Are taking up arms and violent revolution generally thought of as being mutually exclusive with socialism that embraces democracy as the basis of governance, or do they just usually not go together?
Not at all, I’d say it’s the opposite. Most modern socialist countries are democracies, westerners just believe a bunch of propaganda about them. But the argument is that gains won through peaceful means largely aren’t kept because they’re not willing to arm themselves when it counts.
That’s the best case scenario - that they are actually genuinely trying to create and run on the socialist road, like Allende, Chavez and Ortega (arguably mid way, in 1999 and 2006), etc. even if through the electoral way
The worst case scenario is that they end up, like Frederich Ebert, Fabian Society people, AOC, as bourgeois-captured social democrats, who, with their political image, obscure the fact that they co-opt and rubber-stamp the repression of genuine revolutionary movements and grease the imperialist-backed monopoly capitalist economy to keep going on
Democratic Socialists can have genuinely good intent, the problem is intent doesn’t matter when you’re staring down the end of a barrel.
(feel free to quote me on this)
Do democratic socialism but also have guns like Chavez. Even Evo and Lula have figured this out by now.
Lula definetly hasn’t figured that out, I wish.
Defense Minister José Múcio Monteiro stated that Brazil would not be able to mount a military defense against the United States in the event of an invasion, and joked about the possibility by saying he would “open the gate.”
Múcio should have been fired Feb 2023 (1 month into the curent mandate), he’s still there. He is a clear representative of the most reactionary wings of the military
Political power grows out of a barrel of a gun.
deleted by creator
You know what I think? I think the problem isn’t that democratic socialists even disagree that much with MLs about the criticism that it has failed because they’re unarmed.
This problem is not “democratic socialism needs to arm itself” because leadership and well educated socialists participating in these movements seem to agree that eventually they will be violently opposed. The real problem is how the fuck do we turn these democratic socialist movements into revolutionary ones when the moment calls for it?
The people that successfully create a formula for transitioning from democratic socialism into a properly armed revolutionary movement will create the formula that works everywhere else.
The problem right now is that these movements get warned, their members see the warnings and even agree with them, but they hit a wall because the organisations they have created and the movement they have fostered can not be transitioned from one to another. They become martyrs.
The real problem is how the fuck do we turn these democratic socialist movements into revolutionary ones when the moment calls for it?
That’s not really possible, these are completely different organizations that are structured in a different way. A peaceful political movement can live on a good speaker, a few dozen planners, a few thousand people engaged enough to post flyers, and a mass of people who show up for marches, rallies, and votes and then go home. An armed movement needs groups of 5-10 people who are willing to die for each other, and leaders they trust enough that they’re willing to follow their lead into situations where that’s a real possibility. You can’t form those squads out of people who show up with a couple friends to a march and then go home.
I think the best route is for a demsoc org to focus on building spaces and events where people can build friendships, co-host some of those with a more serious sister org, and let people funnel into the sister org as they become comfortable. When shit hits the fan, the demsoc org will crumble, but the revolutionary org will already be bigger than it would’ve been otherwise. (And a bunch of fence sitters will have a clear path forward.)
This sister org style is good but I don’t see why the armed sister org can’t be a wing of the original org, especially in countries where it is legal to have those arms.
you need the socdem org to be a front for the militant org i guess
It’s been a long while since I followed news from the NPA in the Philippines but iirc that’s what they do, there is the electoral wing of the communist party in government and the NPA in the jungle
The Communist Party of the Philippines is illegal, you’re thinking of the “national democratic mass organisations”
Ah that’s right, appreciate the correction
That’s over structuring it. If you’re doing Democratic Socialism its because you don’t have a place to hide any sort of revolutionary army. Instead you have a large coalition of proletarian organizations and they all need to have a militant consensus and hopefully be armed.
i figure you might as well control the socdems rather than have them operating on their own devices or as sheepdogs for liberals.
You do that through the militancy of the coalition behind them. If you try to play puppet master you split the coalition.
The people that successfully create a formula for transitioning from democratic socialism into a properly armed revolutionary movement will create the formula that works everywhere else.
But social democracy is not really a philosophy. It is a policy manifested by all kinds of ideologies. Kind of like anarchism I guess. There are social democrats who are ideologically anticapitalist but pragmatically reformist, and there are social democrats who are both ideologically and pragmatically supportive of capitalism. There can’t be a common strategy for converting these different types.
