An Armed March

[The Vegan Marxist]

As a militant communist, I feel the idea of us having weaponry as a necessary tool to fight for our goal. But of course, violent revolution will not come just yet. We of course must first gain mass workers solidarity. But, should we not, as communists trying to make a statement that we're not going to stop rising up, form an armed march on the streets - whether it be Pittsburgh, California, New York, or Washington?

I'm not advocating for an immediate armed march on the streets to show our militant unity, but rather just to talk about whether we should or shouldn't.

[red cat]

As a militant communist, I feel the idea of us having weaponry as a necessary tool to fight for our goal. But of course, violent revolution will not come just yet. We of course must first gain mass workers solidarity. But, should we not, as communists trying to make a statement that we're not going to stop rising up, form an armed march on the streets - whether it be Pittsburgh, California, New York, or Washington?

I'm not advocating for an immediate armed march on the streets to show our militant unity, but rather just to talk about whether we should or shouldn't.

At a point where the CP has been able to organize a large portion of the proletariat as red guards, an armed march can be very useful in communicating with both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

[The Vegan Marxist]

At a point where the CP has been able to organize a large portion of the proletariat as red guards, an armed march can be very useful in communicating with both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

My thoughts exactly, but how would we go about this? Right now, I'm merely calling for a peaceful demonstration, in which all of us are armed in the process to express our militant unity within our movement. Where exactly would the best place to do this be? Would everyone here be willing to join to form this organized march?

[Invincible Summer]

I agree with your sentiments, but I can't help but think that people will be totally freaked out and think we're fascists or something. Some people might also cast off notions that we're just "pussy liberals" and think we're badass and join up. :lol:


Also, not sure how law-abiding you'd want this to be, but there are different state laws on open-carrying, are there not?

[red cat]

My thoughts exactly, but how would we go about this? Right now, I'm merely calling for a peaceful demonstration, in which all of us are armed in the process to express our militant unity within our movement. Where exactly would the best place to do this be? Would everyone here be willing to join to form this organized march?

In imperialist countries, it is very difficult to get the proletariat to join this kind of protests right now. However, in the US, the black working class, their Mexican counterparts along with ethnic tribes who face greater oppression in many cases, can go for an armed struggle at present. But even for that, you need to first organize them at workplace or villages, preferably starting from the black working class. You need to unionize them so that the government fails to meet their demands and the type of contradiction becomes more obvious.

An armed march can take place in a city only if the CP has active support of almost all of the proletariat there. Also, having red-guard groups within and around the marchers, that will look out for possible government aggression is a good idea.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I agree with your sentiments, but I can't help but think that people will be totally freaked out and think we're fascists or something. Some people might also cast off notions that we're just "pussy liberals" and think we're badass and join up. :lol:


Also, not sure how law-abiding you'd want this to be, but there are different state laws on open-carrying, are there not?

The best place would be Washington D.C. All we'd have to do is get permission to form a protest on in their area, & once it's approved then we can arm ourselves on the streets. It's legal as long as the guns are legally yours.

[The Vegan Marxist]

In imperialist countries, it is very difficult to get the proletariat to join this kind of protests right now. However, in the US, the black working class, their Mexican counterparts along with ethnic tribes who face greater oppression in many cases, can go for an armed struggle at present. But even for that, you need to first organize them at workplace or villages, preferably starting from the black working class. You need to unionize them so that the government fails to meet their demands and the type of contradiction becomes more obvious.

An armed march can take place in a city only if the CP has active support of almost all of the proletariat there. Also, having red-guard groups within and around the marchers, that will look out for possible government aggression is a good idea.

I like the red-guard idea. And yes, there are more immigrant working class people willing to arm themselves within a march right now, but I'm sure the rest of us are as well, but rather are quite afraid of what might be looked upon us or what the police might do if they saw a million-man armed march. But yes, we must first organize within meetings & be more prepared before such would take part.

[Psy]

At a point where the CP has been able to organize a large portion of the proletariat as red guards, an armed march can be very useful in communicating with both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Not really as it would communicate to the bourgeoisie state our strength and would not impress them unless we are talking about a sizable mechanized revolutionary army and by then we'd probably be locking horns with capitalists armies anyway and the very existence of a mechanized revolutionary army would communicate far more then any armed march.

[red cat]

Not really as it would communicate to the bourgeoisie state our strength and would not impress them unless we are talking about a sizable mechanized revolutionary army and by then we'd probably be locking horns with capitalists armies anyway and the very existence of a mechanized revolutionary army would communicate far more then any armed march.

Armed marches are not intended to convey the strength of the CP. It rather indicates to the bourgeoisie that the proletariat has become class conscious enough to take up arms.

Until you make the revolution, you keep your military strength secret.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Armed marches are not intended to convey the strength of the CP. It rather indicates to the bourgeoisie that the proletariat has become class conscious enough to take up arms.

Until you make the revolution, you keep your military strength secret.

There's where interference comes in though. Places like here in the States don't have the majority of it's population within class conscience to arm together with the means of the same message that would be brought forth. I know of a good number of people who are ready. Hell, a couple comrades that I know are soon about to leave the states to help out the Zapatistas, but I just don't think the majority is ready.

[Kléber]

Why would we want to let the bourgeoisie know our strength and give them an excuse to destroy us? They can vaporize a million armed marchers with the press of a button. When we take power, our strength should come as a total surprise to them.

Trying to jump-start the movement with spectacular and/or violent displays is a recipe for disaster. The Bolsheviks had to put their foot down on all such inclinations by ultra-radical elements in order to carry out a successful revolution.

The Red Guards were founded by soviet councils to defend their neighborhoods and workplaces against criminal activity during the collapse of the Russian economy in WWI. Then they were democratically won over to the Bolshevik program through agitation - the Bolsheviks communicated with the workers, not the bosses, and they won them over with words, not impressive displays with guns. They did not go showing off their weapons and numbers to the bourgeoisie either; Lenin tried to stop the premature uprising during the July Days. He was also totally opposed to the Mensheviks and Right SR's who wanted to support the provisional government and dialogue with the bourgeoisie. If Kerensky had known how strong the Red Guards were, he probably wouldn't have given them guns to stop Kornilov. The Russian bourgeoisie did not realize the workers' strength until state power had already been seized.

[Red Rebel]

The Black Panther did armed marches to show that if the police attacked them (not just at the march but at anytime) that they were willing and able to fight back. Although I can't imagine that any town/bourgh would approve one of these marches today, but I haven't looked into one.

[Tablo]

I don't see any real benefit to doing armed marches. At most we might get a couple of the hardcore gun enthusiasts that want to keep their weapons interested, but that is all I see coming from this.

[Psy]

The Black Panther did armed marches to show that if the police attacked them (not just at the march but at anytime) that they were willing and able to fight back. Although I can't imagine that any town/bourgh would approve one of these marches today, but I haven't looked into one.

And the FBI eventually crushed them.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, we can all agree that we must not show our militant strength until the revolution is ready to be waged.

[The Douche]

Open carry is not legal everywhere especially not in most east coast cities. Also the idea is ripe for provocatuers. I also see nothing that could be gained from it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Open carry is not legal everywhere especially not in most east coast cities. Also the idea is ripe for provocatuers. I also see nothing that could be gained from it.

Like I said earlier in the thread, washington allows open carry, the weapon just has to be legally yours.

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'm not sure if America in general is quite ready for an armed communist march. The public would probably just get really freaked out and think we're nazis. Just, nobody where red arm bands!:p
I'm not saying it couldn't help, we would just have to be careful about how we go about it.

[Psy]

Well, we can all agree that we must not show our militant strength until the revolution is ready to be waged.
Really the best time to show strength would be after a revolution takes power in preparation from a reactionary counter-revolution. For example if Paris May 1968 overthrew the French bourgeoisie state then you'd want a revolutionary army parade through Paris to show the counter-revolutionary forces within France and bourgeoisie states outside France that a revolutionary army exists to defend the revolution in France and to show to the proletariat of France the strength of the revolutionary army that defends them.

[bcbm]

Well, we can all agree that we must not show our militant strength until the revolution is ready to be waged.

what is showing our militant strength? marching around with guns? staging an armed offensive? this would be my guess from the language you use later, revolution being "waged," like a war? if this is the case, then i'm not sure i really agree with this at all.


