Alternative forms of armed struggle?

[ellipsis]

I am curious as to people's ideas on non-insurgency based forms of armed struggle. What I mean by this is political organizations who are armed as part of their platform and activities but don't use the weapons, except in training and maybe in self defense. I am thinking along the lines of Robert Williams, the modern day zapatistas, worker's militias, etc.

Do you support such ideas, that is non-violent armed revolution? If so how would you like to see it manifested.

[mykittyhasaboner]

There is no point for arms if your going to have a "non-violent armed revolution".

[Искра]

You can't change system with no-violence... Violence and arms are necessary, even we may not like them.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I support such ideas to an extent as it creates familiarity with weapons and arms workers, but to think that such a struggle would actually be successful without use of the arms is pretty optimistic.

[*Red*Alert]

I am curious as to people's ideas on non-insurgency based forms of armed struggle. What I mean by this is political organizations who are armed as part of their platform and activities but don't use the weapons, except in training and maybe in self defense. I am thinking along the lines of Robert Williams, the modern day zapatistas, worker's militias, etc.

Do you support such ideas, that is non-violent armed revolution? If so how would you like to see it manifested.
Absolutely. I can safely say that everyone would rather this than bloodshed, a prime example being the Irish Troubles.

However, the danger is that if you carry weapons as a threat, a threat is only as good as the will to carry it out.

[ellipsis]

I said nothing of this group orchestrating a successful revolution. You all misunderstand me. I suppose I am talking about pre-revolutionary societies.

[Bankotsu]

How about the SA and SS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel

[Radical]

A revolution has never succeeded on education alone. There must first be something that triggers revolution, and that could be armed struggle, as what happened in the Cuban Revolution.

This "idea" of pure education that is being infected into the brains of many "Communists" throughout Britan will simply not work alone. It never has, it never will.

And there are other alternatives to "Armed Struggle", such as an organised general strike. However I believe Armed Struggle is the most likely option to trigger a Revolution.

+ I find it very unlikely that the Capitalists will just simply let us take away there money for collective use.

[Killfacer]

How about the SA and SS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel

yes we should definatly base ourselves on the SA :blink:

[Sam_b]

This "idea" of pure education that is being infected into the brains of many "Communists" throughout Britan will simply not work alone. It never has, it never will

I think its at least a hundred times better than so-called 'revolutionaries' in Britain who have a festishism for armed resistance with absolutely no idea of material conditions and the more important job of raising class consciousness to bring forward revolutionary demands.

You rightly bring up the point of trade union struggle, notably a general strike, which is something socialists and revolutinaries should push for. This is why its important to be a part of a trade union and fight within it, and of course supporting workers that are currently on strike. Important interventions can also be made here which give us a platform to air our politics.

I also strongly disagree with your assertion that "Armed Struggle is the most likely option to trigger a Revolution". This of course depends on your definition of a what a revolution is and also on what terms armed struggle is a catalyst. What time frame or material condition are we talking about here? I would attain that a bunch of guerilla fighters in the first world would completely fail due to the (relatively) low level of class consciousness and such action would alienate large proportions of the working class. As much as I disagree with Focoism, surely armed struggle is explicitly a tactic in a revolutionary situation, and not a catalyst of sorts? I think we can do a lot better than romanticise over this.

For me the vital thing for all leftists to do in the current climate is capitalise upon the continued wedge between workers and the ruling class perpetuated by the current economic crisis, where workers are asking the questions of why ther is unemployment when firms are still posting profit and why they should be paying for their crisis - the crisis of the rich. If we have to go back to old cliches the mantra of Agitate! Educate! Organise! is key.

[Radical]

I think its at least a hundred times better than so-called 'revolutionaries' in Britain who have a festishism for armed resistance with absolutely no idea of material conditions and the more important job of raising class consciousness to bring forward revolutionary demands.

You rightly bring up the point of trade union struggle, notably a general strike, which is something socialists and revolutinaries should push for. This is why its important to be a part of a trade union and fight within it, and of course supporting workers that are currently on strike. Important interventions can also be made here which give us a platform to air our politics.

I also strongly disagree with your assertion that "Armed Struggle is the most likely option to trigger a Revolution". This of course depends on your definition of a what a revolution is and also on what terms armed struggle is a catalyst. What time frame or material condition are we talking about here? I would attain that a bunch of guerilla fighters in the first world would completely fail due to the (relatively) low level of class consciousness and such action would alienate large proportions of the working class. As much as I disagree with Focoism, surely armed struggle is explicitly a tactic in a revolutionary situation, and not a catalyst of sorts? I think we can do a lot better than romanticise over this.

