Thought on revolutions?

[ZombieHitler]

Well when I first found out and got in to Marxism, I thought the whole philosophy and theory was pretty great. I was not all that well aquainted to the ideas of things like revolution and I felt like I could finally find a philosophy, and put word and real terms to what I have experienced and felt my entire life.


But there was always this feeling in the back of my mind, and even though all the other Marxists I knew were like "yeah no, over throw, blah blah , inequality!" I just couldn't help but think "but..." "but"" and those fears and doubts could never fully be answered or clarified and understood. And I realized, isn't that why places like the Middle East are the way they are? they're constantly having revolutions, or uprisings and fighting each other, civil anarchy and they have all kinds of "rebel factions and groups" and it just creates constant chaos. I have also come to accepting, even though many others do not agree with me, but not all people by default are innately good and you cannot change or make that simply not exist or go away. I mean, you can't just expect everyone to agree on everything, and for us all to be the same or even equal and deny or ignore or differences, not to mention it is beyond naive to think that there are no malicious ulterior motives out there.


Pus, what if you have a good government, what then? what's to stop people from overthrowing them at the slightest disagreement or dissatisfaction?


So now I am not really sure, it seems a little extreme, overly dramatic and naive to me, the whole notion of over throwing anyone.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

But there was always this feeling in the back of my mind, and even though all the other Marxists I knew were like "yeah no, over throw, blah blah , inequality!" I just couldn't help but think "but..." "but"" and those fears and doubts could never fully be answered or clarified and understood. And I realized, isn't that why places like the Middle East are the way they are? they're constantly having revolutions, or uprisings and fighting each other, civil anarchy and they have all kinds of "rebel factions and groups" and it just creates constant chaos. I have also come to accepting, even though many others do not agree with me, but not all people by default are innately good and you cannot change or make that simply not exist or go away. I mean, you can't just expect everyone to agree on everything, and for us all to be the same or even equal and deny or ignore or differences, not to mention it is beyond naive to think that there are no malicious ulterior motives out there.

The current state of the ME is a direct result of Western imperialism.

Pus, what if you have a good government, what then? what's to stop people from overthrowing them at the slightest disagreement or dissatisfaction?

I don't know about you but freedom is worth that risk.

Marx understood that a government of the people would be in constant threat and outlined certain requirements such as the right to education and the right to bear arms. Even democracy doesn't work by people voting on 1 day and ignoring politics for the other 364 days. The people must have a civic duty to the political process, and must have freedom of speech without the fear of being surveilled.

So now I am not really sure, it seems a little extreme, overly dramatic and naive to me, the whole notion of over throwing anyone.

Do you now live in constant fear for your life? Once you get to that point you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by revolting, although a revolution doesn't have to be violent. It just takes such extreme desperation for people to realize they should do something about the current government.

 

[Black Rose]

The extent to how impacted people's rights feel violated is the extent to which people will try and change the system. If most people are content with they way things are they will moderately participate in politics, (as a hobby). In other cases, if more action is required they will work harder to organize and take legal actions. The most important influence is to get huge numbers of people on your side. That way more people can work on changes the rules of the organization that conflict with the demands of the people demanding that the rules stop oppressing them.

That is an effective protest but then comes the idiot movements. Such as Occupy Wallstreet where millions protested yet no change to the system was ever planned out. Or how feminist protest the patriarchy yet have no way of defining what it is. They can express themselves and say, men, dominate the world with government and economic power. Yet no one listens to them because people are so content with their lives that they love the prosperity of McDonalds BigMacs and think nothing about feminism. Video games will always have sexy female characters because People will pay money for it. Fighting the patriarchy is a dead cause.

Finally, there are revolutions where people are starving and the military government kills people and enslaves them and seizes property. That is when people really fight back, because they are desperate. The sad thing is that the new government may do the exact same thing. Corruption is a difficult battle. Most people that get kicked out are not the daily bureaucrats that enact the corruption. The operations of a government need to have people that make sure things are fair and that make the economy run better. Countries in South America have experienced economic devastation from price controls. But it is difficult to fight back because of how the power structure does not all people to defend themselves by telling the government what they are doing is wrong and hurting people. The People must always have a way of stopping the system from hurting them. To make things run better for everyone.

 

[ZombieHitler]

I don't think it's wrong, just something that should perhaps not be taken so lightly you know? it's a really serious and big thing to try and do, lol.


I just don't understand why, you overthrow the government who is supposedly causing all of the problems, but then in theory give it all back to the state, at least if you adhere completely to Marxian theory?

 

[ZombieHitler]

The extent to how impacted people's rights feel violated is the extent to which people will try and change the system. If most people are content with they way things are they will moderately participate in politics, (as a hobby). In other cases, if more action is required they will work harder to organize and take legal actions. The most important influence is to get huge numbers of people on your side. That way more people can work on changes the rules of the organization that conflict with the demands of the people demanding that the rules stop oppressing them.

That is an effective protest but then comes the idiot movements. Such as Occupy Wallstreet where millions protested yet no change to the system was ever planned out. Or how feminist protest the patriarchy yet have no way of defining what it is. They can express themselves and say, men, dominate the world with government and economic power. Yet no one listens to them because people are so content with their lives that they love the prosperity of McDonalds BigMacs and think nothing about feminism. Video games will always have sexy female characters because People will pay money for it. Fighting the patriarchy is a dead cause.