Really the best time to show strength would be after a revolution takes power in preparation from a reactionary counter-revolution. For example if Paris May 1968 overthrew the French bourgeoisie state then you'd want a revolutionary army parade through Paris to show the counter-revolutionary forces within France and bourgeoisie states outside France that a revolutionary army exists to defend the revolution in France and to show to the proletariat of France the strength of the revolutionary army that defends them.

where does this revolutionary army suddenly arise from? and why does it need to show the proletariat its strength? this suggests to me it isn't arising from the proletariat.

[Psy]

where does this revolutionary army suddenly arise from?

It does not but during revolution a revolutionary army will be too busy fighting to go on marches.



and why does it need to show the proletariat its strength? this suggests to me it isn't arising from the proletariat.
Even with the revolutionary army drawing its strength from the proletariat does not mean the proletariat would easily comprehend the power of the revolutionary army as they would only have seen parts of the revolutionary army during the revolution.

[bcbm]

why is this "revolutionary" army separated from the proletariat? is "the revolution" going to be fought by this army?

[The Vegan Marxist]

why is this "revolutionary" army separated from the proletariat? is "the revolution" going to be fought by this army?

The revolutionary army of the proletarians, yes.

[StalinFanboy]

This is why Leninists are fail :(

[Psy]

why is this "revolutionary" army separated from the proletariat? is "the revolution" going to be fought by this army?
They are not separated from the proletariat but neither are they all apart of it. You won't have a revolutionary army that comprises of the entire proletariat, you'd have sympathizers outside of the revolutionary army. Also even those within during a revolution won't have knowledge the full extent of the revolutionary army since the revolution is when a revolutionary army rapidly grows in strength so a revolutionary military parade would also show the revolutionary army itself its own strength as it gets to see all the weapons it inherited from the bourgeoisie state through capturing bases, plus bourgeoisie soldiers defecting and surrendering.

To workers that did not partake in the revolution, would not the sight of revolutionary army tanks rumbling down the main street in a victory parade show them the revolutionary army pushed the bourgeoisie back and therefore a force to be reckoned with?

[The Douche]

By the way open carry is NOT legal in dc. And I still see no reason for such an action.

[The Vegan Marxist]

By the way open carry is NOT legal in dc. And I still see no reason for such an action.

You clearly don't pay attention to law. How about you start studying gun laws by each state, in which can be done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

And here's what it says in Washington gun laws: "Open carrying of firearms is not prohibited by law although trouble with some law enforcement agencies has been encountered while open carrying in the past."

[StalinFanboy]

You clearly don't pay attention to law. How about you start studying gun laws by each state, in which can be done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state))

And here's what it says in Washington gun laws: "Open carrying of firearms is not prohibited by law although trouble with some law enforcement agencies has been encountered while open carrying in the past."
"
District of Columbia

In Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.), all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975).
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller). The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#cite_ note-43)
A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009 to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons"


Learn to read?

[The Vegan Marxist]

"
District of Columbia

In Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.), all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975).
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller). The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#cite_ note-43)
A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009 to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons"


Learn to read?

You just showed me a quote that acknowledges the right to carry handguns in the Washington district, for the second amendment acknowledges it. So where's your evidence that someone who legally owns a gun can't carry it around during a demonstration in Washington?

[StalinFanboy]

You just showed me a quote that acknowledges the right to carry handguns in the Washington district, for the second amendment acknowledges it. So where's your evidence that someone who legally owns a gun can't carry it around during a demonstration in Washington?
It doesn't explicitly state there is open-carry in DC. I would expect Cmoney to know since he lives near DC.

But the reason why I posted that is because you failed super hard, and posted something from the section on Washington state. LOLLLLLLLL

[StalinFanboy]

http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html


kay thanks

[The Vegan Marxist]

The law applies to the State of Washington which specifically states that open carry of firearms is legal. And the section that you provided showed how a law that once restricted the carrying of handguns but what is now legal to carry if you legally own one.

[The Douche]

The law applies to the State of Washington which specifically states that open carry of firearms is legal. And the section that you provided showed how a law that once restricted the carrying of handguns but what is now legal to carry if you legally own one.

Washington dc is not Washington state, asshole.

[StalinFanboy]

The law applies to the State of Washington which specifically states that open carry of firearms is legal. And the section that you provided showed how a law that once restricted the carrying of handguns but what is now legal to carry if you legally own one.
Seriously, dude... what?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Washington dc is not Washington state, asshole.

My mistake, but let's refrain from calling unnecessary names here, eh comrade?

But what about this:


Right-To-Carry Law Type:May Issue

§ 22-4503. Unlawful possession of firearm [Formerly § 22-3203].

(a) No person shall own or keep a firearm, or have a firearm in his or her possession or under his or her control, within the District of Columbia, if:

(1) Such person is a drug addict;

(2) Such person has been convicted in the District of Columbia or elsewhere of a felony;

(3) Such person has been convicted of violating § 22-2701, § 22-2722, or §§ 22-3502 to 22-3506; or

(4) Such person is not licensed under § 22-4510 to sell weapons, and such person has been convicted of violating this chapter.

(b) No person shall keep a firearm for, or intentionally make a firearm available to, such a person, knowing that such person has been so convicted or that such person is a drug addict. Whoever violates this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 10 years and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory-minimum term of not less than 1 year and shall not be released from prison or granted probation or suspension of sentence prior to serving the mandatory-minimum sentence.

http://apps.carryconcealed.net/legal/washingtondc-ccw-state-laws.php

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think this sounds good. Sure if this protest was in a time of high class consciousness or was as part of a general action across a certain region it would be necessary to arm ourselves, but I cannot see it doing any good in the current climate.

[Invincible Summer]

why is this "revolutionary" army separated from the proletariat? is "the revolution" going to be fought by this army?

I'm sure there will be sections of the working class who will not want to be directly involved in the fighting

[Sinred]

where does this revolutionary army suddenly arise from? and why does it need to show the proletariat its strength? this suggests to me it isn't arising from the proletariat.

The revolutionary army arise from the workers and dedicated communists ready to fight with weapon in hand for the revolution, for example against paramilitary fascists, the military, police, organized crime etc.
Off course, this doesn't exclude the same communist party to organize strikes, workers struggle etc. A movement cant be a part of a revolution without having the support of the masses and work as a organ for the working class in the first case. A revolutionary movement, for a revolutionary class.

People here seems to forget that vegan_marxist speculate about the near future. Not under today's circumstances. :p

[The Vegan Marxist]

The revolutionary army arise from the workers and dedicated communists ready to fight with weapon in hand for the revolution, for example against paramilitary fascists, the military, police, organized crime etc.
Off course, this doesn't exclude the same communist party to organize strikes, workers struggle etc. A movement cant be a part of a revolution without having the support of the masses and work as a organ for the working class in the first case. A revolutionary movement, for a revolutionary class.

People here seems to forget that vegan_marxist speculate about the near future. Not under today's circumstances. :p

What's that suppose to mean?

Sorry if I seem a little too forward on that, but I'm not sure if I'm reading what your last part said correctly.

[Sinred]

Maybe misunderstood you. But as i understood you talk about the possibility of an armed march in the near future and not under today's circumstances, right?
My english grammar are at times pretty crappy so try to have a little tolerance for how i express things :)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Maybe misunderstood you. But as i understood you talk about the possibility of an armed march in the near future and not under today's circumstances, right?
My english grammar are at times pretty crappy so try to have a little tolerance for how i express things :)

Well, I was asking if people at first thought one could be possible during these times, but as people started answering & explaining, I gained through their statements an answer in which concludes that an armed march may only be possible once we've gained much workers solidarity, & really by the time such is ready to be partaken upon, the revolution will probably be ready to be waged by then. So yeah, you understood me correctly for the most part. It was me who misunderstood what you were saying.

[pierrotlefou]

The best place would be Washington D.C. All we'd have to do is get permission to form a protest on in their area, & once it's approved then we can arm ourselves on the streets. It's legal as long as the guns are legally yours.
march 20th

[The Vegan Marxist]

march 20th

Isn't that an anti-war march though? I don't think an armed march would give the right message through something like that.

