a thread on guerilla warfare and insurgency

[Lt. Ferret]

this is a thread i have been meaning to make, and im going to basically lay down the skeleton of it before i go play fallout new vegas all day.

i want to know what you guys think of various insurgency campaigns throughout history, and today. also, any ideas of strategy worth talking about would be nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_and_tactics_of_guerrilla_warfare

gonna put this here and type stuff without really reading it, if nothing else i might put out some bullshit that you guys can argue with me over

i will eventually fill this thread up with interesting information, seeing as how my job in the army is unique and i will be an insurgent for training other brigades that come through my base. i already got issued my keffiyah from supply (though i had one already) and i need to get a basic understanding of arabic, pashtun, and another afghan dialect whos name escapes me.



this is NOT a thread where anyone advocates taking up insurgency against anyone. i dont want to hear about how badass you are in hypothetical land.


I am going to go pick up Che's book on guerilla warfare soon, maybe this thread was premature of me. i wanted to kind of stream of conscience it.


the basis for all modern guerilla warfare rests on 2 main things. this would be Mobility and Morale.

For tactical reasons, mobility priority for a guerilla band. As a guerilla you will rarely, if EVER be able to go toe to toe with a modern military unit of almost any size. Even a platoon of insurgents would generally lose against a squad of trained soldiers. Your job as an insurgent is never to fight fair. it is hit and run attacks. The basis here is not even on the hit, its on the run. Whether you hit one soldier or ten soldiers, whether you knock out an entire convoy or give a truck a flat tire and just piss people off, you have to be able to get out.

there is no gain in losing members or equipment of a guerilla group. the ability to hit again and again trumps any desire to inflict critical damage.


morale is a term that im going to use loosely in regards to the guerrilla. in this fight you are outgunned, outmanned, outsupplied, and usually do not have any advantages that a traditional military unit is going to acquire.

small unit leadership is pivotal. you will rarely have more than a platoon of men in a guerilla band (this being between 15 and 50 people) more likely a squad of about 5 men. they need to know that their struggles and discomfort is worth it.

when the military tries to kill bin laden or mullah omar, its not to stop the tactical movements of insurgent groups or al queada. its to crush morale. its to show that the fight is lost. its symbolic. symbolism to the guerilla is more important than actual damage as well.

pulling down a statue might be more devastating than knocking out a tank. killing the guerilla leader is more damaging than wiping out half the guerilla forces.

since rarely does a military actually defeat an insurgency on the field in a battle, the biggest end goal for them is making the insurgents put their weapons down and go back to their homes. this is what an insurgent leader is fighting against. its to make the tired, worn out farmers and workers who are NOT professional soldiers keep getting up each morning and trying to make a dent in the armored juggernaught which is rumbling around their country.


che failed in the congo because morale could not be maintained. the leadership was shit, the insurgents could not fight effectively, they were not "defeated", they all collectively gave up.


its time for me to grab some lunch and play videogames so add what you guys think, analyze some other insurgencies or just tell me im full of shit because marx said this and that.

[The Douche]

I think you're full of shit, cause you're some new-jack butter bar fresh out of college or OCS, and you think you're a brilliant tactician because you play opfor somewhere.

[#FF0000]

I think this could be interesting so I'm going to toss all of the dumb replies out of here except for cmoney's because it's on-topic somehow.

[Ele'ill]

I don't understand what I'm supposed to do

[ComradeMan]

I don't understand what I'm supposed to do

Talk about guerilla warfare.......

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/nimage/fccde24aa47c5f4a (http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTf2uTiMRM6SEAnHRWBQx./SIG=12rnnr38t/EXP=1287977235/**http%3a//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Che.Guerrilla.Warfare.jpg)

[Lt. Ferret]

I think you're full of shit, cause you're some new-jack butter bar fresh out of college or OCS, and you think you're a brilliant tactician because you play opfor somewhere.


how bout you stand at attention when being a crybaby nco?

[jingle_bombs]

www-marxists-org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/

Probably worth a read.

[The Douche]

how bout you stand at attention when being a crybaby nco?

For real though, what is the purpose of this thread? It seems like your purpose on this site is to bop around talking about how cool you are cause you're an officer in the army.

So what is up with this thread? You want to ask the posters of this site (the majority of whom are students/part-time workers) about their ideas on the execution of guerrilla warfare?

