REVOLUTION IN AMERICA

[hopeforRedAmerica]

most organizations i see or hear about in the USA are nonviolent or want to use nonviolent actions.... well what if that doesnt work??? what will work?? if it comes down to violence.. who will fight??

well i know i would risk my life... not saying that i am a violent person or im not saying that we should use violence... but i think that it is important to start up little "underground" groups/ organizations of people/soldiers willing to fight if it came down to it.. kinda like the army reserve...

now of course this would have to be gingerly thought out. no leaks to the media. if the media found out things could get ugly. every group should communicate with eachother... decisions should be voted upon for violent matters... and of course these organizations are nonviolent in general.. but if it came down to it, they would fight. i doubt all this could happen anytime soon. but i think it should happen.

the people that join should be trained.. and should be retrained every once in a while.. these people should be trained defensively mostly.. offensive training could be important however.

the more people involved in this.. the easier it would be for a revolution... with the help of nonviolent pressure against the gov'ts head.. a militant pressure could help. we should fight for a cause and only be in persuit of the guilty.

i think that nonviolent actions with the help of militant actions could be successful.

if agree let me know.. i wanna know ur thoughts and/or ideas to help.. and if u totally disagree..... let me know.. i wanna know ur reasons for why u think i would be making a mistake...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Those people are already there my friend.

[lokigreeny]

Okay, well, even if I did think that violent action was an acceptable form of revolution, then really, here is NOT the place to be talking about forming a paramilitary organisation.

Now here's the shit; whenever you kill a conformist (in the army, police, whatever) you kill one more citizen. And every time you kill a leader, you lose support amongst the conformists. so either way, you loose out. sabotage, however, is a different matter. Destroying power, phone lines, sattelite relay stations, communications towers and so on, will not create a loss of life, but it will destabilise the government, and itll be a hell of a laugh at the same time :D

Taking over a radio station, even for a few hours, and getting your message out there in a sensible, intelligent way, is going to make a revolution come about quicker than shooting some shit up. mmkay? No-one wants to be involved in killing. well, thats a lie, but no good socialist would want to be involved in killing, and i think in todays medi-fed age, its not neccecary to killm for a revolution to come about.

THAT is what i meant in "guns..or weapons" about the mind being my greatest weapon - it is everyones greatest weapon.

Plus, of course, killing in itself is morally reprehensible and unforgivable. but thats a whole other kettle of fish. :P

[Sensitive]

When a large enough portion of the population (say, 33%) wants to end capitalism, there will be massive protests all around the country. The US government will probably order the military out to stop the protests. The military will kill some protestors. They will become martyrs. Then we will fight back. But until that point - until we have enough support to actually win a revolution - violence is completely worthless. And it could only be used as negative propaganda, by the American government, against us. Remember how much support the government had after 9-11?

Our most important work now, as leftists, is to increase opposition to capitalism.

[Legends]

This may sound stupid but I think the best way to start a revolution is to protest, get support for your cause, try and do it peacefully because at the end of the day you dont want to do any harm that could of been avoided but if all else fails I think voilence is the only way.

[Durruti]

Violence should be the last resort, but all these guys are right... to some extent. The way to do it is to get people out on May Day and any other excuse for a protest against capitalism you can think of (not too many, you don't want to wear people out). When you get enough people out you start a Black Bloc (red bloc in your case?) and use it to escilate the violence. Continue to escilate the violence until the military is called in, Che's Guerrilla War should tell you what your next step is.... Read Urbano's Urban Warfare (?) too. "Guerrilla War" is written for the jungle, and that's not where the Revolt will take place.
Form a group like you suggest in your area. Train, but focus as much energy on doing good things in the name of your collective (or in the name of the Party). We will gain support through action more than through propaganda, but liberally cover your local community with as much information as possible. Do this and the time will come.

[Fidelbrand]

Ye... PEOPLE POWER! Much is to be organized than saying.
People are misted by technologies and capitalism .. all slaves,,.. who are the awakened ones...? not much there , my friend~~~~ excpet those who are in this forum or those who arent members but are browsing right here.

[hopeforRedAmerica]

i wasnt saying that violence IS the answer... i was just stating that if it came down to it.. violence would infact work (it depends on the situation). i guess i should've added that I also think that violence should be used as a last resort.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

On revolution in America, I would say that we first need a non-violent education process. When we have a good part of the working class made aware of capitalism's reality, then we can act. I would not advocate violence if it was not necessary, but I fear that it will be.

