Fidel before the crowd (with Q's)

[CHE with an AK]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/Fidel6-1-1.jpg


(1) Which self-declared anarchist/communist/socialist/Marxist leader do you believe was/is the best orator before a crowd?

(2) Is it important to have a good/firey/moving speaker to help organize and galvanize the masses in your opinion?

(3) Does the revolution need a "mouthpiece" or person who can articulate the views of what the revolution hopes to accomplish?
- If so, how should that person be chosen in your view?
- If not, then how do you keep reactionaries from speaking for or misrepresenting the revolution?

(4) What is the largest rally/speech by a leftist leader that you have ever attended? How was it?

[Geiseric]

Trotsky made a speech to a few thousand red army defectors, and afterwards they were one of the most loyal and effective units in the army. Lenin was good, Castro was pretty good as well, Stalin made a speech over the radio that basically everybody in russia heard when the germans were invading. In a CIA guide to speeches and oration, you need to capture the crowd's emotions in your speech. So almost yelling would be good with something massive and electric like the russian revolution at st. petersburg, where if everybody's depressed and things are more static, a speech in a monotone or steady voice would be more likely to be effective. Obama's speeches display the above principle, where that famous clip with Lenin talking back and forth about the jewish persecution by the tsars, denouncing any racism that a russian listening to it may harbor has him almost yelling at the crowd. Just thought it was intresting.

[L.A.P.]

Speaking of speeches. Are there any videos of people like Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, etc.? I can never seem to find any energetic speeches done by historical leftist leaders.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Speaking of speeches. Are there any videos of people like Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, etc.? I can never seem to find any energetic speeches done by historical leftist leaders.


Che at the UN
bufHojkoGtw

Fidel in Harlem
eNW9ibGXhEk

My favorite part was when he talked about changing his attire.


xmf-YouZOxU

[Susurrus]

Speaking of speeches. Are there any videos of people like Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, etc.? I can never seem to find any energetic speeches done by historical leftist leaders.

d_OQBEDgwOc

67ZWBl-66H8

dGHBpB__qM8

[Volcanicity]

YKzHEPMYxpI

dayr8fgwRyM

[∞]

(1) Which self-declared anarchist/communist/socialist/Marxist leader do you believe was/is the best orator before a crowd?

Abraham Reyes.


(2) Is it important to have a good/firey/moving speaker to help organize and galvanize the masses in your opinion?

If the masses need one, they are not correctly educated.


(3) Does the revolution need a "mouthpiece" or person who can articulate the views of what the revolution hopes to accomplish?
- If so, how should that person be chosen in your view?
- If not, then how do you keep reactionaries from speaking for or misrepresenting the revolution?


No. It needs several people organizing and educating laborers and cognitive laborers (engineers, doctors,etc,etc).


(4) What is the largest rally/speech by a leftist leader that you have ever attended? How was it?

One time my leftist friend was really drunk and start ranting about his job, the whole bar was listening.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This has nothing to do with theory.

I spend quite a while making a very thoughtful thread yesterday and it gets zero replies.

A thread about Chavez-like left-populist leaderships gets instant replies.

Oh, Revleft.:rolleyes:

[∞]

Sorry Granma, if it makes you feel any better my threads in the philosophy section don't get many replies. Many times 0.

[CHE with an AK]

This has nothing to do with theory.
Questions 2 & 3 do. Although I wasn't sure whether to go with the History forum (because of #1). Where the thread takes off from there, is not under my control - but I am genuinely interested in the theoretical implications and risks of having no spokesperson along with the risks of only having one spokesman.





I spend quite a while making a very thoughtful thread yesterday and it gets zero replies.
Use brevity or spice it up with a picture or video next time. There is a reason USA Today outsells the Wall Street Journal. :ninja: (jk)





A thread about Chavez-like left-populist leaderships gets instant replies.

I just love the irony that a user named after the Cuban Revolution's liberation yacht, is annoyed at a mostly Fidel & Che thread.




Sorry Granma, if it makes you feel any better my threads in the philosophy section don't get many replies. Many times 0.
Try accessible questions that anyone can answer or take part in. If users feel like they are just reading a personal 'manifesto' or essay then they won't reply.

If that doesn't work ... try a picture of a baby Panda. :p

[Fulanito de Tal]

1) From the limited amount of speeches I have heard/read, I think F. Castro, especially History Will Absolve Me. I would like to see some of Lenin's though.

