/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2934214
my response to this is that sankara and gaddafi did this and it didn't work out in the long run

Podiga speaks of this

>>2934216
>Podiga
is that the DBZ fusion of Bordiga and Posadas

>>2934214
This is what Communists already do, and why they fail every time

I think Blanquism works fine with little countries but I don't think it's very scalable in general.

The millitary is the bourgesis state thereby often then not having major elements that are reactionary, even in revolutionary conditions when the bourgesis state is becoming increasely intolerable. Therefore actually convincing the millitary/small group to coup the state is highly difficult.

not everything warrants a response

me and my fellow members of my communist study group very calmly do vid related on his ass. but very non chalant so we don't come off angry.

communism isnt about "the masses" and you dont need "the majority" to do a revolution either, see early soviet union for a dotp or the rest of the world in the 20th century for a bunch of bourgeois revolutions too, all done by a minority

nothing works

>stage a coup with a select group of dudes
>they become the new tyranic order

>build a mass movement
>the people are retarded and can't understand marxism so they pick leaders base on popularity, choosing tyrants or just going for the social democracy route

nothing works

>>2934288
>The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.

this would be true if the masses weren't stupid as shit and constantly self sabotaging due to petty feuds, idealism and just generally being retards

>>2934319
>stupid as shit and constantly self sabotaging due to petty feuds, idealism and just generally being retards
Like you?

>>2934214
It worked for Cuba

>>2934215
>it doesn't work out because you will have the combined military of multiple nations come murder you
Yeah because building le working class movement will make you immune to that for sure !

>>2934246
The Bolsheviks only won thanks to the masses

You dont need to have the majority on your side but you do need an intimidatingly high amount of people.

>>2934275
But the military is basically destined to take over a single revolutionary movement and state, unless you have to actively placate them

>>2934214
It's the only strategy shown to work today (see Sahel countries), in general I think that mass uprisings aren't possble anymore because of the vast difference between in arms between military and civilians. In the past, during the era of revolutions, it was actually feasible to for a revolutionary army to match the strength of a professional military force.

>>2934214
The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realize the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realize that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.

>>2934214
What specifically backs the coup? Do you think governments come to power simply because they declare themselves to be?

>>2934468
Popular apathy

>>2934363
The Bolsheviks won on the back of the February Revolution, which they had nothing to do with, and because the White movement was an uncoordinated mess led by a bunch of incompetent warlords.

>>2934475
Apathy doesn't back a coup. Apathy by one class or another can create opportunities for a particular group to assert itself, but all regimes are created and sustained with the blessing of a particular class within the nation that will back it up with force if necessary.

>>2934494
Zero actual empirical exemple of it outside of tocqueville own book on the revolution btw, no idea why the idea is even entertained

>>2934215
Obviously a coup is not sufficient to STAY in power, but it is a path to secure it in the first place. From there it's a matter of managing the inevitable power struggle.

Besides, Gaddafi was Obama'd out of power so I don't think he's a good example. Almost any regime could theoretically be overthrown by a hostile foreign power.

>>2934468
Presumably a militant group with support from handful of key insiders in the ruling government/military.
Most coup d'etat aren't accompanied by a large popular movement, it just requires the current government to be unpopular enough for people not to give a shit, which is what I think >>2934475 was talking about.

Why take political power when you can be a charismatic cult leader and impregnate your followers.

>>2934336
>a single guy betrays you
>socialism ends in a day
i wonder if involving 7,000,000 people to the same extent as said guy might have shifted the balance of power

>>2934336
well yeah, anon didn't deny CIA coups. that's why it has to be international working class movement. kind of built into both the question and answer, no?