Posts Tagged ‘Trotskyist

17
Jul
11

Joining The Party: Peace and Freedom Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Action, Socialist Alternative (Part VII)

I thought I’d close out round one of my search for a political party by examining the last four organizations on my list all in one post. Let’s start with the Peace and Freedom Party, a Socialist party founded in 1967.

Now as the PFP dissolved and reformed numerous times over the past forty-plus years, giving a clear and comprehensive history of the party is going to be a nightmare. I’ll just give the roughest of backgrounds, and say that the Peace and Freedom Party was formed out of the antiwar and countercultural movements of the 60s, during which time it nominated Eldridge Cleaver, a leader of the Black Panther Party, for president. Unfortunately, the PFP did not achieve widespread popularity on a national level, and has been, since the late 60s, relegated to California.

PFP Pros:

  • The PFP Platform lists out a wide variety of clear, radical goals, including calls for honoring treaties made with Native Americans, demanding equal rights for women and gays, expansion of public transportation, and restructuring education, agriculture, etc.
  • The PFP is, as it was in the 60s, extremely active in opposition to war.
  • The PFP is “multi-tendency”, meaning that they accept leftists from all schools of Marxism.

PFP Cons:

  • The PFP, as mentioned above, is quite small, and while extremely active, it is only (or at least, largely) active in California.

So the answer is ‘no’ for the Peace and Freedom Party.

And it’s a real shame too- like I said, the PFP has a really good platform, and if the party were larger it would be getting a thumbs-up for sure. I’ll admit, I knew going into all this that the PFP was too small for me to join, but I thought I should mention it here nevertheless- if nothing else, I can do some off-hand advertising for them.

So that brings us to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

The PSL is a pretty new organization, and I wasn’t able to find much out about its founding- and to be honest, I’m not sure it matters that much. A party’s age indicates how flexible it is, or how it handles what history throws at it, but it’s not everything. The same roots and ties that some parties take pride in are the very things that keep them from working together with rival organizations. So I’m not going to mention the PSL’s age as a con, though it should be taken into consideration.

PSL Pros:

  • The PSL describes itself as “Marxist-Leninist”, a label that simply means the PSL endorses Marxism as it was implemented under Lenin (the vanguard party, endorsing a more centralized form of government, etc.). There are some things I disagree with when it comes to Leninism, but for the most part, it can be understood to be “classic” Marxism, and in my experience, Marxist-Leninists tend to be fairly tolerant of other schools of Communism.
  • The PSL argues for the liberation of what it deems to be colonies (US territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and other areas)- something we can all get behind.
  • The PSL, in spite of being a minor leftist party, is fairly widespread, with branches in many major US cities.

PSL Cons:

  • The PSL does not condemn Stalinism, and seems to adopt the view that the USSR ceased to be Communist as a result of the policies of Gorbachev. Now that should set off more than a few warning bells. The USSR was not Marxist, for a ‘Communist’ to say otherwise- well, it throws all their politics into question. Now the PSL does appear to endorse basic Communism, however, the PSL’s refusal to condemn the travesty of socialism that was Stalin’s Russia does not sit easy with me.
  • The PSL does not seem to be politically active (that is, attempting to change things using elections and political office). As with other Marxist organizations that fully reject the idea that the current political structures can be used in the interests of the oppressed and working class, I see where they’re coming from, but I disagree. I think that, even if it’s on the most basic level, the current political system can be used for the good of the revolution, though it certainly isn’t the answer to the basic problems of Capitalism and the state. It’s not a major problem, but it’s still not good.

So what’s the verdict on the PSL?

meh...

For the first time in this investigation, I’m truly unable to deliver a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There’s a lot the PSL has going for it, and a lot against it, and I’m not going to be able to decide without further investigation. So here’s what I’ll do- I’ll look around a bit, write a few letters, and if the PSL doesn’t appear in the second round of decision making, you’ll know it didn’t make the cut.

