Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

When will "The Revolution" happen?

When will "The Revolution" happen?


  • Total voters
    75
SpookyFrank said:
Hopefully never, as I am an anarchist so I'll probably be shot by the socialists after fighting side by side with them in the streets for a common cause :(

If you are still talking rubbish then (as in the meaningless comment above) you may have to be shot, for your own good, regardless of your political illusions :p
 
free spirit said:
A bit of friendly banter ended with the G8 alternatives bods actually using the 'come the revolution your lot would be first against the wall' line, and I believe they were serious

Ahh, that exposes all these deluded revolutionaries dosen't it!

What a load of bollocks...

If this is the level of understanding you are more likely to get shot holding your guns the wrong way around
 
Personally I don't think we should even joke about this sort of thing becuase
1) There is still a powerful propaganda machine which likes to pretend socialist revolutionaries are blood thirsty etc.
2) There are plenty of examples of so-called revolutionaries- Stalinists, the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran, many others- who have precisely shot political opponents.

A working class democratic revolution would be based on mass action, peaceful protest with direct action, strikes and elections to workers' assemblies. Of course if- when- the power of the bourgeois is challenged like this THEY will launch violent rfepression and for this reason an insurrection will be necessary on a strictly defensive basis- appealing to soldiers to refuse to follow illegal orders, refuse to repress the democratic government of the workers, for workers to arm ourselves in defence against fascist attack and right-wing coup.

That is the only violence that can be defended in a workers' revolution- defence against attack.
 
chilango said:
When do you think "The Revolution" will happen (if at all) ?
When did the last ones happen? At the end of a world war.

So, I tend to think the next ones will arise in circumstances when the sort of equilibrium that capitalism manages to rub along with becomes impossible. Which means, at the level of politics and economics, war and/or recession.

The mass of people will not be open to the idea of revolution until the existing political ideas really do not make sense any more. IE, when changing society radically really does seem like it makes the most sense
 
So we are talking Marxist revolution?

Read HG Wells' 'The New World Order', Chapter 4 Class War. Wells does of good job in exposing Marx for the ridiculous, mentally stunted hate-monger he was.

'The fact remains that history produces no reason for supposing that the Have-nots, considered as a whole, have available any reserves of directive and administrative capacity and disinterested devotion, superior to that of the more successful classes. Morally, intellectually, there is no reason to suppose them better.'

Note - Wells was actually arguing for a world collectivism, but against the flawed ideology of Marxism.

That is not not to say I agree with Wells' essay, but rather that he has some good points to make about Marxism.

To my, admittedly unread mind, socialism is a term that describes a very ancient, British ideal of social justice, orgaised labour etc.

Whereas as Marx, Wells writes:


'... while his sounder-minded contemporaries were studying means and ends he jumped from a very imperfect understanding of the Trades Union movement in Britain to the wildest generalisations about the social process. He invented and antagonised two phantoms. One was the Capitalist System; the other the Worker.

There never has been anything on earth that could be properly called a Capitalist System. What was the matter with his world was manifestly its entire want of system. What the Socialists were feeling their way towards was the discovery and establishment of a world system.'

'...So while other men toiled at this gigantic problem of collectivisation, Marx found his almost childlishy simple recipe. All you had to do was to tell the workers that they were being robbed and enslaved by this wicked "Capitalist System" devised by the "bourgeoisie". They need only "unite"; they had "nothing to lose but their chains". The wicked Capitalist System was to be overthrown, with a certain vindictive liquidation of "capitalists" in general and the "bourgeoisie" in particular, and a millennium would ensue under a purely workers’ control, which Lenin later on was to crystallise into a phrase of supra-theological mystery, "the dictatorship of the proletariat". The proletarians need learn nothing, plan nothing; they were right and good by nature; they would just "take over". The infinitely various envies, hatreds and resentments of the Have-nots were to fuse into a mighty creative drive. All virtue resided in them; all evil in those who had bettered them. One good thing there was in this new doctrine of the class war, it inculcated a much needed brotherliness among the workers, but it was balanced by the organisation of class hate. So the great propaganda of the class war, with these monstrous falsifications of manifest fact, went forth. Collectivisation would not so much be organised as appear magically when the incubus of Capitalism and all those irritatingly well-to-do people, were lifted off the great Proletarian soul.'

..."The weapons" (Weapons! How that sedentary gentleman in his vast beard adored military images!) "with which the bourgeoisie overthrew feudalism are now being turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

"But the bourgeoisie has not only forged the weapons that will slay it; it has also engendered the men who will use these weapons - the modern workers, the proletarians."

And so here they are, hammer and sickle in hand, chest stuck out, proud, magnificent, commanding, in the Manifesto. But go and look for them yourself in the streets. Go and look at them in Russia.