[Lt. Ferret]

its mostly going to be a history thread. im not too concerned with being a badass on the internet because im an officer.

[Pirate Utopian]

This is how I percieve guerrilla warfare:
KERi9ZeJFVk

Voodoo! Running from my magic!

[ComradeMan]

Instead of people sniping at each other shall we have a discussion.

Who would you say, historically, were the first successful guerilla fighters? I've often heard it said that the Boers in South Africa were among the first although during the American War of Independence the early engagements were similar in a way to a guerilla force. The successes of both were due to the fact that "European" armies were not used to that kind of warfare.

[red cat]

In the seventeenth century, Shivaji of Maharashtra waged successful guerrilla warfare against the Mughal empire which then consisted of most of South Asia.

[ComradeMan]

In the seventeenth century, Shivaji of Maharashtra waged successful guerrilla warfare against the Mughal empire which then consisted of most of South Asia.


That sounds interesting, please go on. Why was it successful? Where did the success lie?

[red cat]

That sounds interesting, please go on. Why was it successful? Where did the success lie?

The wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivaji) on Shivaji is quite informative about it.

The guerrilla struggle dug the grave of the Mughal empire, as the then emperor Aurangzeb himself had to spend much of his time in the Deccan, far away from his capital, trying to subdue the Maratha resistance without much success. This gave the nobles in his court an opportunity to organize against the empire, and the successors of Aurangzeb witnessed these nobles splitting from the empire by declaring the independence of whichever provinces they were from. In the Deccan, the Marathas defeated the Mughals using guerrilla warfare, expanded their territories and became imperialists themselves. However, certain military, political and economic blunders on their part led to their defeat in the hands of foreign invaders.

As is the case almost everywhere, any ruling class tends to oppress less in the areas close to its headquarters, since that is the last place it would want to have a revolt in. The areas farther away are much more exploited. Similarly, the ruling classes in Delhi were severely oppressing the nationalities in and around the Deccan. The Marathas were one such nationality. Some Maratha chiefs were recruited by other kingdoms in the Deccan. Shivaji was the son of one such chief. He cleverly used Maratha nationalism to unite the Maratha tribes into one powerful coalition.

The Mughal armies up till that time, had been almost invincible, and even European imperialist powers were consistently defeated by them, so that European imperialism could not carve out any considerably large colony in India at that time. The Marathas formulated the correct approach for dealing with the Mughal armies; engaging them in battle just where they were not used to fight. Most Maratha campaigns consisted of harassing and looting Mughal troops in areas surrounded by hills. After brief surprise-attacks, the Marathas would retreat to the hills. Being better accustomed to fighting in the hills, they could easily escape or defeat the Mughal armies there. The Maratha troops had a very good knowledge of the hilly terrain and would position their archers in such a way that the Mughal armies could not advance on them. They also engaged the Mughals in sword-fights in narrow gorges where the superior Mughal numbers meant nothing, and dropped heavy boulders on the Mughal armies while they were successfully kept stationary for the purpose by the Maratha sword-fighters.

Besides these factors, were the many new ideas and weaponry used by the Maratha troops. For example, once during peace talks, a Mughal general embraced Shivaji and tried to stab him in the back with a dagger ( does this ring a bell somewhere ? :) ). But Shivaji was having a new kind of weapon called baaghnakh ( tiger-claws ) concealed in his hands. He successfully used it to disembowel the general. There is a fort called Sinhagarh ( lion-fort ) which was said to be impenetrable. Its walls were so smooth and high that it was impossible for any human to climb them. The Marathas used a large type of rock-monitor lizard to climb its walls. The lizard's tail was tied to a rope which a Maratha soldier of short stature used to climb up. He then tied the rope to a pillar and the Marathas climbed up and launched a surprise attack and conquered the fort. There are many such instances, including Shivaji's famous escape from Delhi, which are worth being read.

Lastly, there was rising discontent against the Mughal empire. As Aurangzeb conquered the smaller southern kingdoms, the Marathas recruited their disbanded armies which were already full of hatred towards the Mughal empire. At its initial stage, the Maratha struggle was a struggle of national liberation against a foreign rule, which naturally won popular support.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think one of the military leaders of early israel engaged in guerrilla tactics. I'm thinking the idea of having close-knit units hiding in the shadows is as old as war itself.

[red cat]

I think one of the military leaders of early israel engaged in guerrilla tactics. I'm thinking the idea of having close-knit units hiding in the shadows is as old as war itself.