So until then, let’s take a look at Socialist Action.

As with the PSL, I’ve had some difficulty finding out why Socialist Action was founded, or rather, what the major influences were behind its founding. As before, I don’t think it’s terribly important. History’s good, but it doesn’t make or break a party. I’ll just get right into the pros and cons- those should give a pretty good picture of what Socialist Action stands for.

Socialist Action Pros:

  • Socialist Action is a Trotskyist organization. They believe in the vanguard party, that the USSR was not Marxist, that true Communism means the establishment of pure democracy, and the general abolition of the state. All in all, the Trotskyist ideology gives me some assurance that Socialist Action understands what Communism really means.
  • While Socialist Action is a minor Communist party, they realize this and have structured their organization in such a way as to ensure that you can still be an active member, even if you aren’t located near one of their branches. It’s a really nice feature I wish more parties would implement.
  • While Socialist Action recognizes that elections are not the ultimate answer to the issues of Capitalism and nationalism, they do seem to understand that elections can be used to benefit the working class and oppressed.

Socialist Action Cons:

  • While Socialist Action is attempting to work with its small membership, it can’t be denied that there is strength in numbers, and in this respect, Socialist Action leaves something to be desired.
  • I am a little concerned that Socialist Action might not be as ‘multi-tendency’ as it ought to be. A major aspect of the party I join should be its ability to work alongside rival groups for the common goal of Socialism.

So the final verdict?

Again, I need to look into this party further- there’s enough on both side to merit a more detailed investigation. As with the PSL, if Socialist Action doesn’t make it to the next round, you’ll know it’s been cut.

 

That leaves us only with our fourth and final organization: Socialist Alternative.

Socialist Alternative is, similar to Socialist Action, a Trotskyist organization. As with previous organizations, I haven’t been able to find out a lot about the origins of this group, and as always, I doubt it’s all that important. Let’s move straight on to the pros and cons section.

Socialist Alternative Pros:

  • Socialist Alternative was actually recommended to me by a Welsh Trotskyist, a member of SA’s British counterpart, the Socialist Party. While I’ve never actually ‘met’ the comrade in question, from his blog and his internet activity, it would appear he’s active in spreading the revolution. If his experiences are any reflection of the level of activity I’d have in the Socialist Alternative, it’d be certainly an encouragement.
  • Socialist Alternative is, while a minor Communist organization, fairly widespread- always a plus.

Socialist Alternative Cons:

  • In the past four presidential elections, Socialist Alternative has backed Ralph Nader, which, considering that Nader is not a Socialist in any sense of the word, is pretty weird.
  • While Socialist Alternative has a good program, it isn’t quite as detailed as I’d like it to be- but maybe I’m still contrasting it with the platform of the Peace and Freedom Party.
  • As with all minor leftist parties, Socialist Alternative seems pretty small, and size does matter- at least a bit.

So what’s my decision on the Socialist Alternative?

Yep, it’s another one of these. The pros and cons balance each other out, and a more detailed investigation will have to be had.

Advertisements
13
Jul
11

Joining The Party: Kasama Project and the International Socialist Organization (Part VI)

To be perfectly honest, after an hour of research, I’m less sure I know what the Kasama Project is than when I began. The members of the Kasama Project have (if I understand them correctly) attempted to reject conventional labels in order to redefine what it means to be a “Marxist” organization, and while I’m confident there’s some merit to that, describing exactly what the project is all about is something of a nightmare.

From what I can gather, the Kasama Project can be described as an internet-based collective of Maoists (though accepting of most schools of Marxism) who are attempting to completely rethink the goals of Marxism and the structures of revolutionary groups in order to apply them to contemporary times.

It’s a mouthful, I know, but hopefully my pro/con breakdown will help clarify things a bit.