Even for 1848 this is not intelligent social analysis. It is the outpouring of a man with a B in his bonnet, the hated Bourgeoisie, a man with a certain vision, uncritical of his own sub-conscious prejudices, but shrewd enough to realise how great a driving force is hate and the inferiority complex. Shrewd enough to use hate and bitter enough to hate. Let anyone read over that Communist Manifesto and consider who might have shared the hate or even have got it all, if Marx had not been the son of a rabbi. Read Jews for Bourgeoisie and the Manifesto is pure Nazi teaching of the 1933-8 vintage.'
 
EddyBlack approvingly quotes Well's as saying,
"'The fact remains that history produces no reason for supposing that the Have-nots, considered as a whole, have available any reserves of directive and administrative capacity and disinterested devotion, superior to that of the more successful classes. Morally, intellectually, there is no reason to suppose them better."

But there is no great reason to suppose an individual worker is of any less intellectual stature than a member of the bourgeois. However, the bourgeois make up about 0.5% of the population and the workers (including working farmers in non- industrialised countries) the other 99.5%.

We should run our own affairs, educate ourselves and make our own decisions. If we make a mess of things then they are our lives to make a mess of- with democratic checks and balances and full discussion and correction of mistakes there is every reason to belieive that 995 people out of a 1000 will bring more resources to bear than 5 poeple out of every 1000 unless EddyBlack has some compelling reason to elieve that the elite run things so much better and more intelligently
 
Spion said:
When did the last ones happen? At the end of a world war.

So, I tend to think the next ones will arise in circumstances when the sort of equilibrium that capitalism manages to rub along with becomes impossible. Which means, at the level of politics and economics, war and/or recession.

The mass of people will not be open to the idea of revolution until the existing political ideas really do not make sense any more. IE, when changing society radically really does seem like it makes the most sense

Let's sit around an wait for war and/or recession!
 
EddyBlack said:
the ridiculous, mentally stunted hate-monger

HG Wells also said "The path of least resistance is the path of the loser"

If this extremely limited and distorting caricature of an individual is seen by you as providing insight into the ideas that were expressed in marx's writings you are probably a bit of a 'loser' too mate :)

Quite of a fan of eugenics your mate Wells wasn't he?
 
SpookyFrank said:
Hopefully never, as I am an anarchist so I'll probably be shot by the socialists after fighting side by side with them in the streets for a common cause :(

When did this happen?
 
urbanrevolt said:
Personally I don't think we should even joke about this sort of thing

I can see your point and fully agree with the last sentence of your post (of course)

Despite their own obvious personal (and 'persecution'!) fantasies/desire to be equated, i don't think the online 'insights' or offline 'activity' of the majority of 'anarchists' here can be compared to some sort of genuine debate with the ideas of serious, political anarchist activists of the past.
 
EddyBlack said:
So we are talking Marxist revolution?

Read HG Wells' 'The New World Order', Chapter 4 Class War. Wells does of good job in exposing Marx for the ridiculous, mentally stunted hate-monger he was.

From a website that goes on about "Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C."? Get a fucking grip you loon.
 
dennisr said:
HG Wells also said "The path of least resistance is the path of the loser"

If this extremely limited and distorting caricature of an individual is seen by you as providing insight into the ideas that were expressed in marx's writings you are probably a bit of a 'loser' too mate :)

Quite of a fan of eugenics your mate Wells wasn't he?

For what its worth I have read Marx's writing's and a biography of him. But of course Well's can write far more strongly and lucidly than I ever was hence the C&ps to make my points. Basiscally he articulated some of my views on Marx and extended them.

Eugenacist? Yes I believe Well's was possibly a eugenasist, although I am only just beggining to look into his non-fiction writings. As a political writer of his age he was one of the most prominant. I'm not sure how into eugenics he was so I would appreciate any sources in the regard, as I am interested into looking the guy if you know a bit about that. I heard somewhere that Margerat Sanger was his girlfriend, that is about all I know in that regard.

I did qualify my referencing of Wells, I certainly wouldn't say that I share his political outlook other than the views on Marx
 
Blagsta said:
From a website that goes on about "Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C."? Get a fucking grip you loon.

Well thats embarressing. However, that is a book by H.G Wells that I was interested in. I googled it and there it was.

So... he wrote it. I don't particularly give a shit what website it came from.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
The anarchists and socialists weren't too keen on each other in Spain, around 1936/7.

You'll find it was the Stalinists shooting the anarchists (and the socialist POUM).
 
EddyBlack said:
Well thats embarressing. However, that is a book by H.G Wells that I was interested in. I googled it and there it was.