True. I remember a tale of ancient India that even teaches to surround the city with villages. All these concepts are very old.

[ComradeMan]

What interests me in the more modern example are the fact that often small arms and small groups are successful against heavy arms and heavy groups. I suppose though that modern commando units are basically "guerilla" fighters too in a sense. They have to be light, fast and work in small units etc. Perhaps the Lieutenant would give some insight on this.

[danyboy27]

I dare say that in todays insurgencies and guerilla warfare, the political element of the conflict play a central role that goes far behind casualities and victories.

its a battle of will, if you can politicly break your ennemy, the victories and success on the field will not matter anymore.

The vietnam conflict for exemple is a brilliant exemple of that. Despite many military victory the us have achieved on the field, they had to leave, their political machine couldnt handle it anymore, it was too much, too much money, too much atrocities, too much casualities, they had to leave.

Afghanistan is no more different. On the paper, the number of taliban killed and weapon confiscated are enormous, but at the end it dosnt matter, too much american and canadian soldier died, too much atrocities, too much money spent, Nato will leave, and the taliban will stay.

The us governement had to bribe the bulk of the iraqi insurgency to minimize the already enormous political cost the us governement had to pay to be able to leave this place.

[red cat]

Maoists often interpret the events in Vietnam in a different way though. Anyways, I appreciate your hopes regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, but it seems to me that things will take a different turn.

[ComradeMan]

Maoists often interpret the events in Vietnam in a different way though. Anyways, I appreciate your hopes regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, but it seems to me that things will take a different turn.

I don't- I think it's an unwinnable war, from all aspects. If the British Empire couldn't manage it, if the Red Army couldn't manage it, then I hardly thing this dysfunctional half-hearted coalition will do it either. Not by any means that would be acceptable under the Geneva convention at least.

cvFj1QIn1EA

[danyboy27]

Maoists often interpret the events in Vietnam in a different way though. Anyways, I appreciate your hopes regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, but it seems to me that things will take a different turn.

I dont have any hope man. Iraq is more likely to fall into another civil war when the remaining of the us troop there will leave completly, and afghanistan will become even more reactionary when the taleban will be a copponent of the karzai governement, pushing religious bill and playing the bully when the coalition will be on his way out.

[red cat]

I don't- I think it's an unwinnable war, from all aspects. If the British Empire couldn't manage it, if the Red Army couldn't manage it, then I hardly thing this dysfunctional half-hearted coalition will do it either. Not by any means that would be acceptable under the Geneva convention at least.

cvFj1QIn1EA

You don't get my point. I agree that America cannot win the war. But the reasons for that are very different. And the outcome is likely to be quite different too.

[ComradeMan]

I dont have any hope man. Iraq is more likely to fall into another civil war when the remaining of the us troop there will leave completly, and afghanistan will become even more reactionary when the taleban will be a copponent of the karzai governement, pushing religious bill and playing the bully when the coalition will be on his way out.


So what is to be done? It's a bit of a mess isn't it....?

[BuddhaInBabylon]

quite an understatement, comrade...but true none-the-less.
what is to be done, is to stay the course of anti-war. Always keeping in mind the imperialist/expansionist agenda that the US currently endeavours to implement, and the people that are suffering everywhere because of it...keeping them in mind, doing what you can to enlighten others about their plight, and supporting anti-war movements here in America so as to destroy any sort of support for such a bullshit war by those who may not know.

[Volcanicity]

quite an understatement, comrade...but true none-the-less.
what is to be done, is to stay the course of anti-war. Always keeping in mind the imperialist/expansionist agenda that the US currently endeavours to implement, and the people that are suffering everywhere because of it...keeping them in mind, doing what you can to enlighten others about their plight, and supporting anti-war movements here in America so as to destroy any sort of support for such a bullshit war by those who may not know.
Yes but that's just helping ourselves it does'nt help the Iraqi and Afghan people when every last troop has been pulled out.

[BuddhaInBabylon]

Yes but that's just helping ourselves it does'nt help the Iraqi and Afghan people when every last troop has been pulled out.

That is true, but short of buying a plane ticket to Iraq or Afghanistan and going there with the specific intention of helping the people, the first thing i can do as an american citizen is to try and get the americans that are there killing people, out. wouldn't you agree?

