It might not be strictly Marxist, but it’s an internally-consistent and relatively common viewpoint that people within a liberal democracy could be persuaded to vote so that it becomes a social democracy, then democratic socialism, and then keeps going all the way until it’s communism. I saw it on reddit, so there’s room for doubt, but I’ve read that Marx didn’t think this approach was impossible, just that the starting conditions were less common, and in the era he lived in, autocratic monarchies were the default, and no major countries (based on whatever definition Wikipedia uses) had universal suffrage (if you count women as people) until ten years after he was dead.
It isn’t necessarily internally consistent viewpoint. It is common, you’re correct, but such a theory requires at some point wresting political power from the Bourgeoisie, which to this point requires revolution. This is only affirmed by the experiences of comrade Allende in Chile, may he rest in peace. The fact that it is a common viewpoint among liberals and Social Democrats does not mean it is internally consistent, nor does it stand up to scrutiny. Time and time again has proven the fruitlessness of reformism, Rosa Luxemburg has been proven correct time and time again with respect to Reform or Revolution.
As for Marx, the concept of a theoretical transition along peaceful means wasn’t impossible, merely extremely difficult and might as well be, in the context of his time. Now that Capitalism has transformed into Imperialism globally, this is only further affirmed to be true as the State and Imperialist Capitalists are further and further bedfellows.
Historically, plenty of people have gained more rights through actions that were far short of an actual revolution. For example, it would be naive to say that the suffragette bombing campaign didn’t at the minimum accelerate when British women got the vote, but killing four people and wounding twenty-four isn’t a revolution, and women getting the vote moved political power to a group that previously had effectively none. Initially, the only women who had the right to vote were property owners or the wives of property owners, but the same act of parliament gave non-land-owning men the right to vote, so it was specifically transferring power from the Bourgeoisie to workers, too. Clearly, power can be transferred from the Bourgeoisie to workers through reform.
There’s a perfectly legitimate argument that there may or may not be a limit to how far this could go, e.g. whether there’s a threshold minimum amount of power the owning class can tolerate before further reform becomes impossible, or whether if it’s done in palatable increments, reform could continue indefinitely. It’s an unfalsifiable argument, so whether or not it’s true, the only way to know is if it’s done successfully, and until then, there’s a first time for everything might apply (although you could try and fail a whole bunch of times and end up with an upper bound on how easy it might be).
Personally, I think it’s a decent rule of thumb that if you’ve got enough people who agree on the same position to make a revolution successful, you’ve got enough people to get an equivalent government elected if you’re in a vaguely functional democracy. Taking over an existing party or forming a third party that dwarfs all the others should need about the same amount of the population as battling against an incumbent government and any other factions that want to be the last ones standing after a revolution. If you’re not in a democracy at all, then obviously a revolution is necessary, and sometimes a self-described democracy isn’t one or isn’t working properly, so needs some kind of push in the right direction, but if you’re already in a democracy, and not winning elections, a revolution’s likely to backfire, especially as the type of person most keen on using weapons against humans is the same type of person who’ll always put their own needs above the needs of others. Getting loads of people to agree with you is the biggest hurdle both for successful reform and successful revolution.
You’re confusing concessions with outright shifting the balance of power to the hands of the Workers. Giving women the right to vote is fantastic, but in the context of allowing the Proletariat to end Private Property, the scale of power transfer is on another scale entirely. That’s why I said at some point said scale must be tipped, and historically that has never happened without revolution.
The question of whether or not it’s even technically possible largely don’t matter at this point, we know revolution works and we know reform has never worked despite being tried far more for far longer.
Personally, I think it’s a decent rule of thumb that if you’ve got enough people who agree on the same position to make a revolution successful, you’ve got enough people to get an equivalent government elected if you’re in a vaguely functional democracy.
Why is this a rule of thumb if it’s never happened? Revolution has been the only way the scales have been tipped, because bourgeois democracy places firm limits on what is acceptable to be voted on. You’re correct that revolutions require mass popular support, but wrong that existing Bourgeois frameworks would allow it to begin with. Read the Luxemburg book.
To my knowledge (which has gaps), there’s never been a leftist revolution over a functioning democracy that left the situation better than it started, so I’m under the impression that we’re in never happened territory whether advocating for reform or revolution. Plenty of right-wing groups have overthrown democracies, though, and plenty of right-wing groups have taken over in the aftermath of non-right-wing revolutions, so there’s a need to make sure there are still enough leftists left alive to still be the majority.
Even if reform is a doomed goal, it’s a more achievable to get the population of a democracy to a point where they could try voting in a leftist government than to throw out everything (and potentially die in the process) and start again. If they lose the vote, then it’s a strong indication that a majority of people participating would be fighting against them in a revolution, and more people need bringing on board. If they win the vote, and still don’t gain power, then it’s a great time to start a revolution, as this is exactly the kind of thing that whips up revolutionary fervour in people who normally would advocate solely for reform. The situation where reform could theoretically happen is a great environment for a revolution if it turns out that reform can’t happen, so it’s easy to pivot if it doesn’t work. It might turn out not to be a doomed goal, though, and they might just end up in power immediately, with state institutions composed of voters who want to believe their votes counted potentially taking the new government’s side if the outgoing government or their supporters didn’t concede.