[bcbm]

To workers that did not partake in the revolution, would not the sight of revolutionary army tanks rumbling down the main street in a victory parade show them the revolutionary army pushed the bourgeoisie back and therefore a force to be reckoned with?

no. i think the idea of "revolutionary army tanks rumbling down the main street" is absurd and shows a rather authoritarian and militarist logic that a true fight for human community wouldn't possess. i don't think a "revolutionary army" will be necessary, at least in the sense used here. "when power is in the gutter it's enough to walk over it."

[Glenn Beck]

no. i think the idea of "revolutionary army tanks rumbling down the main street" is absurd and shows a rather authoritarian and militarist logic that a true fight for human community wouldn't possess. i don't think a "revolutionary army" will be necessary, at least in the sense used here. "when power is in the gutter it's enough to walk over it." It's just a matter of calmly waiting for the drunken rampage to end and the brute to pass out in just the right gutter, eh? :D

[bcbm]

It's just a matter of calmly waiting for the drunken rampage to end and the brute to pass out in just the right gutter, eh? :D

punx

[La Comédie Noire]

We know from past experience or at least we should that when you put people, especially men, into organized armed groups they don't behave.

We should form militias, but there only purpose should be protection, we definitely don't want to give them medals and uniforms to show off their "might".

There should also be an automatic death penalty for rape or wanton violence of any kind. I think we should also try to organize the militias so it's 50 or 60 percent female, we definitely don't want it to be a boys club.

If some macho asshole wants to play army he'll have to do it in the sandbox like everyone else with a six year old mind.

[bcbm]

There should also be an automatic death penalty for rape or wanton violence of any kind.

why? the use of death as a punishment denies the possibility of humanity. i don't think a rapist or a violent person are no longer human. i think they are troubled individuals reared in a violent society that pushes them towards such anti-human feats. certainly they shouldn't be let to "pass" without any form of justice, but to kill other human beings is something i think has no part in discovering our humanity and destroying class relations.

our enemies are rapists, murderers, thieves and so on on a much larger scale than we can imagine and in overturning their dominance i think we should avoid violence if possible. in relating to each other on a personal level, this should be even more pronounced. violent individuals, whether rapists, murderers or whatever else, are not an aberration that needs to be destroyed, but human beings raised in a violent and toxic reality that turns them into monsters. by murdering them, we already suggest that the behaviors class society has created are natural and must be stamped out and controlled, instead of seeing a general humanity in the situation and striving to destroy such anti-social behaviors through a true human community.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don’t see what’s so wrong with denying a rapist or a murder has “lost their humanity”. Plenty of perfectly untroubled individuals have done horrible things when being part of an armed group. I think it’s a fair trade, if you are given the power to kill or harm people, your life may be taken away if you abuse it.

This is mostly for pragmatic reasons, we don’t want to attract the wrong type of person. It will be a revolutionary situation after all and not everyone who joins “the cause” will be doing so for purely ideological reasons ( during the Russian civil war a lot of people joined the armed services for boots and a hot meal) . But if we rig it so there are a sizeable portion of women and have zero tolerance for crap, I think a lot of would be gang rapists and sport murderers would be deterred, I don’t know many women who would stand by while their fellow human being got raped.
After the revolution? I don’t know. I noticed in the another thread you showed a distaste for labor camps and prisons, a sentiment I agree with. But what would you suggest?

[Invincible Summer]

We know from past experience or at least we should that when you put people, especially men, into organized armed groups they don't behave.

We should form militias, but there only purpose should be protection, we definitely don't want to give them medals and uniforms to show off their "might".


How is your idea of a militia any different from a people's army? It's just a different name, and minus uniforms. It's still an organized group of people with guns.

[bcbm]

I don’t see what’s so wrong with denying a rapist or a murder has “lost their humanity”.

well that is a good place to start. why?


Plenty of perfectly untroubled individuals have done horrible things when being part of an armed group. I think it’s a fair trade, if you are given the power to kill or harm people, your life may be taken away if you abuse it. i disagree completely. i don't think if you do horrible things to other human beings you are "untroubled," on the contrary, i think that suggests an extremely troubled existence.


This is mostly for pragmatic reasons, we don’t want to attract the wrong type of person.what is the wrong type of person? i'm interested in waging a struggle that opens the possibility of a true human community for all people. i don't think there are any "wrong types" in this struggle, only individuals who may have some baggage that needs to be challenged.


It will be a revolutionary situation after all and not everyone who joins “the cause” will be doing so for purely ideological reasons ( during the Russian civil war a lot of people joined the armed services for boots and a hot meal) . But if we rig it so there are a sizeable portion of women and have zero tolerance for crap, I think a lot of would be gang rapists and sport murderers would be deterred, I don’t know many women who would stand by while their fellow human being got raped.

if the only means through which we can deter murder and rape is death, than i think we might as well abandon the project of communism right now, because this is already admitting that human beings cannot function in a communal and egalitarian society.


After the revolution? I don’t know. I noticed in the another thread you showed a distaste for labor camps and prisons, a sentiment I agree with. But what would you suggest?i suggest that the society we live in creates many variations of destructive, unhealthy beings and that if we want to truly oppose this society we need to offer something outside of this. punishment by death is an archaic and outmoded form, even for the bourgeoisie in many countries, and if we fall back on this i don't see how we're "progressing."

[La Comédie Noire]

How is your idea of a militia any different from a people's army? It's just a different name, and minus uniforms. It's still an organized group of people with guns. Uniforms, medals, armed marches, orders, ranks, centralized authority, it all gives people the idea they’re a force above society and that they can do no wrong. We should try to foster an attitude that they can do wrong and they will be punished for doing it.

Well that is a good place to start. why? I don’t know if you’ve ever had the misfortune of meeting a rapist, but they suck and are often very proud of what they did, in fact a lot of them brag about it. You are correct, a lot of it stems from the way our culture is, so we should change it, by becoming highly intolerant of rape. It should be seen as a disgusting act of power. The same goes for arbitrary murder. I have no trouble with discussing alternative forms of punishment after the revolution, but during a revolution we will have to do something, they’re highly chaotic and violent.
Perhaps we will never even need to use the death penalty; the aforementioned armed women may be enough. Perhaps the death penalty will be a mere formality, being something reached by consensus, everyone will be disgusted with it, so no one will do it.

what is the wrong type of person? I’m interested in waging a struggle that opens the possibility of a true human community for all people. i don't think there are any "wrong types" in this struggle, only individuals who may have some baggage that needs to be challenged. Ex police and army officers would be a good way to start the list. Multiple sex offenders aren’t good either.

If the only means through which we can deter murder and rape is death, than i think we might as well abandon the project of communism right now, because this is already admitting that human beings cannot function in a communal and egalitarian society. Come now, a communist society will use many methods to deter murder and rape other than death. I for instance, don’t rape women because I’m afraid of getting killed, I don’t rape women because I find it barbaric. But what are we to do about the rapists and murderers who would still exist or even worse find their way into revolutionary militias? How would we handle it, if say, a group of soldiers raped a women?

I suggest that the society we live in creates many variations of destructive, unhealthy beings and that if we want to truly oppose this society we need to offer something outside of this. punishment by death is an archaic and outmoded form, even for the bourgeoisie in many countries, and if we fall back on this I don't see how we're "progressing. Make no mistake the bourgeoisie are perfectly fine with murder even if they don’t allow formal executions on the home front. But again my question is, what do you specifically suggest? If someone were to be accused of rape in a communist society, what would you want to see happen?

I can definitely see a time when rape and murder will be viewed as unthinkable acts much like witch trials and female genital mutilation are now, but how do we get to that point?

[Invincible Summer]

Uniforms, medals, armed marches, orders, ranks, centralized authority, it all gives people the idea they’re a force above society and that they can do no wrong. We should try to foster an attitude that they can do wrong and they will be punished for doing it.

Uniforms and medals aren't really necessary, true. However, camouflage and armor, etc is obviously a tactical advantage.

However, I'd argue that armed marches, orders, and some form of rank order/authority is necessary to make a people's army/militia effective. The authority could be rotated/elected, giving anyone who wishes to the chance to be trained/experienced in leading and military planning, etc. The leadership could also be recalled at any time, if the rest of the army/militia feel the leadership is not doing a good job.

