Are violent revolutions required in order to create a communist state?

Are violent revolutions required in order to create a communist state?

What a boring question

Of course not, look at all the successful social democracies that created communism

Real answer? We wouldn't know since Communism has never been tried before.

seconding this

Why don't communists just fuck off inna woods and build a commune of their own?

Noooo they always want to live in the nerve centers of bourgeois decadence along with all of the amenities (large cosmopolitan cities) where Pedro makes $50 a shift delivering them their sushie.

Marx jacked off to the idea that the poor got poorer and the rich got richer until the poor got fed up and issued a bloody class warfare in which the upperclass was destroyed.

In reality capitalist advances made the middle class significantly greater, in contrast of what butthole Karl thought would happen.

Yes, the way to communism is over a sea of blood from innocents.

>Be country
>try and start a socialist state
>get thrown over by cia

Probably the same reason why Nationalist can't do the same, no freedom to discriminate against who you associate with legally.

Marx didn't call for any of that.

Lenin certainly thought so. I'm not a leftist, but you can certainly admire his political skill and the foundations he set for party theory.

It seems, though, that he was right about seizing power through a small, cohesive and violent force. It's just what happens after that is the problem.

>removal of the bourgeousie
>not the wet dream of communism
Damn nigga read something else then facebook posts

No one knows because real Communism has yet to be tried

Not what I was disagreeing with, nor did I mention the bourgeoisie. Also, the bourgeoisie are not the "upper class" as you say lol

The Soviet Union would have lasted had Trotsky gotten to power. Stalin fucked it up in so many ways.

dissolving the class system is a pipe dream but we could outlaw usury and be okay.

This

No? Your baseless opinions aren't reality

But the Soviet Union outlived both Stalin and Trotsky.

What a STUPID fucking post.

Stalin's authoritarian policies set the political stage for the USSR. He purged everyone who knew what they were doing if they didn't blindly follow him and honestly thought he could trust Hitler to not invade him. How is he not a dumbass?

Not required.

Just a good opportunity. As are revolutions for anything else.

Honestly Trotsky was a big part of why the Reds even won the civil war.

He was a fucking genius but he had some serious problems with his ego.

They did. Many times in the USA in the 18th and 19th centuries. Funnily enough these socialist paradises all ended up taking apart due to infighting after only a few decades.

Christian communities founded in these periods on average lasted much much longer.

Really makes your grundle grumble.

Yes. Required. The left are fascists and totalitarian despots.

>trotsky
>genius
Bald faced lie. The red army didn't win because of Trotsky, they won in spite of Trotsky.
Like for real it's from Trotsky we get everything that happened in 1941 under Stalin that we look back today as bumfuck stupid.

No... kind of.

Violence will certainly be required for transition Feudalism to Capitalism.

And very likely transitioning Capitalism to Socialism.

But the transition from Socialism to Communism itself would be peaceful.

Indeed, people don't agree with communist ideas thus violence is needed to create a communist state, as history shows.

Possibly, but said revolutions will never happen in developed nations as if things ever get that bad the people in charge will start making ever greater concessions to the lower classes. Don't ever underestimate the established politicians, they didn't get to be where they are by being stupid, and the establishment knows that the poor can ultimately be bought off.

>communist state
dropped

Chinese didn't even have a revolution. They had a civil war that the communists won.

What IS the difference between a civil war and revolution?

How else would you make the people with money and power give up their privileges?

Pretty much no.

If negotiations break down and violence is deemed a necessity then clearly this society is too unstable for such a fragile utopia to have the slightest chance of existing.

Civil war is the highlight of a revolution.

>Violence will certainly be required for transition Feudalism to Capitalism.
What bullshit layer are you on because it wasn't violence that took down the feudal system and gave way to a new capitalist order.

Christianity practiced as per the bible is a form of communism.

it did in a lot of cases though like the english sivil war, french revolution, dutch revolution, spanish revolutions, meiji restoration etc.

it's probably not a requirement though just a thing that happened a lot becouse the esteblishment didn't want to give up power. this may be the same as with the transition from capitalism to socialism, it doesn't have to be violent but it often comes to that.

Maybe not but if it comes around I wouldn't shy away :)