Dedicated to Kenzu Milagro - our Czech friend.

reformist and revolution is like cooking an omelet, you would rather like to flip (revolt) it all in once then cut it into pieces and flip each piece. but when you are finished with it it would be dumb to swallow it all without cutting it into pieces or you would get it stuck in the neck.

Liche wrote:

Im tempted to get into this cooking argument.

and CKX, the whole point of this thread is about that video being dedicated to Kenzu Its in Czech.

Oh its Czech
I thought some weird ass french.

Tyrlop wrote:

reformist and revolution is like cooking an omelet,

No. Cut the cuisine analogy for political positions, you're not making a single valid point here.

Tyrlop wrote:

you would rather like to flip (revolt) it all in once then cut it into pieces and flip each piece.

Absurd analogy. Evidently you're not familiar with either the concept of revolution or the cooking of an omelette being the second irrelevant to the discussion.

Tyrlop wrote:

but when you are finished with it it would be dumb to swallow it all without cutting it into pieces or you would get it stuck in the neck.

Which doesn't make sense in a political context. What does reaching the cooking point of eggs and cutting them to pieces do with revolution or reformism?

Also, things you swallow don't go down your neck but down your throat.

Will you make a valid point or just keep spamming with flawed analogies for revolution and reformism?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

reformist and revolution is like cooking an omelet,

No. Cut the cuisine analogy for political positions, you're not making a single valid point here.

Tyrlop wrote:

you would rather like to flip (revolt) it all in once then cut it into pieces and flip each piece.

Absurd analogy. Evidently you're not familiar with either the concept of revolution or the cooking of an omelette being the second irrelevant to the discussion.

Tyrlop wrote:

but when you are finished with it it would be dumb to swallow it all without cutting it into pieces or you would get it stuck in the neck.

Which doesn't make sense in a political context. What does reaching the cooking point of eggs and cutting them to pieces do with revolution or reformism?

Also, things you swallow don't go down your neck but down your throat.

Will you make a valid point or just keep spamming with flawed analogies for revolution and reformism?

You dont want to understand my point.. and im very good for using this. so please IT made sence try to use you imagination. i think that most people here would guess what it means, and if you get my point in this you will also understand that its a possitive view of your possition so please dont be so arrogant, and sorry english is not my main language and neck and troat is the same in danish

Tyrlop wrote:

You dont want to understand my point..

It's not related to the debate nor does it make sense. You have not provided fundaments for your claims yet.

Tyrlop wrote:

and im very good for using this.

No, you're not good at derailing discussions into pointless and unrelated debates. I'm still waiting for arguements.

Tyrlop wrote:

so please IT made sence try to use you imagination.

It didn't. Cooking an omelette has nothing to do with revolution or reformism. But well, just because you don't seem to be able to communicate in more advanced language I'll explain you how this works in cuisinespeak:

Objective: Create an omelette.

Method:

Revolutionaires: Batter raw eggs and put them to frying pan so that raw eggs change into omelette.

Reformists: Batter raw eggs and expect that the rawness of eggs eventually turns them into an omelette.

Tyrlop wrote:

i think that most people here would guess what it means,

And I'll congratulate those creative minds able to figure out a spoon dripping milk out of a blank space.

Tyrlop wrote:

and if you get my point in this you will also understand that its a possitive view of your possition so please dont be so arrogant,

I don't care if you intend to glorify the grateness of spaghetti by drawing a scheme of a Nigerian government building - the two things are so intrinsicly unrelated it won't make sense unless you explain what you intend to express and why.

And... arrogant? Nope. I'm merely being straightforward and objective and willing to discuss instead of playing charades.

Tyrlop wrote:

and sorry english is not my main language and neck and troat is the same in danish

I'm not sure if what you're saying about the Danish language here is true but if it is, there's something in Denmark that needs reform and it's not the political and economic system (which require revolution).

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Objective: Create an omelette.

Method:

Revolutionaires: Batter raw eggs and put them to frying pan so that raw eggs change into omelette.

Reformists: Batter raw eggs and expect that the rawness of eggs eventually turns them into an omelette.

Why expect it?
You just need votes, and revolutionaires just need members.
I dotn get the reformist part, as in, why expect?

CoolKidX wrote:

Why expect it?

Because they'll figure out they can do nothing to make rawness serve the objective of making an omelette.

CKX wrote:

You just need votes,

In reformism? Yeah, but you don't make the omelette, you still get raw eggs.

CKX wrote:

and revolutionaires just need members.

Yeah, to change the status quo - from raw to cooked.