[danyboy27]

So what is to be done? It's a bit of a mess isn't it....?

well, stop interveining in their social economical and political process would be great, lets them sort out their problems, but its not gonna happen any time soon.

Organisations like the IMF will impose their own way on Iraq and afghanistan, forcing them to adopt an unstable, broken economic system that will reap them of their natural ressources, and create more and more problem that will eventually generate more violence and religious fundamentalism.

i guess the best thing we could do is to find way to change our system so that they can sort their stuff out while we do the same.

[ComradeMan]

The problem is what becomes of the Afghan people after such a pull out ???

[Volcanicity]

That is true, but short of buying a plane ticket to Iraq or Afghanistan and going there with the specific intention of helping the people, the first thing i can do as an american citizen is to try and get the americans that are there killing people, out. wouldn't you agree?
I do agree but no amount of anti-war Propaganda is going to help them in the long run and that's the problem that we are faced with.Of course the war must end and the troops be pulled out but what then?

[danyboy27]

The problem is what becomes of the Afghan people after such a pull out ???


a big fucking mess indeed. Helping lefting organisation based in afghanistan and Iraq i guess, that is, only if they want our help.

what gonna happen after the pull out is inevitable, there is nothing that could be done to stop the mess that is coming, more occupation wont make it right, advisor wont make it right. Ultimately, the victim have been raped, and there is nothing that can be done to go back.

[ComradeMan]

Leaving ideologies aside, would the Afghan people then not be justified in saying that the West came, saw, smashed up the joint and then left? Abandoning the country so to speak?

[red cat]

I dont have any hope man. Iraq is more likely to fall into another civil war when the remaining of the us troop there will leave completly, and afghanistan will become even more reactionary when the taleban will be a copponent of the karzai governement, pushing religious bill and playing the bully when the coalition will be on his way out.

It'll be different, and you'll like it. America will not risk leaving its Asian bases.

[ComradeMan]

It'll be different, and you'll like it. America will not risk leaving its Asian bases.

What a world what a mess!!! :(

[danyboy27]

It'll be different, and you'll like it. America will not risk leaving its Asian bases.

America will leave this place, and its gonna turn into a hellish place.

and beside, even if the us stay in afghanistan, its not much of a paradize right now, is it?

[red cat]

If USA leaves Afghanistan now, there will be nothing to separate the middle-east from South Asia. The USA cannot risk this, given the political situation in South Asia and that most of the resistance in the middle east is expected to turn Maoist within the next few decades.

[danyboy27]

If USA leaves Afghanistan now, there will be nothing to separate the middle-east from South Asia. The USA cannot risk this, given the political situation in South Asia and that most of the resistance in the middle east is expected to turn Maoist within the next few decades.

its not the 60s anymore, the domino theory have been refuted long time ago.

the u.s dosnt need afghanistan to control the sector, they have india, and despite what you think about them, i dont see one of the biggest military ground force in the world getting beaten by the naxalites any time soon.

the us will leave afghanistan, its too costly and they could have similar result by other covert or political means, you know, the one that dosnt require congress approval and explnation about how a us g.i was killed by insugents using 50s tech

[red cat]

its not the 60s anymore, the domino theory have been refuted long time ago.

the u.s dosnt need afghanistan to control the sector, they have india, and despite what you think about them, i dont see one of the biggest military ground force in the world getting beaten by the naxalites any time soon.

the us will leave afghanistan, its too costly and they could have similar result by other covert or political means, you know, the one that dosnt require congress approval and explnation about how a us g.i was killed by insugents using 50s tech

By when do you think the US will leave Afghanistan ? By the way, the Indian revolution is expected to complete its first stage within the next twenty years.

[Bud Struggle]

By the way, the Indian revolution is expected to complete its first stage within the next twenty years.

Are you talking about a Communist Revolution or do you mean the completion of the Capitalist Revolution?

The Capitalist Revolution seems to be ahead of schedule.

[red cat]

Are you talking about a Communist Revolution or do you mean the completion of the Capitalist Revolution?

The Capitalist Revolution seems to be ahead of schedule.

Capitalist revolutions are impossible in the era of proletarian revolutions.

[Ele'ill]

What is a 'Capitalist Revolution' within Capitalism?

[Bud Struggle]

What is a 'Capitalist Revolution' within Capitalism?

India is growing from a semi-Feudal economy of 20 or so years ago into a very strong world class Capitalist one today.