I'm assuming that this army would be used during a revolutionary period, where there is a greater reactionary threat than post-revolution. Therefore, effective military leadership and discipline (acquired by marching together, taking orders and such) is important for an effective working class, counter-revolutionary force. I would think that enforcing military discipline would provide a stronger sense of consequence - if they do something wrong/out of order, there are consequences.

But yes, there should also be an avoidance of the "Be all you can be" attitude

[Psy]

Uniforms and medals aren't really necessary, true. However, camouflage and armor, etc is obviously a tactical advantage.

However, I'd argue that armed marches, orders, and some form of rank order/authority is necessary to make a people's army/militia effective. The authority could be rotated/elected, giving anyone who wishes to the chance to be trained/experienced in leading and military planning, etc. The leadership could also be recalled at any time, if the rest of the army/militia feel the leadership is not doing a good job.

I'm assuming that this army would be used during a revolutionary period, where there is a greater reactionary threat than post-revolution. Therefore, effective military leadership and discipline (acquired by marching together, taking orders and such) is important for an effective working class, counter-revolutionary force. I would think that enforcing military discipline would provide a stronger sense of consequence - if they do something wrong/out of order, there are consequences.

But yes, there should also be an avoidance of the "Be all you can be" attitude

There would also be need to easily tell what units revolutionary troops are in, so people know where they orders come from since in a world war against the bourgeoisie could cause revolutionary troops from half war around the world still taking marching orders from their home soviet in a worldwide revolutionary coalition and flags on their uniform would communicate the home soviet of revolutionary soldiers. Insignias would help revolutionary troops identify their own and other revolutionary fighting forces on the battlefield and since they would be used on battle maps they probably should also be worn by those in the revolutionary forces even if just so after the fighting troops regroup quicker.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Uniforms, medals, armed marches, orders, ranks, centralized authority, it all gives people the idea they’re a force above society and that they can do no wrong. We should try to foster an attitude that they can do wrong and they will be punished for doing it.


So the point of knowing right is because there's a reward from it, & the opposite for those that partake in the contrary of right? I don't believe in killing innocent, but it's not because I was told I'd go to jail because of it, nor because I'm afraid of a mythalogical place called 'Hell'. I don't kill innocent people because it's what I've been taught. The act of punishment has never converted beliefs of mine, in fact it's allowed me to try & question the punishment, to take the risks.

I ask you, why do more people consume marijuana in areas where there's a punishment for consuming marijuana?

[Sinred]

We know from past experience or at least we should that when you put people, especially men, into organized armed groups they don't behave.

Really? You think maos revolutionarys, many of the spanish civil war platoons, the cuban geurillas, the russian red gardists, the rot fronts of germany... hell, every socialist movement i can think of during a revolutionary period, were groups that didn't behave? Im sure there were plenty with mistakes, but keeping a militant group unorganized and hold back because of gender is so messed up i wouldn't dare to think about the consequences during a guerrilla war.


We should form militias, but there only purpose should be protection, we definitely don't want to give them medals and uniforms to show off their "might".
Medals gives when a person did something heroic, and as a apprecition for something good. Its not that i am a military-fetischist or anything, but i dont really see how anything could be less bad with denying good comrades medals for good behavior. Same thing goes with uniforms but for those who had the bravery to fight with weapon in the under the service of the people. Its about respecting folks effort. And neither are supposed to show of "might".


There should also be an automatic death penalty for rape or wanton violence of any kind.
Agree to a 100%


I think we should also try to organize the militias so it's 50 or 60 percent female, we definitely don't want it to be a boys club.
Right... I would love to have that many women in an armed group. But we will just have to see what is possible, we cant use affarmative action to an army who fights on life and death. It has to be done by merits, no matter gender. But it would be 10% or even zero women in the militia it doesnt matter. An armed group has to go by quality, not gender balance.



If some macho asshole wants to play army he'll have to do it in the sandbox like everyone else with a six year old mind.
Are you 4 real? Are you talking about the future class wars problem is about macho men? Lordy lord...

[La Comédie Noire]

So the point of knowing right is because there's a reward from it, & the opposite for those that partake in the contrary of right? I don't believe in killing innocent, but it's not because I was told I'd go to jail because of it, nor because I'm afraid of a mythalogical place called 'Hell'. I don't kill innocent people because it's what I've been taught. The act of punishment has never converted beliefs of mine, in fact it's allowed me to try & question the punishment, to take the risks.

I ask you, why do more people consume marijuana in areas where there's a punishment for consuming marijuana?

What reward is there?

I'm sure those people happen to enjoy marijuana, just like some people happen to enjoy rape. You're absolutely right though, most rapists will rape again, especially if they are allowed to get away with it, so we should just shoot them.



Really? You think maos revolutionarys, many of the spanish civil war platoons, the cuban geurillas, the russian red gardists, the rot fronts of germany... hell, every socialist movement i can think of during a revolutionary period, were groups that didn't behave? Im sure there were plenty with mistakes, but keeping a militant group unorganized and hold back because of gender is so messed up i wouldn't dare to think about the consequences during a guerrilla war.

The Red Guard's raped women and some units were nothing more than organized banditry, not of the capitalist class, but of personal possessions. it was a desperate situation, that stuff happens, we have to deal with it in some way.


Are you 4 real? Are you talking about the future class wars problem is about macho men? Lordy lord...

It will be a problem, many ex police, army officers and other personnel of the state will come over to our side and offer us "aid". Of course in return they'll want a position and a chance to do things "their way".

Past revolutions have shown us it's not the kind of help we want.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What reward is there?

I'm sure those people happen to enjoy marijuana, just like some people happen to enjoy rape. You're absolutely right though, most rapists will rape again, especially if they are allowed to get away with it, so we should just shoot them.


Wow, you missed the point entirely. I was pointing out that punishment, which shooting someone is considered as being punished as well, only leads to a rebellion over such punishment. When people are prevented from smoking marijuana, people will smoke more than what they would usually smoke if they weren't prevented from doing so.

People do what they do because of the environmental conditioning they went through while growing up. If you want to blame someone, then blame those that taught them what they know now, & when you blame them then you might as well blame those that taught the ones you're blaming right now. To punish the acts of pre-conditionings is illogical & will only lead to more problems. What we need to do is re-condition them, not punish them.

[Sinred]

The Red Guard's raped women and some units were nothing more than organized banditry, not of the capitalist class, but of personal possessions. it was a desperate situation, that stuff happens, we have to deal with it in some way.
Agree. Shit like that happens not often, but one time is one to many.
And yes, we have to deal with it. A better moral and harsh punishment against the scum who behave in that way. But keeping militias unorganized and female dominated for the sake of it just doesnt make any sense.



It will be a problem, many ex police, army officers and other personnel of the state will come over to our side and offer us "aid". Of course in return they'll want a position and a chance to do things "their way".
Past revolutions have shown us it's not the kind of help we want.
Once again: agree. We gotta keep those elements out. I just dont see the gender-relevance.

[La Comédie Noire]

Wow, you missed the point entirely. I was pointing out that punishment, which shooting someone is considered as being punished as well, only leads to a rebellion over such punishment. When people are prevented from smoking marijuana, people will smoke more than what they would usually smoke if they weren't prevented from doing so.

People do what they do because of the environmental conditioning they went through while growing up. If you want to blame someone, then blame those that taught them what they know now, & when you blame them then you might as well blame those that taught the ones you're blaming right now. To punish the acts of pre-conditionings is illogical & will only lead to more problems. What we need to do is re-condition them, not punish them.Don't fret, I got the point, but I don't think many people will "Rebel" more because they are prevented from doing so. In fact, it's my hope many units would adopt this one from a democratic referendum because future revolutionaries would find rape disgusting. I don't imagine it being a rule imposed from without by a centralized command structure, but one enforced by a consensus, or at least a majority. Imagine, the old order's falling apart, there is no legitimate source of public power, people distrust most soldiers because the decaying elements of the old order have been running amok, I know it wouldn't be much, but a lot of people would trust us more if we took action when one of us did something horrible.