Pros:

  • The Kasama Project seems to be a fairly young and vibrant community, really committed to the study of Marxism, activism, revolutionary tactics, etc. It seems that many Communist organizations have certain tenets which, if questioned, will have you called a reactionary or a subvert or an elitist and so on. Since the Kasama Project seems to be trying to re-imagine every aspect of Communism, it would appear that there’s none of the “do-not-question-this” traditionalism that sometimes pops up in other organizations. In short, these guys seem to have some of the best attitudes towards Marxism I’ve ever seen.
  • The Kasama Project, while largely Maoist and Maoist sympathizing, is open to all schools of Marxism (Trotskyists, Leninists, Anarchists, etc.). The Kasama Project has also been very critical of issues in the RCPUSA (the RCPUSA’s anti-Gay stance has been a recent topic).
  • “Kasama” is a Tagalog for “traveling companions”- and the general atmosphere at their website seems to communicate the idea that all comrades are together in the learning process.

Kasama: Tagalog, (noun). "Traveling companions"

And now for the cons:

  • My principal (indeed, only) problem with the Kasama Project is that it’s not so much a party or an organization as it is a discussion group and network. There’s nothing wrong with is- only I’m looking to join up with an organization that I can really cooperate with and participate in. I certainly intend to look into joining the various Kasama Project discussions, but without any actual structure or goals, I’m afraid that there’s nothing to join- at least, not in the way I’d join a political party.

So all in all, that’s a ‘no’ from me- but I would like to emphasize that my initial reaction towards the Kasama Project is positive.

Now on to the ISO.

Out of all the organizations I’ve discussed so far, I believe I am most familiar with the International Socialist Organization. The ISO has been one of the major sponsors of a number of annual “Socialism Conferences”, and while I have never had the opportunity to attend, I have managed to get my hands on the podcasts of the conference lectures, and I feel that as as result, I have a pretty decent grasp of what the ISO is all about.

I’ll get right into the pros and cons.

Pros:

  • The ISO, while not the oldest leftist organization around, is fairly old, created in the mid-70s as a result of the amalgamation of Trotskyists and leftist factions. While I’m no fan of tradition, the fact that the ISO has been around for at least two generations (with strong ties to its predecessors) means that (1) the organization is fairly flexible and able to handle changing times and (2) has an established reputation and ties to the struggle.
  • The ISO is, while accepting a wide array of Communist and leftist schools of thought, a predominantly Trotskyist organization. As a Trotskyist myself (at least, I try to be), there’s a lot of comfort in knowing that the ISO rejects Stalinism and pseudo-Marxism, demands the establishment of pure democracy, and accepts the use of violence as a means of self-defense.
  • While the ISO does not appear to be actively attempting to influence the political sphere through elections, it is active in supporting boycotts, unionization, protests, and other means of social change.
  • The ISO is a revolutionary party- that is, it maintains that a revolution is the only means of establishing a Marxist society (as opposed to gradual evolution, as some Social-Democrats have argued).
  • The ISO, unlike some other parties, is fairly widespread, with branches in nearly every major city in the US.

And now for the cons:

  • While I understand the ISO’s (seeming) skepticism of using elections to influence the politics in favor of the working class, I feel that elections can, if nothing else, demonstrate the true nature of Marxism as a viciously pro-democratic movement, rather than an authoritarian one. I believe that even minor changes are worth the effort. Again, I should point out that it seems the ISO isn’t active with regards to political elections. I haven’t found anything on their site or in their lectures that indicates otherwise.

So my final verdict on the ISO?

Yep, that’s a ‘yes’ from me on the ISO, joining the SPUSA at the top of my list.

19
Dec
10

Films For Communists

In a world where the bearded-Russian “Communist” stereotype is the antagonist in every film made before 1990, I thought it might be time to list a few films where Marxists are (for once) portrayed in good light. Below is a list of mainstream films that deserve to be seen by any Communist:

 

Shadowlands (1993): Despite having only a fleeting reference to Communism near the beginning of the film, it’s refreshing to see a Marxist portrayed with being in the process of torturing some American soldiers or preparing to launch nuclear warheads.