Either way, the main tool used to keep power in a democracy is to sway public opinion so voters vote against their own interests, and swaying public opinion also works to make people revolt against their own interests or fight against a revolt that’s in their own interests. The debate is moot if half of people read The Daily Mail or watch Fox News, and if there’s a tool that can stop that happening and take away bourgeois power that way, it can probably take it away in other ways.
I’m entirely unsure of what you’re referring to in your first paragraph, it’s so vague it doesn’t say anything at all IMO. Moreover, you’ve casually brushed aside the idea that bourgeois electoralism allows voting on leftist groups, you’ve witnessed the progressive pushback against leftists voting third party in the US election despite claiming to support the third parties more ideologically. Electoralism is a fixed game. I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, it seems utterly vibes based.
You were the one alluding to historical leftist revolutions over democracies, so if you don’t know what I’m referring to when I say that I’m not aware of that ever happening, that’s an indication that we’re both referring to nothing because it’s never happened. If you don’t know what I’m referring to when I mention right-wing groups overthrowing democracies, there are plenty of examples like Iran in 1953, when the elected government was overthrown by an authoritarian monarchy in a coup backed by Britain and the US. If you don’t know what I’m referring to when I mention right-wing groups taking over after a non-right-wing revolution, then there are lots of examples like Iran in 1979, where a broad coalition overthrew the Shah, then the right-wing religious authoritarian faction had the leaders of other groups assassinated so they could form the new government. The big changes were just which countries Iran was allied with, which music and art was legal, and traditional religious dress for women switching from being banned to being mandated.
The pushback against voting third-party in the US presidential election this year was specifically because the voting block that wanted to vote third party was small enough that even if fully mobilised, it’d still be a third party. Whether or not they were the best option, they’d lose, so they weren’t an option in this particular election, and lesser-of-two-evils voting was more prudent. The campaigning didn’t start soon enough or strong enough, and then totally stopped once the election happened, and it takes more than a few months to build enough support to accomplish anything in an election. That wasn’t a problem with elections specifically, though. If third-party supporters had decided to have a revolution the day after the results were called, it would have failed, too, as not enough people were in favour of the policies, let alone so in favour as to revolt over it.
Starts with “T” and rimes with hankie.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
-Karl Marx
Where are these anti-gun Marxists?
It might not be strictly Marxist, but it’s an internally-consistent and relatively common viewpoint that people within a liberal democracy could be persuaded to vote so that it becomes a social democracy, then democratic socialism, and then keeps going all the way until it’s communism. I saw it on reddit, so there’s room for doubt, but I’ve read that Marx didn’t think this approach was impossible, just that the starting conditions were less common, and in the era he lived in, autocratic monarchies were the default, and no major countries (based on whatever definition Wikipedia uses) had universal suffrage (if you count women as people) until ten years after he was dead.
It isn’t necessarily internally consistent viewpoint. It is common, you’re correct, but such a theory requires at some point wresting political power from the Bourgeoisie, which to this point requires revolution. This is only affirmed by the experiences of comrade Allende in Chile, may he rest in peace. The fact that it is a common viewpoint among liberals and Social Democrats does not mean it is internally consistent, nor does it stand up to scrutiny. Time and time again has proven the fruitlessness of reformism, Rosa Luxemburg has been proven correct time and time again with respect to Reform or Revolution.
As for Marx, the concept of a theoretical transition along peaceful means wasn’t impossible, merely extremely difficult and might as well be, in the context of his time. Now that Capitalism has transformed into Imperialism globally, this is only further affirmed to be true as the State and Imperialist Capitalists are further and further bedfellows.
Historically, plenty of people have gained more rights through actions that were far short of an actual revolution. For example, it would be naive to say that the suffragette bombing campaign didn’t at the minimum accelerate when British women got the vote, but killing four people and wounding twenty-four isn’t a revolution, and women getting the vote moved political power to a group that previously had effectively none. Initially, the only women who had the right to vote were property owners or the wives of property owners, but the same act of parliament gave non-land-owning men the right to vote, so it was specifically transferring power from the Bourgeoisie to workers, too. Clearly, power can be transferred from the Bourgeoisie to workers through reform.
There’s a perfectly legitimate argument that there may or may not be a limit to how far this could go, e.g. whether there’s a threshold minimum amount of power the owning class can tolerate before further reform becomes impossible, or whether if it’s done in palatable increments, reform could continue indefinitely. It’s an unfalsifiable argument, so whether or not it’s true, the only way to know is if it’s done successfully, and until then, there’s a first time for everything might apply (although you could try and fail a whole bunch of times and end up with an upper bound on how easy it might be).