Finally, there are revolutions where people are starving and the military government kills people and enslaves them and seizes property. That is when people really fight back, because they are desperate. The sad thing is that the new government may do the exact same thing. Corruption is a difficult battle. Most people that get kicked out are not the daily bureaucrats that enact the corruption. The operations of a government need to have people that make sure things are fair and that make the economy run better. Countries in South America have experienced economic devastation from price controls. But it is difficult to fight back because of how the power structure does not all people to defend themselves by telling the government what they are doing is wrong and hurting people. The People must always have a way of stopping the system from hurting them. To make things run better for everyone.

Yeah, if they manage to keep enough people content and placid, then they generally know that they will have enough people in support of them mot of the time and not really wanting to (out of fear as well, apathy, inertia) to really actually do anything or become self-actualized and liberated to be able to as well, effectively self powering themselves or their communities.

 

[ZombieHitler]

The current state of the ME is a direct result of Western imperialism.

I don't know about you but freedom is worth that risk.
But how do you define "freedom"? that's just kind of what my contention with Marxism. I giving all the power to the people really the solution or answer? or would that not turn into a form of tyranny in itself, or at least the possibility to do so. It's just that there has been a lot of examples where communism has not really worked in practice and the results were almost just as bad.
Marx understood that a government of the people would be in constant threat and outlined certain requirements such as the right to education and the right to bear arms. Even democracy doesn't work by people voting on 1 day and ignoring politics for the other 364 days. The people must have a civic duty to the political process, and must have freedom of speech without the fear of being surveilled.
Yes, but can you really put your faith and trust in the majority of your countrymen to really uphold this end of the bargain or not seek to enact their own agenda of some sort? I jut look at much of the world now even, and I cannot help but think it's the expression of human nature. I can be improved perhaps in some ways, but much of it's kind of set at that. That's just sort of what I've been struggling with : O

Do you now live in constant fear for your life? Once you get to that point you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by revolting, although a revolution doesn't have to be violent. It just takes such extreme desperation for people to realize they should do something about the current government.
Of course, it's completely justifiable and vindicated to take those action and I do not condemn those who do, I just wonder if it is always the solution to have a revolution, at least unless it is a really extreme situation and there is no other alternatives, but of course that perception and conclusion is different to different people, lol : D

Answers in bold....

 

[onesteptwostep]

>good government
>Marxist/socialism

Pick one.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

But how do you define "freedom"? that's just kind of what my contention with Marxism. I giving all the power to the people really the solution or answer? or would that not turn into a form of tyranny in itself, or at least the possibility to do so.


Yes, but can you really put your faith and trust in the majority of your countrymen to really uphold this end of the bargain or not seek to enact their own agenda of some sort? I jut look at much of the world now even, and I cannot help but think it's the expression of human nature. I can be improved perhaps in some ways, but much of it's kind of set at that. That's just sort of what I've been struggling with : O

There is always a potential for tyranny and corruption isn't there? No system will eliminate those completely, but we are at the point where individuals give up more of their lives serving corporate masters than they do for themselves and their families, and to me that means the society/government has lost sight of its purpose.

I don't know if humans are really unscrupulous in nature, maybe violence is just an expression of not having developmental needs met? I can't answer that and I don't intend to withdraw from the question. However can we at least ask whether there is something better than what we currently have? What I do know is that people justify capitalism by claiming humans are all greedy selfish assholes when more often it is capitalism that forces people to take advantage of each other when they would rather not. Wealth is created from nothing and people live in disgusting excess while surplus goods sit idle because market conditions are not optimal and giving them to the needy is unprofitable. That is not right.

The longstanding practice of slavery around the world was made worse to an unprecedented extent under capitalism; anti-abolitionists used pseudo-scientific racism to push the narrative that African peoples were subhuman and thus deserved to be enslaved, or deserved no rights, and even today that narrative lingers in various communities. All because capitalism will do anything it takes to protect profits.

Handing power to the people sounds scary. Even the American forefathers debated the issues of mob rule latent in democracy while developing its constitutional republic. This is why racism, ableism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are enemies of marxism — because they unnaturally divide people who are all citizens of the Earth and thus promote violence. Class struggle is a key element of marxism and without it socialism/communism will fail.

Marx outlines statelessness and classlessness as an evolutionary sociopolitical goal which is another way to say anarchy(not chaotic anarchy but the lack of an official government). That seems to clash with the highly productive societies that exist today which are dependent on hierarchies. Mass produced consumer items like iPhones and PS4s just can't exist under communism, admittedly the system is more appropriate for agrarian society. I think that is a potential flaw as Marx was around for the industrial revolution so his vision of society is a bit outdated.

This is where people can be divided on marxist thought. How is communism/socialism achieved? Must all principles be followed exactly? A decent compromise would be social democracy where you take the intended goals of communism (statelessness and classlessness), and work towards them by promoting egalitarian causes and using technology to improve society rather than to generate private wealth. I personally like the idea of worker ownership through company stock and co-operative businesses, capitalism doesn't have to be gotten rid of entirely.

It's just that there has been a lot of examples where communism has not really worked in practice and the results were almost just as bad.

Communism is not state-controlled capitalism where the workers don't share profits and don't own tools and machines they labor over. Communism is not totalitarian dictatorship where gun-ownership is outlawed and censorship prevails. A simple reading of Marx and Engel's work will reveal this. But even so, Western capitalism has gone to great lengths to quell marxist movements: Trade sanctions, propaganda wars, military conflicts — nothing is off limits to ensure capitalism is the only system worldwide and you will be hard pressed to find "communism" that hasn't been molested by Western capitalist countries.