Proletarian Revolution

[CornixPes II]

Dear NSG,

Today I was walking through London and I saw some posters; the infamous picture of Karl Marx and his crazy beard caught my eye. I stopped and looked, expecting it to be nothing more than an extreme socialist pressure group going on another tyrade against capitalism by protesting at their local library. I was right, it was a protest against capitalism, but this group was different. They appear to have done away with the political dialectics and were actually trying to advocate and promote a proletarian revolution.

My response was laughter, but not because I am politically adverse to the Marxist viewpoint. Do people actually think that a social revolution can work? Why do they stand up and promote this ridiculousness? Now, I am what I think is generally viewed as centrist, and I have what I believe to be a realistic understanding of the world. In this understanding, I can NEVER see the complex infrastructure and behavioural programming of a capitalist society suddenly breaking down and becoming all about the 'collective ownership'. How can they not see that a proletarian revolution will cost many of the lives they seek to empower?

Help me understand this NSG.

[Hydesland]

Sometimes romanticism dominates over logic.

[Natapoc]

Dear NSG,

Today I was walking through London and I saw some posters; the infamous picture of Karl Marx and his crazy beard caught my eye. I stopped and looked, expecting it to be nothing more than an extreme socialist pressure group going on another tyrade against capitalism by protesting at their local library. I was right, it was a protest against capitalism, but this group was different. They appear to have done away with the political dialectics and were actually trying to advocate and promote a proletarian revolution.

My response was laughter, but not because I am politically adverse to the Marxist viewpoint. Do people actually think that a social revolution can work? Why do they stand up and promote this ridiculousness? Now, I am what I think is generally viewed as centrist, and I have what I believe to be a realistic understanding of the world. In this understanding, I can NEVER see the complex infrastructure and behavioural programming of a capitalist society suddenly breaking down and becoming all about the 'collective ownership'. How can they not see that a proletarian revolution will cost many of the lives they seek to empower?

Help me understand this NSG.

What library was this at? I've never heard of protesting against capitalism at a library. Sounds pretty cool

As for your question: I don't know if it will work or not. I'm in favor of using every method that does not violate our ethics to bring down capitalism and the state. Protest is part of public education so it could help.

What do you think is the best way?

[Yootopia]

Libraries - the natural home of every proletarian revolution...

[CornixPes II]

Dear NSG,

Today I was walking through London and I saw some posters; the infamous picture of Karl Marx and his crazy beard caught my eye. I stopped and looked, expecting it to be nothing more than an extreme socialist pressure group going on another tyrade against capitalism by protesting at their local library. I was right, it was a protest against capitalism, but this group was different. They appear to have done away with the political dialectics and were actually trying to advocate and promote a proletarian revolution.

My response was laughter, but not because I am politically adverse to the Marxist viewpoint. Do people actually think that a social revolution can work? Why do they stand up and promote this ridiculousness? Now, I am what I think is generally viewed as centrist, and I have what I believe to be a realistic understanding of the world. In this understanding, I can NEVER see the complex infrastructure and behavioural programming of a capitalist society suddenly breaking down and becoming all about the 'collective ownership'. How can they not see that a proletarian revolution will cost many of the lives they seek to empower?

Help me understand this NSG.

What library was this at? I've never heard of protesting against capitalism at a library. Sounds pretty cool

As for your question: I don't know if it will work or not. I'm in favor of using every method that does not violate our ethics to bring down capitalism and the state. Protest is part of public education so it could help.

What do you think is the best way?

Willesden Green, NW.

I loosely agree with you, but at the same time I take a macro-view and disagree. My point is that capitalism is so entrenched into our cultural, psychological, political and economic values that we just could not adapt. I can see how it works the other way around, take the Soviet Union or China for example, but I just can't see the ordinary man in the street accepting collective ownership without a fight.

[Antilon]

Personally, I don't subscribe to any revolution unless it means passive (peaceful) change; as young as I am, I have no illusions about seizing power through coups or uprisings. I'm perfectly willing to sit and wait for the rest of the world to accept communism.

[Greed and Death]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

[A Rightist Puppet]

A "proletarian" revolution has been tried, so I don't really understand what all this conjecture is about.

"The three fundamentally leftist revolutions, those that spawned France's democracy, Russia's international socialism, and Germany's national socialism, formed and fashioned the history of the last two hundred years and established the 'Centuries of the G' — guillotines, gaols, gallows, gas chambers, and gulags."

To quote a famous Austrian anti-communist who is not Ludwig von Mises.

As it stands, I'd really not want another one. They were tried, they failed, so can we just get back to yielding to the superiority of doing what we want, when we want?

