Is bloodshed always necessary for a proletariat revolution?

Is bloodshed always necessary for a proletariat revolution?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Australia
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm
mattbruenig.com/2016/04/03/the-meidner-plan-for-socialism/

In theory, no.
In praxis, the bourgeois would never simply give up the means of production voluntarily.

Has there ever been a situation where the workers voluntarily stopped production and relocated to some remote yet habitable area in the world and attempted to start a society there?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis

In the '70s the Swedish Social Democrats tried to literally buy out their capitalist class. The plan was to gradually buy up the entire economy gradually and turn it over to the unions. "When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope," right? But the Swedish capitalists were smart enough to realize they were going to be put out of business, banded together, and stopped it.

I don't know why I said "gradually" twice

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Australia

This reminds me of something both Holla Forums and Holla Forums has planned before….. hmmm…

This is why this delusional board votes for Bernie Sanders. Trying to find an opening in democratic voting system.

Huh can you tell me more about this? Any good books on this topic?

I think that increasing automation, robotics, and the internet will be pivotal if a proletariat revolution ever happens in the future. The more capitalists try to be efficient and profitable, the more they'll keep automating work and industrializing third world countries. Capitalists realize the contradictions in these actions. I've even seen lolberts advocate for a UBI because they think it'll solve these contradictions. But I think the more capitalism pursues its own goals of profitability and efficiency, communism will become an inevitability. Maybe the capitalists will transition into a bureaucratic/technocratic ruling class and we'll live the rest of our days like the people in Wall-E. Or maybe the second machine age will necessitate an uprising: socialism or barbarism.

Historical precedent shows us that very rarely does the ruling class go around handing out rights and muh privileges to its citizens. People have had to fight and die for just about every luxury we enjoy today. And if the proletariat is pushed into an ultimatum: either starve or seize the machines of the capitalists, I'm sure they'll choose the latter. If capitalists don't want to give up their machines, then they'll have to die, and the people who fight for them will have to die too. A bloodless revolution is possible but it usually ends up causing more trouble than if they had just chopped some heads off to begin with.

The idea is that with enough awareness, a violent revolution would be unnecessary.

Question is, do you see that awareness?

Marx thought that proletarian revolution could take place via existing bourgeois democratic structures in certain conditions; where there was a strong workers' party with ties to the unions, like in parts of Europe.

And he was wrong. Reformist parties have betrayed us at every turn.

A Brief History of Neoliberalism talks about it. The chapter is called "uneven geographical developments", I think.


And the revolutionary left has never done anything wrong ever, has it

The revolutionary left hasn't betrayed us literally every single fucking opportunity unlike the reformist left.

Source?

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

mattbruenig.com/2016/04/03/the-meidner-plan-for-socialism/

It wasn't as much because of the capitalists themselves as the Social Democratic leadership, who never liked it and swept it under the rug after the death of Olof Palme.

If I remember correctly this talks about it a bit.

why does it matter?

Yes. The bourgeios pig-dogs deserve to get slaughtered

Yes.

The state is entirely reliant on violence, so yes.

Surely this means the first and last planks are contradictory? How can one calculate ones proportion of the collective's wealth in a communist society?

Her blood that is, it would be all over the fucking argyle if she tried to fire a 50 cal like that.

t. /k/

Of course it is.

You are dealing with a system whose objective is not efficiency, truth, knowledge or any other definite goal.
It's objective is self-perpetuation , and as such the higher you go in the hierarchies that thrive within, the more they are invested in preserving the status quo, or some mode of it.

Reformism only works insofar some of the powerful participants of the old system collaborate towards it's dismantlement, and given the
requirement for their status being that of self interest and oppression I would consider them backstabbing traitors at best, false-
flags,honeypots or controlled opposition at worst.

I dont think there is any chance of any actual revolution beyond some faux reformism that gets quickly assimilated back into capitalism
( if it wasn't a complete faux to begin with).

A revolution occurs when the necessary ammount of people unite under a ceratin idea agaisnt the stablishment right?
The tight grip that capital has over culture/education/entertainment/information makes it very very hard for social unrest to boil over.

Even in the face of the most egregious signs of corruption/oppresion people will demonstrate and , in the worst of cases, some scapegoatting/media damage control happens and the system continues as usual.

I think people dont realize how fucked we are.
When we literally sell our experience for petty gadgets and entertainment we are also allowing for a significant influence over us
Even if we like to pretend our "free will" is absolute and inscrutable, It's probably not.

happens

Yui is an A OK revolutionary. As long as ge doesn't theorize.

rebel still nomenclature

Hardly. Not Socialism was established rather peacefully.

What are you talking about?
a. that was hardly revolutionary at all, as most, if not all capitalists didn't got their means of production seized by the workers or the state(jewish capitalists, and maybe some that were considered enemy of the state, aside of course, they got expropriated by the state).

and b. the rising to power of the Nazi party in Germany was extremly violent, considering it was kinda democratic. There were violent street battles between socialists and nazis, and as soon as the nazis had some of the state power, the purges began, first the ideological enemies, and when they were dead, imprisoned or had fled the 'degenerates' and the jews followed shortly after.
NatSoc Germany really isn't an example of a peaceful 'revolution', neither was Spain, it might be truer for Italy, there were street battles in Italy, too, though.

It's only necessary when the capitalists and reactionaries force it, and they will always force it.

Amount of shit / number of people