By the way, Comrade hopeforRedAmerica, welcome to che-lives. I like your screenname.

[hopeforRedAmerica]

thanx marxist in nebraska... i do also agree with non violent actions first.. but the whole violent talk was just a thought if non violence didnt work...... i just also realized that the civil rights movement won becuz they kept violence out of the picture.. now of course that doesnt apply to everyone in that time period. but majority of it was non violent.. maybe it could work with this situation but maybe it cant.. we wont know until the situation occurs.

[Durruti]

Yeah, the civil rights movement didn't have anything to do with Malcom X or the millions of angry black and white people calling for the heads of the leaders.
I remember reading a statement along the lines of,
Martin Luther King only succeede because his implied statement was "I want to do things peacefully, and if you don't work it out with me you'll have to talk to the million angry blacks behind me."
We only won because we scared the shit the power structure and they were FORCED to rely on Martin Luther King to quell the angry masses.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Definately the yankee army were not that powerful years ago like they are now, and it seems yanks have that white thrash way of thinking, so it will be hard to get to people. I liked lokigreeny's idea of taking radios to spread our message; think about it: take all a city's radio stations, then give a small "talk" and let people call and come out on the air to reply their concerns. If done right we will get peoples attention and people listening to a radio station and that dont want to hear us, they wont have another radio to escape from us. It could work anywhere in the world, and this can be done with many things.

So action must be taken and must be taken NOW, before the yankees continue to improve their army's weapons and technology (so that we can defeat them in a war if it becomes necessary) and to get the attention of people who dont have a defined political position (they are the ones who decide who wins elections). This applies to the whole world.

[ONE]

A very similar topic is being discussed here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=16443&st=0)

Check it out if you're interested... :D

[FistFullOfSteel]

whats this name for the topic :P ??!

[Hater]

>>>i just also realized that the civil rights movement won becuz they kept violence out of the picture..

The "civil rights movement" won because American capitalists wanted access to third world markets in the post-colonial era. They also wanted to destroy the American working class and the organized unions by lowering the price of labour with free trade and cheap third world immigration, primarily from the third world. White racism stood as an obstacle to this, and was thus tossed aside by the financial plutocracy.

[Chewillneverdie]

training, is required, i do shit that would train me for battle, paintball, airsoft, and Guerrilla warfare is pretty handy, yes the army is strong., but they are spread out, not to mention if u keep to a somewhat large city or suburb, they might not be able to use high tech bombs and shit cus they dont wanna kill civies, well their own people haha i know its bad but i know how to win a war..

[Faeelin]

The thought of overthrowing a democratic government in order to set up a communist totalitarian state is disgusting.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 03:37 PM
>>>i just also realized that the civil rights movement won becuz they kept violence out of the picture..

The "civil rights movement" won because American capitalists wanted access to third world markets in the post-colonial era. They also wanted to destroy the American working class and the organized unions by lowering the price of labour with free trade and cheap third world immigration, primarily from the third world. White racism stood as an obstacle to this, and was thus tossed aside by the financial plutocracy.
An interesting idea... there may be something to that...

Faeelin,
Who said anything about totalitarianism?

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 20 2003, 02:39 AM

Who said anything about totalitarianism?
I can't see how the overthrow of the government by a minority could be anything but.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Faeelin+Aug 19 2003, 09:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faeelin @ Aug 19 2003, 09:40 PM)
Marxist in [email protected] 20 2003, 02:39 AM

Who said anything about totalitarianism?
I can&#39;t see how the overthrow of the government by a minority could be anything but. [/b]
Where did you get "minority" from? I did not see anything on this thread that suggested that...

[Faeelin]

33%?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

That was in one post. Furthermore, Comrade Sensitive merely said that once a third of the people were angry at capitalism, there would be massive demonstrations. That is not to say we will start a revolution with only a third of the people at our back.

Also, there is never 100% involvement in a revolution. The Americans who decided being a British colony was not cool anymore were not a majority. Many would not commit to the cause. Does that tarnish the American revolution?

