Ask Lemmygrad

801 readers

24 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Has There Ever Been a Socialist Revolution in a Liberal Country? (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm watching the DNC, and it's made me even more aware of the power of liberal bourgeois democracies to let out a little revolutionary energy whenever it gets close to the edge, through concessional policies, like New Deal policies or whatever Kamala might do if she wins, or even the act of voting and campaigning itself. Do they have to go through a fascism phase first, or has there been a liberal bourgeois democracy that has successfully had a socialist revolution? Will it take new theory to figure it out?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

chile? venezula? (while i hear venezula isn't a full out socialist, they are defying the us hegemony with a tint of communism because to be communist/full socialist would scare the national bougiouse [what i hear atleast])

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Chile got owned for reasons connected to being demsoc and venezuela isn't even nominally socialist, it's just progressive.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I think yanks blowing up the president is a bigger reason for Chile getting owned

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

The whole reason why you need a vanguard party and a revolution is so you can marshal enough strength to keep your project from being toppled down just like that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

They got owned because they didn't have control of the state, they just had elected office and, iirc, even took measures towards civilian disarmament on top of that, so when the military, which was just the same military as before Allende took office, did a coup, of course they succeeded.

As Lenin repeated many times (quoting I believe Marx), socialists cannot merely lay hold of the ready-made state machinery. That's exactly what Allende did and it would have been very difficult for it to produce any other outcome.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In those countries the lack of democratic centralism is plain to see and if one is fearing bourgois sentiments then the authority of power still resides in the parasitic classes with all the failings that structure brings. The dictatorship of the proleteriat is a necessity to advance social development; it is hard enough battling imperialist and fascist forces let alone concede space for their "freedom of expression" with the weight of brutalising capital behind them.