So... he wrote it. I don't particularly give a shit what website it came from.

It makes you look like a conspiraloon.
 
Blagsta said:
When did this happen?

Ironically, he is probably talking about the time when the spanish POUM (semi-trotskyists) stood and fought alongside REAL anarchists in barcelona.

he got it all mixed up and did not realise that the POUM were physically wiped out - murdered in prisons) by the stalinist run secret police working for their bourg fig leafs in the republican government. These revolutionaries - far from 'turning their guns on anarchists' were murdered for standing by their principles alongside other revolutionaries.

easy labels from a pretend 'anarchist' who simply does not have a clue about his own supposed 'anarchist' history.

Or is he going to claim its a reference to the russian anarchists in 1917?
 
EddyBlack said:
I did qualify my referencing of Wells, I certainly wouldn't say that I share his political outlook other than the views on Marx

Which are as uninformed as your own?

Shall i find some reasonable quotes from Hitler and claim they are relevant and informed while 'not sharing with his political outlook'? It would make me look a bit of an idiot wouldn't it?

If you have read Marx as you claim (my, thats quite a lot of reading you have done...) you would see how purile HG Wells abuse is.

Even if you do not like or completely disagree with Marx - to think you can dismiss him with some crude qoutes from another idiot is not that convincing. The 'other side' have been trying to put the goast of marx (ie marxist ideas - not the individual) to bed for quite a few decades now (and plenty have made much better attempts then you and your mate Wells)
 
Belushi said:
And the anarchists trying to cut deals with the fascists.

mmm - that comments smell more than a bit like some warmed up old stalinist propaganda from the period - repeated. Given the proven 'deals' cut by the stalinists themselves with all sorts of scum - they haven't exactly got much of a leg to stand on when pointing at others.

The real failure of many of the anarchist representatives was to do deals with bourg republicans - ending up represented in the same government that sent folk against the revolutionaries of barcelona which was part of the 'war first, social change afterwards' two-stages theory supported by the stalinists.

This government did its best to stop the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class and landowners - the very motive behind the heroic defence of republican, democratic spain by its people. Stalin and his representatives in spain, the anarchist leaders (not all anarchists of course...), the catalan left republican - all of them are guilty to a greater or less extent of that.
 
yield said:
Seems like politics keeps people fighting each other rather than uniting against the rotten system.

yep, lets all hold hands and hum for peace together man. its just all, like, so, like, bad wrong ;)


humans fight each other - politics is also an element of 'the rotten system'. politics is just the cover for that human activity
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I thought it was the communists thought they could work with the fascists.

that was the peoples popular front? - splitters...

I imagine you are refering to the major 'deal' cut by Stalin and the Russian Bureaucracy itself with Fascist Germany. It was vile - but was not really a matter of 'working with' the fascists - more giving themselves breathing space to rebuild their own military forces (the soviet bureaucracy had effectively destroyed the soviet army - 'disappearing' the leaders of the old red army and sending them off to gulags) in the late 20s and the 30s. This was part of the bureaucracies consolidation of power. Part of that was the appalling 'deal' to divide up Poland. But i would not call any of this 'communism' just the soviet bureaucracies power games - nothing at all to do with 'communism' in the sense raised by the likes of Marx

There is some debate as to how many illusions the Stalin leadership actually had in their ability to play with and neutralise the threat of the Nazis - but the whole basis of the Nazis rise to power was in the wake of the defeat of workers movements and in the language of the 'threat of communism' (presented as one wing of the 'Jewish conspiracy') - so he must have been a complete idiot to really think he could play that game forever, if he did
 
dennisr said:
Which are as uninformed as your own?

Shall i find some reasonable quotes from Hitler and claim they are relevant and informed while 'not sharing with his political outlook'? It would make me look a bit of an idiot wouldn't it?

If you have read Marx as you claim (my, thats quite a lot of reading you have done...) you would see how purile HG Wells abuse is.

Even if you do not like or completely disagree with Marx - to think you can dismiss him with some crude qoutes from another idiot is not that convincing. The 'other side' have been trying to put the goast of marx (ie marxist ideas - not the individual) to bed for quite a few decades now (and plenty have made much better attempts then you and your mate Wells)

So how do you know Wells was 'quite the eugenicist' as you say? Was it his connection to Margaret Sanger that led you to this conclusion? Or do you have some quotes from Wells to show this?

Also, just out of interest, do you consider yourself as a Marxist?
 
dennisr said:
that was the peoples popular front? - splitters...

I imagine you are refering to the major 'deal' cut by Stalin and the Russian Bureaucracy itself with Fascist Germany.

No, I'm referring to the Spanish Communists and Francisco Franco.
 
Back
Top Bottom