Nonviolent revolutionary tactics

[Black Cross]

My question is pretty simple: What role should nonviolent tactics play in a revolutionary praxis in the context of an advanced capitalist/imperialist society?

I have an opinion on the matter, but i'm interested in hearing the thoughts of some of the more experienced members of the board (though I surely don't want this to discourage anyone from giving their thoughts).

[FreeFocus]

What can you do except leafleting, educating, rallies, etc? Undoubtedly, these are important, particularly the educating. Moreover, leftist organizations ought to consider providing some social services.

Anything else, including things such as factory occupations and strikes, runs the risk of violence, if you're serious about defending yourself and your cause.

[ZeroNowhere]

Which advanced capitalist society?

[F9]

What can you do except leafleting, educating, rallies, etc? Undoubtedly, these are important, particularly the educating. Moreover, leftist organizations ought to consider providing some social services.

Anything else, including things such as factory occupations and strikes, runs the risk of violence, if you're serious about defending yourself and your cause.

I consider those mostly pre-revolutionary praxis, but maybe i got OP question wrong?Anw..


What role should nonviolent tactics play in a revolutionary praxis in the context of an advanced capitalist/imperialist society?

During revolution, most nonviolent actions are basically condemned for fail.You should be prepared to fight for your life anytime.Even leafleting could turn to a violent action..

Now if you are talking about pre-revolution praxis, FreeFocus examples are pretty much accurate, and i agree with them, but i would put educating as a number 1 non-violent but even violent action for that period.Educationg the masses, the workers should be our number one goal, and it really is a really important task, that without it, again revolution is condemned for another fail!Most people wont fight for something they have no idea what it is, they wont fight for something they dont know if it will help them, and will surely wont fight, if they adopt medias and state deformed defining of our ideas..
So yeah, if we are after a non violent action on pre-revolution, the educationg the masses in obviously the most important one.

[Black Cross]

Which advanced capitalist society?

You're absolutely right to imply that it would differ in countries given their particular circumstances, but i was trying to be more general.

If you wanna get that particular though (which i don't oppose), say, US.


I consider those mostly pre-revolutionary praxis, but maybe i got OP question wrong?

I don't think "revolutionary praxis" is limited to only those tactics that are used during a period of revolution, since praxis, as i understand it in regards to the left, is something along the lines of a flexible, internally consistent liberatory process. This would then entail what would get us to a revolutionary period as much as what to do when that time comes.

And if my post was construed as practice during a revolution, let me make it clear that i wasn't trying to be so restrictive.

[political_animal]

Even leafleting could turn to a violent action

I now have an image of people smiting each other with sheets of A4 :laugh:

[Pawn Power]

Well, here in the US right now we don't have much other choice than non-violent tactics, unless we want to be completely annihilated. We in no way can compete violently with the power of the state, which specializes in war and destruction.

We can, and need to, use direct action and civil disobedience, including lockdowns, sit ins, occupations etc. These we can use without significant public backlash and without being torn apart by the state.

[Black Cross]

Well, here in the US right now we don't have much other choice than non-violent tactics, unless we want to be completely annihilated. We in no way can compete violently with the power of the state, which specializes in war and destruction.

Certainly i wouldn't suggest going head to head with the police/army or what have you, but do you think we should be completely non-violent? I think this would play directly into the hands of the state. I think, at least to a certain degree, we can cause some disturbance for the people/institutions/companies involved in occupying Palestine, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.


These we can use without significant public backlash...

What do you mean, exactly, when you say public backlash? Alienating people?


and without being torn apart by the state.

If we were to 'confront' the state, it would have to be in a way smarter than a gun fight in the streets; of course in that case we'd get whooped. But if we were to be more flexible and discreet, we could certainly make the cost of employing violence rise for the state.

Sidebar: Thanks to whomever moved this thread. I'm dumb.

[Sasha]

Well, here in the US right now we don't have much other choice than non-violent tactics, unless we want to be completely annihilated. We in no way can compete violently with the power of the state, which specializes in war and destruction.

