How many of you actually believe that violent revolution is

How many of you actually believe that violent revolution is
a) realistic
b) preferable?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis
youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLip7Q_Y0s
youtube.com/watch?v=-1j0XDGIsUg

A. Yes
B. They're not going to give it to us willfully.

b) No
b) Don't see why

a) What time frame?
b) What situation?

c) inevitable

You misread it buddy

Is realistic but it isn' preferable

Yes
No. It is inevitable.

A) Yes.
B) No, but it's more realistic. Porky isn't going to take it laying down.

Every political act is one of violence, numb nuts.

Maybe but not in the first world.
No, just prep for the collapse and organize post-capitalist society after.

Revolution IS possible. Reformists fuck off.

a) I bloody well hope not.
b) No.

Revolutions tend to put reactionaries in power: regardless of if they claim to be or to represent the interests of "workers" or not. Without an acceptable cultural shift to match, things will just end up even worse than they presently are, as tends to happen with most "not real socialism" regimes. The only viable solution is small, community based approaches that build up confederal, grassroots organisations to supersede the state.

it's called a revolution because when you see some porkies you do one revolution and walk away

Now make the bus a recreation of the RMS Titanic but with five times the capacity. :^)

LOL and also first you would need an actual organization with which to declare a civil war and a cause to piss people off with

This guy gets it.

Things are swinging our way atm; any attempt at insurrection will just pull the LEO and Military over to us and you'll probably end up in a work camp for recalcitrant commies.

I agree with this comrade.
Revolution might be cathartic as far as sending capitalists up against the wall, but more often than not it just clears the way for reactionaries and power hungry opportunists to take over, since the chaotic nature of violence favors the most ruthless among them.

It's probably inevitable at some point. I just don't see how we can possibly do a 180 and reverse all the damage capitalism has done before global warming destroys us all without a violent upheaval. Not to mention the instability of capitalism's dying breath being further exacerbated by sea level rise.

Yes.
Yes.

...

A) maybe
B) nope
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis

...

Has a very slow transition into Socialism ever been attempted? For example, the people elect a socialist government, from there they encourage the creation of co-ops and other socialist structures, while using the boiling frog strategy on porky, and slowly phasing our private property?

Very rapid changes or a violent revolution will lead to individuals who are unhappy with the situation and economic instability, which is the last thing a country going through major socioeconomic reform needs.

C'mon, you mixed race agender fagosexual, even you have to admit every commie empire that ever existed destroyed the environment.

Yep, nazi is retarded

it sucks they often did. But I believe in a democracy responsible to the will of the people, and would advocate that the people care about environmental protection, just as most leftists advocate it in current capitalist democracies

Actually, due to the scarcity of resources in Soviet Russia and other "gommunist :-DDDD" states due to other failings, they generally build products to last, which is inherently environmentally friendly. Whereas the entire goal of a capitalist society is unlimited, unsustainable growth, which largely relies on planned obsolescence and consumer culture that makes products that could be used for long periods of time disposable.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLip7Q_Y0s

Ach that video doesn't have subtitles, you can find ones with them in the related videos if you can be bothered watching it.

I'd agree if most leftists as you put it, didn't want us to revert to some sort of primitivist, eco-commie hunter/gatherer society by cutting of all petroleum use. They are fanatics and they will not accept a middle ground, so here we are with no compromise and perpetual stasis.


Everything built back then was made to last, warsaw pact or no. The west didn't become embroiled in hyper consumerism until the 70's-80's. It steamrolled from there and I'll agree it's a retarded way of doing business.

It's cool, I found it.

youtube.com/watch?v=-1j0XDGIsUg

1 there are no peaceful revolutions.

┬┐is it preferable?

no but there is no other way around it.

Who invited this retard?

But he's right on that one. The consumism culture only started in the late 70's and 80's.
Back in the the 60's most people in US actually saved money.