For me the vital thing for all leftists to do in the current climate is capitalise upon the continued wedge between workers and the ruling class perpetuated by the current economic crisis, where workers are asking the questions of why ther is unemployment when firms are still posting profit and why they should be paying for their crisis - the crisis of the rich. If we have to go back to old cliches the mantra of Agitate! Educate! Organise! is key.

I think it is you with the fetish for Focoism, as it you that keeps on mentioning it.

[Sam_b]

Wow, what a convincing argument.

Here's an idea - maybe try and legitimise your claims by tackling my argument.

[Radical]

Wow, what a convincing argument.

Here's an idea - maybe try and legitimise your claims by tackling my argument.

I dont give a shit about you or your argument. I'm not here to debate with an idiot that refuses to get off my dick

[Sam_b]

Rather strange that you're on a site for revolutionary debate then. If you have conviction in your ideals then argue them - you're going to have to argue them to the class at large if you're going to win them round to this idea eventually. I've asked you to define 'revolution' and your idea of tactics - surely that isn't too much to ask? Especially if you have a firm idea of what you're on about.

Probably a better idea than threatening me and Pogue with violence on a demo. Whose side are you on?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think it is you with the fetish for Focoism, as it you that keeps on mentioning it.
Genius. Suggest a (deeply-flawed) tactic, and then say your opponent must be obsessed with it when they mention it in their reply.
Btw, in the glorious post-revolutionary society created by armed struggle, how would you make sure that all classes were generally abolished, and that the people with the guns wouldn't just form a new elite ruling over the people who weren't part of the guerilla army?

[Delirium]

I fully support preparation for armed struggle. Firearms skills, working as a group, tactics, and trust are not built in a day. These are things that we should be working on now!

Your not just gonna pick up a gun some day and then expect to have skills comparable to a swat team.

[ellipsis]

Again I am not talking about a guerrilla insurgency. I am looking for ideas on have to have an armed political group that works as a part mass social movement. There are enough threads about "do you think armed revolution is possible?" and I have read them and do not wish to have them debated here.
What I am asking is, outside of insurgency do people think there is any use in having revolutionary political groups that are armed? If so what would it look like?

[Delirium]

In the united states from about 1890-1930 there were quite a few armed unions. This was usually in response to brutalization and murder by scabs and the us army. Reactionaries will think twice before attacking an armed and trained left wing organization.

On a side note, Some of the only anti-militia laws ever passed in the us were in response to workers arming themselves.

[political_animal]

Maybe it depends on your life experience. I can well understand a difference in approach between say, the USA and the UK. In the UK, we have very little experience of guns. A very small number of people may go shooting as a hobby and some criminals may carry arms, but for the vast majority of the population, we have no experience of firearms and no inclination to learn anything about them. The responses from Brits on this forum, will surely be informed by the experience of living in a society where guns are very uncommon and as such, I would expect a lot of people to be against the idea of the need for arms. Those Brits that are all for guns, I would suggest have got wrapped up in the 'hype' and expectations of being a 'revolutionary'.

For those of other countries, such as the US, where you are allowed to carry guns, I presume you will be more familiar with them than us, and perhaps would not be so against the idea of 'armed struggle'. Then again, there do seem to be quite a number of 'Libertarian' nutters, or 'Freemen' holding up some bizarre reasoning about a 'constitutional right to bear arms', to go along with the paranoia of the state being out to get them.

Personally, I am totally against the idea of armed struggle. The whole point of leftist politics (or whatever you would wish to call it) is about working together for the benefit of the collective. The idea that coercion or armed resistance is somehow going to improve society and that 'firearms training' is something to aspire to, is not something I am interested in. If we can't persuade people with the force of our argument and have to use arms, then we have already lost the debate.

[Искра]

Play Counter Strike :thumbup1:

[ellipsis]

Then again, there do seem to be quite a number of 'Libertarian' nutters, or 'Freemen' holding up some bizarre reasoning about a 'constitutional right to bear arms', to go along with the paranoia of the state being out to get them.

You live in the UK aka Airstrip one, post on this forum and don't think that the state is out to get you and every other opponent of neoliberalism and global capitalism? Not to mention the proletariat in general.

[bcbm]

There is no point for arms if your going to have a "non-violent armed revolution".