The Edukators/ Die Fetten Jahre Sind Vorbei: While I don’t recall Communism ever being directly addressed in this German film, the movie deals with the various issues and struggles of fighting Capitalism in this era. The film opens with the main characters handing out tracts on sweatshop labor, and follows them as they escalate their responses to social injustice (breaking up the “action” sequences with lively discussions on activism and sequences depicting some of the ills they’re trying to fight against). Again, while Marxism is never directly discussed, it is evident that this is a far-left film.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006): While I don’t believe there are any explicit uses of the terms “Communist” or “Marxist”, the film takes place during the last years of the Spanish Civil War, in a remote part of the country where a Fascist captain is attempting to destroy the “Red” resistance hiding in the nearby mountains. The film is a fairy-tale and never becomes especially political, however the Communist rebels are shown in a very sympathetic light.

Battle in Seattle (2007): Though the film doesn’t deal with Marxism, it does (excellently) show different perspectives on social activism, from a black bloc Anarchist (embracing violence as a means of protest) to a group of non-violent protesters, to a riot policeman, to a simple bystander, to a news crew, to the mayor of Seattle. If nothing else, it’s a discussion starter not merely for Communists, but for anyone.

Defiance (2008): Set during the holocaust, this film follows the story of the Bielski brothers and their followers, a group of Belorussian Jews who formed a resistance to the Nazi occupation of their country. Throughout the film, the Bielski partisans interact with the Soviet resistance, and while the Soviets are portrayed as being generally arrogant and unhelpful, the film does show them (1) fighting the Nazis (a part of Communist history too often forgotten) and (2) makes reference the official Communist policy of ending antisemitism. In addition to this, it is suggested that one of the members of the Bielski group is an active Socialist, and the partisans adopt a communal form of a living.

Quantum of Solace (2008): Now you’d probably think the last place you’d find Communist-sympathies would be in a James Bond film- after all, the man spent a good 80% of his career foiling Soviet plots (the other 20% being unbelievably picky about his drinks- seriously, how will he even know if it’s been shaken or stirred?). Despite this, Quantum of Solace actually is about as left-wing as Bond’s ever been, as the film deals with politics used by the West to dominate third-world countries. In Haiti, there’s a brief discussion between the two villains about how raising the minimum wage angered foreign corporations, and the Quantum’s plot (the “quantum” being the cabal of tuxedoed bad-guys) is to control the majority of drinking water in Bolivia (a clear reference to the attempt to privatize drinking water in Bolivia back in 1999).

The Baader-Meinhof Complex (2008): I’m a bit at a loss to describe this two-and-a-half hour film detailing the roots, rise, and fall of the RAF (Red Army Faction). While certainly sympathetic to the causes of the characters in the films, the story does not shy away from showing the faults of the RAF- honesty that I believe only serves to strengthen the film’s credibility, even with the left-wing slant. While the previous film’s I’ve mentioned have tended to shy away from explicitly dealing with Marxism, this is made up for (and then some) by The Baader-Meinhof Complex, which constantly brings up the issues of politics, economics, revolution, and culture. While it’s an exhausting film to watch (again, nearly three-hours packed with conflict, history, and so on.), it’s well worth seeing.

Che (2008): In all honesty I was slightly disappointed by Che. For being nearly five-hours long (divided into two episodes), the film really didn’t say much about the justification for the actions of perhaps the most iconic Communist of all time. While the film did artfully chronicle Che’s role in the Cuban Revolution, and his expedition to Bolivia, the film leaves out Che’s actions in Cuba after the revolution (baring a sequence of Che’s trip to the United Nations) and his time in Africa. While the film definitely is sympathetic to Guevara, the film really only deals with Guevara- and not the ideals he fought for. It almost feels like I watched the beginning and the end of a documentary on the man. Even so, it’s still a decent film.

