Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have seen in a few of the threads over the past month the topic of if reformism is effective and if proletarian revolution is necessary for the emergence of a communist state, also if violence is essential or inevitable in a proletarian uprising or if civil disobedience is an option.

Give yours opinions please.

Violence is counter productive- This system is like a turtle. If we attack it's fleshy spots, being the bourgeoisie, it will curl up behind it's shell of the workers- It will call us mindless terrorists and turn our goal into nothing but mindless destruction of freedom. Essentially, what the media spun 9/11 into.

So, if the shell is the working class the rich hides behind, how do we kill this turtle? We turn it's strength into weakness- We flip it on it's shell and make it defenseless- Metaphorically speaking, of course. We get the workers to realize that they want equality over oppression, and then the bourgeoisie have no control, and no power- Not a drop of blood spilled.

The system is able to make any act of communism appear extremist and terrorist-worthy. We are dealing with, now that I know what the term means, a fascist society, where nationalism is paramount, so any direct attack against it's ideal is an attack against every American.

You and I know this is not the case, but thats the way the Media and the Capitalist masses will spin it so the indifferent worker class will nod their heads and obey, such as they have their entire lives.

In this time, I feel revolution is impossible without a violent uprooting of the government in play. I am no fan of war, or death, but without them, sometimes things cannot be made anew. I sense a strong urge for change in our country, but few have the will or the means, if you gave them the will "communism" and the means "steeled hearts willing to die for the greater good" then maybe it could be done. I am one such fellow who would die for change to better humanity, however, I would much rather live and enjoy the things I fought for ^-^

[1] How very political of you.
[2] And that's all you do. You do not think about how to secure the conquests of the overturn. To use your shoddy analogy, you only think about removing the support structure, and do not think about how to prevent them building it anew. Your characterisation of me, in that analogy, is way off the mark, however.
[3] I know what the bourgeoisie do. Moreover, I know what the bourgeoisie do in those situations. You, however, do not. You seem to think it is some happy fantasy land where thay will say 'damn! Well, they have power now, so let's give up the game...'
[4] Yes, we do.
[5] Shocking isn't it!
[6] How did you guess?
[7] What? Stop stalking me, creep!
[8] Except for guns, and knives and tanks and nukes and warships and nerve gas and...
[9] Well, you're gonna have to point me to previous posts, because I cannot see where you are coming from.

The ones where you deny the role of reactionary violence?

No. You have proved nothing, you have shown no theoretical proof of your position, and you can point to no event in history that can serve as a practical example.

Marx' evaluation that the bourgeoisie will not hand over power willingly stands as true today as it ever has. The only difference is that nowadays the bourgeoisie just as much control the proletariat's mindset towards change as it does hold them hostage. There will, I believe, come a day when it becomes obvious that beneath their domination of the media lies a willingness to betray the ideas of civility that mankind has attempted for thousands of years to embrace, and it will become common knowledge that the capitalist class has no allegiances to mankind's progress, but only to it's own easygoing lifestyle. When this occurs, the military will fracture and break, and it will be a very, very bloody time. However, when an entire society is against it's King, that King will fall, undoubtedly.

The problem lies in this occuring in a single state (as is perhaps most likely), in which case I believe the media can only make those outside believe lies for so long a time before truth becomes clear. It's been a belief of mine that a socialist economy must end up at some point out competing capitalism, whether at it's very beginning and flowering, or when there is only a scant few capitalist spheres left. Either way, the more efficient, progressive and (getting dangerously idealistic here) just system will claim victory. Socialism will outcompete capitalism economically just as Italian trade republics were obviously superior to vast feudal kingdoms. The new economic system always reigns supreme at some point.

I do hope the war with the capitalists ends up like Command and Conquer: Generals.

Please tell me I'm not the only one scared by our complete agreement on this issue? Ah well, it just means that we will find something to disagree on in about 30 seconds.

@Briggs: It is only idealism if you claim that it will be victorious because of how just it is, rather than it being victorious and just. But even so, it isn't idealist as long as you approach it the right way.

@Seraph: And how did King's protests work well, other than by gathering up the dispair of the black petty bourgeoisie, and their fear of the ghetto masses?

And what buddhist protests are you talking about? Do you mean the ones in Tibet, where the mokns go around inciting anti-chinese Pogroms? Wait, that's not peaceful. Then did you mean the ones where they set themselves on fire?

King did not fight with violence, he fought with logic, words and peaceful disobedience. There was, however, fanfare and a face, which let the enemy have a target and self-justification. There is no need to keep the peace if there IS peace.