CKX wrote:

I dotn get the reformist part, as in, why expect?

Because they employ rawness to get rid of rawness. So they expect rawness will produce coction.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Because they'll figure out they can do nothing to make rawness serve the objective of making an omelette.

Why not?
They can make the rawness upgrade. Right?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In reformism? Yeah, but you don't make the omelette, you still get raw eggs.

So whats the omelette suppose to be? Communism, right?
SO what if the reform commie party is the leading party, with most seats, with no coalition. Then you can transfer, just tax the fuck out of rich folks, nationalise everything etc.
IT ain' that hard.
I'd prefer that then some guys with red flags storming capitalist buildings and destroying all kinda shit and might lynch some random CEO dude.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Yeah, to change the status quo - from raw to cooked.

But with votes you can change it too.
But it may passed me in a response on Tyrlops post but how can reofrism not go to communism?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Because they employ rawness to get rid of rawness. So they expect rawness will produce coction.

So they emply rawness, means they are part of capitalism, so they can get rid of capitalism? :S

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

.


Objective: Create an omelette.

Method:

Revolutionaires: Batter raw eggs and put them to frying pan so that raw eggs change into omelette.

Reformists: Batter raw eggs and expect that the rawness of eggs eventually turns them into an omelette.

wow you are really bad.
and Denmark .............

anyways i have no idea why you think i like reforms rather then revolutions or the other way around.

CoolKidX wrote:

Why not?
They can make the rawness upgrade. Right?

Not through rawness itself.

CKX wrote:

So whats the omelette suppose to be? Communism, right?

Supposing that's what Tyrlop meant with Omelette, yes.

CKX wrote:

SO what if the reform commie party is the leading party, with most seats, with no coalition. Then you can transfer, just tax the fuck out of rich folks, nationalise everything etc.

That's not communism. That's plain welfare statism and it has failed enough already to keep attempting it, at least for the stablishment of socialism.

Communism requires the abolishment of the state and bourgeoisie, you can't keep the state or bourgeoisie if you plan to have socialism stablished.

CKX wrote:

IT ain' that hard.

If what you intend is to establish communism, then it's not only hard - it's impossible.

CKX wrote:

I'd prefer that then some guys with red flags storming capitalist buildings and destroying all kinda shit and might lynch some random CEO dude.

You got your concept of revolution all wrong. You're merely talking about violence here, not revolution. That violence may happen with whichever mean as a product of lack of organization, lack of awareness and the existance of class resentment which, to exist, pretty much requires lack of class awareness.

Socialist Revolution is about workers depriving the bourgeoisie and state from power. Not by workers taking over the state and pushing laws hostile to the bourgeoisie while funnily keeping it.

CKX wrote:

But with votes you can change it too.

Through a statist system no, you can't because one of thegoasl is to abolish the state and for that you have to first disacknowledge the state and that includes all its institutions.

CKX wrote:

But it may passed me in a response on Tyrlops post but how can reofrism not go to communism?

Reformism is about using the state and capitalist systems to abolish them. Pretty much like pouring water to prevent flooding.

We part from the fact that socialism is a system in which there's no state, no social classes and in which workers directly control the economy to suffice their needs.

Reformism is about keeping the state, keeping the bourgeoisie therefore keeping both the existance of classes and capitalism itslef but just pushing laws to favour workers. Supposedly, the reformist government will achieve socialism by putting laws that favour workers but... that's not socialism since socialism is what we defined above.

So what's the outcome of such policies? Workers will just get accustomed to a system in which they're under teh orders of the state and in which they're still under the orders of the bourgeoisie while the bourgeoisie still controls the economy just with state intervention. Eventually teh bourgeoisie crumbles and the state assumes its roles, pretty much Soviet style. If they keep a capitalist economic framework in which they spend more in welfare and such things than what they earn, USSR's history will repeat all over again just without the revolution. If not, the state will just be both state and bourgeoisie, cinicly exploiting the workers by having them produce everything, sell it to them and profit from it. This will unavoidably reach a critical point.

Suppose, though, that this state manages things to some sort of stability. Or lets say that from this system you can get some sort of popular dictatorship that does not rely on capitalism. You still got no socialism at all - you may have a popular and social dictatorship, or state or as you wish to call it, but not socialism.

Suppose then that within that very same framework people eventually get awareness of their condition and decide that the state should be abolished and coordination should be directly in the hands of workers. Then, there's socialism and there's revolution.