Yes and yes

It won't last. Trump was put in the whitehouse on a wave of working class discontent with the establishment, but he's already selling out to them and he hasn't even taken office yet. They will turn on him by 2020. The only way he can win again is if the Democrats screw up royally and fail to appeal to the working class on an economic basis. They would basically have to be retarded to lose the next election.

a) Of course it's realistic. The fact that the food stamp program is being attacked in the US should give some indication of how stupid the ruling elite are. Weather it is inevitable or not depends on how effective the internal intelligence apparatus is at neutralizing reformist dissent. It doesn't look good judging by how effectively the occupy movement was subverted and neutralized.
b)A violent revolution would be a disaster. Due to the pragmatism of authoritarian power structures: violent revolution almost always leads to some form of authoritarian government. A violent revolution leads to a power vacuum where the biggest meanest dickhead comes out on top. Marat, Napoleon, Cromwell, Lenin and Franco come to mind. If a revolution occurred in the US it would lead to some form of fascism.

This is at least 25 years off in the US. But who knows. If some Libertarian faction of the Republican party managed to kill the food stamp program; the shit would hit the fan in a matter of days.

LOL

Environmental destruction is a human problem. You all think you're above nature, and therefore you try to ruin it for everyone else + the Earth.

The Aral sea was drained to water farmland.

Nature doesn't exist. Or, more properly, everything is nature. The Nature that exists separately from the world of humanity and lords over us as a sort of secular god doesn't exist.

I thought it is already established that Aral Sea simply returned to it's natural state.

Ruins of old settlements located on the depth of ~15-20 meters below the level of water in 1960s - or something along those lines - had been found.

Availalbe resources != Utilised resources

The USSR was literally, by Lenin's own words, a state capitalist society meant to bring about communism later.

The capitalist us is even worse. You just don't notice because all the stolen water comes from rapidly draining underground aquifers

Enjoy your coca-cola faggot

Lenin was talking about NEP, not USSR.

a) Not currently in the US, there is no revolutionary potential. It will/has been more realistic in the third world, but it's the US or some other first world power that intervenes and render that weakness null, so I feel like some kind of revolution in the US has to happen for there to be an opportunity elsewhere.
b) A state of violence is not preferable to a state of peace, I don't like violence and I think the glorification of it among the radical left is a huge issue, as it will inevitably lead to unnecessary massacre. but the capitalist world is already in a perpetual state of violence, it is contingent on violence, and that will never change. violent revolution is the only way.

Your only issue is that WE are leading the class struggle atm. The orthodox left spent too much time appealing to teenagers that will probably change their mind in 6 months than to the actual working class.

That is correct. The capitalists do lead class struggle.

a) realistic
Yes.
b) preferable?
No.

Peaceful means should be applied while preparing violent ones in the process to
a) fight back illegal reactionary violence
b) strike the final blow against the bourgeoise in the process
Take Venezuela, they went a peaceful path till now. They're at the turning point to which they should have prepared to now violently defend the revolution and finish off the illegally operating reaction.
They didn't prepare, they're not fighting.

To call for the overthrow of the existing order
May seem a terrible thing
But what exists is no order.
''To seek refuge in violence
May seem evil.
But what is constantly at work is violence
And there is nothing special about it.''
Communism is not the extreme outlier
That only in a small part can be realized,
and until it is not completely realized,
The situation is unbearable
Even for someone who is insensitive.
Communism is really the most minimal demand
What is nearest, reasonable, the middle term.
Whoever is opposed to it is not someone who thinks otherwise
It is someone who does not think or who thinks only about himself
It is an enemy of the human species who,
Terrible
Evil
Insensitive
And, in particular,
Wanting the most extreme, realized even in the tiniest part,
Plunges all humankind into destruction.

Absolutely correct, you're doing a damn good job of keeping the status quo, class struggle wise

We can build communism peacefully, but then the capitalists would just start a war with us because we pose an existential threat to their way of life. We could sit and wait, and then they will kill through neglect and policing for "stealing" the resources they "own" when we try to survive outside their system. Or we can have revolution.

These are literally the only options.

a) no
b) yes