We can, and need to, use direct action and civil disobedience, including lockdowns, sit ins, occupations etc. These we can use without significant public backlash and without being torn apart by the state.

i think you seriously need to read this book fast:

http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate

http://www.southendpress.org/2007/items/87729

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Anl%3Aofficial&hs=NSc&q=how+nonviolence+protects+the+state+download&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[Comrade Corwin]

I agree that the state currently holds the monopoly on violence, but then again that is the purpose of the state. Though I am not a believer in using violence as the sole tool for regime change, I do believe that we may have to combine the use of both violent and peaceful methods to complete a proper revolution and remove the capitalist parasitic state of the current imperialist United States. I used to be a complete political pacifist and I was picketing the streets along-side my comrades in the Party, but it was then that I realized that the state doesn't only overpower us when it comes to weaponry and manpower, but also in peaceful means. They own the media, they own the political machine and its only two functioning powerhouse twin political parties and they own the minds of the people with their materialistic sensationalism. We, the few workers who not blinded by the ridiculous pyramid scheme we call the market in the United States, have to go against the odds and attack on all fronts of both violent and nonviolent practices or we will achieve nothing.
I think the most important non-violent practice we could take advantage of is to now start providing services that the government has denied the people. Start businesses that defy the others. Find ways to shelter the numerous homeless, offer coverage to the majority that can't afford healthcare and give the jobs to the overwhelmingly growing unemployed! Once we do this and slap the logo of our ideology on the front of our building of business without shame, people will come to us and ask to be educated on what we are about. We must first become the saviors of the working class before they will believe in us. No matter how long we keep shouting our beliefs, people will ignore us and we'll fade unless they see us actually proving ourselves to them.

[Omegared]

Also read Total resistance by Maj. Hans Von Dach

War of the Flea: AClassic Guide to Guerrilla Wafare

And Guerrillas in the Midst.

I'm not advocating going out and wreaking havoc though. Almost all successful revolutions embrace all aspects, political, social, and yes even militant sections. Most on the board say that you will be wiped out immediately, thats why the weak combatants rely on propaganda, hit-and-run guerrilla tactics and far more importantly POPULAR SUPPORT, with out the support of the masses its only a matter of time until the fighters are jailed/killed and your movement crushed.

strike only when your have a very clear advantage but dont stay and us your superior mobility to never get out flanked or surrounded the and the longer u stay the more u risk being pinned down and crushed. Live to fight another day. And then if these tactics did not work this country and many others would not have been formed and or liberated.

[Omegared]

Also read Total resistance by Maj. Hans Von Dach

War of the Flea: AClassic Guide to Guerrilla Wafare

And Guerrillas in the Midst.

I'm not advocating going out and wreaking havoc though. Almost all successful revolutions embrace all aspects, political, social, and yes even militant sections. Most on the board say that you will be wiped out immediately, thats why the weak combatants rely on propaganda, hit-and-run guerrilla tactics and far more importantly POPULAR SUPPORT, with out the support of the masses its only a matter of time until the fighters are jailed/killed and your movement crushed.

strike only when your have a very clear advantage but dont stay and us your superior mobility to never get out flanked or surrounded the and the longer u stay the more u risk being pinned down and crushed. Live to fight another day. And then if these tactics did not work this country and many others would not have been formed and or liberated.

[Pawn Power]

i think you seriously need to read this book fast:

http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate

http://www.southendpress.org/2007/items/87729

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Anl%3Aofficial&hs=NSc&q=how+nonviolence+protects+the+state+download&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I think you need to seriously start organizing in your community.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Dont class tactics as violent and non violent but rather worth doing and not worth doing. The ruling class will not hesitate to murder everyone your kids , your mother , your friends and anyone else you give a fuck about and to piss on there graves without losing a moments sleep or giving it any non strategic afterthought. When the time comes to fight back not to do so with as much force and ruthlessness as is required is quite frankly appalling.

