Tao. Of course I think a revolution may be possible and I have previously openly stated that I was happy to discourage others from seeing it as an effective solution to social woes in the West. If the populace want to rebel let them do it through the ballot box. I do not feel ashamed of advocating what I believe in. Democracy allows that I may prefer the retention of capitalism.
You can spend the rest of your days listing numerous examples of corporate greed that I no more approve of than you do. Democracy has the ability to react to social injustice though the pace may not meet your expectations. There will be periods of regression followed by steps forward. There was a period when we did not have an ACCC. There was a period when government social security was non-existent. Shareholders, via the superannuation funds which they own, are starting to rebel against the excesses of CEOs.
The achievements of capitalism are not a nett negative. I am happy to categorise prior attempts to introduce a socialist state as a nett negative and the populaces have rebelled against it. Stop worrying about my incremental approach failing because over the long haul it has not failed.
Try answering my requst that you provide a plausible non-violent mechanism whereby a communist state could protect itself from the insideous effects of the black markets that would seek to undermine it.
Indefinite railing against capitalism's excesses is not a defence of Marxist ideology, it is only a rationale for change which we both agree is warranted. Just start by telling us how your system is going to work without recourse to violence and restraint of free speech.

Logical,

You ask how a future socialist revolution has a better chance of succeeding than the Russian Revolution - ‘non violently’.

To start with, workers must recognize the role played by Social Democracy in previous revolutions, and make a decisive break with them.

The German Social Democratic Party started out as a socialist party, part of the Second International. At the beginning of WWI, the parliamentary wing of the SPD voted in parliament for war funding, enabling German capitalism to begin a war that led millions of the working class to slaughter. The left wing of the party, rightly considering the War as an imperialist war in the service of German capitalism, resigned from the party and formed the Spartacist League.

Note here, that German Social Democracy voted for war. Hardly non violent!

From then on, the SPD devoted itself entirely to the maintenance of the bourgeois order and saw itself as responsible for the suppression of any revolutionary change. When the Russian Revolution gave a powerful impulse to the socialist movement at the end of the war and the Kaiser was deposed in Germany, the SPD’s official party organ Vorwärts published advertisements for the counter-revolutionary Free Corps—the paramilitary war veterans organisation that later produced many of the leading Nazis.

While the SPD’s chairman and future president of the German Reich, Friedrich Ebert, cooperated with the military high command, his party friend Gustav Noske, as head of the military department, organised the bloody suppression of the Spartacist rebellion and allowed thousands of revolutionary workers to be slaughtered. The most prominent victims were Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

This was followed by the refusal of the SPD to fight alongside the communists against Hitler and the National Socialists. After Hitler’s rise to power, the social democratic trade union leaders offered to cooperate with the fascist regime, though this failed to save them from the concentration camps. Leon Trotsky wrote in 1932: “The most decrepit layer of decrepit capitalist Europe is the social democratic bureaucracy.” Extracted and quoted from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/germ-m30.shtml, which I recommend you read.

cont...

Note here, the SPD didn’t just disagree with revolution, it actively recruited for a counter-revolutionary paramilitary organization which produced later Nazis, and organized the violent suppression of a revolution. Later it refused to fight with the communists against Hitler and co-operated with them. So not only, did the SPD pave the way for WW1, they enabled Hitler’s atrocities.

Now, it must be remembered that the leaders of the Russian Revolution (as international-socialists) took power of the technologically backward and undeveloped Russia on the basis that they believed that a revolution in more industrial European countries would follow, particularly Germany. However, the German Social Democrats (claiming to be socialist remember) actively played a counter-revolutionary role with “violence” directed against the working class. The defeat of the German Revolution was one of the factors in the isolation of the Soviet Union which eventually led to the usurpation of power by Stalin.

So that is the heritage of Social Democracy to which you claim allegiance.

As we can see, one of the most important factors in ensuring the success of future revolutions is recognizing that “Social Democrats”, despite pretensions of being friends of workers, are actually in the service of the bourgeoisie, the enemy of workers, and will use violence against them in the maintenance of private property and privilege.

So, if the bourgeoisie and their faithful servants, the Social Democrats, are prepared to use state violence against a revolution, what should workers fight with, books and proclamations of love?

And what of the “peaceful” option of voting for change? Workers voted for the ALP in 1983 and what happened? Hawke and Keating implemented policies that saw the top income earners increase their share of income. The other side of this is that the bottom income earners DECREASED their share of income. Apart from the tax changes previously described, the ALP and the union leadership entered into the Accord and deregulated the labour market – against the wishes of the workers mind you, paving the way for the current Workchoices legislation of the Howard Government.

