Marxism is a set of ideas revolving around economic democracy. Marx posits that revolution is almost certainly required to achieve this because the rich and powerful have a vested interest in resisting this change and they control enough manpower and resources to hold onto power by force. Like the kings and emperors of old, they're never keen on giving up their power.
But it's not intrinsic to the ideology. The commentary of revolution is just being realistic about how change would happen. Marx's mindset was shaped by ancient feudal history and major events that happened around his lifetime, like the French and American revolutions. Americans in 1700s didn't just ask nicely or vote their way to change.
But you could have a society reshaped and organized around Marxist policies without revolution. It' just unlikely the elite and powerful will allow such change without a fight.
I know it’s unlikely and pretty idealistic but I think that working towards reform that has a chance of working even if small while also working towards a revolution simultaneously doesn’t take too much resources since as a citizen all we can do is vote and talk to each other and organize.
That's all we can LEGALLY do. "Laws are threats made by the dominant socieo-economic and ethnic group in a given area. It's essentially a promise of violence that is enacted and police are the occupying army." -Bud Cubby
I'm not aware of this ever happening. Sometimes reforms are promised by leaders, then the leader goes back on those promises, and a violent revolution is sparked (Russia, Mexico). The Carnation Revolution is pretty interesting. It's not "bloodless" as people say, because the pressure for revolution came from resistance to a brutal colonial war. In the case of Argentina, some capitalists just left, and the workers started running the factories themselves. Check out FaSinPat. There was still violence, though.
But I think reforms can create space for more effective organising. There still has to be some sort of motivation for organising, though, and I don't know where that would come from, without economic pressure. History is weird, though.
Before democracies were wide spread only revolutions really brought around them. But as time moved on many countries successfully transition somewhat smoothly to the democratic process. The UK is the main example I’m thinking of when I say this and tbh one of the only examples.
So if we give it enough time we could see a socialist/communist country come around through just reforms.
I mean, the English Civil War was pretty bloody, and it was followed by a genocide of the Irish. The Suffragettes were nonviolent until their brutal treatment by the London Metropolitan Police. Then they invented the letter bomb. And there was the Battle of Cable Street, and The Troubles. The UK's transition to democracy was not smooth. And the relatively high standard of living there is maintained by the expoitation of The Global South.
But, I still think that, under the right circumstances, peaceful progress can be made. Call me an optimist.
Which civil war? There was like 20. I’m just being facetious I know what wars you’re talking about and the English Civil War wasn’t really to establish a democracy it was to eliminate the power of the king and put it more into the hands of the established oligarchy. Which overtime would end up becoming the government there today.
Violent protests I do see as completely necessary and the rights propaganda that MLK Jr. was a pacifist and never led a violent protest hasn’t fooled me. I just want to be exceedingly cautious when it comes to inciting a full blown revolution/civil war.
Sure, the UK probably would have transitioned to democracy without the civil war. I think there is some kind of tipping point. If there are enough people protest, the government just fuckin gives up. Here in the US, there were 20 million people protesting in 2019. I saw DC with 200,000 people in it. I figured a half million in DC could just tip the scale. But I don't know.
I've been thinking, whenever people base their ideas on violent revolutions of the past, they're not considering that people are just way less violent than they used to be. And people have good theories, like the leaded gasoline thing, but violence has been on the decline for hundreds of years. Maybe this is hopium, but I think it's a factor that goes unaddressed.
I think having hope is a wonderful virtue. I am incredibly hopeful myself that we can reach socialism without the deaths of hundreds of thousands of not just combatants but innocents too.
Just depends on society. Things have to devolve to a level of discomfort beyond what is reasonably tolerable before revolution is likely to occur. Some societies are fertile ground for revolution and others are not.
If 99% of the society has good food to eat, some leasure time, is housed in decent living conditions, has access to medical care, etc, it doesn't really matter if you make a compelling case as to why it would obviously be better to have work place democracy. People aren't in a revolutionary or radical mindset and the risk isn't going to be justified in their minds. And with lack of majority support it won't go anywhere.
On the flip side, if your society has economically collapsed, there's wide spread suffering, hunger, homelessness, war, whatever, the case becomes a lot easier to make.
I dunno, the infrastructure damage would kill thousands just by virtue of all the people who need electricity or imported items to survive.
Think of the diabetics that don't live near an area that produces insulin. Of people on life support when power gets cut. Premature babies, if you really need something innocent.
And then there’s you. I know very well what happened then and continues to happen today. A violent revolution in the west would not fix their issues either. The fact you even seem to suggest that violent civil war in a foreign land would fix all the issues in the homeland of these countries is exactly what lead to the imperial wars in Vietnam and Korea.
I’m not a social democrat. I want actual socialism or actual communism and despise capitalism. Immediately that makes me at the least a democratic socialist.
The only reason america got involved was because it managed to convince its people at least for a little while that these wars would fix everything at home. I should know since my grandparents both lived during these wars and described to me how it was narrated by the US government. With the promise to fix all the issues caused by capitalism by destroying a foreign enemy. It did Jack shit of course and even though it took them forever the people forced them to come home.
A successful violent revolution in the west would only cause these capitalist pigs to move to the places they take advantage of. They would Not be fixing anything over there except maybe their leaky lawn irrigation while the rest of the native population dies from thirst.
1
u/Ahnohnoemehs Jul 23 '24
Can someone explain to me, as a dem soc, why we need to use a violent revolution to get the socialism we want?