The Interim

[praxis1966]

I have heard a lot of high talk and principled morality on this site. Yet, some seem to lack the impetus to jump from preach to practice. I hear a lot of debate on the nature of the revolutionary, whether he/she be violent or nonviolent. I have also heard the words of a good many hardliners.

There are those among us who believe that the era in which we can peacefully protest to some effect is still at hand. There are others who advocate the brandishing of arms in the immediate future. Still others believe in a transitional phase wherupon we must make the progression from good talkers to excellent actors.

I would like to know who among you falls into which category and why. Where is the demarcation point between dialogue and action? Where and what shall the transition be/entale? How can you say that you support non-violent action and training camps at the same time (I have seen this position many other times in many other threads)? How will you further the cause of both, concurrently?

[redstar2000]

Is it really simply a matter of abstract non-violence "vs." violence?

In the United States, it could very well be that the end of "peaceful protest" is coming not because protesters have embraced violence in the abstract but because police attacks on peaceful protesters have become routine.

On the other hand, I've never seen any point to the macho strut that some have occasionally gone in for; "brandishing weapons" and yapping about "training camps" on message boards--in a period when armed struggle is objectively irrelevant--strikes me as childish.

It seems to me that we should take such measures of self-defense that seem plausible...and do so quietly, without boasting of our "militancy" or how "tough" we are.

As communists, our first objective is to put communism "back on the agenda"--making communist ideas once more part of public discourse. There's nothing "violent" about that at all.

I'm extremely skeptical of those who marry a tactic--violent or non-violent. I think we should "wait and see" what tactics are most appropriate in given circumstances.

In particular, I caution those who get caught up in a rhetoric or even a cult of violence...that can turn out to be a very short road ending in political oblivion.

Who knows or cares about the ideas of the "unibomber" now?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[praxis1966]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Redstar. I wasn't trying to make a statement one way or the other about the issue, I was simply posing a question based on some observations I have made in the short time I have been here.

Personally, I am a strong believer in "self-defense." I often quote Malcom X in relationship to this question. "We are non-violent with those who are non-violent with us. But, we are definately not non-violent with those who are violent with us. We will achieve the liberation of our people by any means necessary."

Sadly, I do think that open and violent conflict is as inevitable as the tide. Historcally it has been a veritable certainty. For this reason (as I have argued in other threads) it is imperative that we prepare ourselves for this eventuality so as to not be caught unprepared when the necessity for self-defense arises.

[Valkyrie]

I think the left needs to pick up the slack and the complacency and take up a direct move to the offensive. Atleast get really fucking pissed off and lay down a hardline resistance towards atleast some sort of non-cooperation. They have got us by the balls.

This thing is never gonna get off the ground, otherwise.

[ONE]

I'm sure you've come across the "revolution" thread. If not, here it is (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=16443&st=20)

I think this is an important issue...

I am a proponent of nonviolence, however, it MIGHT be necessary but ONLY after nonviolent methods have been attempted AND the "left" has the majority.

A lot of people agree on the final destination, but not the route to take. In order for the movement to gain more support and acquire new "believers", the message should concentrate on the final destination.

[praxis1966]

I think the left already does have a majority, all be it a silent one. The trick is awakening and mobilizing the sleeping masses. I think without a strong national spokesman/woman to raise awareness about important yet underreported issues, most people see no reason to make any drastic changes. Just check out Whitewash (http://www.whitewash.com), Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com), or The Guardian (http://guardian.co.uk) and you'll see the huge amount of information that needs to be brought into the spotlight, especially in the United States.

[ONE]

I seriously doubt the majority status of the left , but I hope you're right! Go to any US city or town and ask a random person about his/her disposition - chances are, they're a patriotic right wing capitalist... However, I think there might be a lot of people who have dormant social or leftist "inclinations".

I agree with you, "awakening and mobilizing the sleeping masses" is essential.