[Pawn Power]

Certainly i wouldn't suggest going head to head with the police/army or what have you, but do you think we should be completely non-violent? I think this would play directly into the hands of the state. I think, at least to a certain degree, we can cause some disturbance for the people/institutions/companies involved in occupying Palestine, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.


Sure we can resist and cause 'disturbance.' I just don't know what role 'violence' would play in that. The only one I could see is one in which some dedicated activist get a lot of time in jail.

***

I think some people are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not 'morally' apposed to 'violence' per say. I just don't see a positive role it could play in the US right now. Moreover, I see a lot of romanticism around violence that is not even put into context. When is violence being used? Why? What is the circumstance?

We can't simply say, 'non-violence' doesn't work, isn't revolutions, etc. A vast majority of the work we do is non-violent. Organizing, the most important aspect of revolution, is not only not violent but mainly built around trust and solidarity. I can surely image when violence could be justified and even useful but to talk about it in such an abstract way, divorced from the actual work we are doing (that some of us are doing) does not demonstrate is validity in general.

[Black Cross]

Sure we can resist and cause 'disturbance.' I just don't know what role 'violence' would play in that. The only one I could see is one in which some dedicated activist get a lot of time in jail.

I think anything that would disturb these institutions would presuppose violence. Candlelight vigils and protests aren't disturbing.


Dont class tactics as violent and non violent but rather worth doing and not worth doing.

If a violent or nonviolent tactic were to be accepted as revolutionary praxis, this naturally means it's worth doing; likewise, if it's not worth doing, it certainly wouldn't be accepted as such.

[Pawn Power]

I think anything that would disturb these institutions would presuppose violence. Candlelight vigils and protests aren't disturbing.


If you think that vigils and protests are the only tactics that don't include violence then you clearly haven't been involved in serious organizing.

[Comrade Corwin]

Well, I have been involved in serious organizing and I can tell you that without drastic action, possibly involving violent action, you will not wake the people from their daze. It is not that non-violent action can't tweak the heartstrings of the masses, but it has no effect when no one knows you are doing it. The government has control of the mainstream media and will censure protests against it. I remember when I was in D.C. during the March on Washington against the Iraq War. More than 250,000 people were involved, all picketing in the mall for the entire day. Now, after we had started packing up, I went to a restaurant that had a T.V. so my colleagues and me could celebrate the amazing turn out and great impact it made on the people who had witnessed our march. We watched the television and do you know what we saw? 15 seconds of coverage. This was the local D.C. news channel too! A story on how to care for your dog overlapped our story. They basically said, "A large protest took place on the Mall today, blocking traffic to the capital building for over 12 hours. And now onto our segment on..." "Blocking traffic"?! That was our greatest impact?! They didn't even mention what we were protesting. Never again was it mentioned and the only people who witnessed our march first-hand knew there was a protest. Now if we had beaten up a cop, we would have gotten front-page news! Not that I had wished harm on an officer, as they were there as much for our protection as others, but you know what I am talking about.

I am hesitant to condone violence. Violent revolution has many consequences. One of the greatest being that so much hostility is left over, even if the revolution has successfully planted a benevolent regime. For possibly decades later, there is danger of there being counter revolutions and civil war and the necessity to commit horrid purges of protestors to ensure they do not bring about a coup. All this is regrettable, but violence is the waking call of the people. You can protest, have sit-down/lock-downs and boycotts to your hearts content, but the average Joe will go about his day without even giving a thought to your efforts, but you throw one malitov cocktail and the media goes crazy! Given just enough attention and you can say anything you want on T.V. and make a huge impact.

[Steve_j]

My question is pretty simple: What role should nonviolent tactics play in a revolutionary praxis

Are you refering to non interpersonal violence or do you include the physical decommissioning of state apparatus as violence?

