Step 1: organize a vanguard party of committed revolutionaries (many sub-steps)
Step 2: agitate within institutions that control key infrastructure and the military
Step 3: use the vanguard party to build a dual power political apparatus
Step 4: await a significant enough economic crisis that you can take advantage of low military morale (or open disloyalty) and public disgust/disillusionment with the actions of all ruling parties to show (through action not rhetoric!) the working class that your party is the only party willing and capable of meeting their needs.
Step 5: depose the current ruling class of their power and try them for their numerous crimes.
Step 6: congrats, working people have control of the state
It is a gloss over step tbh but yes people die. Revolutions are not a tea party. It doesn’t have to be a lot though. The Bolsheviks barely had to kill anyone to achieve state power. Granted they threatened the provisional government with shelling but after the first few shells they capitulated. Most of the seizure of power comes before officially “taking” the state by controlling or subverting its institutions. You first deprive the state of its power before you point the guns at its officials.
They won’t relent unless you at least point the guns at them to be clear. The provisional government in Russia famously held on to an utterly hopeless situation for “historical posterity”. They wanted to at least look like they held out to the last.
Proletarian revolutions don’t have to be, and often aren’t, the chaotic violence in the streets that people imagine. Through a strong vanguard party the violence of revolution can be directed and restrained.
This isn’t to say people aren’t going to die. Unfortunately the dying usually comes in the counter-revolution/civil-war that follows. These are messy things and I personally don’t think anyone “wants” revolution. Revolution is something people do because their current circumstances have become utterly intolerable and all other avenues have been tried. The vanguard party does exist to creat revolution it exists to steer it away from the common ruin of all contending classes. Violence is nevertheless, an inevitable outcome.
Edit: right, as for trying them for their crimes. Yeah some of the war-criminals deserve to die. They are responsible for mass murder.
The people of China are materially quite comfortable and their lives are improving every decade. They do not have a reason to revolt. Their circumstances are not so terrible that revolution is necessary to improve them. Most people in China are genuinely quite happy with their state. You couldn’t have picked a worse example.
I don’t know or care about Russia enough to speak on it. I personally wouldn’t judge their domestic situation based on what western sources say about it. News agencies necessarily lie and distort the reality of the geopolitcal enemies of their respective nations. It is sufficient to say that revolution has not been attempted in Russia because the circumstances for workers aren’t dire enough. Revolutions don’t happen because governments are “undemocratic” they happen because people are starving and dying with no hope for change. This is a general statement you can use for most countries.*
If you genuinely believe that conditions within these countries are sufficient for revolution it is because you have a deeply uncritical reading of your news outlets. Choosing these countries specifically expresses the inherent atlanticist bias within your worldview.
* In some places violent repression of worker’s organization is sufficient to prevent revolt for a time despite the deprevation of the working class.
Step 1: organize a vanguard party of committed revolutionaries (many sub-steps)
Step 2: agitate within institutions that control key infrastructure and the military
Step 3: use the vanguard party to build a dual power political apparatus
Step 4: await a significant enough economic crisis that you can take advantage of low military morale (or open disloyalty) and public disgust/disillusionment with the actions of all ruling parties to show (through action not rhetoric!) the working class that your party is the only party willing and capable of meeting their needs.
Step 5: depose the current ruling class of their power and try them for their numerous crimes.
Step 6: congrats, working people have control of the state
But when does the profit come?
Could you expand on that? That sounds like a gloss over step that gets a fuck ton of people killed and won’t work anyway.
It is a gloss over step tbh but yes people die. Revolutions are not a tea party. It doesn’t have to be a lot though. The Bolsheviks barely had to kill anyone to achieve state power. Granted they threatened the provisional government with shelling but after the first few shells they capitulated. Most of the seizure of power comes before officially “taking” the state by controlling or subverting its institutions. You first deprive the state of its power before you point the guns at its officials.
They won’t relent unless you at least point the guns at them to be clear. The provisional government in Russia famously held on to an utterly hopeless situation for “historical posterity”. They wanted to at least look like they held out to the last.
Proletarian revolutions don’t have to be, and often aren’t, the chaotic violence in the streets that people imagine. Through a strong vanguard party the violence of revolution can be directed and restrained.
This isn’t to say people aren’t going to die. Unfortunately the dying usually comes in the counter-revolution/civil-war that follows. These are messy things and I personally don’t think anyone “wants” revolution. Revolution is something people do because their current circumstances have become utterly intolerable and all other avenues have been tried. The vanguard party does exist to creat revolution it exists to steer it away from the common ruin of all contending classes. Violence is nevertheless, an inevitable outcome.
Edit: right, as for trying them for their crimes. Yeah some of the war-criminals deserve to die. They are responsible for mass murder.
Where do you live?
Don’t see how that’s relevant
I engaged with 0 out of 4 steps in this proposed cycle. Whatever narrative you have built in your head does not describe me or this situation.
then why won’t you say what country you’re from?
Ah yes, the 3 nations of the world
The people of China are materially quite comfortable and their lives are improving every decade. They do not have a reason to revolt. Their circumstances are not so terrible that revolution is necessary to improve them. Most people in China are genuinely quite happy with their state. You couldn’t have picked a worse example.
I don’t know or care about Russia enough to speak on it. I personally wouldn’t judge their domestic situation based on what western sources say about it. News agencies necessarily lie and distort the reality of the geopolitcal enemies of their respective nations. It is sufficient to say that revolution has not been attempted in Russia because the circumstances for workers aren’t dire enough. Revolutions don’t happen because governments are “undemocratic” they happen because people are starving and dying with no hope for change. This is a general statement you can use for most countries.*
If you genuinely believe that conditions within these countries are sufficient for revolution it is because you have a deeply uncritical reading of your news outlets. Choosing these countries specifically expresses the inherent atlanticist bias within your worldview.
* In some places violent repression of worker’s organization is sufficient to prevent revolt for a time despite the deprevation of the working class.
America actually being trolled:
Repeat