We should certainly have and be familiar with arms but equally we should hope the need to use them never arises.

[chegitz guevara]

Playing with guns is a double edged sword. The reason so many Panthers were killed is because they openly displayed weapons. In fact, the very first SWAT unit was created as a way of dealing with the Panthers. If you're going to have guns, you need to be prepared to use them, because you will have to use them.

That said, I am trying to start a red shooting club. Go to shooting ranges and rent guns and learn how to use them. Eugene Debs Battalion, here we come!

[pierrotlefou]

We should certainly have and be familiar with arms but equally we should hope the need to use them never arises. Indeed. Especially in the US where the right are forming militias again.

[ellipsis]

Indeed. Especially in the US where the right are forming militias again.

See this homeland security report on the topic

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

[milk]

The Maoist-style creation of liberated zones as areas of alternative adminstrative control and social change, and as launch pads for spreading that control and change is perhaps not the best model?

[ellipsis]

The Maoist-style creation of liberated zones as areas of alternative adminstrative control and social change, and as launch pads for spreading that control and change is perhaps not the best model?

Perhaps in some situations but not all. Securing liberated zone can
be attempted non-violently but in most cases keeping the areas liberated is very difficult even with the use of arms.

[absurd_planet]

To the people that insist on creating armed militias in the U.S, you should be tremendously careful because as a previous poster mentioned that got many black panthers killed. Blackwater is just waiting to be unleashed domestically and there's no way any group of citzens would stand a chance against them and their international organization of thugs and trained mercenaries. We HAVE to go the non-violent route in the United States.

[ellipsis]

To the people that insist on creating armed militias in the U.S, you should be tremendously careful because as a previous poster mentioned that got many black panthers killed. Blackwater is just waiting to be unleashed domestically and there's no way any group of citzens would stand a chance against them and their international organization of thugs and trained mercenaries. We HAVE to go the non-violent route in the United States.


Non violence is always the preferred route. But if given the choice between being dragged the gulags/domestic detentions facilities built by Halliburton and dying fighting for the freedom of myself and my fellow Vermonters, I would choose the latter.
I suspect that many black panthers would be killed regardless of their armed status, such as the Fred Hampton murdered in bed by a police death squad in Chicago. If you look at statistics, police violence the black neighborhoods of California dropped significantly as the BPP took advantage of California's open carry laws and began patrolling the streets.

The state has always met resistance to the capitalist agenda with violence, regardless of the method of resistance. Whether or not this warrants a response with violence is up to debate.

[Red Apex]

yes we should definatly base ourselves on the SA :blink:
...Not even funny. I'm for non-violent revolution, armed sure or else people will just walk all over us. I'm only for using those arms in extreme circumstances.

[ellipsis]

I guess that I should have explained that this post was inspired by right wingers attending Obama rallies carrying guns recently. They certainly gained a lot of publicity for their cause and was wondering if I could do something similar; an armed group of commies picking up trash on the side of the road is more noteworthy than unarmed commies doing the same thing.

[Psy]

Personally, I am totally against the idea of armed struggle. The whole point of leftist politics (or whatever you would wish to call it) is about working together for the benefit of the collective. The idea that coercion or armed resistance is somehow going to improve society and that 'firearms training' is something to aspire to, is not something I am interested in. If we can't persuade people with the force of our argument and have to use arms, then we have already lost the debate.

The point behind armed revolution is not for a minority to beat up a majority but a majority to beat up a minority that has superior firepower in other words the capitalist armies.

[political_animal]

The point behind armed revolution is not for a minority to beat up a majority but a majority to beat up a minority that has superior firepower in other words the capitalist armies.

It would merely transfer superior firepower of a capitalist army to superior firepower of a communist militia. The presence of arms is a show of power and to follow the old adage 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely', those that hold the power (the armed) will always control, dominate and coerce those without power. It may be argued that defence is necessary to repel a reactionary response, but the idea that arms and training in their use, should be so much to the fore, is an idea I find repugnant.

[Psy]

It would merely transfer superior firepower of a capitalist army to superior firepower of a communist militia. The presence of arms is a show of power and to follow the old adage 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely', those that hold the power (the armed) will always control, dominate and coerce those without power. It may be argued that defence is necessary to repel a reactionary response, but the idea that arms and training in their use, should be so much to the fore, is an idea I find repugnant.
Nazi Germany showed there will be soldiers that are willing to defend the capitalist to very end.