Reformists essentially think that the state can be socialist and serve the workers. Utopic Socialists thought that capitalists could be socialist and that because they're intrinsicly good they'd all surrender their assets to workers and become part of the working class. It's the same, just change state for bourgeoisie. It's two different kinds of utopic socialists.

CKX wrote:

So they emply rawness, means they are part of capitalism, so they can get rid of capitalism? :S

They want to keep capitalism so that capitalism transforms into socialism through laws. Doesn't work that way.

Revolution is the only way through which socialism can be established because socialism implies the dissollution of the state and bourgeoisie and taht happens when the workers have disacknowledged both the state and the bourgeoisie.

A common preamble for revolution are strikes and such. Violence is most often started by the reactionaires, that is, the ones who want to keep capitalism:

Workers disacknowledge peacefully both the state, its laws and the "right of ownership" of the bourgeoisie over the means of production. The state and bourgeoisie disagree with the workers and search to enforce the law-established property rights through violence either by breaking the strike or getting workers to get their hands off the means of production. Sometimes, threatting to do so is more than enough to break the strike, sometimes it's not. The objective of teh state and bourgeoisie is to keep the cycle of exploitation unbroken so they either get the revolting workers to leave so they can put willing workers to work, or theyr literally force revolting workers to work which is what happens when the working mass is too overwhealming or literally forms the entirety of teh workforce.

That's why revolutions tend to impy violence, because reactionaires want to enforce their laws. Laws acknowledged by no one but them and those too afraid and/or too ignorant to oppose them and be aware of teh implications of said laws.

Tyrlop wrote:

wow you are really bad.

Unfounded subjectivity. If I engaged in such a subjectivity, which I have avoided, I could say the same except I have provided foundations.

Tyrlop wrote:

anyways i have no idea why you think i like reforms rather then revolutions or the other way around.

If you were interested in this debate and had read my previous posts, you'd know why. Instead you're just drawing and talking about recipes.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

That's not communism. That's plain welfare statism and it has failed enough already to keep attempting it, at least for the stablishment of socialism.

Its a stage no? Ofcourse not absolute communism, but atleast a stage to socialism, no?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Communism requires the abolishment of the state and bourgeoisie, you can't keep the state or bourgeoisie if you plan to have socialism stablished.

Why no state? I never got that.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

If what you intend is to establish communism, then it's not only hard - it's impossible.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You got your concept of revolution all wrong. You're merely talking about violence here, not revolution. That violence may happen with whichever mean as a product of lack of organization, lack of awareness and the existance of class resentment which, to exist, pretty much requires lack of class awareness.

And that can happen most liekly then you think. You expect to get pissed off workers who are "exploited' to be all peacefull to capitalists now?
Not everything is perfect, there will most liekly to be violence, give me a revolution that didnt use violence, and in that, a country wide one, not a small ass one.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Socialist Revolution is about workers depriving the bourgeoisie and state from power. Not by workers taking over the state and pushing laws hostile to the bourgeoisie while funnily keeping it.

But what about law the fuck out of them, that theirs no way that their company can survive, he, heh?
Then a stage and abolish money, then everybody seems to have a happy face in the fairy tall of Communism.(jk, dont need to go rage on me)

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Through a statist system no, you can't because one of thegoasl is to abolish the state and for that you have to first disacknowledge the state and that includes all its institutions.

Ya but why abolish ze state?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Reformism is about using the state and capitalist systems to abolish them. Pretty much like pouring water to prevent flooding.

Or killing something from the inside.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

We part from the fact that socialism is a system in which there's no state, no social classes and in which workers directly control the economy to suffice their needs.

Not that much diffrence between that and communism. But how to control sooo many changes with no state, since its still in socialism.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Reformism is about keeping the state,

But the Russian revolution for example used a revolution but still had a state. So it can go wrong with the revolution.
I mean, what to do after a revolution? Who leads them?
"Okay we abolished the state and no bourgeouise anymore... what now?"
"Look in the commie book"
"Yea... I do that, and you do that?"
"what I do"
"what do the other 200 million(example) do, wtf they know to do, omfg we need a leader"

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Supposedly, the reformist government will achieve socialism by putting laws that favour workers but... that's not socialism since socialism is what we defined above.

But its better then no laws in favour of workers. Amirite?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Eventually teh bourgeoisie crumbles and the state assumes its roles, pretty much Soviet style. If they keep a capitalist economic framework in which they spend more in welfare and such things than what they earn, USSR's history will repeat all over again just without the revolution. If not, the state will just be both state and bourgeoisie, cinicly exploiting the workers by having them produce everything, sell it to them and profit from it. This will unavoidably reach a critical point.