Personally, I think it’s a decent rule of thumb that if you’ve got enough people who agree on the same position to make a revolution successful, you’ve got enough people to get an equivalent government elected if you’re in a vaguely functional democracy. Taking over an existing party or forming a third party that dwarfs all the others should need about the same amount of the population as battling against an incumbent government and any other factions that want to be the last ones standing after a revolution. If you’re not in a democracy at all, then obviously a revolution is necessary, and sometimes a self-described democracy isn’t one or isn’t working properly, so needs some kind of push in the right direction, but if you’re already in a democracy, and not winning elections, a revolution’s likely to backfire, especially as the type of person most keen on using weapons against humans is the same type of person who’ll always put their own needs above the needs of others. Getting loads of people to agree with you is the biggest hurdle both for successful reform and successful revolution.
You’re confusing concessions with outright shifting the balance of power to the hands of the Workers. Giving women the right to vote is fantastic, but in the context of allowing the Proletariat to end Private Property, the scale of power transfer is on another scale entirely. That’s why I said at some point said scale must be tipped, and historically that has never happened without revolution.
The question of whether or not it’s even technically possible largely don’t matter at this point, we know revolution works and we know reform has never worked despite being tried far more for far longer.
Why is this a rule of thumb if it’s never happened? Revolution has been the only way the scales have been tipped, because bourgeois democracy places firm limits on what is acceptable to be voted on. You’re correct that revolutions require mass popular support, but wrong that existing Bourgeois frameworks would allow it to begin with. Read the Luxemburg book.
To my knowledge (which has gaps), there’s never been a leftist revolution over a functioning democracy that left the situation better than it started, so I’m under the impression that we’re in never happened territory whether advocating for reform or revolution. Plenty of right-wing groups have overthrown democracies, though, and plenty of right-wing groups have taken over in the aftermath of non-right-wing revolutions, so there’s a need to make sure there are still enough leftists left alive to still be the majority.
Even if reform is a doomed goal, it’s a more achievable to get the population of a democracy to a point where they could try voting in a leftist government than to throw out everything (and potentially die in the process) and start again. If they lose the vote, then it’s a strong indication that a majority of people participating would be fighting against them in a revolution, and more people need bringing on board. If they win the vote, and still don’t gain power, then it’s a great time to start a revolution, as this is exactly the kind of thing that whips up revolutionary fervour in people who normally would advocate solely for reform. The situation where reform could theoretically happen is a great environment for a revolution if it turns out that reform can’t happen, so it’s easy to pivot if it doesn’t work. It might turn out not to be a doomed goal, though, and they might just end up in power immediately, with state institutions composed of voters who want to believe their votes counted potentially taking the new government’s side if the outgoing government or their supporters didn’t concede.
Either way, the main tool used to keep power in a democracy is to sway public opinion so voters vote against their own interests, and swaying public opinion also works to make people revolt against their own interests or fight against a revolt that’s in their own interests. The debate is moot if half of people read The Daily Mail or watch Fox News, and if there’s a tool that can stop that happening and take away bourgeois power that way, it can probably take it away in other ways.
I’m entirely unsure of what you’re referring to in your first paragraph, it’s so vague it doesn’t say anything at all IMO. Moreover, you’ve casually brushed aside the idea that bourgeois electoralism allows voting on leftist groups, you’ve witnessed the progressive pushback against leftists voting third party in the US election despite claiming to support the third parties more ideologically. Electoralism is a fixed game. I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, it seems utterly vibes based.
You were the one alluding to historical leftist revolutions over democracies, so if you don’t know what I’m referring to when I say that I’m not aware of that ever happening, that’s an indication that we’re both referring to nothing because it’s never happened. If you don’t know what I’m referring to when I mention right-wing groups overthrowing democracies, there are plenty of examples like Iran in 1953, when the elected government was overthrown by an authoritarian monarchy in a coup backed by Britain and the US. If you don’t know what I’m referring to when I mention right-wing groups taking over after a non-right-wing revolution, then there are lots of examples like Iran in 1979, where a broad coalition overthrew the Shah, then the right-wing religious authoritarian faction had the leaders of other groups assassinated so they could form the new government. The big changes were just which countries Iran was allied with, which music and art was legal, and traditional religious dress for women switching from being banned to being mandated.
The pushback against voting third-party in the US presidential election this year was specifically because the voting block that wanted to vote third party was small enough that even if fully mobilised, it’d still be a third party. Whether or not they were the best option, they’d lose, so they weren’t an option in this particular election, and lesser-of-two-evils voting was more prudent. The campaigning didn’t start soon enough or strong enough, and then totally stopped once the election happened, and it takes more than a few months to build enough support to accomplish anything in an election. That wasn’t a problem with elections specifically, though. If third-party supporters had decided to have a revolution the day after the results were called, it would have failed, too, as not enough people were in favour of the policies, let alone so in favour as to revolt over it.
yeah i don’t think im a tankie