I don't think you fully appreciate how chaotic a revolutionary situation will be, there will not be time to "recondition" people. Not to mention even if we ran a vigorous propaganda campaign some people would still do it anyways. So what do you suggest we do? Put them in prisons? That's a bad way to go in my opinion, because then you have to have guards and specialists in "reeducation" and then you create this whole gendarmerie mentality.

We might as well give them black uniforms and the death heads insignia. Better yet I'm sure the aforementioned police and army officers would love to lend their "skills" to the cause, this stuff's right up there alley after all. Naturally these special units would piss off the regular militia and they'd probably end up rebelling anyways.

On the other hand you could give the equivalent of a slap on the wrist (perhaps a traffic school for rapists?), not only will this make us look bad, it will make other would be rapists and thieves think they could get away with it.

I apologize if I'm creating a false paradox here (either we kill people dead or they will run amok!) so let me ask, what do you suggest?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Don't fret, I got the point, but I don't think many people will "Rebel" more because they are prevented from doing so. In fact, it's my hope many units would adopt this one from a democratic referendum because future revolutionaries would find rape disgusting. I don't imagine it being a rule imposed from without by a centralized command structure, but one enforced by a consensus, or at least a majority. Imagine, the old order's falling apart, there is no legitimate source of public power, people distrust most soldiers because the decaying elements of the old order have been running amok, I know it wouldn't be much, but a lot of people would trust us more if we took action when one of us did something horrible.

I don't think you fully appreciate how chaotic a revolutionary situation will be, there will not be time to "recondition" people. Not to mention even if we ran a vigorous propaganda campaign some people would still do it anyways. So what do you suggest we do? Put them in prisons? That's a bad way to go in my opinion, because then you have to have guards and specialists in "reeducation" and then you create this whole gendarmerie mentality.

We might as well give them black uniforms and the death heads insignia. Better yet I'm sure the aforementioned police and army officers would love to lend their "skills" to the cause, this stuff's right up there alley after all. Naturally these special units would piss off the regular militia and they'd probably end up rebelling anyways.

On the other hand you could give the equivalent of a slap on the wrist (perhaps a traffic school for rapists?), not only will this make us look bad, it will make other would be rapists and thieves think they could get away with it.

I apologize if I'm creating a false paradox here (either we kill people dead or they will run amok!) so let me ask, what do you suggest?

I understand where you're getting at, but understand this. The revolution will not happen within a few more good years probably, & more than likely, it'll be the next generation that will be leading what was gained from the revolution. You say we have no time to re-condition people. That may be so for people of this generation, since they've already went through a great deal of living & education. So, those of the next generation WILL have plenty of time to be conditioned to the way we feel is right. The educational system will allow this to take place. We will never have to punish anyone, & rather help them through rehabilitation programs, which will be revolutionary in itself, despite of the new revolutionary process we'd be partaking within the educational system.

[bcbm]

I don’t know if you’ve ever had the misfortune of meeting a rapist, but they suck and are often very proud of what they did, in fact a lot of them brag about it. You are correct, a lot of it stems from the way our culture is, so we should change it, by becoming highly intolerant of rape. It should be seen as a disgusting act of power. The same goes for arbitrary murder.

how are you planning to challenge a culture of violence, murder and dominance with violence, murder and dominance? i've met a lot of fucked-up people and most of them are not without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. they're victims of our society too.


I have no trouble with discussing alternative forms of punishment after the revolution, but during a revolution we will have to do something, they’re highly chaotic and violent.

i don't think we can assume the conditions under which our liberation will occur, but i will hazard that i don't think we can find it through reproducing non-liberating aspects of our current society.



Ex police and army officers would be a good way to start the list. Multiple sex offenders aren’t good either.

i guess we're talking about different things here. you're talking about a revolutionary army of some sort, i'm talking about a humanity fighting for itself. i wouldn't bar that struggle to anyone, whatever their past.


But what are we to do about the rapists and murderers who would still exist or even worse find their way into revolutionary militias? How would we handle it, if say, a group of soldiers raped a women?

take their guns away, return them to their community and sort them out, involving their victims in so much as they want to be involved.


Make no mistake the bourgeoisie are perfectly fine with murder even if they don’t allow formal executions on the home front.

of course, but i don't think this is justification for revolutionaries to become perfectly fine with murder as well.


But again my question is, what do you specifically suggest? If someone were to be accused of rape in a communist society, what would you want to see happen?

a process involving the survivor and other members of the community to help the rapist realize why what they did was wrong and shouldn't ever happen again. these sort of processes already exist in some communities.


I can definitely see a time when rape and murder will be viewed as unthinkable acts much like witch trials and female genital mutilation are now, but how do we get to that point?

those acts aren't as unthinkable as you imagine, but i think we get to that point the same way we get to any other point in our struggle for humanity- fighting for it.

[Hit The North]

I'm not sure if America in general is quite ready for an armed communist march.

:lol::lol::lol:

Now that's one helluva understatement. Half of America isn't even ready for socialised health care! :laugh:

Meanwhile, can you weird gun fetishists start your own website and play out your fantasies about "showing your militant strength" there instead.

[Psy]

:lol::lol::lol:

Now that's one helluva understatement. Half of America isn't even ready for socialised health care! :laugh:

I'm not sure about that. For example if there was a revolution in Detroit with occupied automotive factories starting to roll out armored units for a new revolutionary army I think the American proletariat would not be that freaked out. Some probably even take joy in watching the Detroit police running away like scared rabbits when the first revolutionary armor units rumbles towards police lines, at least those exposed to police brutality and fed up with being exploited by the capitalist system.

[The Douche]

I'm not sure about that. For example if there was a revolution in Detroit with occupied automotive factories starting to roll out armored units for a new revolutionary army I think the American proletariat would not be that freaked out. Some probably even take joy in watching the Detroit police running away like scared rabbits when the first revolutionary armor units rumbles towards police lines, at least those exposed to police brutality and fed up with being exploited by the capitalist system.

I don't think the people that would be ok with that, think we can win though. And they're damn sure not ready to put their lives on the line for it.

[Psy]

I don't think the people that would be ok with that, think we can win though. And they're damn sure not ready to put their lives on the line for it.
That would depend on the perceived strength on the revolutionary army. Have to admit having armor built by worker councils destroy police APCs effortlessly while not that impressive when you look at the power of the US Army would still seem very impressive to the average American even if our tanks are at the time are very crude and basic.

[danyboy27]

and the question is, why fantasize about making tanks and gun when you could just consider that if a massive amount of the worker are really pissed about the system, massive unarmed march and worker repossesion of the factories and institutions would be enough.

The revolution in iran and in the colonies show us that at the end, if numerous enough, worker dont need to build their own tanks and gun to win a revolution.

[La Comédie Noire]

How are you planning to challenge a culture of violence, murder and dominance with violence, murder and dominance? I’ve met a lot of fucked-up people and most of them are not without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. They’re victims of our society too. You’re treating this as an abstract moral question, it’s not. Revolutions are violent; I’m suggesting regulating that violence so it doesn’t get out of hand.

i don't think we can assume the conditions under which our liberation will occur, but i will hazard that i don't think we can find it through reproducing non-liberating aspects of our current society. Fair enough, we definitely want a radical change, we don’t want prisons or hierarchy, but we have to do something about the reactionaries who would want to stop that and the disorder that is bound to happen.

I guess we're talking about different things here. You’re talking about a revolutionary army of some sort; I’m talking about a humanity fighting for itself. i wouldn't bar that struggle to anyone, whatever their past. I’m sorry, but that phrase in and of itself means nothing. It’s just pretty words without context. It’s an old politician’s trick, promise vague things so people can’t say you went back on your promises.
You certainly are free to risk it, but don’t be surprised if you wind up with a General for an Emperor, something that ended up happening under the equally vague banner of “Liberty, fraternity, and equality!”

a process involving the survivor and other members of the community to help the rapist realize why what they did was wrong and shouldn't ever happen again. These sorts of processes already exist in some communities. It’s a start, but what would this process involve?


those acts aren't as unthinkable as you imagine, but i think we get to that point the same way we get to any other point in our struggle for humanity- fighting for it. That we can agree on, how we go about this will determine everything.