But the USSR spent alot on dumb shit like the militairy, what are they some conservative americans? Tsssss...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Suppose, though, that this state manages things to some sort of stability. Or lets say that from this system you can get some sort of popular dictatorship that does not rely on capitalism. You still got no socialism at all - you may have a popular and social dictatorship, or state or as you wish to call it, but not socialism.

Ahhh, I see.
But what if the popular dictatorship IS capitalist, we get, Hitler.
And he wasnt THAT bad besides the killing, starting WW2, and limit freedom. Righttttt.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

They want to keep capitalism so that capitalism transforms into socialism through laws. Doesn't work that way.

With force will be better?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Revolution is the only way through which socialism can be established because socialism implies the dissollution of the state and bourgeoisie and taht happens when the workers have disacknowledged both the state and the bourgeoisie.

How will they abolish ze state?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

A common preamble for revolution are strikes and such. Violence is most often started by the reactionaires, that is, the ones who want to keep capitalism:

Well if I was the government and some random ass commies came to my building or take over things in my country and towns and shit. And they say that they want to abolish us. I'd pretty much sent a police korps or anything. It may be wrong, but they begun, they want to abolish us, we want that not. And if they dont follow the rules, then yea, jail or sumthing.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

hat's why revolutions tend to impy violence, because reactionaires want to enforce their laws. Laws acknowledged by no one but them and those too afraid and/or too ignorant to oppose them and be aware of teh implications of said laws.

How can a reactionary exist when the revolution is not even done?
If you begin with a state, and it gets attacked, you defend, you are a reactionary? How, the state did not even changed.

CoolKidX wrote:

Its a stage no? Ofcourse not absolute communism, but atleast a stage to socialism, no?

Nope, it's not a stage for socialism. It's just another system. Based on that premise any other system is a stage previous to socialism.

CKX wrote:

Why no state? I never got that.

Because it's a coercive and unnecesary entity that rules over the workers, taht is, deprives workers of rule.

CKX wrote:

And that can happen most liekly then you think.

It's unlinked to revolution. As I said, it's linked to lack of awareness and it happens on a daily basis in capitalism.

CKX wrote:

You expect to get pissed off workers who are "exploited' to be all peacefull to capitalists now?

It's enough with depriving them from their status of capitalists.

CKX wrote:

Not everything is perfect, there will most liekly to be violence, give me a revolution that didnt use violence, and in that, a country wide one, not a small ass one.

I already explaine how and why things happen. Peace will exist so long as there's no reaction. There hasn't been a revolution without reaction.

CKX wrote:

But what about law the fuck out of them, that theirs no way that their company can survive, he, heh?

That's absolutely pointless, specially because the state is to be abolished.

CKX wrote:

Then a stage and abolish money, then everybody seems to have a happy face in the fairy tall of Communism.(jk, dont need to go rage on me)

Nor it is a stage-dependant system, nor is it about abolishing money (some socialist frameworks partially employ money - I don't favour them for several reasons but that is another debate).

And no one talks about fairy tales or "perfection".

CKX wrote:

Ya but why abolish ze state?

Explained above. It is a coeercive and unnecesary institution that alienates power from the workers.

CKX wrote:

Or killing something from the inside.

Nope, it's trying to kill something while keeping it alive.

Workers are inside capitalism, revolution can't be extrinsic to capitalism - it comes from within for there's no other possibility.

CKX wrote:

Not that much diffrence between that and communism. But how to control sooo many changes with no state, since its still in socialism.

Socialism=Communism. Not different stages, not different things. Leninism, in regards to the stablishment of socialism has been refuted both argumentatively and pragmatically. I have already explained the confusin around socialism and communism in other threads, mainly "Socialism vs Communism" in Politics' section.

How to control revolution? In the same way all organized events occur, by people coordinating their interaction.

CKX wrote:

But the Russian revolution for example used a revolution but still had a state. So it can go wrong with the revolution.

I'm talking about socialist revolution, not bourgeoise and statist revolutions. The French Revolution was used to impose a new kind of state as well, it was not socialist, it was a bourgeoise revolution.

CKX wrote:

I mean, what to do after a revolution? Who leads them?

Who leads whom? Someone the workers? What makes you suppose people that count with class awareness and knowledge on what socialism is require to be lead by someone to establish a political and economical organizational scheme?

CKX wrote:

"Okay we abolished the state and no bourgeouise anymore... what now?"
"Look in the commie book"
"Yea... I do that, and you do that?"
"what I do"
"what do the other 200 million(example) do, wtf they know to do, omfg we need a leader"

No. No bourgeoisie, no state, let's get together, decide what we need to do, how and do it.

