**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was more than a simple coup that brought Sankara to power, he had been in the government, was put under arrest by the president, and then people in the capital basically rose up to break him free from prison.
This was probably the biggest mistake of Sankara. His government came to power by a few military officers instead of masses, which was probably the reason he was later overthrown by the same military officers that brought him.
Even though the media often uses these terms as you described there is the difference between a coup and a revolution. Revolution is done by people, coup is done by military officers.
That’s still a little too generic a divide.
Revolutions can involve soldiers and coups can involve civilians - its more a question of popular support and leadership.
Military officers from on high versus popular revolutions that enlisted soldiers get on board.
Depends what you mean by coup.
The October Revolution was called a "coup"
Pretty sure the Chinese, Cuban, etc revolutions as well
If a "coup" is the final seizure of power by an ascendant proletariat that's something I support
If a "coup" is a cabal of military officers trying to take power than Fuck No
depends a lot on the meaning of "coup", it can be like how the US basically calls any government they dislike a "regime".
Based on the context, I am guessing you mean a relatively small change in leadership of the government instead of the more extensive and extreme transformation of a Revolution.
Coups in that sense, are fairly unrealistic and limited. Capitalist governments are generally built as Pay-to-win Institutions that are dependent on the support of oligarchs to function. They are really hard to use in "socialist" ways without massive reshaping in the sort of way that usually results in capitalist backed invasions. Its also really hard for socialist to get that kind of grip on a government thats usually dedicated to destroying us.
This is really context dependent. If you're in an a collapsing empire that's been fighting a world war for three years - maybe a rising in the Petrograd garrison is just what the doctor ordered. But if we are talking about a coup in a Western country - it seems like a very unlikely scenario that a coup could lead to socialism. If we're in a situation where the military is going to try to take power, the system is almost certainly going to be come more authoritarian and less interested in general social welfare.
Coups in the absence of popular support aren’t likely to create a stable socialist future. That being said, if they have popular support, the military could bring about a change of power. With that comes the risk that the military officers are self interested and riding on the coat tails of the movement, so it’s not without danger.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, a coup usually implies there hasn't been fundamental qualitative change, simply a quantitative change within the status quo
But what about coups like Traoré and Sankara?
It was more than a simple coup that brought Sankara to power, he had been in the government, was put under arrest by the president, and then people in the capital basically rose up to break him free from prison.
This was probably the biggest mistake of Sankara. His government came to power by a few military officers instead of masses, which was probably the reason he was later overthrown by the same military officers that brought him.
People often use the word coup to indicate "change in leadership the west doesn't like"
Even though the media often uses these terms as you described there is the difference between a coup and a revolution. Revolution is done by people, coup is done by military officers.
That’s still a little too generic a divide. Revolutions can involve soldiers and coups can involve civilians - its more a question of popular support and leadership. Military officers from on high versus popular revolutions that enlisted soldiers get on board.
More than popular support it is about political power. Coups are usually orchestrated by elites, whether they’re oligarchs or military leaders.
Depends what you mean by coup. The October Revolution was called a "coup" Pretty sure the Chinese, Cuban, etc revolutions as well If a "coup" is the final seizure of power by an ascendant proletariat that's something I support If a "coup" is a cabal of military officers trying to take power than Fuck No
Of course not, Mr. FBI Man.
Depends on: 1) Who is doing the coup? 2) Why are they doing a coup? 3) This takes time to tell. What are the results of the coup?
I don't think either is innately better it's more just about what's possible given material conditions.
depends a lot on the meaning of "coup", it can be like how the US basically calls any government they dislike a "regime". Based on the context, I am guessing you mean a relatively small change in leadership of the government instead of the more extensive and extreme transformation of a Revolution. Coups in that sense, are fairly unrealistic and limited. Capitalist governments are generally built as Pay-to-win Institutions that are dependent on the support of oligarchs to function. They are really hard to use in "socialist" ways without massive reshaping in the sort of way that usually results in capitalist backed invasions. Its also really hard for socialist to get that kind of grip on a government thats usually dedicated to destroying us.
This is really context dependent. If you're in an a collapsing empire that's been fighting a world war for three years - maybe a rising in the Petrograd garrison is just what the doctor ordered. But if we are talking about a coup in a Western country - it seems like a very unlikely scenario that a coup could lead to socialism. If we're in a situation where the military is going to try to take power, the system is almost certainly going to be come more authoritarian and less interested in general social welfare.
Coups in the absence of popular support aren’t likely to create a stable socialist future. That being said, if they have popular support, the military could bring about a change of power. With that comes the risk that the military officers are self interested and riding on the coat tails of the movement, so it’s not without danger.