[Psy]

and the question is, why fantasize about making tanks and gun when you could just consider that if a massive amount of the worker are really pissed about the system, massive unarmed march and worker repossesion of the factories and institutions would be enough.

The revolution in iran and in the colonies show us that at the end, if numerous enough, worker dont need to build their own tanks and gun to win a revolution.
Iran did not have a successful workers revolution in 1979 because of the lack of a proletarian revolutionary army to crush all the reactionary armed forces (many backed by the bourgeoisie) that prevented the formation workers state.

[danyboy27]

Iran did not have a successful workers revolution in 1979 because of the lack of a proletarian revolutionary army to crush all the reactionary armed forces (many backed by the bourgeoisie) that prevented the formation workers state.
The iranian army joined the people during protest, that why the sha decided to run away, he wasnt in control of his own military, only the SAVAK and a fews hardcore unit stil loyal to him.

What ruined any hope of a socialist revolution was the opportunist and populist intervention of religious reactionaries.

it was hard to compete with these demagogues, they had such a charisma.

[RED DAVE]

Like I said earlier in the thread, washington allows open carry, the weapon just has to be legally yours.Are you, then, advocating such an armed march in the near future: say the next two years?

RED DAVE

[A.R.Amistad]

Ive been saying this and saying this....http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2904

[The Vegan Marxist]

Are you, then, advocating such an armed march in the near future: say the next two years?

RED DAVE

No, I don't know when an armed march would be appropriate, because, like a lot of people have said as well, there's still a lot of people that has no class awareness whatsoever, & so an armed march wouldn't be the best decision if we were still weak in numbers. The guns don't win the revolution, our numbers do.

[danyboy27]

No, I don't know when an armed march would be appropriate, because, like a lot of people have said as well, there's still a lot of people that has no class awareness whatsoever, & so an armed march wouldn't be the best decision if we were still weak in numbers. The guns don't win the revolution, our numbers do.
IF an armed march is irrelevant today beccause we are weak, why would it be relevant when we will be strong and able to actually change thing without even shooting a bullet beccause of our sheer number?

[The Vegan Marxist]

IF an armed march is irrelevant today beccause we are weak, why would it be relevant when we will be strong and able to actually change thing without even shooting a bullet beccause of our sheer number?

Do you feel an armed march is relevant at all, whether during these state of conditions or in the future when we're actually organized?

[Psy]

The iranian army joined the people during protest, that why the sha decided to run away, he wasnt in control of his own military, only the SAVAK and a fews hardcore unit stil loyal to him.

What ruined any hope of a socialist revolution was the opportunist and populist intervention of religious reactionaries.

it was hard to compete with these demagogues, they had such a charisma.
A true proletarian revolutionary army is more then a bourgeoisie army that turned on the state. A true proletarian revolutionary army defends the proletariat that seizes the means of production from the bourgeoisie and is the sword of the revolution that neutralizes all obstacles of the revolution through force. Meaning if Iran had a proletarian revolutionary army in 1979 it would have went to war against the power based of Ayatollah Khomeini as Khomenini was a counter-revolutionary that threatened the proletariat thus a Iranian revolutionary army would have had no choice but to have a civil-war in 1979 since there was no Iranian civil-war in 1979 there must have not been a true Iranian revolutionary army.

Meaning if Iran had a real revolutionary army it would not matter how much charisma the counter-revolutionary had, the fate of the revolution would be decided on on the battlefield by the revolutionary army and in the workplaces by militant labor and not by a popularity contest.

[Invincible Summer]

IF an armed march is irrelevant today beccause we are weak, why would it be relevant when we will be strong and able to actually change thing without even shooting a bullet beccause of our sheer number?

No one said anything about shooting. AFAIK the BPP and EZLN have guns for defense, but never used them offensively. They were almost symbolic.

Besides, I think it'd be important to have such marches when our numbers are strong, but not quite at the point you're describing.

[danyboy27]

No one said anything about shooting. AFAIK the BPP and EZLN have guns for defense, but never used them offensively. They were almost symbolic.

Besides, I think it'd be important to have such marches when our numbers are strong, but quite at the point you're describing.

i really dont see what so glorious to exibit tools of death and opression in the name of the workers.

if we should exibit something in mass protest, it should be our tool of construction like hammer, wrench pipe etc etc.

leave to the opressor to display their tool of oppression.

If we should have guns, then we shouldnt show them in protests, the only time we should show them should be when we really want to use them against our oppressor.

[danyboy27]

A true proletarian revolutionary army is more then a bourgeoisie army that turned on the state. A true proletarian revolutionary army defends the proletariat that seizes the means of production from the bourgeoisie and is the sword of the revolution that neutralizes all obstacles of the revolution through force. Meaning if Iran had a proletarian revolutionary army in 1979 it would have went to war against the power based of Ayatollah Khomeini as Khomenini was a counter-revolutionary that threatened the proletariat thus a Iranian revolutionary army would have had no choice but to have a civil-war in 1979 since there was no Iranian civil-war in 1979 there must have not been a true Iranian revolutionary army.

Meaning if Iran had a real revolutionary army it would not matter how much charisma the counter-revolutionary had, the fate of the revolution would be decided on on the battlefield by the revolutionary army and in the workplaces by militant labor and not by a popularity contest.

i never seen any bourgeois taking part in protest amongst the poor to overthrow a brutal political regime,last time i remember, the bourgeois where actually supporting those regimes so let me have some doubts about your claim that the iranian army was a bourgeois army back then.

It was impossible to build a true revolutionary army under the sha regime, with SAVAK sneaking around arresting and torturing opponents, so your idea of a people army acting has the sword of the revolution was just not realisticly possible back then, and with the current framework a lot of governement have, its also impossible.

There was a possibility for the worker to organize once the sha fled, but the ayatollah seized the initiative and took power before anyone could do anything meaningful.

the Iranian army could have become part of an army of the people, but those things take time, we are talking about people who have been trained to fallow the rules all their lives, those reflexes dosnt disapear in a blink of an eye, they have to be informed that they are now at the service of the people.

[The Vegan Marxist]

i really dont see what so glorious to exibit tools of death and opression in the name of the workers.

if we should exibit something in mass protest, it should be our tool of construction like hammer, wrench pipe etc etc.

leave to the opressor to display their tool of oppression.

If we should have guns, then we shouldnt show them in protests, the only time we should show them should be when we really want to use them against our oppressor.

People like the Black Panther movement never used their armed marches as a way of showing oppressment, & really it gathered numbers for their cause for it showed how militantly united they were as a rebel group/organization. It's a sign of strength, not death.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Make sure you have a lot of death to Obama signs or the Teabaggers will think you're the Obama admins secret police out for their guns.

[Psy]

i never seen any bourgeois taking part in protest amongst the poor to overthrow a brutal political regime,last time i remember, the bourgeois where actually supporting those regimes so let me have some doubts about your claim that the iranian army was a bourgeois army back then.

Bourgeoisie army as in a army that fights for the bourgeoisie not comprised of the bourgeoisie.



It was impossible to build a true revolutionary army under the sha regime, with SAVAK sneaking around arresting and torturing opponents, so your idea of a people army acting has the sword of the revolution was just not realisticly possible back then, and with the current framework a lot of governement have, its also impossible.

There was a possibility for the worker to organize once the sha fled, but the ayatollah seized the initiative and took power before anyone could do anything meaningful.

the Iranian army could have become part of an army of the people, but those things take time, we are talking about people who have been trained to fallow the rules all their lives, those reflexes dosnt disapear in a blink of an eye, they have to be informed that they are now at the service of the people.
Look at the Red Army, a revolutionary army was built in a very shorter time frame, as soon as the coup to overthrow the gains of the February Revolution was known to Russian troops.

Also in West Virginia in 1877 a revolutionary army was born out of the National Guard instantly the National Guard also instantly it had to fight the proletariat.

[danyboy27]

Bourgeoisie army as in a army that fights for the bourgeoisie not comprised of the bourgeoisie.


if we should attack or kill everyone who serve the bourgeoisie then we wouldnt have much population after the purges!



Look at the Red Army, a revolutionary army was built in a very shorter time frame, as soon as the coup to overthrow the gains of the February Revolution was known to Russian troops.