CKX wrote:

But its better then no laws in favour of workers. Amirite?

No, it's the same shit just coated with sugar and cocaine, keeping the workers dormant and content while still being exploited and dominated.

CKX wrote:

But the USSR spent alot on dumb shit like the militairy, what are they some conservative americans? Tsssss...

The USSR spent a lot of money in non-profitable activities, not only military - most of the industry was non-profitable because the produce of said industries was not sold, it was granted for free, yet, they were profit reliant so they eventually went bankrupt.

Else, if you put most of teh burden of exploitation on the people of your community, they eventually get discontent and that's what happened with USSR. For example, Japanese, USA's and Germany's greater companies have by far most of the burden of exploitation diseminated around the globe so they can pay nice salaries to their domestic workers for them to achieve higher life standards and forget about exploitation. USSR workers didn't have that so eventually teh State trying to profit would cause much problem and lack of profit would make economy break, as it happened.

As for weapons, they had German nazis, British, French, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, German, American etc. conservatives and liberals attacking them since 1918 until 1945 and threattening them until 1991. What did you expect them to do? Sit and wait for other state to topple them?

CKX wrote:

Ahhh, I see.
But what if the popular dictatorship IS capitalist, we get, Hitler.
And he wasnt THAT bad besides the killing, starting WW2, and limit freedom. Righttttt.

Nope, that was not a popular dictatorship. That was a capitalist dictatorship. A popular dictatorship is essentially one that entirely serves the people, at least in theory. They're the only ruling class, and supposedly are benevolent - what the people tells them to do, they'll enforce it on everyone. That's not how Nazi Germany was run.

A popular dictatorship, or a "people's dictatorship" cannot be capitalist. It's just a state enforcing what the people says. For example, workers arranged in councils would determine the laws and the state would enforce them. It's the closest an authoritative system could get to socialism.

CKX wrote:

With force will be better?

What force? Socialism just requires workers to stop acknowledging the state and the bourgeoisie, that's all. If those disacknowledged parties want their power back, they'll need to recur to force so they'll be the ones initiating force.

CKX wrote:

How will they abolish ze state?

By disacknowledging it thus its power.

CKX wrote:

Well if I was the government and some random ass commies came to my building or take over things in my country and towns and shit. And they say that they want to abolish us. I'd pretty much sent a police korps or anything. It may be wrong, but they begun, they want to abolish us, we want that not. And if they dont follow the rules, then yea, jail or sumthing.

What building? Government buildings? There wouldn't even be a reason to touch them. Commies taking over things in your country? I thought the Netherlands belonged to the Dutch people not to the monarchs, bourgeoisie and ministers...

So you say it's fine to repress people, right?

CKX wrote:

How can a reactionary exist when the revolution is not even done?
If you begin with a state, and it gets attacked, you defend, you are a reactionary? How, the state did not even changed.

You didn't get what I said.

There's the state, the bourgeoisie and the workers.

The workers decide the state and bourgeoisie have power no more over them so, they beging using the means of production in accordance to their own rules. They stop working for the state and bourgeoisie. That's the revolution.

The state and bourgeoisie do not accept this so they harness force, even if it is by hiring foreign mercenaries or an army of slaves and attempt to force the workers into acknowledging them back. Violence begins, this is reaction to revolution.

The workers resist and respond with violence. So long as the struggle exists there will be revolution as reaction is preventing it from consumating into the establishment of socialism.

Is that clearer now?

Tyrlop wrote:

but when you are finished with it it would be dumb to swallow it all without cutting it into pieces or you would get it stuck in the neck.

The human body has a clever device in the mouth that we commonly call teeth, that we use for that exact purpose.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Why not?
They can make the rawness upgrade. Right?

Not through rawness itself.

CKX wrote:

So whats the omelette suppose to be? Communism, right?

Supposing that's what Tyrlop meant with Omelette, yes.

CKX wrote:

SO what if the reform commie party is the leading party, with most seats, with no coalition. Then you can transfer, just tax the fuck out of rich folks, nationalise everything etc.

That's not communism. That's plain welfare statism and it has failed enough already to keep attempting it, at least for the stablishment of socialism.

Communism requires the abolishment of the state and bourgeoisie, you can't keep the state or bourgeoisie if you plan to have socialism stablished.

CKX wrote:

IT ain' that hard.

If what you intend is to establish communism, then it's not only hard - it's impossible.

CKX wrote:

I'd prefer that then some guys with red flags storming capitalist buildings and destroying all kinda shit and might lynch some random CEO dude.