But workers should stop worrying according to you.

Tao. I do not have allegiance to the history of German "social democracy" any more than you have (or so you say) allegiance to the history of "communist" Russia. I seek social change via democratic institutions rather than down the barrel of a gun.
Your claim that I support the proposition that "workers should stop worrying" is a fabrication.
I am enjoying reading "The Triumph of the Airheads" by Shelley Gare. It is an indictment of many aspects of capitalist society. It alerts the complacent to the need for reconsidering what is important. The key question is how to respond and that is where our paths diverge.
You finally answered my earlier question about how a future socialist revolution might have a better chance of succeeding than the Russian revolution, without recourse to violence and reduced civil liberties. You state "...what should workers fight with books and proclamations of love?". In other words you condone the use of violence to achieve your ends while condemning those who use violence to perpetuate their capitalist ends.
Your argument is that they started it so you can justify violent retaliation. You remain on that slippery slope that killed the Russian revolution and millions of its own citizens.
The definition of who constitutes the bourgeoisie and who are the incidious counter-revolutionaries keeps changing to suit the purposes of those who are willing to be the most vicious and most intent on achieving their goals. It becomes irrelevant whether their goals coincide with what I, and hopefully you, would regard as the legitimate expectations of the average man.
Your declared support for civil liberties is incompatible with your stance on how a revolution should occur. You deny the power of the word and of the leadership of individuals with genuine moral strength. Try Nelson Mandella as an example. Yes I know there was a period where Mandella supported armed insurrection. The final victory was however not based on the power of the gun. Martin Luther King also springs to mind. "I have a dream" will live on. Your impatience is the lifeblood of future dictators.

Tao
“one of the most vicious reactionary right wing posters on this forum – Col Rouge”

Boo hoo, Learn to Love and Embrace Free Speech.

“Reactionary”. The antonym is “progressive, radical”. I see nothing “progressive” or even “radical” in you.

If I read over your posts and my post, I see me as repeatedly recognizing the inevitability and benefits of change and you clinging, romantically, to the failed theories of a bloke who died over 100 years ago. In fact, if either of us is “reactionary” it is you.

“Reactionary” is simply a word which you, as you do best, miss-ascribe as a result of your small minded envy and vain attempts to antagonize.

You should open your mind to new ideas tao, instead of clinging to the past.

There have been other revolutions.

The French was followed by the Terror and ended in Bonaparte, whose rape of Europe spanned almost 15 years from Spain to Moscow. How close a comparison can be made between Stalin and Bonaparte? I would think, pretty close, Stalin’s rape of Eastern Europe and his support for oppressive dictatorial regimes, with their secret police torture chambers and gulags, was more brutal than Napoleon.

The Chinese Civil War saw the Communists prevail. Was Mao a demi-god?

He certainly was and a despot who enslaved the people his war was supposed to liberate. Controlling their reading and thoughts. Torturing, murdering and imprisoning those who dared think differently.

Let’s think about the Hungarian Revolution (or “1956 uprising” as it is better known). When Hungarians vainly fought to remove the fetters of their USSR masters.

Or Czechoslovakia’s “Prague Spring” in 1968.
That was a peaceful revolution, mercilessly crushed by “Stalin’s Successors”.
Although Moscow’s butchers had less success against the “Velvet Revolution” in 1989.

What about the Romanian Revolution of 1989, where did Ceaucescu end up?

I feel a Cuban revolution in the air. Something to purge the memory of that defiler, Castro from Havana.

North Korea will follow too. The bastardry of Kim Jong Il to be erased and the suffering of the North Korean people ended.

Logical? Well posted.

I think you are right, the wealth and liberties which capitalism brings can be easily eroded by those who feel some form of envy which can be left to fester into an “anarchistic romance”
.
The capitalist state has, by its nature, fewer instruments of control over its citizenry than the communist / socialist (which demands central government and state control at the expense of individual liberty).

In this way, capitalisms greatest strength, freedom of the individual (from which flows personal wealth innovation and inventiveness), is its greatest weakness (jealousy of those who contribute more and are rewarded appropriately).

Just as communism / socialism’s greatest strength, strict control of individuals (stifling individuals and their ideas), is its most offensive and detrimental attribute (economic and social stagnation enforced with murder and torture).

As for “Your impatience is the lifeblood of future dictators.”

Brilliant, I wish I had penned that. I will borrow it (and credit you – no plagiarism) in the future.