And the red army benefited from large chunks who defected from the white army, benefited also from the help of some former white army generals such has Mikhail Tukhachevsky amd Jukums Vācietis.

[Psy]

if we should attack or kill everyone who serve the bourgeoisie then we wouldnt have much population after the purges!

My point is that it takes more then a army that serves the bourgeoisie turning against their master to make a revolutionary army.

[danyboy27]

People like the Black Panther movement never used their armed marches as a way of showing oppressment, & really it gathered numbers for their cause for it showed how militantly united they were as a rebel group/organization. It's a sign of strength, not death.

And it drawn Useless attention from the FBI and the CIA who saw them has a threat, they took severes measures against them, and it weakened the movement.

Has i said, having gun is important, but they are tools of death, and if you want to show them, it have to be for a verry good reason, a conflict for exemple.

For each parade the black panther did, the state perceived it has an intimidation and threat, and acted against them.

The state and the governement really dont care if we spread our idea, and that our main streinght against it, especially in a society like north america.

the day our message will be massively spread, there will be nothing the state will be able to do against us, it will be too late.

a good reason for not showing off.

[Invincible Summer]

And it drawn Useless attention from the FBI and the CIA who saw them has a threat, they took severes measures against them, and it weakened the movement.

Has i said, having gun is important, but they are tools of death, and if you want to show them, it have to be for a verry good reason, a conflict for exemple.

For each parade the black panther did, the state perceived it has an intimidation and threat, and acted against them.

How will we know when it is a "very good reason?" It's easy for us to examine groups like the BPP in the past and say "they shouldn't have showed militancy so early" or whatever, but I'm sure they felt it was the right time to take such actions. I'm sure they felt that they were amidst a very real conflict.

How will today's militant left know when the "right time" is to have armed marches?

I think that even if we had a mass march without guns, that would show the state that we have strength in numbers anyway. We'd still have actions taken against us.



The state and the governement really dont care if we spread our idea, and that our main streinght against it, especially in a society like north america.

the day our message will be massively spread, there will be nothing the state will be able to do against us, it will be too late.

a good reason for not showing off.

They obviously do care that we spread our ideas, as they have their pundits and news media outlets normalizing right-wing conservatism while mis-characterizing socialism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gun nut. I just think that it's much too idealistic to think that we will be able to have a clean, peaceful mass movement of the working class once everyone has a communist epiphany.

Not even demonstrations and protests go that smoothly.

[bcbm]

You’re treating this as an abstract moral question, it’s not. Revolutions are violent; I’m suggesting regulating that violence so it doesn’t get out of hand.

its not abstract or moral. i want to be part of building a communist society and i think the question of how we can build such a society is extremely important. i don't think it can be built by reproducing the mechanisms of our current society in a slightly different form.


Fair enough, we definitely want a radical change, we don’t want prisons or hierarchy, but we have to do something about the reactionaries who would want to stop that and the disorder that is bound to happen.i think assuming the necessity for violence and domination from the beginning makes their eventual use inevitable. again, we have no idea what a true communist revolution will look like, though i think it might be safe to assume it won't resemble any or most of the "revolutions" we have seen up to this point.


I’m sorry, but that phrase in and of itself means nothing. It’s just pretty words without context. It’s an old politician’s trick, promise vague things so people can’t say you went back on your promises.the only thing "vague" in the call for a human community is that, in fact, we do have no idea what a true human community will look like in the broadest sense because it will open up possibilities we cannot comprehend from our current position. on a smaller level though, it must possess an egalitarian and communal character.


You certainly are free to risk it, but don’t be surprised if you wind up with a General for an Emperor, something that ended up happening under the equally vague banner of “Liberty, fraternity, and equality!”i think the ones who imagine revolution being made by tanks and armies are more likely to end up with a general for an emperor than those of us who imagine humanity coming together, discovering itself again and destroying everything that stands in the way of its unfettered development.


It’s a start, but what would this process involve?communicating with each other.

------------------------------


How will today's militant left know when the "right time" is to have armed marches?hopefully they will realize there is no "right time," because an armed march doesn't serve our purpose.


I think that even if we had a mass march without guns, that would show the state that we have strength in numbers anyway. We'd still have actions taken against us.so why show ourselves to the police and invite action? why not to avoid as much as possible the trappings of movements and marches and try to work below the radar of the state?


Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gun nut. I just think that it's much too idealistic to think that we will be able to have a clean, peaceful mass movement of the working class once everyone has a communist epiphany.

Not even demonstrations and protests go that smoothly.i think its absolutely insane to not possess weapons and know how to use them, but we should strive as much as possible to leave it at that.

[Invincible Summer]

so why show ourselves to the police and invite action? why not to avoid as much as possible the trappings of movements and marches and try to work below the radar of the state?

Don't get me wrong - I understand the need for subtlety and the benefits of working under the radar. I was just saying that the state would act (albeit not as strongly) even if we had mass unarmed marches.


i think its absolutely insane to not possess weapons and know how to use them, but we should strive as much as possible to leave it at that.
Fair enough.

[La Comédie Noire]

its not abstract or moral. i want to be part of building a communist society and i think the question of how we can build such a society is extremely important. i don't think it can be built by reproducing the mechanisms of our current society in a slightly different form.


i think assuming the necessity for violence and domination from the beginning makes their eventual use inevitable. again, we have no idea what a true communist revolution will look like, though i think it might be safe to assume it won't resemble any or most of the "revolutions" we have seen up to this point.

New societies grow out of old ones, they're stamped with the birth marks of the old society. That's just how it is, so we have to work with what we get. We will probably have to use force, but there's no saying it can't be force made along egalitarian and communal lines.

I imagine a militia being very informal and only a part time activity. I think if we entrust someone with the power to kill or use force it's only fair we make it clear they can also be be killed or have force used against them, that's what's so fucked up about the state right now. It gives you a blank check to get away with murder.



i think the ones who imagine revolution being made by tanks and armies are more likely to end up with a general for an emperor than those of us who imagine humanity coming together, discovering itself again and destroying everything that stands in the way of its unfettered development.

Not true, plenty of revolutions that began with good intentions turned into despotic shit holes. There were certain things they could have done better, like not trusting army officers, but for the most part they were trying to create a fairer society right up till the end.

But again, in regards to the second part, you aren't really saying anything. Humanity coming together?that describes all social phenomena, even hierarchical armies. Discovering itself again? are you referring to our communal hunter gatherer past? Destroying everything that stands in the way? Well, yes, revolutions are a process of creative destruction, that includes disposing of old personnel. Some go peacefully and dissolve themselves into the new society, some do not.


the only thing "vague" in the call for a human community is that, in fact, we do have no idea what a true human community will look like in the broadest sense because it will open up possibilities we cannot comprehend from our current position. on a smaller level though, it must possess an egalitarian and communal character.

Aside from the "true human community" stuff I agree, but I think we can take a guess at what it would look like.

[bcbm]

New societies grow out of old ones, they're stamped with the birth marks of the old society. That's just how it is, so we have to work with what we get.

i think this is a cop out. if we're truly capable of overturning this society, why are we limited by anything? this is the refrain of those who have betrayed revolutions. i think we can do better.


We will probably have to use force, but there's no saying it can't be force made along egalitarian and communal lines.i don't think force used against another human being can be, by its nature, egalitarian or communal. the presence of one presupposes the existence of the other.


I imagine a militia being very informal and only a part time activity. I think if we entrust someone with the power to kill or use force it's only fair we make it clear they can also be be killed or have force used against them, that's what's so fucked up about the state right now. It gives you a blank check to get away with murder.how long will these "militias" exist and why should we entrust small groups with the power to kill and use force? why is the threat of death the only thing you can imagine that prevents one human being from killing another?


Not true, plenty of revolutions that began with good intentions turned into despotic shit holes. There were certain things they could have done better, like not trusting army officers, but for the most part they were trying to create a fairer society right up till the end.which revolutions didn't have an army? and anyway, it isn't about having good intentions or not, but what project is being pursued. i don't think most, if any, revolutions we can look on today have had as their goal the creation of an unfettered human community, but instead focused on enacting an ideology, policing others, liquidating "counter-revolutionary" elements, expanding production, etc.