2) Yes, that way we all get on the same track and motivated.

3) Of course. See 2. A revolution needs leadership.

4) Never have I ever

[Aspiring Humanist]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/Fidel6-1-1.jpg


(1) Which self-declared anarchist/communist/socialist/Marxist leader do you believe was/is the best orator before a crowd?

(2) Is it important to have a good/firey/moving speaker to help organize and galvanize the masses in your opinion?

(3) Does the revolution need a "mouthpiece" or person who can articulate the views of what the revolution hopes to accomplish?
- If so, how should that person be chosen in your view?
- If not, then how do you keep reactionaries from speaking for or misrepresenting the revolution?

(4) What is the largest rally/speech by a leftist leader that you have ever attended? How was it?

1. Lenin
2. It's important to be inspired to revolution but that doesn't mean you should idolize the speaker and develop a cult status around him/her
3.No. That position is too important to be rested on one person
4. Unfortunately I haven't been to any

[Sentinel]

(1) Which self-declared anarchist/communist/socialist/Marxist leader do you believe was/is the best orator before a crowd?Too hard to choose a single one, especially as many lived before the invention of film so that I could hear them myself. But of those I've heard I have to then I'll say Fidel Castro.


(2) Is it important to have a good/firey/moving speaker to help organize and galvanize the masses in your opinion?It sure doesn't hurt the cause.


(3) Does the revolution need a "mouthpiece" or person who can articulate the views of what the revolution hopes to accomplish?
- If so, how should that person be chosen in your view?
- If not, then how do you keep reactionaries from speaking for or misrepresenting the revolution?I agree with Aspiring Humanist, it's dangerous of several reasons to let a single person become the voice and face of the revolution outwards.


(4) What is the largest rally/speech by a leftist leader that you have ever attended? How was it? Not sure about largest. I saw quite a few recently at a conference off the CWI. Tony Saunois, the general secretary of our international, was quite awesome as was Peter Taaffe, leader of our English & Welsh section (Socialist Party of England and Wales). :)

I also once saw Aleida Guevara, daughter of Che, and she wasn't bad. I'm not sure if she qualifies as 'leader' in this context though.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Side note: If Fidel is an authoritarian dictator as many in the US and abroad say, then what magical powers are holding this humongous angry mob that has him surrounded from attacking him?

http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h376/fulanitodetal46/5-en-la-plaza-con-fidel-2005.jpg

[Weezer]

Side note: If Fidel is an authoritarian dictator as many in the US and abroad say, then what magical powers are holding this humongous angry mob that has him surrounded from attacking him?

http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h376/fulanitodetal46/5-en-la-plaza-con-fidel-2005.jpg

Abroad? Go anywhere that doesn't have the bias of the first world comfortable living, especially Africa and South America, and most people speak very highly of Fidel.

[Rafiq]

I know Fidel is popular in Cuba, but having a popular crowd isn't a good argument that a nation's leader isn't unethical or a dictator. For example:

http://www.crownheights.info/media/2/20100630-hitlert.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3GAV7wV03Y/TiQ7rL28PvI/AAAAAAAAG0I/GYGQS-tL8JA/s400/Benito+Mussolini.jpg

[Weezer]

I know Fidel is popular in Cuba, but having a popular crowd isn't a good argument that a nation's leader isn't unethical or a dictator. For example:

http://www.crownheights.info/media/2/20100630-hitlert.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J3GAV7wV03Y/TiQ7rL28PvI/AAAAAAAAG0I/GYGQS-tL8JA/s400/Benito+Mussolini.jpg

Fidel was in power more than three times longer than them and has had no assassination attempts plotted by actual Cubans.

Mussolini died at the hands of Italians. Cubans have had every chance to kill Fidel, and they haven't.

[Susurrus]

Fidel was in power more than three times longer than them and has had no assassination attempts plotted by actual Cubans.



I'm sorry, but I have to point this out:

http://www.sabinabecker.com/media/fidel-up-yours-miami.jpg

[Wanted Man]

This thread is general enough to move it to Politics. Done.

[RadioRaheem84]

Che Guevarra's speech to the UN amazed me. I had no idea someone would even be allowed to give a speech like that at the UN.

