The best form of protest

[Comrade Raz]

As i am nnot a master in the knowledge of protest theres probably some i missed out, if so just choose other and then shove it down here.

Would have put it in practice but i'm pretty sure chit chats the only place you can have poll's.

[ComradeJunichi]

Other: Revolution.

[Funky Monk]

What sort of terrorist action, what sort of targets are we talking here? Becuase i think that targeting civillians is normally counter-productive.

[Zombie]

Terrorist action.

Funky Monk, terrorism doesn't always mean killing "innocent" civilians...
It can be a very relative term, always depending on who uses it, and in what context the person uses the term...

Here's a GREAT article about the definition of terrorism I found on the Guardian.co.uk :
Definition of Terrorism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,487098,00.html)

[Zombie]

check this out:

"A similar question arises with Palestinian attacks on
quasi-military targets such as Israeli settlements. Many settlers
are armed (with weapons supplied by the army) and the
settlements themselves - though they contain civilians - might
be considered military targets because they are there to
consolidate a military occupation.

If, under the state department rules, Palestinian mortar attacks
on settlements count as terrorism, it would be reasonable to
expect Israeli rocket attacks on Palestinian communities to be
treated in the same way - but they are not. In the American
definition, terrorism can never be inflicted by a state.

Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is classified as a human
rights issue (for which the Israelis get a rap over the knuckles) in
a separate state department report.

Denying that states can commit terrorism is generally useful,
because it gets the US and its allies off the hook in a variety of
situations. The disadvantage is that it might also get hostile
states off the hook - which is why there has to be a list of states
that are said to "sponsor" terrorism while not actually
committing it themselves. "

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think you all know how I voted.

[Zombie]

Je sais! Protestation silencieuse!

[Felicia]

VIOLENT PROTESTS!!!!!! (who was the other person to vote for that?)

There's nothing better (for me) than the thought of running through the streets with a massive crowd of people with baseball bats, and aiming to smash any and every materialistic/physical representation of capitalism..... cars, building windows.... you name it, I want to beat it!!! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH

[dopediana]

i'm more of a peaceful person myself when it comes to protests but just because you're shaking up the crowd a bit, chanting with the other demonstrators, waving your signs, any way to get your message across is great as long as it's not misconstrued as a threat by the people who can help you sway the opinions of those in charge of things who you really want to reach, who DO see you as a threat. is anyone following me? so you're trying to get everyone together to acheive a common cause and scare the bjeezus out of the offenders who will have to institute some change in their system with all the people they're supposedly representing against them. and do it in such a manner that you can't be prosecuted for anything, unless someone wants to challenge your constitutional right.

[lokigreeny]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 08:06 AM
VIOLENT PROTESTS!!!!!! (who was the other person to vote for that?)

There's nothing better (for me) than the thought of running through the streets with a massive crowd of people with baseball bats, and aiming to smash any and every materialistic/physical representation of capitalism..... cars, building windows.... you name it, I want to beat it!!! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH
mmm, fun. but does that involve people? because i wouldve voted for violent protests except that im a pacifist and to me "violent" means beating up people. but i dont give a fuck about property, especially if its corporations, not personal property.

:ph34r:

[lokigreeny]

love this photo.

[dopediana]

bullshit, lokigreeny. violence is uncool.

i would hate for that to be me.

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Boycott is protest right???

[lokigreeny]

:o amyrillis, check out the post above my photo. i am a pacifist, you dont have to tell me that. dude, i dont hurt animals, why would i hurt humans? what i am trying to say is that i dont think that smashing up poroperty is a bad thing. and i just love the defiance of that guy, hes just there in the tear gas and the burning wreckage, and hes just like "fuck them" and i love that. :( sorry to give the wrong impression.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 05:25 AM
:o amyrillis, check out the post above my photo. i am a pacifist, you dont have to tell me that. dude, i dont hurt animals, why would i hurt humans? what i am trying to say is that i dont think that smashing up poroperty is a bad thing. and i just love the defiance of that guy, hes just there in the tear gas and the burning wreckage, and hes just like "fuck them" and i love that. :( sorry to give the wrong impression.
oooh, ok. i overlooked that that post was made by you. as people generally don't post twice in a row. that picture, it's enthralling, but i think the guy looks more like he's thinking "ok, i'm amidst the burning wreckage. i have a mask on. what the fuck do i do now?" he looks more confused than defiant. i think it's the illusion his surroundings play.