I think Engels had it right when confronted with a similar issue of Lassalleans and other bourgeois socialists. The best way to rid of these “nostrums” was to engage them in practical struggle so that they can see for themselves how well it works. Better to show than to explain. I doubt merely electing Mamdani will effectively do this though, because he’s not really engaged in any broader class movement, but moving exclusively in the sphere of bourgeois politics.
This is why I believe in parallel revolution.
The nonviolent and militant movements both need to be developed.
Lenin himself was very consistent about exactly this
This is why my first action if I ever get near the levers of power is to arm the homeless and give them homes
Also to arm all my friends and give them dune buggies
Build up that armed contingency force that will defend the dream to the death with dune buggies
This but more seriously. If you’re doing Democratic Socialism, its because conditions for armed revolution are currently impossible and democratic reform is the only thing you can actually use to build a mass revolutionary movement. But you do need to keep a large armed and mobilized wing for when democracy stops working for the bourgeoisie. More recent LatAm movements have been better about that.
But you do need to keep a large armed and mobilized wing for when democracy stops working for the bourgeoisie.
This brings up my poorly thought out theory that Democratic socialism might actually be viable if militancy is strong within your ranks and you have formidable armed forces on your side. Not sure if that’s paradoxical with democratic socialism, if the conditions for that would never allow for demsocialism the first place. All AES throughout history have had their military be a focal point point in their movement. Allende…clearly didn’t have the military’s backing.
All AES throughout history have had their military be a focal point point in their movement.
That’s because all of those states didn’t have existing established demoractic institutions before socialism. (Except places like the GDR but they had socialism via soviet imposition not via revolution). AFAIK no socialist movement has ever overthrown a liberal democracy with any public legitimacy. Militant attempts have been made but they’ve always been frankly pathetic failures (sorry Rosa but its true).
Democratic socialism might actually be viable if militancy is strong
Allende but with real shooters is basically the only feasible option in the imperial core. All the more orthodox strategies have failed miserably because they were developed in wildly different conditions.
Allende but with real shooters is basically the only feasible option in the imperial core. All the more orthodox strategies have failed miserably because they were developed in wildly different conditions.
It’s what Venezuela and Bolivia did. While their situations right now are less than ideal, it’s inarguable that they made major stride in advancing socialism, Venezuela especially so. Elect a president and legislature, hold a constituent assembly, empower militant mass organizations to defend it, and do whatever you can to purge the cops and military. Revolution is not some opposite side to elections - they are dialectically connected, with elections able to act as an important, pivotal tool within a revolutionary process. The power still has to stem from mass organization, militancy, and the capacity to fight the ruling class. But elections do bestow power, and that power can be used to consolidate more. You should drop all pretense of fair elections with the bourgeois parties and use your electoral victory to cement working class power on every imaginable front. Eventually, a more violent revolutionary process is inevitable, but you can approach it from a position of strength with a state that is on your side or at least divided.
Yeah I cited Venezuela and Bolivia in a different thread and I’m seeing other people citing them as well. Its good to see comrades looking to LatAm for examples. Its definitely not the same as the US but far more similar than Asia or Africa and in some ways Europe too.
Regarding electoralism, the catch is you actually must earnestly try to pass the reforms if you want any traction with the masses. They have no patience for ideological obstinance, that doesn’t pay their bills. That puts the party on knife’s edge of liberal cooption or political irrelevance. The good news is the libs have been making this pretty easy for us by being even more obstinate while loosing on their own terms.
To a certain extent, I think revolution is only possible when the state keeps making the same mistakes.
Well, it’s not my cup of tea but…
Also to arm all my friends and give them dune buggies
Charlie Manson??
The fifth Beach Boy
And now for our next song Cease to Exs…I mean Never Learn Not to Love I hope ripping off that crazy short guy doesn’t bite anyone in the ass
It’s not just DemSocs, most political philosophies and tendencies don’t have a well grounded theory on political violence and military affairs
So many treat the military as if it was some mystical third party that couldn’t care less about political economy or political violence as some far away abstract event that couldn’t possibly touch them, and then they act surprised when they get gunned down
At its core, every successful revolution is nothing more than a victorious military campaign
It’s called class war for a reason!
The Hungarian communist party? /jk
Shouldn’t have disarmed the workers.