Growing up in the US, I keep thinking that no leader, no society can really be that serious about racial and social and economic justice, but the Cubans, for the most part are very serious.

I am always surprised when I see anti-racist, anti-elitist, old Soviet propaganda cartoons, and how I hear that Africans composed a good number of the students in the USSR back in the 40s and 50s! The anti-racist, anti-colonial and anti-elitist cartoons seem like the stuff we would only know and agree with NOW.

These societies really did almost, and I say almost, changed fundamental social relations, meaning it can be done.

Castro delivers amazing analysis of the world. He is a genius.

Che was less academic and technical but a moving character that did more with his actions than words.

Chavez sucks by comparison and sounds like he is just barely getting to know economics and sociology.

Lenin, awesome speeches.

I mean we really have a great collection of stuff on our side.

[Susurrus]

Che was awesome and all, but I'd be more than a little hesitant to give him command of an modern army or a nation. His plan for the Russian nukes was to fire them off, provoke a worldwide nuclear war, and then he expected the remainder of society to recreate the world as a socialist utopia. He was angry as hell when the Russians took them back.

[Rafiq]

Source ^?

[Fulanito de Tal]

Che was awesome and all, but I'd be more than a little hesitant to give him command of an modern army or a nation. His plan for the Russian nukes was to fire them off, provoke a worldwide nuclear war, and then he expected the remainder of society to recreate the world as a socialist utopia. He was angry as hell when the Russians took them back.

Do you have a reference/source for that?

I heard from a friend in Cuba that it was Castro that was "balls to the wall" (what a silly phrase, lol) with the attack on the US.

What if it would have happened?

Maybe we wouldn't have had a Vietnam War, 73 Chilean Coup, A bunch of interventions in Latin America, Iraq War 1, Afghanistan War (US version), Iraq War 2, involvement in Pakistan, Libyan War, US racism, immense drug trafficking and damage that stems from it, the amount of people in US incarcerated, people dying from lack of medical treatment, and most of the neocolonialism that the US and West produce. Think of everything that you hate about the US and imagine that not existing.

On the other hand, maybe we wouldn't have had an Earth too.

Who knows how it would have turned out.

[RedSonRising]

Che was awesome and all, but I'd be more than a little hesitant to give him command of an modern army or a nation. His plan for the Russian nukes was to fire them off, provoke a worldwide nuclear war, and then he expected the remainder of society to recreate the world as a socialist utopia. He was angry as hell when the Russians took them back.


Sorry comrade, but I think you are mistaken. Many draw this conclusion from the "off the record" plan Che revealed where they planned to use the nuclear weapons given by the Soviet Union on the major cities of the United States. In context, what he was trying to communicate was that a showdown with the United States was inevitable (since the first bay of pigs invasion), and that nuclear confrontation would be a probable element. Che wasn't planning to nuke the world and start it over like some sort of primitivist zealot, but at that time the threat of near annihilation from global tensions seemed very real, and Guevara was simply showing bravery in the face of military imperialism and a willingness to continue trying to build socialism even after a potential nuclear holocaust claimed the lives of millions.

As a practicing doctor, he knew compassion, and as a military man, he kept his passionate politics aside and made decisions coldly and with efficiency; torture, revenge, punishment-these things were never considered under his command. Even when a soldier in his regimen fired on a still-wriggling Batista rifelman advancing in the mud after being shot, Che scolded him for taking the live of a soldier demonstrating an honorable fighting spirit.

My point here is not to excuse Che for his mistakes or romanticize him, but my point is that re-spawning a socialist utopia out of a nuclear wasteland he was trying to orchestrate is simply a very far-out stretch.

[RED DAVE]

The best I've ever heard was the quasi-socialist Martin Luther King at the March on Washington in 1963. You shoulda been there.

(Coming up on the 50th anniversary of that in two years. Damn!)

