|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 16, 2005 20:40:22 GMT
I was thinking, while looking at a "stop the war" coalition poster today about if we as socialists should be encouraging war? Many on the left oppose war and go for the option of peace and maintaining it.
Is this right?
Should we not be trying to encourage war? Even what you see today with Iraq, war can be very destabilising on the participating and surrounding nations, if war was more prevelant countries would be less stable and more open to revolution?
Opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by canteria on Oct 16, 2005 20:51:56 GMT
Wars will make revolutions more popular, yes. But usually the revolutionaries that take over in any revolution with bloodshed will be just as bad or worse then the previous oppressors. At the very least, it will be like Iraq, with a heavily armed minority slowly destroying the country.
Few things could ever be less desirable than war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dobbyniania on Oct 17, 2005 1:17:20 GMT
Revolutionaries who take over are bad? Depends on the situation my friend. Vanguardists are certainly bloodthirsty wackos when they take over. That always happens when you plop tons of power in the hands of some absolutist revolutionaries. The key to any revolution is to win without vanguard action. If the people rise up and sieze power and then fully decentralize said power, only good things can happen.
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Oct 17, 2005 12:54:25 GMT
"No war but class war" they say ....
|
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 17, 2005 14:27:52 GMT
Don't forget the Mussolini was a socialist until WWI came along. His support for the war lead him away from internationalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Oct 17, 2005 17:12:10 GMT
The communists must seize power and retain it - in certain conditions, war is the only option. Revolutionary wars are good, not bad - they are Marxist. The war in Iraq is not a revolutionary war.
When society advances to the stage of communism, there will be no more wars or need for it. Communism will herald a new age of perpetual peace for mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Oct 17, 2005 18:26:51 GMT
Socialists should oppose wars of imperialism. Socialists should support revolutions. Seems clear cut to me.
Simply because we support violent revolution does not mean we support all forms of violence because they fight encourage violent revolution. Violent revolution comes from the movements of the proletariat, not some passing flirtation with the idea of war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 17, 2005 19:31:31 GMT
The communists must seize power and retain it - in certain conditions, war is the only option War is not the only option. Anything which causes the economy to collapse leads to the immiseration of the working class and false-consciousness ends, whereupon they can seize the institutions of the state. Both the Russian and German revolutions have roots in the hell of WWI. |
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Oct 17, 2005 21:02:32 GMT
Democrats (in a large sense) should not seek war, and as socialists claim to be democrats, they shouldn't support any form of war or violent uprising... At least that is my point of view.
Revolutions have always been the beginning of violent times and very rarely led to a stable system that fulfilled all revolutionaries expectations.
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Oct 18, 2005 8:17:18 GMT
Whereas the people has the proper means to express itself and seize control over the institutions of state power - then I agree. We should be using the tools of democracy at our disposal assuming we have them at our disposal.
In many of our modern pseudo-democracies, where power is in the hands of a small and closed elite of people with access to better education, standards of living and so forth, it might not be realistic. I support mass-socialist revolutions and wars when there is no other option, in particular in third world countries and dictatorships.
The violent overthrowal of the old French monarchy was for example, necessary as was the terror period that followed. I have no problem with the mass-executions of the oppressors of the people like what happened in Russia, China, France and to a lesser degree Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba etc..etc... - it is very much justified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paranoidm on Oct 18, 2005 11:30:18 GMT
*Tries to resist the urge to sing "War, huh, what is it good for?"*
|
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Oct 18, 2005 12:53:17 GMT
Come on Keto ! No slaughter is necessary, even against former ruling elites ! The Bolsheviks could have refrained from shooting the Czar as the French Revolutionaries could have avoided beheading the King (Don't forget that only a very small majority of the Assembly supported his execution).
The Terror necessary ? France would have done much more better without it according to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 18, 2005 13:57:19 GMT
In many of our modern pseudo-democracies, where power is in the hands of a small and closed elite of people with access to better education, standards of living and so forth, it might not be realistic. I support mass-socialist revolutions and wars when there is no other option, in particular in third world countries and dictatorships. War is not necessary for revolution, but revolution is necessary for change. As Marx said, you can't change the state through its own institutions because they're all geared toward keeping the bourgeoisie where they are. Change can only come through the economic base which supports the institutions. In the case of Germany and Russia 1917/8, war caused the economy to collapse, and people were already angry with the absolutist moncarchs. |
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 18, 2005 15:09:00 GMT
Some interesting opinions, I happen to think that the killing of the Tsar was nessasary, he was a symbol and a rallying point for counter-revolution. His murder was one way of ensuring the monarcy was never restored, although it was maby a bit excessive to murder his whole family and the witnesses!
Do people believe that war in Iraq can be swung into a war of liberation for the people?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Oct 19, 2005 7:11:25 GMT
The following quote illustrates my personal point of view on the issue of war as a tool to pursue a Marxist revolution.
"The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution."
Star City, I mentionned that under certain conditions, war is the only route if the revolution must succeed. I agree with your analysis but The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx was aimed at highly industrialized nations like Britain or Germany relying on economic institutions of powers serving the bourgeoisie and not rural agrarian societies like China where a people's war ( as described by Dobbyiniana ) was necessary.
The elimination of the former oppressing ruling elite is indeed justified to put an end to the counter-revolution. If the King had lived on in France, the former aristocrats and foreign powers would certainly have rallied around him to reinstore the monarchy, it was a wise decision - in particular given the crimes of the ancient regime.
|
|