[Ele'ill]

That isn't a revolution by the usage I thought we were using....

[red cat]

India is growing from a semi-Feudal economy of 20 or so years ago into a very strong world class Capitalist one today.

India is not growing into a capitalist power. How many Indian companies do you find outside India as compared to the numerous foreign ones doing business on Indian land ? What is happening in India is the further intensification of imperialist plunder.

[Bud Struggle]

India is not growing into a capitalist power. How many Indian companies do you find outside India as compared to the numerous foreign ones doing business on Indian land ? What is happening in India is the further intensification of imperialist plunder.

I see your point. But corporations these days are almost all multi-national. It almost doesn't matter where these guys have their headquarters..

And FWIW: I dislike the multi-nationals as much as you do. They are a cancer on the world.

[Ele'ill]

I see your point. But corporations these days are almost all multi-national. It almost doesn't matter where these guys have their headquarters..

And FWIW: I dislike the multi-nationals as much as you do. They are a cancer on the world.

Then India is not becoming a capitalist superpower via capitalist 'revolution'.

They're at the receiving end up SAP's, no?

[RGacky3]

I see your point. But corporations these days are almost all multi-national. It almost doesn't matter where these guys have their headquarters..



It matters where their profits go.

[red cat]

I see your point. But corporations these days are almost all multi-national. It almost doesn't matter where these guys have their headquarters..

And FWIW: I dislike the multi-nationals as much as you do. They are a cancer on the world.

India never had anything to do with the ownership of most of the capital that acts on Indian markets. Since imperialists always had their headquarters far away from India, they mostly preserved the feudal relations of production, to prevent competition from Indian national capital and to exploit the Indian masses more easily. Any transition to capitalism is actually harmful for those who presently rule India.

[Ele'ill]

Capitalist superpower revolution! is language used by those from somewhere else that are going to get a lot of cash from a specific group of people in a country that's susceptible to exploitive measures.


Capitalist revolution because it benefits capitalist business ventures and the like- I mean- Bud Struggle didn't exactly lie or anything...

[Bud Struggle]

It matters where their profits go.

The profits go to people not countries. Anyone from any country could buy shares in Exxon and get profits. True, most of those people are no doubt in the US, but as people in countries like China (and India) aquire more wealth--shares in Exxon will be spread around.

And what is happening in India is exactly the same thing that is happening in China (tho' China is further down the road) and they seem to be aquiring tons of capital.

[red cat]

Capitalist superpower revolution! is language used by those from somewhere else that are going to get a lot of cash from a specific group of people in a country that's susceptible to exploitive measures.


Capitalist revolution because it benefits capitalist business ventures and the like- I mean- Bud Struggle didn't exactly lie or anything...

A revolution in the sense that it overthrows the existing relations of production, is not possible by capitalists anymore, since sometime after the Bolshevik revolution.

Of course, anything that happens in India is called a revolution, the destruction of the soils of the north western Gangetic plains was called "green" revolution, the forced extinction of Indian cattle breeds from central India was called "white" revolution and so on .. I mean anything other than the ongoing red revolution is called a revolution :)

[RGacky3]

The profits go to people not countries. Anyone from any country could buy shares in Exxon and get profits. True, most of those people are no doubt in the US, but as people in countries like China (and India) aquire more wealth--shares in Exxon will be spread around.



Shares are not nessesarily where the money goes. You should know that shares nowerdays are not representative of actual wealth, the people that get the money are the buisiness class, the executives, board members, stock ownership really does'nt mean much anymore.


And what is happening in India is exactly the same thing that is happening in China (tho' China is further down the road) and they seem to be aquiring tons of capital.

Whats happening in both countries is a small wealthy ruling class and the rest in terrible poverty.

[danyboy27]

Capitalist revolutions are impossible in the era of proletarian revolutions.


on the contrary my friend, those two contradiction will keep fighting eachother until an extreme is reached, there is no side retreating, both side stepping up a bit more every time, and unless the capitalist or the communsit are retreating, we are heading toward a clash of biblical proportion.

The capitalist revolution, like bud like to call it, is the china way of doing buisness; strong nationalism, corporatism and a centralised control of the wealth around the state and its rulers.

Americans right now are tasting the bitter result of ''free market"' and deregulation.

The U.S is heading for a more strict control of the wealth, will it be more fairly balenced? no. will it be more stable? probably, but at what cost?