[Zombie]

yeah dude amaryllis, pay more attention next time! and get on aim now!

[Bianconero]

Violence may be 'uncool', yet it is inevitable to overthrow the dictatorship of the capital.

[Blackberry]

Flash mobs to spread ideas.

[lokigreeny]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 05:08 AM
Violence may be 'uncool', yet it is inevitable to overthrow the dictatorship of the capital.
:o no way! i accept that india is not a socialist state, but gandhi did overthrow imperial england using only non-violent protests. Violence is not 'uncool' it is a weakness, a intelectual surrender to the base instincts. it is stupid, pointless and harmful, both to "the cause" and to the individual. violence builds resentment and amger, which inevitably leads to more violence.

[elijahcraig]

Here's the way to revolution:

http://www.ithacagun.com/images/barrel.jpg

Through the barrel of a gun.

[lokigreeny]

in terms of pragmatism you may be correct, but do you have any ethical arguments to back up your assertion that killing is acceptable?

[elijahcraig]

Shouldn't You Try Non-Violence First? (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/violence.html)

Violence: Justified? (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/philviolence.html)

[lokigreeny]

theyre not working...

[elijahcraig]

Yes, indeed they are. Violence has always been the revolution.

[lokigreeny]

no, i mean your links...they arent working...

[elijahcraig]

Go to google and search "Maoist Internationalist Movement", then go to "FAQ" in MIM's homepage, and scroll down, you will find the subjects.

The links are working fine for me.

[lokigreeny]

hmm, yes, im at school (limited i-net time) and my i-net appears to be chucking a sapz. sorry.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 02:42 PM
Through the barrel of a gun.
What are you, Mao Tse tung? Or a Maoist?

"Change must come through the barrel of gun."
- Mao Tse Tung

:blink:

[elijahcraig]

I'm something of a maoist yes. Why?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Tutto il potere al popolo armato. Onore a tutti i compagni e combattenti antimperialisti caduti” e la firma.

[Bianconero]

Comrade RAF, is the left one Peter Jürgen Boock?


no way! i accept that india is not a socialist state, but gandhi did overthrow imperial england using only non-violent protests. Violence is not 'uncool' it is a weakness, a intelectual surrender to the base instincts. it is stupid, pointless and harmful, both to "the cause" and to the individual. violence builds resentment and amger, which inevitably leads to more violence.

Rethoric, nothing more. You can come up with these 'love - peace' - slogans for the rest of your life, you won't change anything. Do you honestly think Nike corporation will stop exploiting children, building their profit on starvation, if you tell them to 'love one another', that 'violence leads to more violence' ... ?

Of course not. It's their class interest to murder.

'Welche Niedrigkeit begingest du nicht, um die Niedrigkeit auszutilgen?' B. Brecht

[dopediana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 06:47 PM
yeah dude amaryllis, pay more attention next time! and get on aim now!
dude, if i could be on aim, i would be. and i'm not a dude. i'm a dudette. remember that, eh?


mao has good quotes, but i'm not a huge fan...

[suffianr]

I voted "Other", which I took for "By Any Means Necessary". :ph34r:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 02:14 PM
Comrade RAF, is the left one Peter Jürgen Boock?


no way! i accept that india is not a socialist state, but gandhi did overthrow imperial england using only non-violent protests. Violence is not 'uncool' it is a weakness, a intelectual surrender to the base instincts. it is stupid, pointless and harmful, both to "the cause" and to the individual. violence builds resentment and amger, which inevitably leads to more violence.

Rethoric, nothing more. You can come up with these 'love - peace' - slogans for the rest of your life, you won't change anything. Do you honestly think Nike corporation will stop exploiting children, building their profit on starvation, if you tell them to 'love one another', that 'violence leads to more violence' ... ?

Of course not. It's their class interest to murder.