I also don't see how a revolutionary army could in and of itself be a corrupting power, for example the red army was never a corrupting power as it didn't have independence for very long and quickly became a tool of the Russian state like before.

[LeninKobaMao]

Non violent armed revolution? :confused: What are you gonna do poke them with the butts of your AK-47?

[RotStern]

Hmmm I guess we could all hold hands :D

[*Red*Alert]

Put flowers in the barrels of their assault rifles?

I intend to acquire weaponry and train, as The Red Son has done in the past. Sooner or later it'll be necessary and we'll be glad we're prepared. Weapons are easily obtainable in the US and even in Europe they can be cheaply obtained, especially shotguns if you keep your eye out for ones with damaged or rotten wood, which is easy enough to get replace, and you pick them up legally for as little as 50 Euro.

[chegitz guevara]

The only possible scenario for armed struggle to do anything other than die quickly in the United States is where the government suffers a partial collapse (monetary, ecological, etc) and isn't able to effectively enforce its will over the entire territory of the country.

Baring disaster, the only realistic scenario for revolution in the United States is winning over a portion of the military. If the military were a conscript force, that would be substantially easier. It is, however, not merely a volunteer/mercenary force, but it has been heavily infiltrated by old testament Christians and white power groups.

Theoretically, in a revolutionary situation, many people who might normally oppose revolutionary politics can be much more easily won over. Something about freedom is infectious, but the events in Iran should not be lost on comrades.

Truth is, we comrades here in the belly of the Empire have the hardest job of all.

[bcbm]

To the people that insist on creating armed militias in the U.S, you should be tremendously careful because as a previous poster mentioned that got many black panthers killed.

Panthers were murdered because they set up health clinics and breakfast programs, not because they had guns.


Blackwater is just waiting to be unleashed domestically and there's no way any group of citzens would stand a chance against them and their international organization of thugs and trained mercenaries. We HAVE to go the non-violent route in the United States.

You think that Blackwater wouldn't use violence against a "non violent revolution" if it actually threatened their supporters? All revolutions must be armed in that we must always be able to defend any gains with make and that may mean arms.

[Psy]

The only possible scenario for armed struggle to do anything other than die quickly in the United States is where the government suffers a partial collapse (monetary, ecological, etc) and isn't able to effectively enforce its will over the entire territory of the country.

Baring disaster, the only realistic scenario for revolution in the United States is winning over a portion of the military. If the military were a conscript force, that would be substantially easier. It is, however, not merely a volunteer/mercenary force, but it has been heavily infiltrated by old testament Christians and white power groups.


Or worker revolutions taking hold in other highly industrial nation first, for example Russia being under (true) works control would be a huge help to a revolutionary army in the USA with Russia's Air Force's 7 metric tonnes thermometric vacuum bombs that can destroy whole battalions without the nasty side effect of radiation tactical nukes give off (thus the bombs are effectively tactical nukes without ration since they do the same damage).

And if the USA is the very last industrial power to fall to a workers revolution (possible) the workers industrial powers could just lock horns with the US military and try to win with numerical superiority and larger industrial base.



Theoretically, in a revolutionary situation, many people who might normally oppose revolutionary politics can be much more easily won over. Something about freedom is infectious, but the events in Iran should not be lost on comrades.

Truth is, we comrades here in the belly of the Empire have the hardest job of all.
True but if the revolution starts from the outside the US it would make our job much easier.

[chegitz guevara]

One hopes our country isn't the last to become socialist.

[ellipsis]

It has been heavily infiltrated by old testament Christians and white power groups.

Truth is, we comrades here in the belly of the Empire have the hardest job of all.
The right wing extremist groups both infiltrate for purposes of recruitment and recruit from recently returned vets, often jaded and disillusioned from their experiences.
And yes the belly of the beast poses some strategic challenges.

That said, I am trying to start a red shooting club. Go to shooting ranges and rent guns and learn how to use them. Eugene Debs Battalion, here we come!
Do it! I have done it with a great number of politically sympathetic comrades. Not only do we have to prepare others to defend the revolution it is a really great bonding experience and.

[ellipsis]

Put flowers in the barrels of their assault rifles?