RED DAVE

[Susurrus]

"Will imperialism continue to lose one position after another, or will it, in its bestiality, as it threatened not long ago, launch a nuclear attack and burn the entire world in an atomic holocaust? We cannot say. We do assert, however, that we must follow the road of liberation even thought it may cost millions of atomic victims. In the struggle to death between two systems, we cannot think of anything but the final victory of socialism or its relapse as a consequence of the nuclear victory of imperialist aggression."
http://irelandsown.net/Tacticsandstrategy.pdf


If they attack, we shall fight to the end. If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression. But we haven’t got them, so we shall fight with what we’ve got.
Statement in an interview with a reporter for the London Daily Worker (November 1962), as quoted in Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara (1998), by Jorge G. Castaneda, p. 231, 1st Vintage Books ISBN 0679759409

[∞]

Trotsky was good orator whether or not you like him.-9.5/10
Lenin was also a good orator.-9/10
Malcolm X was an unbelievably amazing orator.-10/10
Stalin's speeches can either be shitty or pretty good.-8/10
Che Guevara's speeches were really good. -9.5/10
Subcommandante Marcos makes excellent PSAs. -9/10
Emma Goldman spoke with a good wit. -9/10
Fidel Castro is good but kind of boring.- 8.5/10
Hugo Chavez is kind of annoying when he speaks to the public. On one-on-one interviews he actually seems alot more intelligent than you'd expect him to be. -7.5/10

[RedSonRising]

"Will imperialism continue to lose one position after another, or will it, in its bestiality, as it threatened not long ago, launch a nuclear attack and burn the entire world in an atomic holocaust? We cannot say. We do assert, however, that we must follow the road of liberation even thought it may cost millions of atomic victims. In the struggle to death between two systems, we cannot think of anything but the final victory of socialism or its relapse as a consequence of the nuclear victory of imperialist aggression."
http://irelandsown.net/Tacticsandstrategy.pdf


If they attack, we shall fight to the end. If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression. But we haven’t got them, so we shall fight with what we’ve got.
Statement in an interview with a reporter for the London Daily Worker (November 1962), as quoted in Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara (1998), by Jorge G. Castaneda, p. 231, 1st Vintage Books ISBN 0679759409


Right, as I said.

"If they attack", and "will imperialism (create a nuclear holocaust)? We cannot say", etc. All those quotes illustrate that it was a contextual statement meant to show purpose and resilience in the ideal of constructing a socialist society despite the fact that the horrors of a nuclear confrontation instigated by the brutality of imperialism might be a very real future for the world. It's creepy and sounds a bit zealous, but considering the time period and the way Che demonstrated compassion and reason throughout his military and political ventures, I think we can conclude that Che wasn't egging on a nuke-happy showdown just so he could build some reborn utopia.

[CHE with an AK]

serious about racial and social and economic justice, but the Cubans, for the most part are very serious.
Che was constantly commenting on the unfair state of black Americans and concerned with the way imperialism was oppressing the blacks of Africa. This is why the idiotic shit-kicking right-wingers attack him as being "racist" (they always dishonestly attack where they think we are strongest). During the revolution his units were filled with afro-Cubans, while his own personal bodyguard 'Pombo' went with him everywhere - even to Bolivia. In 1961 Che called out the KKK in America and then in Cuba introduced affirmative action to the universities. While announcing this new commitment, Guevara told the mostly white faculty and students at the University of Las Villas that the days when education was "a privilege of the white middle class" had ended, and that "the University must paint itself black, mulatto, worker, and peasant." If it didn’t, Che warned, the people would break down its doors "and paint the University the colors they like."

Then on December 11, 1964 before the U.N. Che called out the U.S. for their treatment of blacks:


"Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men—how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?”

Denounced South African apartheid, months before he would actualy go to the Congo with an all black army and fight white South African mercenaries and CIA paid exile gusanos:


"Once again we speak out to put the world on guard against what is happening in South Africa. The brutal policy of apartheid is applied before the eyes of the nations of the world. The peoples of Africa are compelled to endure the fact that on the African continent the superiority of one race over another remains official policy, and that in the name of this racial superiority murder is committed with impunity. Can the United Nations do nothing to stop this?


And rebuked the U.N. for the murder of Patrice Lumumba:


"And that is why those who used the name of the United Nations to commit the murder of Lumumba are today, in the name of the defense of the white race, murdering thousands of Congolese. How can we forget the betrayal of the hope that Patrice Lumumba placed in the United Nations?"


http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/12/11.htm


I wish I could have been there to see the looks on the imperialist nations and their puppets faces! :che:




Che Guevara’s speech to the UN amazed me.
Che ending his address by reciting the poetic words of the Second Declaration of Havana, is probably the most powerful words ever spoken from the U.N. podium:


"No nation in Latin America is weak — because each forms part of a family of 200 million brothers, who suffer the same miseries, who harbor the same sentiments, who have the same enemy, who dream about the same better future, and who count upon the solidarity of all honest men and women throughout the world.