[Pawn Power]

Well, I have been involved in serious organizing and I can tell you that without drastic action, possibly involving violent action, you will not wake the people from their daze. It is not that non-violent action can't tweak the heartstrings of the masses, but it has no effect when no one knows you are doing it. The government has control of the mainstream media and will censure protests against it. I remember when I was in D.C. during the March on Washington against the Iraq War. More than 250,000 people were involved, all picketing in the mall for the entire day. Now, after we had started packing up, I went to a restaurant that had a T.V. so my colleagues and me could celebrate the amazing turn out and great impact it made on the people who had witnessed our march. We watched the television and do you know what we saw? 15 seconds of coverage. This was the local D.C. news channel too! A story on how to care for your dog overlapped our story. They basically said, "A large protest took place on the Mall today, blocking traffic to the capital building for over 12 hours. And now onto our segment on..." "Blocking traffic"?! That was our greatest impact?! They didn't even mention what we were protesting. Never again was it mentioned and the only people who witnessed our march first-hand knew there was a protest. Now if we had beaten up a cop, we would have gotten front-page news! Not that I had wished harm on an officer, as they were there as much for our protection as others, but you know what I am talking about.

I am hesitant to condone violence. Violent revolution has many consequences. One of the greatest being that so much hostility is left over, even if the revolution has successfully planted a benevolent regime. For possibly decades later, there is danger of there being counter revolutions and civil war and the necessity to commit horrid purges of protestors to ensure they do not bring about a coup. All this is regrettable, but violence is the waking call of the people. You can protest, have sit-down/lock-downs and boycotts to your hearts content, but the average Joe will go about his day without even giving a thought to your efforts, but you throw one malitov cocktail and the media goes crazy! Given just enough attention and you can say anything you want on T.V. and make a huge impact.

It sound as if your view of the usefulness of "violent" tactics is in relation to how much media coverage it gets.

1.) The mainstream media will never cover our actions in a positive like (if covered at all).

2.) This is not organizing. Period. People arn't usually swayed by this direct action tactics (violent or nonviolent) but by the more mundane day to day organizing that we should be doing.

[Comrade Corwin]

Yes. That is usually what I think Karl Marx and Frederick Engels meant when he spoke on revolution: "mundane". That is how we managed specified civil rights, legalized unions and other baby steps that managed to keep the capitalists in power by circumventing revolution.

You know, that was what Karl Marx said would happen. He spoke on the United States and said that we'd never achieve a worker's state because we would be content winning small victories by peaceful means rather than having a revolution. I mean, I am for us providing services to make our compassionate nature better known, but achieving that shouldn't be an excuse to stop there. We need to force the media to pay attention to us, even if that isn't easy, because the media is what has sway over the minds of the people whether we like it or not. We must not fall into the failings that Karl Marx said we would be condemned to.

[Q]

Yes. That is usually what I think Karl Marx and Frederick Engels meant when he spoke on revolution: "mundane". That is how we managed specified civil rights, legalized unions and other baby steps that managed to keep the capitalists in power by circumventing revolution.

You know, that was what Karl Marx said would happen. He spoke on the United States and said that we'd never achieve a worker's state because we would be content winning small victories by peaceful means rather than having a revolution. I mean, I am for us providing services to make our compassionate nature better known, but achieving that shouldn't be an excuse to stop there. We need to force the media to pay attention to us, even if that isn't easy, because the media is what has sway over the minds of the people whether we like it or not. We must not fall into the failings that Karl Marx said we would be condemned to.
You misunderstood Marx' and Engels' approach. They did defend progressive reforms as a result of class struggle. They understood that this is the only way to build a fighting working class movement, able to emancipate itself. The highest point of this self-emancipation is the overthrow of the capitalist state and their economic modus operandi.

What Marx and Engels disagreed with was reforms for the sake of reforms. Or, as Bernstein put it: "the socialist movement is everything, the goal of socialism is nothing".

[clive10]

Campaigns of civildisobedience have a good track record where as peacefull protest tends not to get the results. Violence seems to create more violence.

[Black Cross]

Are you refering to non interpersonal violence or do you include the physical decommissioning of state apparatus as violence?

