I mean, kinda? Revolution is a core part of Marxism. There are rare instances like in Chile where voting worked, but then Allende was couped by the US and Pinochet.
There are plenty of marxist rooted ideologies that eschew violence, and opt for a more electoral or direct action/mutual aid type of approach to bringing about communism.
All socialism is democratic, so I assume you mean reformist socialism. Reformism has extremely specific and limited use-cases, Allende being a short-lived example. Chile was able to successfully elect a Marxist, but he was ousted in a coup. It isn’t impossible, but relying on reformism as the main strategy in all or even most cases is a significant departure from Marxist analysis of the state and its class character.
Libertarian socialism is more anarchist than anything, and has no problems with revolution. I don’t see why you bring it up.
No not all socialism is democratic. Libertarian socialism is by definition non-violent. You cannot be libertarian while also advocating for violence against others.
What happens when the US and allies forments coups and starts bombing you?
Obviously, peaceful means are preferred by most people.
Like, why would they allow you to take power peacefully?
Imagine you take power and want to redistribute land to the common people who were exploited and forced to be landless or without proper homes in the previous regime? Would not the ultrawealthy landowners try to coup you and get support of US and other countries?
Then you’ll have to go there, right?
Or you’ll have to stop or allow yourself to be couped.
Like, in Russia, they took power away from a monarchy and came into power with the slogans of 'Land, peace and bread:. They faced an attack by the White army, which was supported by major foreign powers.
In China, they took power away from Japanese colonialism and subsequent mix of Koumingtang rule which violently opposed communists and the public who wanted land reform.
In Vietnam, they fought French colonialism and US invasion.
Even in the case of slavery in US, the North, under the Lincoln govt, had to fight the south, right? Republicans were attacked in the south by Racial supremacist groups on that too.
Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.
You joke but I think a lot of leftists online unironically believe this.
And I’m not even saying armed revolution is necessarily off the table - but it’s certainly not what we try first or even second or third for that matter.
I think you might be thinking about things the wrong way if you’ve identified capitalism as a root problem and the solution is anything other than a revolution. How else are you dealing with it?
OTOH I agree with your main point that participating in the existing political system with cadre candidates is necessary. But their main purpose is to funnel people into revolutionary organizations, moreso than wielding power directly because we don’t expect the existing political system to be useful to that end.
I am pro revolution for sure BUT we must be pragmatic with how we approach it - no bourgeoise capitalist system has ever been reformed away but the revolution will not happen over night. I also completely agree on the candidates’ purpose - whether they are winning their races or not, and I do think we can win races, the main job needs to be agitation to bolster the ranks of the organized masses.
I will admit, we are getting onto our second or third option at this point, but people calling for armed revolution do not truly understand the impact that would have on society in the short term, and also how insanely difficult to impossible that idea actually is in modern American society. Democratic socialist ideas are only just starting to gain support now because liberalism has proven to be so ineffectual for long and it is a potential electoral path to start course correcting.
Granted, I’m not well read on theory, but I missed the Marx letter to the Bavarian socialists about electoralism preventing the workers’ inevitable revolution…
No no, you don’t understand, you’re only a true Marxist if you call for armed revolution. /s
I mean, kinda? Revolution is a core part of Marxism. There are rare instances like in Chile where voting worked, but then Allende was couped by the US and Pinochet.
There are plenty of marxist rooted ideologies that eschew violence, and opt for a more electoral or direct action/mutual aid type of approach to bringing about communism.
Like what?
Democratic socialism? Libertarian socialism?
All socialism is democratic, so I assume you mean reformist socialism. Reformism has extremely specific and limited use-cases, Allende being a short-lived example. Chile was able to successfully elect a Marxist, but he was ousted in a coup. It isn’t impossible, but relying on reformism as the main strategy in all or even most cases is a significant departure from Marxist analysis of the state and its class character.
Libertarian socialism is more anarchist than anything, and has no problems with revolution. I don’t see why you bring it up.
No not all socialism is democratic. Libertarian socialism is by definition non-violent. You cannot be libertarian while also advocating for violence against others.
What happens when the US and allies forments coups and starts bombing you?
Obviously, peaceful means are preferred by most people.
Like, why would they allow you to take power peacefully?
Imagine you take power and want to redistribute land to the common people who were exploited and forced to be landless or without proper homes in the previous regime? Would not the ultrawealthy landowners try to coup you and get support of US and other countries?
Then you’ll have to go there, right?
Or you’ll have to stop or allow yourself to be couped.
Like, in Russia, they took power away from a monarchy and came into power with the slogans of 'Land, peace and bread:. They faced an attack by the White army, which was supported by major foreign powers.
In China, they took power away from Japanese colonialism and subsequent mix of Koumingtang rule which violently opposed communists and the public who wanted land reform.
In Vietnam, they fought French colonialism and US invasion.
Similarly, in Korea, US installed a dictatorship to kill people who may have been even slightly sympathetic to socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
Even in the case of slavery in US, the North, under the Lincoln govt, had to fight the south, right? Republicans were attacked in the south by Racial supremacist groups on that too.
Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.
You joke but I think a lot of leftists online unironically believe this.
And I’m not even saying armed revolution is necessarily off the table - but it’s certainly not what we try first or even second or third for that matter.
I think you might be thinking about things the wrong way if you’ve identified capitalism as a root problem and the solution is anything other than a revolution. How else are you dealing with it?
OTOH I agree with your main point that participating in the existing political system with cadre candidates is necessary. But their main purpose is to funnel people into revolutionary organizations, moreso than wielding power directly because we don’t expect the existing political system to be useful to that end.
I am pro revolution for sure BUT we must be pragmatic with how we approach it - no bourgeoise capitalist system has ever been reformed away but the revolution will not happen over night. I also completely agree on the candidates’ purpose - whether they are winning their races or not, and I do think we can win races, the main job needs to be agitation to bolster the ranks of the organized masses.
I will admit, we are getting onto our second or third option at this point, but people calling for armed revolution do not truly understand the impact that would have on society in the short term, and also how insanely difficult to impossible that idea actually is in modern American society. Democratic socialist ideas are only just starting to gain support now because liberalism has proven to be so ineffectual for long and it is a potential electoral path to start course correcting.
Granted, I’m not well read on theory, but I missed the Marx letter to the Bavarian socialists about electoralism preventing the workers’ inevitable revolution…