'Welche Niedrigkeit begingest du nicht, um die Niedrigkeit auszutilgen?' B. Brecht
No comrade, they are Mario Moretti and Giovanni Senzani.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 03:40 PM
I'm something of a maoist yes. Why?
I thought so. I was just joking about the quote you used, kinda stereotypical stuff. Like a 'sporto' reading a biography on Dennis Rodman or somethin like that.

Anyway, does riot come under violent protest or what?

I also agree with the person who said a 'terrorist action' does neccessarily involve the death of innocent lives.

[elijahcraig]

I was kidding around with the pacifist with that image.

[Bianconero]

No comrade, they are Mario Moretti and Giovanni Senzani.

Ok, then Moretti looks similar to Boock.

Here's Boock.

http://www.rafinfo.de/archiv/mitglieder/boock.jpg

[Chewillneverdie]

revolution starts by word of mouth, sabotage, boycotts, and protest, then the guns come in, riots are good but rarely provoked, and terrorism bad. sabotage good. read guerrilla warfare, Che explains it. cutting down a power line pisses people off and could be used in acts of sabotage. taking a plane and ramming it into shit is bad, vewy vewy bad. and i am yet to see true signs of a revolution why all the talk? talk means shit, actions speak louder than words

[Hegemonicretribution]

The question was that of the most efficient method of protest. Protest being the expression of an objetion and making others aware of it.

Therefore newsgrabbing terrorism, or violence against some one famous are most efficient. Biggest headline grabbers. However I wouldn't say they are the best, as other forms can achieve the same ammount.

[ric]

violence isn't all ways the answer but it can be neccesary
some Iraq's feel its there duty to fight for saddam but others disagree
please dont start a is iraq right message
its a vicious circle of opinion
dont call it terrorism
:angry:
"one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist"sorry ive forgotten :ph34r:

[YKTMX]

What does it say about this site that Striking wasn't even an option. Pathetic. Working class action is the only way to revolution, not violence, not pacifism, they're all non-Marxist red herrings.

[Comrade Raz]

The reason striking was not included in the pole was because striking is rarely an action of protest against state leadership but agianst the way one is treated in the workplace. As I'm looking for most effective methods of protest aginst the state or what the state plans to do striking was not included. Striking alone is not enough to topple a government as there is always some who will work. To dismiss other forms of protest as being 'non-Marxist' red herrings is rubbish seeing as in every revolution across the globe maybe striking has contributed but it has not lead the way as the spearhead of the revolution.

[Comrade Mathew]

i would be with feli but any kind of big demonstration is the best way... it should begin peacefull..... BUT "It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks" - Malcom X

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2003, 07:21 PM
The reason striking was not included in the pole was because striking is rarely an action of protest against state leadership but agianst the way one is treated in the workplace. As I'm looking for most effective methods of protest aginst the state or what the state plans to do striking was not included. Striking alone is not enough to topple a government as there is always some who will work. To dismiss other forms of protest as being 'non-Marxist' red herrings is rubbish seeing as in every revolution across the globe maybe striking has contributed but it has not lead the way as the spearhead of the revolution.
General strikes have almost lead to revolutions in France and in Britain in the past. In major idustrial countries, mass withdrawal of labour is the most powerful tool of the masses, not throwing petrol bombs at the police before retreating to suburbia :rolleyes:

[Dhul Fiqar]

I voted for terrorist action / guerilla warfare. Most people have no idea what that means, but it has nothing to do with killing civilians.

If you want to press me on the details I guess I would have to conclude that a concerted bombing campaign against legitimate government and military targets coupled with a powerful propaganda campaign would be a good start. After that gets off the ground you can expand and start to train soldiers to carry arms, take territory, protect secret command and control areas etc.

Then Robert is your father's brother ;)

--- G.

[Hayduke]

I can be pretty short on this:

The best form of protest is the one that can actually help.

[Conghaileach]

I voted for the rowdy marches because, basically, we're talking about protesting - not overthrowing a government.

I believe that when, it comes to revolution, there will have to be a violent revolution and general strike against the government to bring it to its knees, to starve its of all resources.