Violence can be committed against property.


If you think that vigils and protests are the only tactics that don't include violence then you clearly haven't been involved in serious organizing.

Are you trying to annoy me, or change the subject? Mine was a direct response to your statement that "Sure we can resist and cause 'disturbance.' I just don't know what role 'violence' would play in that." So the appropriate rebuttal from you would have entailed some idea of how to disturb the state/imperialist agenda without employing violence; am i wrong?... And no, simply organizing is not disturbing.

If you'd actually like to debate, let's do so; if not, don't say anything.

I will admit though, unfortunately, i have not been involved in serious organizing (i'm stuck in Colorado; I plan to leave but the nature of capitalism and this crisis makes saving any money near impossible. I do what i can with the circumstance i was given). This doesn't mean that i'm downplaying the role of organization; it's the most important thing we can do. However, just because i think it's most important, doesn't mean it is/should be the only thing we do. Revolutionary praxis can't stop at or be limited to building organization.

[Q]

Violence can be committed against property.
So, a strike is a form of violence? It is after all the obstruction of private property, or rather the owners' right on the profits. What about a factory occupation like with Vestas in the UK recently? Is that violent?

[Comrade Corwin]

I'm not sure if I ever said I was not against progressive reforms. I believe very highly about progressive reforms, but I am not for making a more progressive capitalism. That simply strengthens the systems hold on the people when it lies and says it can take care of all of their needs. I'm not discussing this with capitalist reformists, am I? I was pretty sure this was a revolutionary forum.

I agree that organization is the most important step. Without it, a revolution simply turns into a directionally challenged mob. I think that violence should also be an organizational situation because undirected it becomes simple terrorism.

Yes, please do explain how do you commit violence against property? You mean vandalism? Destruction done to property?

[Black Cross]

So, a strike is a form of violence? It is after all the obstruction of private property, or rather the owners' right on the profits. What about a factory occupation like with Vestas in the UK recently? Is that violent?

No and no. It could lead to violence, but no property is necessarily destroyed in the process of a strike or an occupation.


Yes, please do explain how do you commit violence against property? You mean vandalism? Destruction done to property?

Yes. It's not a profound concept.

[Comrade Corwin]

No, that is a very simple concept. Just the way you had written the suggestion could be misconstrued. I just wanted to clarify what you meant. Thank you.

[Pawn Power]

Yes. That is usually what I think Karl Marx and Frederick Engels meant when he spoke on revolution: "mundane". That is how we managed specified civil rights, legalized unions and other baby steps that managed to keep the capitalists in power by circumventing revolution.

You know, that was what Karl Marx said would happen. He spoke on the United States and said that we'd never achieve a worker's state because we would be content winning small victories by peaceful means rather than having a revolution. I mean, I am for us providing services to make our compassionate nature better known, but achieving that shouldn't be an excuse to stop there. We need to force the media to pay attention to us, even if that isn't easy, because the media is what has sway over the minds of the people whether we like it or not. We must not fall into the failings that Karl Marx said we would be condemned to.

We "need to force the media to pay attention to us" doing what?

[Pawn Power]

Violence can be committed against property.



Are you trying to annoy me, or change the subject? Mine was a direct response to your statement that "Sure we can resist and cause 'disturbance.' I just don't know what role 'violence' would play in that." So the appropriate rebuttal from you would have entailed some idea of how to disturb the state/imperialist agenda without employing violence; am i wrong?... And no, simply organizing is not disturbing.


I don't really understand what you are saying. I think you are using a different definitions of "disturbance" and "violence" than me.


I will admit though, unfortunately, i have not been involved in serious organizing (i'm stuck in Colorado; I plan to leave but the nature of capitalism and this crisis makes saving any money near impossible. I do what i can with the circumstance i was given). This doesn't mean that i'm downplaying the role of organization; it's the most important thing we can do. However, just because i think it's most important, doesn't mean it is/should be the only thing we do. Revolutionary praxis can't stop at or be limited to building organization.

