Why does communism/socialism rely on a revolution to get into power...

Why does communism/socialism rely on a revolution to get into power? Has there been any cases of communism/socialism attaining lots of political power without massive bloodshed?
And dont say the jap commies because they dont have any power

Other urls found in this thread:


The Velvet Revolution.

RIP Dubček
A true comrade

Revolution is a process. What you're thinking of is insurrection. And it seems to be necessary in some form because those with power will not give it up willingly.

Because the ruling class aren't going to hand anything over peacefully.

Communism is holistic; it's not something that can be voted in, it has to go after every aspect of society to ensure it's self-reproduction.

It usually doesn't last long because there's a fascist backlash to Marxists attaining power if they hadn't been "dealt with" so to speak. Chile got Pinochet and Spain got Francisco Franco after Marxists legitimately won democratic elections.

Without violence, how do you prevent capital flight?

Capital won't let us go willingly.

Actually you can look at Haiti too. A left-leaning president won (he wasn't even a Marxist, but was a great labor organizer) and he was outsed by the Duvalier regime in a military coup. The story is always: leftist wins democratically and fairly - fascists just sneak in there and fuck shit up. That's why revolution is the only proper way to achieve a really radical change.

Did that bring socialists to power? I don't think so

maybe we should stop giving our infrastructure the ability to lift off and fly away

I propose we use gorilla glue

Yes, but every time we win elections, Capitalists coup the democratically elected government. Just like in Chile, Russia (1996), Serbia, Catalonia, and others.

Capital is literally numbers on computers now. Are you retarded?

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,
And, in particular,
Wanting the most extreme, realized even in the tiniest part,
Plunges all humankind into destruction.
- Brecht

What's the name of this lovely poem?


And what do you think those numbers represent?

Communism is the Middle Term

Is that someone lookimg at a giant cock on omegle?

The capitalists will not just simply give up its power without a fight. The reaction will be fierce and it must be defeated.




My boy Allende, he had power for some years

Until the reaction got him. Typical.

Dubček literally fought in antifashist uprising. His brother died during it.

Fuck off. This was a neoliberal counter revolution. What was the outcome? Privatization, integration into NATO, and bourgeois fake democracy.

All color revolutions were CIA funded reactionary filth.

The reform of a society is dictated through the circumstances of power that arise into a societal process, whether through a medium of advancement that occurs, or through the decay of political power. In our times, the political process, as well as sections of social processes, are circulated through institutions and social mobilization, which are usually funded through corporations. Therefore, all leftist propositions are immediately circumvented, exempt from implemented praxis. The only foreseeable/realistic strategy is, therefore, insurrection.

That capital is worthless, you can print new one, equivalent of what escaped, so who cares. Moneyless is the end goal anyway.

More about fitting OP's criteria of bloodless revolution.

Because whenever a Socialist/Communist Goverment has the chance of being formed democratically (Chile'73 Russia'1917 Post-USSR Russia'96) its always either overthrown (Chile) Fucked up by Wreckers (Russia 1917) or the election is rigged against them (Russia 96)

If that ever happened, we would need to rethink all our criticism of reformism and liberal democracy.

can we count Allende? (I'm not sure if you want bloodless power-taking, including by electoralism, or if you want a bloodless revolution.)
granted he's basically the case study in why you should just have an actual revolution.

Seize the means of transportation.

The Bolivarian Revolution swept socialists into power in Venezuela without bloodshed. Unfortunately, it also ensured that the bourgeoisie were able to entrench themselves and strike back years later when the government was rocked by environmental crisis and low oil prices.

Which will require violence.

Because asking the ruling class politely for power guarantees you a grave or wishing you had one.

Shit son, get your game on.


Fun fact: Violence in communist revolutions was always initiated by the ruling class and reaction.

At least to the furthest of my knowledge.

Ludwig: You have had decades of experience of illegal work. You have had to transport illegally arms, literature, and so forth. Do you not think that the enemies of the Soviet regime might learn from your experience and fight the Soviet regime with the same methods?

Stalin: That, of course, is quite possible.

Ludwig: Is that not the reason for the severity and ruthlessness of your government in fighting its enemies?

Stalin: No, that is not the chief reason. One could quote certain examples from history. When the Bolsheviks came to power they at first treated their enemies mildly. The Mensheviks continued to exist legally and publish their newspaper. The Socialist Revolutionaries also continued to exist legally and had their newspaper. Even the Cadets continued to publish their newspaper. When General Krasnov organized his counter-revolutionary campaign against Leningrad and fell into our hands, we could at least have kept him prisoner, according to the rules of war. Indeed, we ought to have shot him. But we released him on his "word of honor." And what happened? It soon became clear that such mildness only helped to undermine the strength of the Soviet Government. We made a mistake in displaying such mildness towards enemies of the working class. To have persisted in that mistake would have been a crime against the working class and a betrayal of its interests. That soon became guile apparent. Very soon it became evident that the milder our attitude towards our enemies, the greater their resistance. Before long the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries—Golz and others—and the Right Mensheviks were organizing in Leningrad a counter-revolutionary action of the military cadets, as a result of which many of our revolutionary sailors perished.

This very Krasnov, whom we had released on his "word of honor," organized the whiteguard Cossacks. He joined forces with Mamontov and for two years waged an armed struggle against the Soviet Government. Very soon it turned out that behind the whiteguard generals stood the agents of the western capitalist states—France, Britain, America—and also Japan. We became convinced that we had made a mistake in displaying mildness.

We learnt from experience that the only way to deal with such enemies is to apply the most ruthless policy of suppression to them.



Every time.