Is revolution necessary?

Yes but no. What is true. At the same time to bring a revolution i think if allende had an armed group backing him up he would have been succesful. Basically you can only if you are alligned with an armed group

I would probably come to the same conclusion myself.. the organisation might have to be underground, which is difficult in western countries at least. Or, the state could have to act quickly upon it's election to form such a group?

Didn't he?

Allende is the only good DemSoc that has ever existed, Eugene Debs doesn't count.
Venezuela failed and won't be socialist with the current government

smh fam

Debs is the greatest murican ever but he never won, America would probably be a good country if he did but history isn't in our side

He disarmed the populace which left him with limited options.

You need a group before that and the main problem is
The solution in my mind would be a "terrorist organization" a là RAF and but more efficent and more guided and precise more than a milita. Obviously after the election the state should act more than fast to form such group

Pretty retarded move then

Just create a Cybersyn-like system now and implement it through what I advocated in archive.is/jODHJ (archived thread). It's a framework beyond the state which incorporates my original ideas from when I created the Soviet Cybernetics thread. Stop fetishizing old modes of thought centered around seizing state power. They won't work, especially not now. Think globally, act locally.

It isn't. Learn with the IRA.

but that defeats the purpose of trying to win in a bourgeois democracy, you taint yourself with terrorism then you dont win

The IRA was a historic group that had been reformed several times. I can't think of any equivalents.

*blocks your path*
though he did renounce reformism after being overthrown by imperialists*

You don't need to share their name, IRA bluprint is the right solution IMHO

Sorry what parts of that am i meant to be reading? new to image boards etc

Alright , I'll bite.
Because said socialist government exists in a world of capitalist hegemony.A world where capitalists dictate the use of any and all resources.
A world in which said capitalists would rather erase most of humanity and turn most of the earth into a nuclear hellscape than allow a semblance of actual socialism or god forbid, communism among their subjects.

The pretense of freedom ,that you expect to permit this development, exists only insofar you don't actually use said freedom.

It's still a good bullets/ballots, underground/legal model, you don't have to do literally everything they did

Scroll down to the posts with the ancom flag.

Okay fair enough fair enough. I do agree with you

Right, thanks

it might be different if you tried it in a core country in the Capital empire like the USA though

do you think that capitalists might attack and destroy a western nation if it went socialist though?

they haven't attacked Rojava yet for some reason.
I think the people up top are beginning to realize the whole system is shitty and are investing in economic security for once in their lives.

meant for

OH no,
(◡ ‿ ◡ ✿) capitalists would never routinely enforce their interests with violence (◡ ‿ ◡ ✿)

they're not attacking it because it's mostly under their control i think, rojava cant survive without western support, assad and the russians will destroy it. therefore, rojava's only hope is the west unfortunately. and rojava is doing the job the FSA was meant to do - at least weakening assad and funnily enough controls most of the countries oil supplies, great for america..

I'm not questioning their ability or possibility of using violence overall, but I question whether or not they'd use it to it's fullest in a western nation

Id assume they would go for all manners of underhanded overthrow first, then market and media based warfare before sending the troops proper.But all that is pointless.

If socialism has to depend on scuttling around the stompy boot of capitalism, then I wouldnt trust any system that survives that method for long.

I really do understand your scepticism, I just wanted to understand people's opinions of it and it does seem relatively positive from those who have replied (To my surprise)

I just see it as worth a shot, and if things don't look good then we just fall back on revolutionary tactics.

Isn't that cute you actually think the state is a democracy. Anyone that tried to bring radical reforms would have the army and spooks to worry about.

You need a revolutionary army to force the bourgeois state to route as violence is the only language they understand. The only way you will get the Pentagon respect a workers revolution is if tanks with red flags have them surrounded & shelling them.

It is possible. After all, even if you make revolution, you can't change mode of production in one week, but work for a while with already working state infrastructure. If we ignore foreign intervention, the problem is that you need to be able to change constitution which requires you to control wast majority of the parliament. Most safe bet is doing it as Hitler did, get into power, improve conditions to the boundaries of constitution and then coup parliament by force, so you can install your own constitution, I believe that multi-party ML republic would be best bet for coexistence with capitalist countries. Or you directly establish dictatorship people's democracy and give whole western world casus beli to kill you openly.

Why would they?

Chavez did exactly that. Chavez called for a Constituent Assembly, following all of the laws that were in place. You should read a bit about what went on in Venezuela in 1998-2000.

Maduro just said "fuck you the Supreme Court is ours, you're getting a Constituent Assembly whether you like it or not" and asked the Supreme Court to do something so he can ignore the fact that the constitution requires him to invoke a constitutional referendum, something that Chavez did in 1999.

Based nkrumah

fuck off gusano, fuck your constitution

Revolution isn't necessary so much as inevitable. If you try to be peaceful, Porky will take the first shot.

That said, Maduro will probably just be another tinpot pseudo-presidente and have zero to do with socialism, or at most nothing more than Chavez already had.

Of course revolution is necessary. Has change ever been accomplished any other way?

If you get the opportunity to make your own rules, you should try to follow them.

This wont work sadly. History has shown than when you try tonuse the institutions of a bourgeois state, you will just end up with a bourgeois state. The whole damn thing needs to be dismantled, and a proletarian stateb built from the ashes.

can you recommend any books? want to avoid bourgeois point of view if possible.

This is wrong, read article 348 in the current constitution, the president can do it, the national assembly can do also. Chavez invoked the referendum because the constitution before the one in 1999 because the one in 1961 didn't even considered the option of an Constitutional Assembly

No it can't. A slave master will not give up his slaves and property just because you ask nicely. All important decisions that have ever been made in history have been made through bloodshed.

The president can only take an initiative (in other words, a referendum), not just say "hey CNE go make people vote for a constitutional assembly".

There are four ways to make it happen.
The President
The National Assembly
Open Town Councils (Municipal Councils)
The people by collecting the 15% of th electorate.

It says initiative but nowhere it mentions a referendum.

If the people can do it too by collecting the 15% of the electorate. Then that action activates a referendum or the Constitutional Assembly right away?

If it activates a constitutional refererendum, then why in the case to activate the recall referendum, the people collect the 20% of the elctorate and goes to the referendum directly instead of passing first through a referendum that asks the people if the would like a recall referendum. I believe it has to have the same interpretation.

I hope I explained myself. English is not my native language.