This is actually what I thought. No offense. But I have found that the people who are not involved in actual organizing and resistance are often the most aimlessly in favor or "violence." Like, if you haven't been involved in what is going on, how do you know what works and what doesn't and what tactics are being utilized?

Indeed Colorado is a fine place to organize resistance to American Empire and state capitalism. There a plenty of military bases and defense contractors based in Colorado, not to mention the thousands of students which are being actively recruited by the US military to go over to Afghanistan and kill. If you want to talk about "disturbance" cutting of the steady steam of soldiers for imperialist expansion is a great place to start.

[Black Cross]

I don't really understand what you are saying. I think you are using a different definitions of "disturbance" and "violence" than me.

I'm getting my definitions from websters, where are you getting yours?


This is actually what I thought. No offense.

None taken.


But I have found that the people who are not involved in actual organizing and resistance are often the most aimlessly in favor or "violence."

Care to explain why it's aimless?


Like, if you haven't been involved in what is going on, how do you know what works and what doesn't and what tactics are being utilized?

I do a lot of reading. There are plenty of sources that delve into the subject of tactics used and their accomplishments.

And when did i claim to know what works? Or is it that because i'm not involved in an anti-imperialist organization that i'm not allowed into conversation discussing the merits of leftist praxis?


Indeed Colorado is a fine place to organize resistance to American Empire and state capitalism.

With what base?

I said i wasn't involved in serious organization, and i don't believe there is a demand for this kind of organization where i live. I'm involved with food not bombs (i try to go to boulder every once in a while, but without a car, that's now near impossible; i do go to Denver every now and again, but my situation again makes that near impossible), as well as some other grassroots organizations, none of which are located in the area where i reside (again the problem arises). Though i appreciate all of these organizations, and i see the potential that they have, none of them were active in opposing american imperialism or the state.


There a plenty of military bases and defense contractors based in Colorado, not to mention the thousands of students which are being actively recruited by the US military to go over to Afghanistan and kill. If you want to talk about "disturbance" cutting of the steady steam of soldiers for imperialist expansion is a great place to start.

Just like that, eh? Did you have a particular organization in mind or should i just go out and wing it? I honestly don't know of even one organization that is actively involved in resisting army recruitment. Not to mention this would be an almost unwinable battle, considering these students go to the military for what the military can provide them with (that is a job/steady income, which is becoming harder and harder to come by for students).

[Pawn Power]

Black Cross, you are being unnecessarily defensive.

The first question for individuals with social/class consciousness should be what can I do.

It is not an easy question for anyone to ask themselves and requires real fortitude to then become engaged with what one thinks.

[Black Cross]

Black Cross, you are being unnecessarily defensive.

I'm not being defensive; I'm trying to debate. As i recall it was you who derailed discourse by bringing up my lack of community organizing; so to say that 1) i lack the experience necessary to engage in this kind of theoretical debate then 2) say i'm being defensive when i'm responding to your post, seems to me a little idiotic.


The first question for individuals with social/class consciousness should be what can I do.

Again, changing the subject. What does this have to do with the topic?


It is not an easy question for anyone to ask themselves and requires real fortitude to then become engaged with what one thinks.

... Seriously, why are you bringing any of this up? It's rather annoying and only serves to dilute this thread more and more.

[Pawn Power]

I'm not being defensive; I'm trying to debate. As i recall it was you who derailed discourse by bringing up my lack of community organizing; so to say that 1) i lack the experience necessary to engage in this kind of theoretical debate then 2) say i'm being defensive when i'm responding to your post, seems to me a little idiotic.


I was framing the discussion not as a 'theoretical' question but one relating to 'practice'- this being the Practice forum and all.

So, the question I am addressing is what role does 'violence' play in building a revolutionary movement and in our day to day practice. Not a hypothetical situation in which we theorize (often fantasize) about violent action. Not that that can't be a legitimate question, I just don't think it is a wholly useful one in this context.