Politician might whine and complain, but when the total collapse will be knocking at their door, they will sing like canary and embrace the chinese way of doing thing, the most honest, brutal, cruel and realistic way to manage capitalism ; a centralised dictatorship.

[Bud Struggle]

Politician might whine and complain, but when the total collapse will be knocking at their door, they will sing like canary and embrace the chinese way of doing thing, the most honest, brutal, cruel and realistic way to manage capitalism ; a centralised dictatorship.

And it's true.

[Edit to answer the post below.]

As I said you are right--the best way to manage business is with a controled economy. One of the reasons the Chinese are doing so well is that the government controls everything--even the companies they don't actually own. This gives them vast resources way beyond any market business. That being said--while central economies can function the best in a competatitive world--bueiness isn't everything. Markets and being a Proletarian and all of that are only a part of life. So what on has to do is balance things. I could work 80 hours a week and make twice as much money--but it may not be worth it to me. A controlled and managed society may be more efficient--but people may not want that--they just may want freedom and democracy.

So it never really comes down to money and economy and class struggle. It comes down to letting people do what they want to make them happy.

[danyboy27]

And it's true.

not that i dont appreciate flattery bud, but if you could somehow develop why you think its true, that would be somehow nice and enable the discussion to go further.

thanks!

[red cat]

on the contrary my friend, those two contradiction will keep fighting eachother until an extreme is reached, there is no side retreating, both side stepping up a bit more every time, and unless the capitalist or the communsit are retreating, we are heading toward a clash of biblical proportion.

The capitalist revolution, like bud like to call it, is the china way of doing buisness; strong nationalism, corporatism and a centralised control of the wealth around the state and its rulers.

Americans right now are tasting the bitter result of ''free market"' and deregulation.

The U.S is heading for a more strict control of the wealth, will it be more fairly balenced? no. will it be more stable? probably, but at what cost?

Politician might whine and complain, but when the total collapse will be knocking at their door, they will sing like canary and embrace the chinese way of doing thing, the most honest, brutal, cruel and realistic way to manage capitalism ; a centralised dictatorship.

A capitalist revolution would mean the political, military and economic overthrowal of the current system with its relations of production. The capitalist class is motivated, like every other class, by its own class interests. By the experience of the Bolshevik revolution it knows that once it stages a revolution, the proletariat will use the revolutionary situation to have a revolution of its own within a few months, and that would mean that the capitalists lose everything. So they will go for the other option, the one that is more suitable for its class interests; it will surrender before completing its revolution, replace the comprador regime, and become the comprador regime itself. It means gaining some and keeping some, rather than gaining all and losing all. So in essence there will be no fundamental change in the social structure or relations of production. This is why a capitalist revolution is impossible today.

[danyboy27]

A capitalist revolution would mean the political, military and economic overthrowal of the current system with its relations of production. The capitalist class is motivated, like every other class, by its own class interests..
Indeed, and Cartel, control of the wealth fit the capitalist class even more, it will allow them to rack even more profit without the risk factor of the market. it dosnt matter if it mean taking a shot at their own folks, bankrupt the petty bourgeois or supress other capitalist to get it done.
the capitalist class isnt a monolithic bloc, and sooner or later, those who have strong control over their governement will fight the free marketeer, for their own survival, and eventually win.



By the experience of the Bolshevik revolution it knows that once it stages a revolution, the proletariat will use the revolutionary situation to have a revolution of its own within a few months, and that would mean that the capitalists lose everything.
Not necessarly, its about those who have the monopoly of violence, those who control the social contract. if they can keep the monopoly of violence and control over the social contract while they are changing the system, well they will win..for this time. SO, at the boiling point of those changes, if proletarian pressure could break those things, namely the state monopoly of violence and the state control of the social contract, well the road will be paved for prolaterian change, or more future tyranny, depending on how things goes.

[RGacky3]

those who have strong control over their governement will fight the free marketeer, for their own survival, and eventually win.




Its not that easy as free-er or less free market, they'll fight to free up some parts, and fight to protect other parts, its not black and white.

[danyboy27]

Its not that easy as free-er or less free market, they'll fight to free up some parts, and fight to protect other parts, its not black and white.

yea of course, but there are still a sharp differences between corporatist who seek support of the governement to secure their wealth and those who have a vested interest into having the market completly free of laws and regulation.

nothing is black and withe, but those 2 trend are somehow in opposition on how to achieve their wealth.