[Natapoc]

Personally, I don't subscribe to any revolution unless it means passive (peaceful) change; as young as I am, I have no illusions about seizing power through coups or uprisings. I'm perfectly willing to sit and wait for the rest of the world to accept communism.

I agree Antilon, the best revolutions are peaceful. After thinking about it more I feel the best way to achieve communism is not by philosophizing or protesting or violent overthrow of governments but instead by meeting the needs of the people.

We must demonstrate that we have methods that work better than capitalism at fulfilling the needs of the people. Unemployment is at an all time high. What are we doing about it?

[CornixPes II]

Personally, I don't subscribe to any revolution unless it means passive (peaceful) change; as young as I am, I have no illusions about seizing power through coups or uprisings. I'm perfectly willing to sit and wait for the rest of the world to accept communism.

Do you think this will actually happen? Many, many communists appear to distrust the world's ability to shift into an era of their ideology.

[CornixPes II]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

[Greed and Death]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

They would rise up if the conditions actually became that bad.
In the US that critical mass was around late 19th century.
After that conditions improved so why revolt?

[Natapoc]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

You can't force egalitarianism any more than you can force love.

[Thuristian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lEko6kMfng

Essentially shows my views on the whole 'revolution' thing.

[Greed and Death]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

You can't force egalitarianism any more than you can force love.

According to Lenin and Stalin yes you can.

[Natapoc]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

You can't force egalitarianism any more than you can force love.

According to Lenin and Stalin yes you can.

I think history demonstrated what corrupted communism turned into state capitalism becomes. Simply replacing one brutal over class with another.

Millions of dead honorable people while the leaders play musical chairs.

[CornixPes II]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

They would rise up if the conditions actually became that bad.
In the US that critical mass was around late 19th century.
After that conditions improved so why revolt?

You used the word 'revolt'. I am agreeing with you insofar that the proletarian does have a window of opportunity when the conditions reach critical mass, but they still cannot readily accept the new Marxist ideology without striking out together and defeating those that are in power (in this case, the fat cats at the top of the high rises). What I am saying is, this ideology is only achievable through revolution, which will mean many casulties in the ranks of those that Marxists seek to protect.

[Cor-Dem]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

Not really, if it will happen, it will happen as a result of changes in the social structure. Much in the way of how contraceptives changed American society, technological developments or a gradual growing mistrust of large-scale capitalism would pave the way for a grass-roots desire for communism.

Basically it would require people to shift from a "me-first" desire to a "How can I help society" desire, which would allow for economic innovation without the need for capitalism.

[Antilon]

Personally, I don't subscribe to any revolution unless it means passive (peaceful) change; as young as I am, I have no illusions about seizing power through coups or uprisings. I'm perfectly willing to sit and wait for the rest of the world to accept communism.

Do you think this will actually happen? Many, many communists appear to distrust the world's ability to shift into an era of their ideology.

Definitely not in my lifetime, but it's better than forcing people to accept communism "for their own good". I just hope that I can set an example for future generations follow after I have long passed away.

[CornixPes II]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

Not really, if it will happen, it will happen as a result of changes in the social structure. Much in the way of how contraceptives changed American society, technological developments or a gradual growing mistrust of large-scale capitalism would pave the way for a grass-roots desire for communism.

Basically it would require people to shift from a "me-first" desire to a "How can I help society" desire, which would allow for economic innovation without the need for capitalism.

The root of my argument is that you can't change a social structure without some kind of aggression. I find the assumption that the entire proletarian population can suddenly shift their perspective completely unrealistic. Not everybody is going to have the same view. There must, inevitably, be an aggressive revolution and it must fail. The capital infrastructure is too deep-rooted and powerful. This is not me talking from a personal love of capitalism, I am just being objective and realistic.

[Natapoc]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

They would rise up if the conditions actually became that bad.
In the US that critical mass was around late 19th century.
After that conditions improved so why revolt?

You used the word 'revolt'. I am agreeing with you insofar that the proletarian does have a window of opportunity when the conditions reach critical mass, but they still cannot readily accept the new Marxist ideology without striking out together and defeating those that are in power (in this case, the fat cats at the top of the high rises). What I am saying is, this ideology is only achievable through revolution, which will mean many casulties in the ranks of those that Marxists seek to protect.

Some of what you describe may be necessary but the so called "fat cats" at the "top" will be starved out. They are only there as long as the workers keep shipping them the massive resources that permit their lifestyles. They are nothing without the people and they know that.

The state and the corporation have no power that we do not give to them. Simply withdraw that consent on a large scale and the state and the corporation crumble.