Moreover, I guess, my position of revolutionary struggle is based in building a mass movement in which people are self-organizing their communities, workplaces, schools, etc. I don't see violence as a key element to this process. Perhaps I see its role in self-defense/community-defense, but I do not see how 'violence' explicitly leads to social/class consciousness and control over our workplaces.

In this whole thread 'violence' has yet to be grounded in an actual tactic, it is just being talked about in an abstract manner in a way in which 'violence' becomes a sort of tactic in itself (which it clearly isn't). When we discuss the validity of a act of resistance we need to define what that is. So 'resistance' can't simply be analyzed because it is an abstraction, but we can talk about a strike, or an workplace occupation, etc.

[Comrade Corwin]

Black Cross, I must agree that you are becoming very defensive. I have seen next to nothing that Pawn Power has said that is worth calling him (I am assuming the pronoun, correct if wrong) an idiot over (referring to the use of the word: "idiotic"). Pawn Power is merely a pacifist idealist, but I haven't seen where he stated that he doesn't wish to have a real discussion on the matter. Let us continue without having a yelling contest in this forum for educated discussion.

Now, Pawn Power, you claim that it is people who are not actively participating in organized action that condone violent action, but that cannot be true as I myself am an exception to that accusation. I have actively participated in marches, national committees and grass root voting collectives and I have seen first hand the grotesquely stunted progress of such movements (though I still approve of them). Now, the only reason I support violent action is because our ability to peacefully protest is severely outnumbered and overpowered by the established materialistic sensationalism of the capitalist, imperialist state of the United States of America. I don't condone violence as the first, most important or even best step/method within the inventory of the modern day revolutionary, but at the rate we are going peacefully within the confines of legalized protest rule books which are designed by the state, we have no chance. The government has imbued us with strengthened ideal that every life, no matter how wretched, is beyond cost and beaten us down into peaceful submission with their anti-violent revolutionary doctrine. They sponsor this type of brainwash because our leaders have seen how swift and momentous revolutions that make use of violent actions can be and fear that, if allowed to continue to be a tactic in the revolutionary psyche, they knew they'd lose power. We must not play by their rules, comrades!

You said that no one has laid out a sufficient list of productive violent actions, and you are right Power Pawn; so allow me to provide an example. Now, when we picket factories for mistreatment, we gain some advantage as long as scabs don't come along (which they most likely do), but even then we maintain a slow progress if any. Revolution is not baby steps, but the steps of a full-grown conscious worker's movement in which we do not maintain the conditions of old. If drastic change were not to come out of picketing, I say raid the facility and take control of it by force. Remove the lecherous CEOs and managers who infest and maintain our monotonous worker's oppression and install proper working class management. Sure, this will be fought with additional violence from the corporate-sponsored government, but this will get the message out that we will not take it anymore and will provide stronger incentives to fight against exploitation in the long run. Violence is contagious, unlike peaceful long-term organization, and would spread rapidly in a best-case scenario. With that kind of power under our belt and with the use of modern cyber "terrorism", we will BE the news (the controller of public opinion). But it requires blood for change, and fear and lack of courage to spill a drop of it will only lead us into further submission.

[Black Cross]

Black Cross, I must agree that you are becoming very defensive. I have seen next to nothing that Pawn Power has said that is worth calling him (I am assuming the pronoun, correct if wrong) an idiot over (referring to the use of the word: "idiotic"). Pawn Power is merely a pacifist idealist, but I haven't seen where he stated that he doesn't wish to have a real discussion on the matter. Let us continue without having a yelling contest in this forum for educated discussion.

I don't think he's an idiot; i'm sure he's quite intelligent. That said, he did redirect the conversation from theoretical debate (this thread did start off in theory) to my credentials as a leftist-activist.

And no one's 'yelling'. I was simply through with debating in such a convoluted way. There was nothing more to say.

[Comrade Corwin]

Don't worry, comrade. I'm on your side of the debate, anyway.