I intend to acquire weaponry and train, as The Red Son has done in the past. Sooner or later it'll be necessary and we'll be glad we're prepared. Weapons are easily obtainable in the US and even in Europe they can be cheaply obtained, especially shotguns if you keep your eye out for ones with damaged or rotten wood, which is easy enough to get replace, and you pick them up legally for as little as 50 Euro.
From my blog (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2007/10/tip-of-day-use-shotguns.html):
In many situations a shotgun is the perfect for the guerrilla. Why?
1) Shotguns and shotshells are cheap and easily acquired in most situation because they are used for hunting. Therefor they can be legally acquired and commonly found in almost any country or locality, even where gun control is stringent, such as Europe.
2) They are easy to use and relatively untrained soldiers can use them effectively. It is not precision weapons so instructing somebody to simply "point and shoot."
3) They are easy to conceal, on your person, luggage or in a vehicle, especially with a sawed-off or combat length barrel and a pistol grip or folding/collapsible stock.
4) They rip people up at close range, great for room clearing and other urban combat situations. The amount of raw energy being transfered into your target and size/number of wound is unrivaled by another other small arm at distances under 25 yards.
5) Shotshells are a versatile cartridge which can accommodate many different loads to fit many situations.
6) Shotguns, accessories and ammo are all pretty cheap which allows you to equip more troops on a smaller budget.
7) Shotguns loaded with lead slugs or buck shot (the former much safer and more effective) can be used to blow the hinges and/or locks on a door in order to gain entrance to a building or other contained area.
Just for fun, here is a picture of me at the range with a side by side, currently broken open.

[Psy]

From my blog (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2007/10/tip-of-day-use-shotguns.html):
In many situations a shotgun is the perfect for the guerrilla. Why?
1) Shotguns and shotshells are cheap and easily acquired in most situation because they are used for hunting. Therefor they can be legally acquired and commonly found in almost any country or locality, even where gun control is stringent, such as Europe.
2) They are easy to use and relatively untrained soldiers can use them effectively. It is not precision weapons so instructing somebody to simply "point and shoot."
3) They are easy to conceal, on your person, luggage or in a vehicle, especially with a sawed-off or combat length barrel and a pistol grip or folding/collapsible stock.
4) They rip people up at close range, great for room clearing and other urban combat situations. The amount of raw energy being transfered into your target and size/number of wound is unrivaled by another other small arm at distances under 25 yards.
5) Shotshells are a versatile cartridge which can accommodate many different loads to fit many situations.
6) Shotguns, accessories and ammo are all pretty cheap which allows you to equip more troops on a smaller budget.
7) Shotguns loaded with lead slugs or buck shot (the former much safer and more effective) can be used to blow the hinges and/or locks on a door in order to gain entrance to a building or other contained area.
Just for fun, here is a picture of me at the range with a side by side, currently broken open.

The problem is in urban combat one tends to need more range then even sub machine guns offer especially when you factor in the 3 dimensions of urban warfare and come to fact there will be time where you encounter the enemy from lower ground. Hunting rifles would be far more useful then shotguns since hunting rifles allows fighters to pin enemy forces much farther away then with shotguns.

[RotStern]

Shotguns in my opinion are absolutely useless unless you are on some kidnapping type thing. theredson made some points that I never thought of though. But yes a hunting rifle would be my weapon of choice over a shotgun in almost any situation.

[chegitz guevara]

You know what. Probably not the smartest discussion in an open forum.

[RotStern]

Lol yep probably not hahaha xD

[leochaos]