You got your concept of revolution all wrong. You're merely talking about violence here, not revolution. That violence may happen with whichever mean as a product of lack of organization, lack of awareness and the existance of class resentment which, to exist, pretty much requires lack of class awareness.

Socialist Revolution is about workers depriving the bourgeoisie and state from power. Not by workers taking over the state and pushing laws hostile to the bourgeoisie while funnily keeping it.

CKX wrote:

But with votes you can change it too.

Through a statist system no, you can't because one of thegoasl is to abolish the state and for that you have to first disacknowledge the state and that includes all its institutions.

CKX wrote:

But it may passed me in a response on Tyrlops post but how can reofrism not go to communism?

Reformism is about using the state and capitalist systems to abolish them. Pretty much like pouring water to prevent flooding.

We part from the fact that socialism is a system in which there's no state, no social classes and in which workers directly control the economy to suffice their needs.

Reformism is about keeping the state, keeping the bourgeoisie therefore keeping both the existance of classes and capitalism itslef but just pushing laws to favour workers. Supposedly, the reformist government will achieve socialism by putting laws that favour workers but... that's not socialism since socialism is what we defined above.

So what's the outcome of such policies? Workers will just get accustomed to a system in which they're under teh orders of the state and in which they're still under the orders of the bourgeoisie while the bourgeoisie still controls the economy just with state intervention. Eventually teh bourgeoisie crumbles and the state assumes its roles, pretty much Soviet style. If they keep a capitalist economic framework in which they spend more in welfare and such things than what they earn, USSR's history will repeat all over again just without the revolution. If not, the state will just be both state and bourgeoisie, cinicly exploiting the workers by having them produce everything, sell it to them and profit from it. This will unavoidably reach a critical point.

Suppose, though, that this state manages things to some sort of stability. Or lets say that from this system you can get some sort of popular dictatorship that does not rely on capitalism. You still got no socialism at all - you may have a popular and social dictatorship, or state or as you wish to call it, but not socialism.

Suppose then that within that very same framework people eventually get awareness of their condition and decide that the state should be abolished and coordination should be directly in the hands of workers. Then, there's socialism and there's revolution.

Reformists essentially think that the state can be socialist and serve the workers. Utopic Socialists thought that capitalists could be socialist and that because they're intrinsicly good they'd all surrender their assets to workers and become part of the working class. It's the same, just change state for bourgeoisie. It's two different kinds of utopic socialists.

CKX wrote:

So they emply rawness, means they are part of capitalism, so they can get rid of capitalism? :S

They want to keep capitalism so that capitalism transforms into socialism through laws. Doesn't work that way.

Revolution is the only way through which socialism can be established because socialism implies the dissollution of the state and bourgeoisie and taht happens when the workers have disacknowledged both the state and the bourgeoisie.

A common preamble for revolution are strikes and such. Violence is most often started by the reactionaires, that is, the ones who want to keep capitalism:

Workers disacknowledge peacefully both the state, its laws and the "right of ownership" of the bourgeoisie over the means of production. The state and bourgeoisie disagree with the workers and search to enforce the law-established property rights through violence either by breaking the strike or getting workers to get their hands off the means of production. Sometimes, threatting to do so is more than enough to break the strike, sometimes it's not. The objective of teh state and bourgeoisie is to keep the cycle of exploitation unbroken so they either get the revolting workers to leave so they can put willing workers to work, or theyr literally force revolting workers to work which is what happens when the working mass is too overwhealming or literally forms the entirety of teh workforce.

That's why revolutions tend to impy violence, because reactionaires want to enforce their laws. Laws acknowledged by no one but them and those too afraid and/or too ignorant to oppose them and be aware of teh implications of said laws.

Tyrlop wrote:

wow you are really bad.

Unfounded subjectivity. If I engaged in such a subjectivity, which I have avoided, I could say the same except I have provided foundations.

Tyrlop wrote:

anyways i have no idea why you think i like reforms rather then revolutions or the other way around.

If you were interested in this debate and had read my previous posts, you'd know why. Instead you're just drawing and talking about recipes.

revolution is extra-parliamentary, how can it be that the communist parties are in the parliament if they simply are against it. they gain nothing.

have we ever seen such a revolution happend succes?
it can impossible be international, that would cause a miracle to make it international revolution..

and stop quoting the bible you ortodox marxist, we live in 2000. we can succes in the parliament, take a look, whole south america is leftish today thanks to the parliament, soon they will find together and make some important decissions.