The Trotsky (2009): While the film technically doesn’t deal with Communism, considering the main character believes himself to be the reincarnation of Leon Trotsky, themes of revolution, unionization, and rebellion are hard to get away from. Again, while the film centers on the issue of youth rebellion (apathy vs boredom), the movie is inundated in Marxist slogans, philosophy, and art. Leon Bronstein (the protagonist), constantly quotes Trotsky and other prominent Marxists. Throughout the film, pictures of Che Guevara, Einstein (yes, he was a Socialist), Lenin, and other revolutionaries can be seen on posters and paintings and t-shirts. Now while I am tempted to go on, I’ll save this film for a more in-depth review later- suffice it say for now that The Trotsky is a great movie for Marxists.

 

Please note that this list is by no means complete- any suggestions are welcomed and I hope to have full reviews of these films out soon.

23
Nov
09

A Brief History of Communism

It is commonly assumed by the public that Communism (also called “Marxism”) was created by the German philosopher Karl Marx. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a young Marx joined the already existing Communist movement and, after publishing several works on the subject of Communism and Capitalism (a term he coined), he became such a central figure that the term “Marxist” became synonymous with the term “Communist”. In much the same way Adam Smith did not create Capitalism but rather created the authoritative work on Capitalism (The Wealth of Nations) and yet is still considered the “founder” of Capitalism.

So who did create Communism?

Like most things in life, there is no short and simple answer. Communism, or at least the primitive ancestor of Communism has existed for thousands of years. At the dawn of man, humans lived in tribes, working together for survival. What one man killed was food for everyone, the spear or hammer made by one person could be used by another. The concept of private-property did not evolve until much later in human history- the reason being that selfishness and individualism simply could not mesh with the harsh realities of the time. One human could not survive on his own, the tribe as a whole could not waste time and energy on creating twenty individual hammers for the twenty men of the tribe when one could be shared just as easily. At the same time, the shared property (combined with the need for everyone to pull their own weight) eliminated any chance of a class system evolving. Without any difference in wealth or workload, society was more or less egalitarian.

So what happened?

As humans became more settled and as the barter system emerged (to be discussed in a later post), shared-property died slowly out and the class system arose. While today the vast majority of hunter-gatherer, pastoral, horticulturalist, and nomadic people groups still live in classless, shared-property systems, the majority of the world’s population began moving away from this system after the establishment of permanent agricultural communities. By the fall of the Roman Empire, most of the world’s people groups practiced Capitalism in some form. It was not until 1516 when Thomas Moore, one of Henry VIII’s closest advisers, published his work Utopia that the concepts of shared-property and classlessness were reintroduced into society (albeit merely as subjects of intellectual discussion). Only in the early 1800s were the concepts developed into actual political/economic theories. Henri de Saint-Simon, a member of the French aristocracy, created several works on the subject and while never implementing them in any major way, laid the foundations for what would become known as the Communist movement. It was not until 1848 when two young Prussian authors named Marx and Engels published their collaborated work The Communist Manifesto that Communism (or “Socialism”- at the time the two words were more or less interchangeable) became a concrete theory. Between the two men’s works, the entire Communist philosophy was created, though it was not implemented until 1871, when Parisian Socialists revolted against the imperial French government and established a short-lived attempt at a Communist government until the Commune (revolutionary government) was wiped out by the French military. While Communist philosophy spread across much of the Western world, there were no major attempts at Communism (baring the establishment of Amish, and later, Hutterite, communities- which are closer to the primitive classless/shared-property practices of various tribal societies). There was a brief attempt at Fabianism (a British Socialist movement), however it quickly devolved into a philosophy, rather than a physical attempt at the implementation of Communism. It was in Russia in 1917 that the first major attempt at a Communist revolution (since the 1871 revolution) took place. The Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist party and revolutionary movement), led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Russian monarchy and the feudal system. After Lenin’s death in 1923, a split ensued that left the USSR divided between the followers of Leon Trotsky (creator and commander of the Red Army and Lenin’s second-in-command) and the followers of Joseph Stalin (the General Secretary of the Communist party). Stalin, despite the efforts of Trotsky and his followers, assumed control and eventually exiled Trotsky in 1929. Under the despotism of Stalin, the USSR, while maintaining the facade of Communism, devolved into a semi-Socialist dictatorship (Trotsky referred to it as a “deformed workers’ state). While Trotskyism grew in popularity in the West, the general Communist movement was marred by the atrocities committed by Stalin and the imperialists policies pursued in Eastern Europe after his death. In China, Mao Zedong led what is generally considered to have been a Communist revolution, but the later policies of Mao have caused many other Communists to doubt whether China could be counted as true Communist country since the mid 1950s. While the revolution itself is considered to be beneficial, the vast majority of modern Communists hold that contemporary China is no more a true Marxist country than Stalin’s USSR (this opinion is viciously opposed by Maoist factions of the Communist movement). While Communism was quickly becoming popular in the third-world (due largely to Western neo-colonialism) the next major advancement of Communism occurred in Cuba after Fidel Castro and Che Guevara defeated the dictator Batista. Once again Communists are split on the subject of whether Cuba may be considered a true Marxist government- much like China, there is popular that the revolution was a positive event but the movement is split on whether Cuba did or did not devolve into another deformed workers’ state. Indeed, the same could be said for almost every country where a Communist revolution has taken place (though almostĀ all Communists are united in believed that North Korea is not a true Communist country). While the collapse of the USSR in 1990 has led many to believe that Communism has been defeated, the Communist movement is technically as active as it ever was.