This epic before us is going to be written by the hungry Indian masses, the peasants without land, the exploited workers. It is going to be written by the progressive masses, the honest and brilliant intellectuals, who so greatly abound in our suffering Latin American lands. Struggles of masses and ideas. An epic that will be carried forward by our peoples, mistreated and scorned by imperialism; our people, unreckoned with until today, who are now beginning to shake off their slumber. Imperialism considered us a weak and submissive flock; and now it begins to be terrified of that flock; a gigantic flock of 200 million Latin Americans in whom Yankee monopoly capitalism now sees its gravediggers.


But now from one end of the continent to the other they are signaling with clarity that the hour has come — the hour of their vindication. Now this anonymous mass, this America of color, somber, taciturn America, which all over the continent sings with the same sadness and disillusionment, now this mass is beginning to enter definitively into its own history, is beginning to write it with its own blood, is beginning to suffer and die for it.


Because now in the mountains and fields of America, on its flatlands and in its jungles, in the wilderness or in the traffic of cities, on the banks of its great oceans or rivers, this world is beginning to tremble. Anxious hands are stretched forth, ready to die for what is theirs, to win those rights that were laughed at by one and all for 500 years. Yes, now history will have to take the poor of America into account, the exploited and spurned of America, who have decided to begin writing their history for themselves for all time. Already they can be seen on the roads, on foot, day after day, in endless march of hundreds of kilometers to the governmental “eminences,” there to obtain their rights.


Already they can be seen armed with stones, sticks, machetes, in one direction and another, each day, occupying lands, sinking hooks into the land that belongs to them and defending it with their lives. They can be seen carrying signs, slogans, flags; letting them flap in the mountain or prairie winds. And the wave of anger, of demands for justice, of claims for rights trampled underfoot, which is beginning to sweep the lands of Latin America, will not stop. That wave will swell with every passing day. For that wave is composed of the greatest number, the majorities in every respect, those whose labor amasses the wealth and turns the wheels of history. Now they are awakening from the long, brutalizing sleep to which they had been subjected.


For this great mass of humanity has said, “Enough!” and has begun to march. And their march of giants will not be halted until they conquer true independence — for which they have vainly died more than once. Today, however, those who die will die like the Cubans at Playa Girón. They will die for their own true and never-to-be-surrendered independence."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/12/11.htm




I had no idea someone would even be allowed to give a speech like that at the UN.

Don't forget that two exile gusanos tried to murder Che when he came to speak at the U.N.. The first was a woman Molly Gonzales who tried to break through barricades upon his arrival with a seven-inch hunting knife, and later during Che's impassioned address, the exile terrorist Guillermo Novo shot a timer-initiated bazooka from a boat in the East River at the United Nations Headquarters (which hit off target). So ironically, Cuban exiles could have attacked the U.N. long before Bin Laden.

I love how Che responded though with his usual sardonic style. Afterwards, Guevara stated that "it is better to be killed by a woman with a knife than by a man with a gun", while adding with a languid wave of his cigar that the explosion had "given the whole thing more flavor."

While in New York City, Che also appeared on the CBS Sunday news program Face the Nation (I have seen excerpts but would love to find the whole thing).

[CHE with an AK]

Lenin, awesome speeches.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/x1.gif
“Where the hell was YouTube in 1917?”




I am always surprised when I see anti-racist, anti-elitist, old Soviet propaganda cartoons, and how I hear that Africans composed a good number of the students in the USSR back in the 40s and 50s!
I love how when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in U.S. baseball, the only people who covered it at first and gave it support were the Communist Parties. Now, the capitalists hold him up as a trail blazer – without mentioning that it was the “Commies” who argued for him being allowed to play.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I just love the irony that a user named after the Cuban Revolution's liberation yacht, is annoyed at a mostly Fidel & Che thread.


It's not ironic. I am a big fan of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution. I'm just not a fan of celebrating things that aren't worthy, as some have done by defending modern Cuba.

[Volcanicity]

Alongside Lenin,Trotsky and Che I would include Thomas Sankara who resembled Che in many ways even down to having the same kind of charismatic presence.