Tyrlop wrote:

revolution is extra-parliamentary, how can it be that the communist parties are in the parliament if they simply are against it. they gain nothing.

Several communist parties are not communist but in name.

Others are reformist and others believe it to be one of the many fronts to battle for revolution.

Tyrlop wrote:

have we ever seen such a revolution happend succes?

A lot of them namely the American Revolution, the French Revolution the Russian Revolution both February's and October's, etc.

Their political systems, that's another thing - these revolutions achieved their goals which were nothing but eliminating the current government and political system and change them for theirs.

Tyrlop wrote:

it can impossible be international, that would cause a miracle to make it international revolution..

So long as you don't have a clear understanding of what "international revolution" means.

Tyrlop wrote:

and stop quoting the bible you ortodox marxist, we live in 2000.

Quoting the bible? What bible? Ah you perhaps mean Marxist literature... I don't even recall quoting a single writting by Marx. In regards to socialism I just traced down the history of that political system and its denomination - nothing more. And that's not being dogmatic, it's just sticking to what socialism stands for. If you believe in something different than that call it other way instead of staining the good name of socialism like others have done.

And we don't live in 2000, but 2009... and I don't see how this is even relevant since the class relationships work pretty much in the same way as they did 150 years ago with the very notable and important differences that the proletariat has been more effectively alienated, the culture of exploitation is more developed and its roots have grown and imperialism has effectively served to keep the proletariats of the 1st world dormant.

Tyrlop wrote:

we can succes in the parliament,

And who needs that? Not socialists. Mediocre left-wing statists may do, but not socialists.

Tyrlop wrote:

take a look, whole south america is leftish today thanks to the parliament, soon they will find together and make some important decissions.

"Leftish"... that even sounds pejorative. All those "left-wing" parties in South America are mediocre, populist, welfarist and of course capitalist. I don't see how that comes to someone that claims to be a socialist as a triumph. Their status quo hasn't changed - just the proportions of some of its elements, Venezuela being a horrible example of a failure where the state is nothing but an entity that is hostile to the bourgeoisie, competes against it and yet allows it to exist and protects it this meaning it engages both in exploitation and the defense of exploitation by the bourgeoisie.

No crumbles or breadloafs for the workers, but the bakery, mill and fields themselves!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Others are reformist and others believe it to be one of the many fronts to battle for revolution.

such as?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

A lot of them namely the American Revolution, the French Revolution the Russian Revolution both February's and October's, etc.

Their political systems, that's another thing - these revolutions achieved their goals which were nothing but eliminating the current government and political system and change them for theirs.

Tyrlop wrote:

it can impossible be international, that would cause a miracle to make it international revolution..

So long as you don't have a clear understanding of what "international revolution" means.

what is a international revolution?
its hard for me to imagine in it worldwide, how will it mobilise?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Quoting the bible? What bible? Ah you perhaps mean Marxist literature... I don't even recall quoting a single writting by Marx. In regards to socialism I just traced down the history of that political system and its denomination - nothing more. And that's not being dogmatic, it's just sticking to what socialism stands for. If you believe in something different than that call it other way instead of staining the good name of socialism like others have done.

And we don't live in 2000, but 2009... and I don't see how this is even relevant since the class relationships work pretty much in the same way as they did 150 years ago with the very notable and important differences that the proletariat has been more effectively alienated, the culture of exploitation is more developed and its roots have grown and imperialism has effectively served to keep the proletariats of the 1st world dormant.

that was just silly...... ill jump over that.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

we can succes in the parliament,

And who needs that? Not socialists. Mediocre left-wing statists may do, but not socialists.

thats because your defination of socialist, is that socialist is the exact same of communist. but i don't want to disscusse it here we should get to the point, i admit ive been a bit "away"(mentaly)..
my point of this whole topic is ... it will come later on the end of this post, look below

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

take a look, whole south america is leftish today thanks to the parliament, soon they will find together and make some important decissions.

"Leftish"... that even sounds pejorative. All those "left-wing" parties in South America are mediocre, populist, welfarist and of course capitalist. I don't see how that comes to someone that claims to be a socialist as a triumph. Their status quo hasn't changed - just the proportions of some of its elements, Venezuela being a horrible example of a failure where the state is nothing but an entity that is hostile to the bourgeoisie, competes against it and yet allows it to exist and protects it this meaning it engages both in exploitation and the defense of exploitation by the bourgeoisie.

No crumbles or breadloafs for the workers, but the bakery, mill and fields themselves!

i dont see any conflict anymore.. you are uhm right at some points the other points i dont point out because you scare the shit out of me.