[Korintar]

Personally, I don't subscribe to any revolution unless it means passive (peaceful) change; as young as I am, I have no illusions about seizing power through coups or uprisings. I'm perfectly willing to sit and wait for the rest of the world to accept communism.

I agree Antilon, the best revolutions are peaceful. After thinking about it more I feel the best way to achieve communism is not by philosophizing or protesting or violent overthrow of governments but instead by meeting the needs of the people.

We must demonstrate that we have methods that work better than capitalism at fulfilling the needs of the people. Unemployment is at an all time high. What are we doing about it?

Natapoc, I would say the best way to achieve revolution is through a paradigm shift, a fundamental shift in thought. In fact I prefer that term over revolution as revolution seems to suggest a very bloody, violent struggle that need not happen if done correctly. (It could be bloody, but it would be the reactionaries, NOT the revolutionaries, that would have blood on their hands, btw.)

The best way to achieve this, I think, is proof of concept. Go out and build the type of society you desire by getting some like minded friends and establish a community with the institutions you desire. Tout its benefits, get positive publicity, and have your community do socially beneficial work for other communities, all while extolling the virtues of the society you are trying to create.

People will get interested, some may even join, and some may be haters and constantly heckle and harass. Thing is that you should not let them get to you. Those that want to see such a community fail might try to undermine it, but do not let them. Instead debate them and try to figure out how they think and rework their logic until you can actually convince them that such a society can, indeed work.

Thus, do I think that revolution is possible? Yes, but it takes a long time and a lot of hard work.

[A Rightist Puppet]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

Not really, if it will happen, it will happen as a result of changes in the social structure. Much in the way of how contraceptives changed American society, technological developments or a gradual growing mistrust of large-scale capitalism would pave the way for a grass-roots desire for communism.

Basically it would require people to shift from a "me-first" desire to a "How can I help society" desire, which would allow for economic innovation without the need for capitalism.

That would require, almost literally, a genetic defect on a viral scale.

A "genetic" defect?

You have three cavemen. One protects his wife to get laid, another runs around fornicating and a third resists the temptation so that he can "help society."

Guess whose genes passed on?

[CornixPes II]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

They would rise up if the conditions actually became that bad.
In the US that critical mass was around late 19th century.
After that conditions improved so why revolt?

You used the word 'revolt'. I am agreeing with you insofar that the proletarian does have a window of opportunity when the conditions reach critical mass, but they still cannot readily accept the new Marxist ideology without striking out together and defeating those that are in power (in this case, the fat cats at the top of the high rises). What I am saying is, this ideology is only achievable through revolution, which will mean many casulties in the ranks of those that Marxists seek to protect.

Some of what you describe may be necessary but the so called "fat cats" at the "top" will be starved out. They are only there as long as the workers keep shipping them the massive resources that permit their lifestyles. They are nothing without the people and they know that.

The state and the corporation have no power that we do not give to them. Simply withdraw that consent on a large scale and the state and the corporation crumble.

I find this a somewhat simplistic view. The corporations and the government have capital. And yes, the very idea of capital will be stamped out, but a revolution is not achievable without it. In the long process which must take place to instate a form of communism capital will still be useful and if the fat-cats work fast enough, which they will, they will be able to secure land and assets which they can assert their dominance with. Capital is a much more essential lifeforce now than it was 60 years ago.

[Natapoc]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

They would rise up if the conditions actually became that bad.
In the US that critical mass was around late 19th century.
After that conditions improved so why revolt?

You used the word 'revolt'. I am agreeing with you insofar that the proletarian does have a window of opportunity when the conditions reach critical mass, but they still cannot readily accept the new Marxist ideology without striking out together and defeating those that are in power (in this case, the fat cats at the top of the high rises). What I am saying is, this ideology is only achievable through revolution, which will mean many casulties in the ranks of those that Marxists seek to protect.

Some of what you describe may be necessary but the so called "fat cats" at the "top" will be starved out. They are only there as long as the workers keep shipping them the massive resources that permit their lifestyles. They are nothing without the people and they know that.

The state and the corporation have no power that we do not give to them. Simply withdraw that consent on a large scale and the state and the corporation crumble.

I find this a somewhat simplistic view. The corporations and the government have capital. And yes, the very idea of capital will be stamped out, but a revolution is not achievable without it. In the long process which must take place to instate a form of communism capital will still be useful and if the fat-cats work fast enough, which they will, they will be able to secure land and assets which they can assert their dominance with. Capital is a much more essential lifeforce now than it was 60 years ago.

What is this capital you speak of? Is it something you can eat to ease the hunger pains? Can I lay my head on capital as a pillow to go to sleep at night?

If the means of production are seized by the people, the capitalists have nothing.