But again, in regards to the second part, you aren't really saying anything. Humanity coming together?that describes all social phenomena, even hierarchical armies. Discovering itself again? are you referring to our communal hunter gatherer past? Destroying everything that stands in the way? Well, yes, revolutions are a process of creative destruction, that includes disposing of old personnel. Some go peacefully and dissolve themselves into the new society, some do not.no need to bold the last point. i've never denied the possibility of violence and i have explicitly supported the accumulation of weapons and training. i'm just wary of those who want to glorify death in order to create life. i think in doing this we just end up reproducing many elements of the society we want to destroy. oh, and if you want me to "say something" with my terms: a communist existence where humanity has opened up near infinite potentialities; rediscovering our "species being."


Aside from the "true human community" stuff I agree, but I think we can take a guess at what it would look like. in the most vague sense, we can imagine some of what communism would look like, sure, but we should hesitate to guess to strongly, lest we start creating blueprints.

[La Comédie Noire]

think this is a cop out. if we're truly capable of overturning this society, why are we limited by anything? this is the refrain of those who have betrayed revolutions. i think we can do better.

Those revolutions weren't "betrayed", those revolutions "failed" for definite material reasons. There will be limits in the form of the old order standing in the way of change, but this will be a matter of degree. During the February Revolution, the cops had to be hunted down and shot one by one, but in the case of May '68 they were almost helpless to stop the upheavals, they had to wait for the revolution to tire itself out.


i don't think force used against another human being can be, by its nature, egalitarian or communal. the presence of one presupposes the existence of the other.

Yeah it can, the hunter gatherer societies you alluded to before would kill members who endangered the group all the time.


how long will these "militias" exist and why should we entrust small groups with the power to kill and use force? why is the threat of death the only thing you can imagine that prevents one human being from killing another?

These groups won't be small by any means nor will they be very formal. It would probably be like everything else, dispersed everywhere and nowhere in particular. I don't think death would be the only thing preventing future revolutionaries either, it would just be the most convenient form of keeping those who would out and getting rid of those who would abuse the power of a gun anyways. This will cost us a lot of military expertise at first, but in a revolution military expertise doesn't count for anything in the end.

The militias probably won't have a continuous existence, they will be like everything else in communist society, made to be used. They definitely won't be a gilded sword held above society.



no need to bold the last point. I've never denied the possibility of violence and i have explicitly supported the accumulation of weapons and training. i'm just wary of those who want to glorify death in order to create life. i think in doing this we just end up reproducing many elements of the society we want to destroy. oh, and if you want me to "say something" with my terms: a communist existence where humanity has opened up near infinite potentialities; rediscovering our "species being."

Where do I glorify death anywhere? In fact I want to reserve death for the most heinous of crimes, but I'm willing to bet a lot of the executions will be summary and quick. It won't really be a public spectacle, with thousands of people watching and ceremony and what not. But I'm sure some of the bigger asshole generals, like the ones who may bomb cities, or a particularly douchey politician will be executed in public.

It's instructive to note Marx stopped doing philosophy after 1844 because he found a better way of making sense of the world.

[bcbm]

Those revolutions weren't "betrayed", those revolutions "failed" for definite material reasons.

various human being's choices played absolutely no part?


There will be limits in the form of the old order standing in the way of change, but this will be a matter of degree. During the February Revolution, the cops had to be hunted down and shot one by one, but in the case of May '68 they were almost helpless to stop the upheavals, they had to wait for the revolution to tire itself out.

that's not really my understanding of february, but either way i think successfully eliminating capital will require enough of a mass to make the state irrelevant and incapable of offering a serious challenge.


Yeah it can, the hunter gatherer societies you alluded to before would kill members who endangered the group all the time.

and i wouldn't classify this as an egalitarian or communal act.


These groups won't be small by any means nor will they be very formal. It would probably be like everything else, dispersed everywhere and nowhere in particular.

why not just arm the population generally?


I don't think death would be the only thing preventing future revolutionaries either, it would just be the most convenient form of keeping those who would out and getting rid of those who would abuse the power of a gun anyways.

are we fighting for convenience, or communist relations? its more convenient for "revolutionaries" to kill/imprison/maim/torture all kinds of people, but i don't think those activities have anything to do with the struggle for communism and are antithetical to it if anything.


This will cost us a lot of military expertise at first, but in a revolution military expertise doesn't count for anything in the end.

what counts?


Where do I glorify death anywhere?

i was referring to a general current i see in some "revolutionaries," not to you in particular.


In fact I want to reserve death for the most heinous of crimes, but I'm willing to bet a lot of the executions will be summary and quick. It won't really be a public spectacle, with thousands of people watching and ceremony and what not. But I'm sure some of the bigger asshole generals, like the ones who may bomb cities, or a particularly douchey politician will be executed in public.

i'm not sure why abolishing the death penalty is such an absurd demand? what is gained by murder that can't be gained by other means?


It's instructive to note Marx stopped doing philosophy after 1844 because he found a better way of making sense of the world.

what?

[La Comédie Noire]

various human being's choices played absolutely no part?Individual choices do, but they make little difference in the grand scheme of things.


that's not really my understanding of February, but either way i think successfully eliminating capital will require enough of a mass to make the state irrelevant and incapable of offering a serious challenge.I think the state will be to weak to do anything either for many reasons. They'll be trying to fight "the last war", trying to decapitate command structures that don't exist.


and i wouldn't classify this as an egalitarian or communal act.Point taken friend.


why not just arm the population generally?That's what I'm pulling for. I think we both agree tanks, badges, orders, and armed marches are a bad way to go. So is a formal military structure of any kind. I just think a revolutions will be very disorderly and some people will commit atrocities, even the ones we think of as comrades.


are we fighting for convenience, or communist relations? its more convenient for "revolutionaries" to kill/imprison/maim/torture all kinds of people, but i don't think those activities have anything to do with the struggle for communism and are antithetical to it if anything.I think maiming and torturing are very inconvenient activities and worse they don't even do anything beneficial.


what counts?The new relations of society, as stated before, the military will be very out of sync with them. They literally won't be able to conceive of it "people working together with no bosses? Where are the orders? Where are the ranks?... Can I keep my uniform?"


i was referring to a general current i see in some "revolutionaries," not to you in particular.I've noticed it too, I believe in one thread I was advised to "toughen up" from an otherwise very intelligent poster. I, on the other hand, stopped wanting to be in the military when I was around 12.


i'm not sure why abolishing the death penalty is such an absurd demand? what is gained by murder that can't be gained by other means?It's not really absurd, I just think execution for violent crimes would make sense, people probably won't have time to nor want to rehabilitate criminals, but i could be totally wrong on this. There could be countless ex social workers and psychology majors willing to work with these people.

I don't think we should try to hold people either, if someone is going to be put on trial for murder we should say "listen you could be executed for this, it may be in your best interest to go while the going's good" and there's no reason why ex police and army officers can't participate in the new society if they want to, it should just be understood they won't be allowed to have a say in matters of security or weapons. They'll just have to find something else to do.

Interesting add on to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/us-surge-rightwing-extremist-groups

[scarletghoul]

An armed presence is definately something that should be done as its great for publicity. Just make sure you do it in a 'serve the people' kinda way and not a 'spread communism with gun' kinda way..

Be prepared for the media to skew the hell out of anything you do, and make sure you can work through that. When the Panthers marched on sacramento they knew the media would come up with stuff about negro thugs invading the capitol, but they also knew that their message would reach the black people anyway because the black people were used to being treated as 'thugs' and this was a kind of revolutionary thuggery to which they could relate and aspire.
I dont think the same will be true for white people, who will often believe every word the media says about you armed fascist obamaists etc, so yeah make sure you get your message across clearly somehow

[scarletghoul]

For each parade the black panther did, the state perceived it has an intimidation and threat, and acted against them.
they also got a load of new members though. Black people were used to the state acting against them, what they werent used to was Black people in organised defense.

[danyboy27]

they also got a load of new members though. Black people were used to the state acting against them, what they werent used to was Black people in organised defense.

it is important to always look for long term goal.

where are the black panther now? how the small boast in membership caused by this provocative tactic served the black panther in long term?

having a boast in membership dosnt mean shit if your group cease to exist in long term.