"In the long term, the lessons of history show that the robber baron must be disestablished by the same methods that he used to enrich himself and retain his ill-gotten gains, namely, force of arms. To this end we must organise, train and maintain a disciplined armed force which will always be available to strike at the opportune moment". - Seamus Costello

"A people who want to win independence cannot confine themselves to ordinary methods of warfare. Mass insurrections, revolutionary warfare, guerilla detachments everywhere - such is the only way." - Frederick Engels

"There is no revolution without violence. Those who don't accept violence can cross out the word revolution from their dictionary." - Malcolm X

"A revolution is not a dinner party... it cannot be so refined, leisurly, temperate, kind... A Revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." - Mao TseTung

[Comrade Raz]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Aug 23 2003, 07:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Aug 23 2003, 07:18 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 21 2003, 07:21 PM
The reason striking was not included in the pole was because striking is rarely an action of protest against state leadership but agianst the way one is treated in the workplace. As I&#39;m looking for most effective methods of protest aginst the state or what the state plans to do striking was not included. Striking alone is not enough to topple a government as there is always some who will work. To dismiss other forms of protest as being &#39;non-Marxist&#39; red herrings is rubbish seeing as in every revolution across the globe maybe striking has contributed but it has not lead the way as the spearhead of the revolution.
General strikes have almost lead to revolutions in France and in Britain in the past. In major idustrial countries, mass withdrawal of labour is the most powerful tool of the masses, not throwing petrol bombs at the police before retreating to suburbia :rolleyes: [/b]
General strikes have almost lead to revolutions

[FabFabian]

Here is one....don&#39;t buy anything. Hit them where it hurts...in the bank balance. Just say no to the Gap, Nike, Starfucks. :P

[(*]

Light It Up&#33;

I bet the American and Israeli flags are the most popular...people must make a killing from sales&#33;

http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/2000/12/illos/americanflag.burning.jpg

[Finality]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 05:02 AM
Here is one....don&#39;t buy anything. Hit them where it hurts...in the bank balance. Just say no to the Gap, Nike, Starfucks. :P
That&#39;s only if you are trying to take on big businesses. Otherwise, that is pretty much useless and will not hurt the government. However, if you were in fact talking about big companies then I do agree: don&#39;t buy their products.

I&#39;d like some frame of reference before voting. What is trying to be accomplished?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Comrade Raz+Aug 24 2003, 06:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade Raz @ Aug 24 2003, 06:33 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 07:18 PM

Comrade [email protected] 21 2003, 07:21 PM
The reason striking was not included in the pole was because striking is rarely an action of protest against state leadership but agianst the way one is treated in the workplace. As I&#39;m looking for most effective methods of protest aginst the state or what the state plans to do striking was not included. Striking alone is not enough to topple a government as there is always some who will work. To dismiss other forms of protest as being &#39;non-Marxist&#39; red herrings is rubbish seeing as in every revolution across the globe maybe striking has contributed but it has not lead the way as the spearhead of the revolution.
General strikes have almost lead to revolutions in France and in Britain in the past. In major idustrial countries, mass withdrawal of labour is the most powerful tool of the masses, not throwing petrol bombs at the police before retreating to suburbia :rolleyes:
General strikes have almost lead to revolutions [/b]
Yes, whereas throwing petrol bombs and vioent protest has never came anywhere near it.

[Legends]

The best and most effective way to protest is one that is not organised, by this I mean do no make the authorities aware of it and get a march going through the the most used roads in the city, ie mine would be princes st as if you do it without the police organising and diverting traffic you will cause mayhem but they cant arrest everybody, the media would turn up.

[Legends]

Sorry but who picked terrorists acts and why?

[dopediana]

call me crazy, but i think that any sort of revolution, any sort of uprising would really take root in the music culture, punks, folkies. everyone there is there for a purpose. as it goes, plenty of them share similar views. i think through the music scene is the way to get ideas out there. music is one of the primary things in our lives that helps us emote feelings. songs are good songs if they make you feel something. plenty of songs out there express views, ideas. for example you have pete seeger, phil ochs, and people like that all at the core of national culture movements. (fun fact: did you know that if it weren&#39;t for pete seeger, the song "on top of old smokey" would be pretty obsolete today?) music is passion and passion is what we work with.