Hi,
there are 2 situations in which I know how political struggle included the extra option.
In Italy Autonomia Operaia started defending its demonstrations or acts of reappropriatons(supermarkets,etc) with groups or armed comrades.I guarantee you. it was a very effective practice.If you had the chance of hear the police radios when one of their guys got "modified" during an attack of an area of occupied houses in Rome I am sure you would agree with me.The fact is that it is easy for the mercenaries to do their shit when they know that they are not going to risk much or anything.
The area of Autop had also "spontaneous" bands that would apply extreme pressure to add some force to different kinds struggle.
The Metropolitan(underground) was put out of work during a national day of protest(organized by Autonomia).A lot of things happened at the time,one of the best was that "applied extra force" would be used to guarantee the protection of comrades in jail.
Of course at the end Autop was banned under a not so clear anti-terrorist low.As in many other occasions the state won.Personally I think that Autop would have survived if the traditional "Italian Communist party" had not started an active collaboration with the state.This is to remind everybody that social-democrats(with different names) are always on the side of our enemy.
Please note that Autop in general did not consider to be living in a revolutionary situation(bar the "Toni Negri fraction",a minority).
Autop paid also an heavy price due to the activity of basically "only armed groups" that indeed had chosen a policy of total war,refused by Autonomia.
A very different experience,but in the same period,was the "revolution in Portugal",I believe in 74-75.There, groups of soldiers(that were obiously armed) involved in the colonial wars in Africa started the movement who not only brought down the fascist regime,but for a while it opened some revolutionary options.The Brigadas Revolucionarias and a party I can't remember the name(PRP,maybe) did indeed a very good job.
Once again the social democrats(if I am not wrong part of the anti revolucionary plot was bankrolled by the german socialdem) did their dirty job.The support given by the european revolutionary left,I mean the one who acted and not just talked, was not enough...so we lost
Ok, here are 2 "revolutionary" examples from the first world(without national liberation tag)
Times have changed,but they may change again.
I do not understand the position of whoever is writing that the only way is..by convincing etc etc Sure,we have to educate the "masses",but how do you think we can convince the dominant classes to become socialist or even better anarchist?.They know that what they are doing is criminal,their job is to convince us that there is no need for a revolutionary change.They "ll give you the change they want.A general insurrection that can win does not look real right now in any european country,even less in the USA.Let's hope(but not just pray....)that the situation changes.
By the way I would not be surprised that the same guys who dream of a non violent change are probably the ones that would suggest the palestinian to only work peacefully to get some change in the israeli mind.
Nothing wrong with being pacifist, but please do not dream that the criminals that govern us are going to be nice.And the mercenary,with their super guns etc,do whatever their masters order.How many time must Allende die,before we accept that the chilean MIR was indeed more realist that our "companero president" that we all loved as a good man and comrade.His mistake, to trust in the possibility of a peaceful change...
Good luck

[leochaos]

Hi,
there are 2 situations in which I know how political struggle included the extra option.
In Italy Autonomia Operaia started defending its demonstrations or acts of reappropriatons(supermarkets,etc) with groups or armed comrades.I guarantee you. it was a very effective practice.If you had the chance of hear the police radios when one of their guys got "modified" during an attack of an area of occupied houses in Rome I am sure you would agree with me.The fact is that it is easy for the mercenaries to do their shit when they know that they are not going to risk much or anything.
The area of Autop had also "spontaneous" bands that would apply extreme pressure to add some force to different kinds struggle.
The Metropolitan(underground) was put out of work during a national day of protest(organized by Autonomia).A lot of things happened at the time,one of the best was that "applied extra force" would be used to guarantee the protection of comrades in jail.
Of course at the end Autop was banned under a not so clear anti-terrorist low.As in many other occasions the state won.Personally I think that Autop would have survived if the traditional "Italian Communist party" had not started an active collaboration with the state.This is to remind everybody that social-democrats(with different names) are always on the side of our enemy.
Please note that Autop in general did not consider to be living in a revolutionary situation(bar the "Toni Negri fraction",a minority).
Autop paid also an heavy price due to the activity of basically "only armed groups" that indeed had chosen a policy of total war,refused by Autonomia.
A very different experience,but in the same period,was the "revolution in Portugal",I believe in 74-75.There, groups of soldiers(that were obiously armed) involved in the colonial wars in Africa started the movement who not only brought down the fascist regime,but for a while it opened some revolutionary options.The Brigadas Revolucionarias and a party I can't remember the name(PRP,maybe) did indeed a very good job.
Once again the social democrats(if I am not wrong part of the anti revolucionary plot was bankrolled by the german socialdem) did their dirty job.The support given by the european revolutionary left,I mean the one who acted and not just talked, was not enough...so we lost
Ok, here are 2 "revolutionary" examples from the first world(without national liberation tag)
Times have changed,but they may change again.
I do not understand the position of whoever is writing that the only way is..by convincing etc etc Sure,we have to educate the "masses",but how do you think we can convince the dominant classes to become socialist or even better anarchist?.They know that what they are doing is criminal,their job is to convince us that there is no need for a revolutionary change.They "ll give you the change they want.A general insurrection that can win does not look real right now in any european country,even less in the USA.Let's hope(but not just pray....)that the situation changes.
By the way I would not be surprised that the same guys who dream of a non violent change are probably the ones that would suggest the palestinian to only work peacefully to get some change in the israeli mind.
Nothing wrong with being pacifist, but please do not dream that the criminals that govern us are going to be nice.And the mercenary,with their super guns etc,do whatever their masters order.How many time must Allende die,before we accept that the chilean MIR was indeed more realist that our "companero president" that we all loved as a good man and comrade.His mistake, to trust in the possibility of a peaceful change...
Good luck