Tyrlop wrote:

such as?

Some socialists, mainly some DeLeonists I know of, believe that the State can be used to abolish it.

How? In essence, you win the elections, you harness power over the state and abolish it while setting the basis for the socialist organizational scheme.

Tyrlop wrote:

what is a international revolution?

A series of revolutions occuring worldwide in different countries within a certain period of time and that would eventually coordinate with each other in a process that could take several years and that could start even in just a single place and spread over the world.

It's not like you snap your fingers and voilá all revolutions occur at the same time all over the world, in case that's what you understood for "international revolution"

Tyrlop wrote:

thats because your defination of socialist, is that socialist is the exact same of communist.

Not "mine" but "the". I already gave an arguement for that which so far hasn't been rebutted by anyone and which actually can't be refuted because it's simply the truth.

Tyrlop wrote:

but i don't want to disscusse it here we should get to the point, i admit ive been a bit "away"(mentaly)..

And we shouldn't, it's been discussed too much already and a conclusion has been reached.

Tyrlop wrote:

my point of this whole topic is ... it will come later on the end of this post, look below

Aha, sure.

Tyrlop wrote:

OW SHIT ITS thundering here, i better turn my pc off. ill post the rest later.

Indeed.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Not "mine" but "the". I already gave an arguement for that which so far hasn't been rebutted by anyone and which actually can't be refuted because it's simply the truth.

can i have a link for that topic?????



okey my point of this stopic was something that i forgot it sound silly but that is true, and its not because the lightnening hit me but i think when it pops out of my mind in a few minuts maximum some hours i will post the rest

EDIT check the other post i edited it.

Tyrlop wrote:

its hard for me to imagine in it worldwide, how will it mobilise?

Through the dissemination of information and perhaps in neighboring cases by immediate active cooperation.

Tyrlop wrote:

that was just silly...... ill jump over that

What was silly and why?

Tyrlop wrote:

you are uhm right at some points

Aha, which?

Tyrlop wrote:

the other points i dont point out because you scare the shit out of me.

Aha... why?

Tyrlop wrote:

can i have a link for that topic?????

Sure.

Okay Zealot, one more time then.

Just correct me, 'aight?

So, you can't get communism by reformism, because, when a communist party in a pairliment is the biggest, note that its a party, and that they are making the rules, and not every guy for himself makes the rules.
Amirite?

Also, the leading communist party is the state.
But what if they just go away off the pairliment and just say ok everybody for his own yay.

CoolKidX wrote:

Okay Zealot, one more time then.

Just correct me, 'aight?

So, you can't get communism by reformism, because, when a communist party in a pairliment is the biggest, note that its a party, and that they are making the rules, and not every guy for himself makes the rules.
Amirite?

Also, the leading communist party is the state.
But what if they just go away off the pairliment and just say ok everybody for his own yay.

Bah, Communism has no state!

CoolKidX wrote:

So, you can't get communism by reformism, because, when a communist party in a pairliment is the biggest, note that its a party, and that they are making the rules, and not every guy for himself makes the rules.
Amirite?

To some extent, you're right.

Communism is a stateless system therefore so long as these mechanisms of the state exist, there's no communism. Also, if the political system is kept, that is a constitutition, laws etc. defacto there's not even the slightest attempt to establish communism. Is just a self-proclaimed communist party leading in a capitalist framework.

Communism can't be achieved by reforms because Communism requires the entire abolishment of the current political, legal and economic framework.

CKX wrote:

Also, the leading communist party is the state.
But what if they just go away off the pairliment and just say ok everybody for his own yay.

Suppose the communist party does have enough political party to literally dominate the politics of a country. As a real communist party its platform would have to be to abolish the same system that granted it that power - abolish the state and do what it could to abolish classes. This, oficially, counts as a revolution not as a reform since the entire framework is being dropped out.

However, it's not just about abolishing the state and such. For such a move to be workable, it should be backed up by a significant share of the population that already counts with enough socio-economic awareness. Such a move without the required awareness wouldn't end up well - it could imply anything from amounting to a simple resignation to simply creating a status of temporal disorder in which the ruling classes would again impose their order.

Many are supporters of using the state as a revolutionary tool. That is, using it to spread the necesary awareness and deprive the bourgeoisie of its power. The problem is that we saw already what happens with such political agenda.

I think it's really bad that even after members have been for so long, they still don't know that communism is a stateless system.

We repeat it again and again.
Either they didn't hear it, which is unlikely, or they don't want to accept it, even though it is the very definition of communism.