DfzoToJEnu8

9VZEkURD9oI

From Sankara's speech on women's emancipation:

"The human being,this vast and complex combination of pain and joy, solitary and forsaken, yet creator of all humanity, suffering, frustrated and humiliated, and yet endless source of happiness for each one of us, this source of affection beyond compare, inspiring the most unexpected courage, this being called weak but possessing untold ability to inspire us to take the road of honor, this being of flesh and blood and of spiritual conviction - this being women, is you.

You are our mothers, life companions, our comrades in struggle and because of this fact you should by right affirm yourselves as equal partners in the joyful victory feasts of the revolution. We must restore to humanity your true image by making the reign of freedom prevail over differentiations imposed by nature and by eliminating all kinds of hypocrisy that sustain the shameless exploitation of women."

A good article about Sankara's speech on the emancipation of women:http://www.thomassankara.net/spip.php?article269&lang=fr

[danyboy27]

(1) Which self-declared anarchist/communist/socialist/Marxist leader do you believe was/is the best orator before a crowd?

dosnt it really matter?





(2) Is it important to have a good/firey/moving speaker to help organize and galvanize the masses in your opinion?

I believe a collective of good individuals appealing to many groups within society would be more appropriate.




(3) Does the revolution need a "mouthpiece" or person who can articulate the views of what the revolution hopes to accomplish?
- If so, how should that person be chosen in your view?
- If not, then how do you keep reactionaries from speaking for or misrepresenting the revolution?

i think a mouthpiece make the whole thing relatively instable, an organisation is perfectly capable trought a collective to express clearly a wide range of idea and unlikely to be vulnerable to this whole god complex.

Reactionary idea are spread out, no matter how good a mouthpiece is.
having a wide range of idea is the best way to fight it.



(4) What is the largest rally/speech by a leftist leader that you have ever attended? How was it?

a protest against the israeli attack on lebannon. didnt really liked it, i prefers quiet and rational discussion with a fews invididual, not a big fan or rally or big protest in general.

[CHE with an AK]

i prefers quiet and rational discussion with a fews invididual, not a big fan or rally or big protest in general.
So a "living room revolution"? :confused:

Revolutions in themselves are large public collective actions.

And what is wrong with workers expressing their collective rage at their oppression? The rally let's you know that you are not alone - and that we really do surround them.

[Fulanito de Tal]

So a "living room revolution"? :confused:

Revolutions in themselves are large public collective actions.

And what is wrong with workers expressing their collective rage at their oppression? The rally let's you know that you are not alone - and that we really do surround them.


According to Tilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tilly) social movements need WUNC displays.


Participants' concerted public representations of worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment (WUNC) on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies: call them WUNC displays.[/URL]

Worthiness: sober demeanor; neat clothing; presence of clergy, dignitaries, and mothers with children.
Unity: matching badges, headbands, banners, or costumes; marching in ranks; singing and chanting
Numbers: headcounts, signatures on petitions, messages from constituents, filling streets
Commitment: braving bad weather; visible participation by the old and handicapped; resistance to repression; ostentatious sacrifice, subscription, and/or benefaction.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tilly#cite_note-Social_Movements_elements-7"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tilly#cite_note-Social_Movements_elements-7)

[danyboy27]

So a "living room revolution"? :confused:

Revolutions in themselves are large public collective actions.

And what is wrong with workers expressing their collective rage at their oppression? The rally let's you know that you are not alone - and that we really do surround them.

there is really nothing wrong with a mass of people getting together for political reasons, its just that personally, i dont like it, i dont feel like i am in control of the situation, its scary has hell.

going back to the main topic, i think there are inherent risk to to ask to some charismatic person to carry the message, its just too much power in the hand of a single person, and its such a responsability. if anything goes wrong,people will criticize the leader or simply discard the problems beccause they love the leader, in both case it avoid rational criticism to be made about the ideology/political system.

we must go beyond that primitive way of doing things, it failed us so many time in the past, i really dont see why we should perpetuate something that just dosnt work in the long run.

[Die Rote Fahne]

aR5rNUWWpY4

I really think Mumia abu-Jamal, given the Chance, would be a great speaker to the masses. He's intelligent, and he can deliver, and his voice...I just like it.

Also, love him, or lump him, George Galloway is a fantastic orator.

r0XaMwYqwKc

[RadioRaheem84]

Michael Parenti is really good too.