs. And I don't feel like typing anything else, because I'm tired. Once I'm semi-coherent again, maybe I'll write more. What about the police and the military? All the state needs are those two things. So even if the workers went on strike in certain areas of industry it wouldn't make a diffrence because in the end they would just get shot... Which is why violence is in fact necessary Even the police and military are paid employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:06 pm
Lady Merewyn Even the police and military are paid employees. Cops make a lot of money, so do members of the military. I highly doubt they would fall for such ideas. maybe the military but not the police
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