[Sabocat]

Pete Seeger is a god. I saw him at a Folk Festival 25 years ago or so, with Peter, Paul and Mary, Richie Havens, Gordon Lightfoot and a bunch others. It was incredible.


In 1955 Seeger was subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee and became one of the few witnesses called that year who didn&#39;t invoke the Fifth Amendment. In a dramatic appearance before the committee, Seeger claimed that to discuss his political views and associates violated his First Amendment rights.

There&#39;s no question that music fueled the consciousness of the 60&#39;s generation. Could it work today? Only if the artists put meaningful lyrics together and actually get played. Most peoples access to music is through the radio and unfortunately, those stations are owned by large corporations (fewer and fewer by the day)who have no vested interest in putting out any "left" music.

I think gone are the days of protest music getting wide airplay and promotion. I don&#39;t think the governments will allow that to happen again.

Our only hope in music becoming a catalyst, will be independent radio stations, indy record labels, and peoples willingness to seek out alternative music to top 40 radio.

[dopediana]

i think indy media is making a comeback though. and as for big groups of leftists massing, the philly folk festival was a perfect example. and actually, it&#39;s been the biggest festival so far in the past 5 years or so. music was definitely creating awareness there.

[Bolshevika]

I voted for "terrorism". Terrorism is a relative word. To an imperialist, a terrorist is someone who dislikes their government. To a Marxist, a terrorist is a person who violently resists, and eventually overthrow&#39;s oppressive government.

I do not want to mislead you. I am a pacifist, I am against all wars between nations (except when one gets invaded). However, I believe revolution is the only way to overthrow class antagonisms. If you think otherwise, you are an idealist, a coward, or a fool.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

I think it really depends on the circumstances-as in what you want to change for example i dont think it would have been appropriate to conduct terrorist or violent actions against the UK/USA for invading Iraq, because it would have just killed even more people than neccesary. However i noticed most people who took the poll seemed to answer "what is the best way to over throw a government? "rather than the actual "Which form of protest do you think is most effective?". So in answer to the best way of overthrowing a gov. i believe well planned terrorist actions.

[Comrade Raz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 02:57 PM


Yes, whereas throwing petrol bombs and vioent protest has never came anywhere near it.

I did not vote for violent protest. i agree with you when you say this shall not lead to revolutions but terrorist action has and is also a good way of getting people to listen. I mean real terrorism as defined by Bolshevika.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Comrade Raz+Sep 1 2003, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade Raz @ Sep 1 2003, 03:47 PM)
[email protected] 25 2003, 02:57 PM


Yes, whereas throwing petrol bombs and vioent protest has never came anywhere near it.

I did not vote for violent protest. i agree with you when you say this shall not lead to revolutions but terrorist action has and is also a good way of getting people to listen. I mean real terrorism as defined by Bolshevika. [/b]
Terrorism is a silly word to use. It is just a trendy idea because people see violence as intrinsically linked to social change. Terrorism implies individual action or small groups of individuals. This type of action will never lead to revolution, especially in developed countries where it will take more than a few bombs to remove hundreds of years of goverment.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I voted for peaceful marches. I worry that with the state of corporate media in the USA that any violence can be blown off as terrorism, and I do not think association with terrorism will help any kind of mass organization effort.

[Comrade Raz]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Sep 1 2003, 06:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Sep 1 2003, 06:17 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2003, 03:47 PM

[email protected] 25 2003, 02:57 PM


Yes, whereas throwing petrol bombs and vioent protest has never came anywhere near it.

I did not vote for violent protest. i agree with you when you say this shall not lead to revolutions but terrorist action has and is also a good way of getting people to listen. I mean real terrorism as defined by Bolshevika.
Terrorism is a silly word to use. It is just a trendy idea because people see violence as intrinsically linked to social change. Terrorism implies individual action or small groups of individuals. This type of action will never lead to revolution, especially in developed countries where it will take more than a few bombs to remove hundreds of years of goverment. [/b]
Terrorism does not have to be performed by small groups of people. Bolshevika defined real terrorism not an individual act by one or a small group of peoples or person. The Cuban Revolution could be marked as terrorism and this was a real revolution that actually happened.