In short, the history of Communism is far from simple. Much of its history can be interpreted depending on your sympathies and opinions.

Then again, the same could be said for any aspect of history.

 

Author’s Note: Since Communism isn’t merely an economic or political or social theory but rather a combination of all three, you can see how describing the theory itself- let alone its history- is a massive undertaking that could easily fill a book. Considering my space and the attention span of the reader is sorely limited, I have been forced so skim over the major events of Communist history. Don’t be ticked off at me if I missed some (though if I have something that might be wrong, please correct me).

04
Aug
09

You Say You Want a Revolution…

The word “revolution” can bring a number of images to mind- everything from riot police, gas masks, Molotov cocktails, and screaming protestors to “revolutionary” advances in technology, medicine, and political theory. The word “revolution” is also one of the most commonly used terms in Communist literature- so what exactly does revolution mean in this context?

According to Marx, the “revolution” is one of the final stages of historical materialism. Historical materialism (described more fully in a previous post), is essentially the theory that human history has been primarily affected by resource distribution, politico-economics, and class struggle. Marx predicted that as time progressed, revolutions would take place that would wipe-out Capitalism and end historical materialism (in that history would no longer be controlled by politico-economic factors). The “revolution” is, Marx states, the penultimate step in the establishment of a Communist society.

So what could be drastic enough to lead to a complete overhaul of society as we know it? The answer is simple: society.

Some groups might attempt various band-aid techniques to treat the issues of class warfare, the ever-widening social divide, and poverty related crime. In reality, however, the techniques these groups use are incompatible with the fundamentals of Capitalism. How can poverty be combated with minimum wage legislation when Capitalism denies government interference? How can people be protected from exploitation when Capitalism uses the working man as a mere means of production, paying him the lowest possible wage to generate the highest possible profit? We can treat Capitalism’s ills, but we can’t cure them without killing Capitalism. Imagine a pot of boiling water with the lid clamped down on top of it, trapping the steam inside. We can treat the steam build-up by making pin-holes in the sides of the pot, but these merely delay the inevitable explosion.

