A Question on Revolution

What tactics would you use in a revolution? Would it be Militant (ex, Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh), Nonagressive (Ghandi), Propaganda fueled, or something else? Feel free to describe in detail.

I won't describe this as broadly as necesary becaue I think it is much more prudent to be reserved on the topic.

Else, I think different methods for revolution should be developed for each nation. I'll describe more or less how it should be in Latin America, a model I think that with some variations would work as well in Africa. About Russia, I remain silent and will just privately speak about it.


In Latin America:

I would make it by organizing workers and peasants into counsils, conscintizing them on their situation and what causes it and how can a nation develop without capitalism.

This would be the start of an independent non-subjective economy. After organizing I would claim for militant control of the nation to generalize the ne economic order.

I really would try a peaceful method to persude the masses, but if they are brainwashed into thinking "communism is a dictatorship" mentality, then I would try to do something else.

Like bake baked goods and offer them. :3 For free! (and membership in my Communist Party of course).

Violence...hmm. Not a good option. To tell you the truth, it's not even a good last resort. Considering the many "freelance" (AKA funded by US government) human rights groups out there today...

They would overexaggerate if violence happened to break out against my party. And you know what I would do in response?

Offer them MOAR FOOD! :3c

EDIT: Ok, so some protesters might be scared since my so-called "Communist Party" will have communist-style military uniforms and at least some training. But NOBODY can resist baked goods. ^^ ORZ.

Proganda, I think. I'm not much a follower of radical methods, and the pacifist method doesn't seems to me much effective.

I think the Allende model is best. As far as fascist coups go, the best defense is to replace the professional army with a citizen's militia.

The situation in every country is different so revolutionary tactics should be different in situation, however, since in most cases you have to knowck down the pillars of the regime and society in order to build a new one, I would say militant is often the best model. This does not necessarily mean guerrilla warfare though, but rather revolutionary violence in any form ranging from fighting back when the government represses demonstrations to people's wars.

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

the best defense is to replace the professional army with a citizen's militia.

History has proven that professional army is better than untrained cannon fodder.

get educated, get my aunt and grandpa to get me into the party and get elaected to parlament.

estemeted time 12-17 years(education 4-5)

Riddler wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

the best defense is to replace the professional army with a citizen's militia.

History has proven that professional army is better than untrained cannon fodder.

A militia doesn't have to be untrained but the army should always be democratized.

I think the main arguement regarding to the army is that it shouldn't constitute something like "the military class".

Else I think a socialist army should be productive during peace-time without dropping its readiness.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I think the main arguement regarding to the army is that it shouldn't constitute something like "the military class".

Else I think a socialist army should be productive during peace-time without dropping its readiness.

Precisely but the vast majority of the proletariat should serve in armed forces not just a small class.

oligarch wrote:

Precisely but the vast majority of the proletariat should serve in armed forces not just a small class.

Indeed, but, there should be some specialized forces or a specialized force. Just as workers focus in the productive sector militia should focus on the deffensive, however, both of them participate on each.

mine.... is diffrent... I call it "Militant Peace"

we will peacefully take over via killing only tohse who revolut aganist hte workers and peacefully takeover hte rest.

cary jebus wrote:

mine.... is diffrent... I call it "Militant Peace"

we will peacefully take over via killing only tohse who revolut aganist hte workers and peacefully takeover hte rest.

how how is that possibel?

it depends

do i want it to work ?
or do i want to be proud of it ?

Ryom wrote:

it depends

do i want it to work ?
or do i want to be proud of it ?

You're saying the only way you can be proud of your work is if you do not do the work?

oligarch wrote:

You're saying the only way you can be proud of your work is if you do not do the work?

how the hell did you come up with that ?
that is not at all what i meant
if i wanted it to work i would choose a Military Revolution
and if something i could be really proud of i would choose a peacefull revolution

Ryom wrote:

oligarch wrote:

You're saying the only way you can be proud of your work is if you do not do the work?

how the hell did you come up with that ?
that is not at all what i meant
if i wanted it to work i would choose a Military Revolution
and if something i could be really proud of i would choose a peacefull revolution

But you're implying that a peaceful revolution would not be successful.

Ryom wrote:

it depends

do i want it to work ?
or do i want to be proud of it ?

I think you should be proud of a revolution that works. It seems logical to me that when you consider something good and it works you are proud of it.

To
oligarch
Depend on what regime your revolting against, a Gandhi revolution would not work in Cuba, because Batista would just have killed him, easy as that, Britain couldnt do that because the population of India loved him and it wouldnt look good if a great empire like Britain had to use dirty tricks against a old thin man.

to
Zealot_Kommunizma
simply one question, Does the end justify the means ?

Ryom wrote:

to
Zealot_Kommunizma
simply one question, Does the end justify the means ?

Under certain circumstances and depending of the means employed.

Ryom wrote:

To
oligarch
Depend on what regime your revolting against, a Gandhi revolution would not work in Cuba, because Batista would just have killed him, easy as that, Britain couldnt do that because the population of India loved him and it wouldnt look good if a great empire like Britain had to use dirty tricks against a old thin man.

Gandhi revolutions don't work anywhere! Not even in India. Gandhi never posed a significant threat to British rule in India; Britain was simply to continue occupying India ofter WW2 and was forced to give it independence, Gandhi just took the credit. Gandhi himself wasn't that great of man either, he was a racist pedophile even though he wasn't the only one responsible, he contributed to partition and the subsequent genocide. Also, the British Empire didn't refrain from killing Gandhi for PR reasons, they had done plenty of other "dirty tricks" with utter disregard for what the Indian public might think, the massacre ant Amritsar for example.

did my point not even get trough to you ? not even a little bit ? let me try to make it more clear this time. its actually pretty simple a non-violent revolution will not work against a violent government, the government would have no problem killing a old thin man or prominent and respected doctor and if a person like Fidel only talked to the people and didnt form his guerrilla he would have been killed by Batistas army before he even reached Yaguajay. i think you can put like this, if the people is afraid of the government a Military Revolution is needed and if government is afraid of the people (of course not literally) a peace full revolution is needed

Ryom wrote:

did my point not even get trough to you ? not even a little bit ? let me try to make it more clear this time. its actually pretty simple a non-violent revolution will not work against a violent government, the government would have no problem killing a old thin man or prominent and respected doctor and if a person like Fidel only talked to the people and didnt form his guerrilla he would have been killed by Batistas army before he even reached Yaguajay. i think you can put like this, if the people is afraid of the government a Military Revolution is needed and if government is afraid of the people (of course not literally) a peace full revolution is needed

I understand this as revolutionary theory differing in every situation is one of the most basic principals of Marxism-Leninism but you said the opposite. You stated that Gandhi's revolution would not have been successful if it was in an oppressive country where the people were afraid of the government but the British were very oppressive and revolutions like Gandhi's almost never work and I believe it could be said that they are not a viable form of revolution.