[elijahcraig]

After the American Revolution, more than 100,000 "undesirables" were run off to Europe. :lol:

[Fever]

The question is if you wanted to start a violent revolution who would you fight? The lines arent quite as clear as they used to be.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 10:34 PM
The thought of overthrowing a democratic government in order to set up a communist totalitarian state is disgusting.
LOL....a democratic government? Where? You mean the one that is primarily controlled by huge lobbyist groups? The special interest groups that fund and influence your "elected officials". The democracy that has an unelected president at it&#39;s head, a vice president that is/was the CEO of a giant corporation and flips huge government contracts to them without so much as a putting the contracts out to bid?

The democracy that less than 30% of the population votes in, because most understand that there really is no choice between candidates?

It&#39;s an illusion of democracy.

[pedro san pedro]

i would consider myself a pacifist, but dont know how i feel about this -i think at the right time feel it worse to not come out and fight?
however, at this time, i see violence at protest to be solely negative -look at how seattle was portrayed in the media. only non-violence (at least in public) will win the cause more support.
how do people feel about violence toward property? i think this is good -as was said, it disrupts the state plenty, and costs the capilists money- and is particually ethical if the structure desrtoyed is causing harm, or has the potential to do so.
removing a method of violence is in itself a non violent act -if some points a gun at u, u avoid violence by taking it away.
dont know if this philosphy can be extened to soilders and police officers etc... what do people think?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Aug 20 2003, 09:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Disgustapated @ Aug 20 2003, 09:00 AM)
[email protected] 19 2003, 10:34 PM
The thought of overthrowing a democratic government in order to set up a communist totalitarian state is disgusting.
LOL....a democratic government? Where? You mean the one that is primarily controlled by huge lobbyist groups? The special interest groups that fund and influence your "elected officials". The democracy that has an unelected president at it&#39;s head, a vice president that is/was the CEO of a giant corporation and flips huge government contracts to them without so much as a putting the contracts out to bid?

The democracy that less than 30% of the population votes in, because most understand that there really is no choice between candidates?

It&#39;s an illusion of democracy. [/b]
Hear, hear Comrade Disgustapated&#33; A minor issue, but you are talking about voter turnout in the USA, right? I believe, among those who are legally able to vote, about 40% register for national elections. This begs the question of whether one should have to be 18 to vote, or whether non-citizens who have lived and worked here for years should also get to vote. The government says no... I personally disagree.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Aug 20 2003, 02:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Disgustapated @ Aug 20 2003, 02:00 PM)
[email protected] 19 2003, 10:34 PM
The thought of overthrowing a democratic government in order to set up a communist totalitarian state is disgusting.
LOL....a democratic government? Where? You mean the one that is primarily controlled by huge lobbyist groups? The special interest groups that fund and influence your "elected officials". The democracy that has an unelected president at it&#39;s head, a vice president that is/was the CEO of a giant corporation and flips huge government contracts to them without so much as a putting the contracts out to bid?

The democracy that less than 30% of the population votes in, because most understand that there really is no choice between candidates?

It&#39;s an illusion of democracy. [/b]
It&#39;s still a democracy, despite your complaints. If you don&#39;t believe me, move to cuba.

[Sabocat]

It&#39;s still a democracy, despite your complaints. If you don&#39;t believe me, move to cuba.


It&#39;s an illusion of a democracy and you seem to have bought it hook, line and sinker.

Why are you under the impression that there is no democracy in Cuba?


Have you even voted yet? If you have, when is the last time you were able to vote for anything that represented real change? Did you get to vote last time congress voted itself a raise? Did you get to vote on whether you wanted U&#036; forces committed to Iraq? Did you get to vote for the Patriot Act?
(all of this of course if you live in the U&#036;)

[Thought_Criminal]

Camarades. On this and other socialist boards I have noticed a disturbing trend. It is important to remember that one of Che&#39;s teachings is to distinguish between the government of a country and that country&#39;s people.
In America there is a sizable proletariate, a growing lower class, and continued economic, political, religious, and ethnic strife. All of these factors contribute to the revolution.
But the American proletariate feels alientated from the world proletariate when brothers and sisters of the revolution continually critisize and alienate the citizens of America. For socialism to bloom and take root, the American people must identify with and connect with the downtrodden and oppressed people of the world. And when the people in America shift positions, the tendrils which hold up the current order will fall. Global revolution will finally be possible.

Hasta la victoria siempre&#33;