That’s the basic principle behind the Communist revolutionary concept. Capitalism’s ills, while capable of being delayed, are ultimately unstoppable. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer until, like a rubber-band stretched beyond its elasticity, something snaps. The poor, no matter how impoverished, starving, and powerless, outnumber the wealthy a thousand to one. Even if the wealthy class controls the army, the government, and the economy, there is nothing that can stop the angry, starving masses from rising up (as Marx said, “they have nothing to lose but their chains!”). Even if the wealthy somehow managed to put down the uprising, they would have had to kill off a massive percentage of the working class, crippling the economy which would result in the collapse of society. Either way, the proletariat win. In short, Capitalism, no matter what you do to it, will collapse in on itself.

So what happens during the revolution? Property, which the public has been robbed of for years, will be redistributed equally among the people. With this redistribution of property, there will no longer be any wealthy or poor , and with the end of the wealth/poverty system, the class system can no longer exist. Instead, there will come to exist a new form of proletariat, where the working class exists (for no country can exist without a working class) but exploitation is no longer an issue (since profit is no longer the end goal, there is no reason to take advantage of one’s fellow man). With the end of a society where the majority of power rests with the wealthy, true democracy can finally exist: in short, Communism is established.

So what is this Communist revolution? The Communist revolution is a massive, unstoppable uprising of the working man who- having nothing to lose- overthrow the established class system, the established Capitalist economic system, and the very concept of private property.

Now one must keep in mind that this outline is merely the basic frame for the Communist revolution. Like almost every concept of Communism, there are variations in the beliefs of how the revolution will (or at least, should) happen. Take the theory of “democratic revolution”, for example.

The basic concept of Democratic Revolution, is that the revolution will not be (physically) violent but merely “violent” in that it will bring about an abrupt and gargantuan change in society. Democratic revolutionists believe that the poor will, once pushed to the very limit, will elect representation and political leaders that will act according to the will of the (extremely poor, exploited, and enraged) public. With the government controlled by the disenfranchised proletariat majority, the wealthy and bourgeoisie minorities will have no choice other than to comply with the changes in the economic/social/political system or leave the country. While this concept is popular, it is often criticized for not taking into account that a Fascist or non-democratic political system will have been implemented, or that the wealthy will have control of the police and/or armed forces.

The concept of the Permanent Revolution (sometimes called the Trotskyist Revolution) takes a less optimistic “come-hell-or-high-water” philosophy that holds that the proletariat will rise up against the infrastructure (many Trotskyists believe that for the proletariat to be forced into revolting, democracy will have probably been replaced by Fascism or some form of pseudo-democracy). While the Permanent Revolution does not technically call for violence, it is widely accepted that violence will probably occur.

Indeed, while the concept of Democratic Revolution hold a strict “no-violence” philosophy, and Trotskyism holds a “whatever needed” philosophy, the only Communist revolutionary theory to explicitly call for violence is the concept of the Maoist Revolution. Holding the belief that the wealthy will never give up their power and control willingly, Maoism calls for violent attacks upon the Capitalist infrastructure. The actions of the Colombian Maoist Revolutionary group FARC (or the Peruvian “Shining Path”) serve as a prime example. FARC conducts various attacks on the Peruvian political infrastructure, carrying out attacks on government buildings, Peruvian police and military, and the Peruvian railway system. While sometimes commended for being the most expedient theory, Maoist Revolutionary theory is often criticized for the collateral damage it causes as well as the controversy it creates concerning what is and is not an acceptable target.

Lastly, there is the concept of Circular Revolution. Circular Revolution is a concept based on an ancient Chinese political philosophy which states that when a government has become corrupt, it is both the right and the obligation to revolt and instate a new government. Sometimes called the “post-revolution revolution”, advocates of the Circular Revolution believe that after the Communist government has been established, corrupt will eventually infiltrate the system, requiring a new (though still-Communist) revolution.

Despite these differences, Communists are united on the belief that no matter what the revolution looks like, no matter what theory is utilized, the revolution will happen. You might want a revolution, you might not- either way, the revolution is brewing. The only question we are left with is how long it is before the dam bursts, and which side you’ll be on when it happens.