pacifist waste of space?

[Kez]

is it me or is this forum turning into the most pacifist waste of space ever? where have the more militant members gone?
i'll tell u where, they are out actually doing summit, rather than writing like 300 friggin posts on some damed bb.
Anyone here think che was a pacifist? if u do, then ur wrong and u should start educating yourselves.
If che was around he would be disgusted at the level of inactivity in his name
*shakes head in disgusts, and realises some idiots are gonna give himgrief coz they are gonna get pissed off with the truth,and ur gonna whinge like 4 year olds.

I visited the che-site when it was called http://cometo.cheguevara and it was good and militant at the time, and still the website is, but the people who are using this forum have little or no effect in society, bar maybe 3, redceltic comes to mind.

comrade kamo

[Valkyrie]

I agree, In general the movement seems to have taken on a pacified lackadaisial turn from the militancy it had in the 60's and 70's. The more young and idealistic believe in educating the masses and changing policy and laws through legislature; generally as time goes by and they see little effect or any substanial changes or gains - they change their stand pretty darn quick.

Militancy does not neccessarily propose using violence as much as direct action. A stubborn hardline revolt can do much to break down the capitalist system, without so much as a drop of blood being shed.

[CommieBastard]

Hey, i agree with militancy, but I'm far too young to do anything. Or rather, i could do something, but i'd rather wait 5 years to finish my education, so that i can actually do anything in the improved society.

If i was older i'd be joining the EZLN right now...

[Kez]

CommieBastard,i thought ud left but anyway, good to see ur back,
im 16, and i beleive that militancy is not violence, but is actions taken. For example, one of my militant acts is to not buy nike, or adidas or shit like that. another act can be to go to mayday2002,or to spread leaflets spewing the revolution. i really wouldnt take up arms unless i or my family were supressed.

comrade kamo

[RedCeltic]

" one of my militant acts is to not buy nike, or adidas or shit like that. another act can be to go to mayday2002,or to spread leaflets spewing the revolution. "

But, Isn't that just activism? I mean, I'm an activist... I kind of call myself a pacifist... but understand that mostly that's because my countery has a long history of sticking it's nose in where it shoudn't. Here's a protest I went to earlier this year... I'm not in any of the shots, but.. well you get the idea.

http://sp-usa.org/photos/nyc_womensday.html

Is that what you call militant? I always called it Activist, whatever... your right, people need to get out in the street... Mayday 2002 is a good time for that people should start to think now about about organising, or attending rallies.

Of course, if not at all possible... just make sure your in red.

In Solidarity,

RedCeltic.




(Edited by RedCeltic at 7:59 pm on Nov. 16, 2001)

[Valkyrie]

Red Celtic, I have read that you served in some capacity for the US military. Has your views on pacifism been shaped by that expeirence. A hypothetical question I have, (you don't have to answer, I am just curious) is if while you were seving you were called to war, what would you have done?

[RedCeltic]

That's a good Question... odd no one has asked me that until now.

Yes I served four years in the US Navy. Surely I never called myself a Pascifist before that.

It's truly hard for anyone to say they are a "True" pascifist. It takes deep reflection... and to this day, I just don't truly know. ( that's about as honest about that as I can be)

As for what I saw in the Miltery, It does have a bearing on how I am against the Militery... but there isn't any goary details to tell, because that's mostly about money.

So the point is, I've called myself a pascifist, manly because I'm against over spending on the Military and against military actions the US has been involved in.

One can hardly call me a convicted pacifist however, and can see that at times there may be no other option.

Anyway, I did see a few people die, but they where all in accedents. Probobly the most horrific site I've ever seen was an officer backing up into an airplane prop.

[pce]

kamo, what did che achieve with his militancy? he helped put an egotistical dictator in power (granted he is better than most dictators, he is still a dictator and doesn't allow democracy). it is not che's militancy that i follow, i follow his integrity and ideals. i don't do anything in che's name. che wasn't a saint, he wasn't always right.

[pce]

"writing like 300 friggin posts on some damed bb. "

by the way, it looks like you're piling up on the posts as well with 126....hmm...and that's in about a month....

[Kez]

i like to think that im active and i can be militant when i want.
ive had a few bashins with racists in my school and well and truly i came out victorious with a record of breakin 2 noses in one day, (SMUG FACE)
however i intend to go to mayday 2002 as i did in 2001, and i am always looking to find some decent revolutionary flyers i can spread in around my town. i also intend to spray the new mcdonalds which has landed here, motherfuckers

in regard to all my posts, i mostly do those when i come home from school where i can chill and unwind while flaming the revolutionary fire.

comrade kamo
ps if anyone knows any good sites where good posters can be downloaded and spewed please post here

theres a really good anti-american govt guy who is himself american, ill just get the url
http://www.unamerican.com/propagnda/index.htm

enjoy

[CommieBastard]

I do all that shit.
But i wouldn't take up arms except in defence of myself or others. (any others, they dont have to be related)
A moral way to bring about revolution in a developed country is to set up an alternative community and system in an area, and have weaponry with which to defend that community if some bastard comes to fuck it.

However, i would much rather fight in the less-developed countries, where the fight is easier, as the tyrants are much less subtle in their actions.


And PCE, about Castro, why is his undemocratic regime any worse than the undemocratic regime run by the company bosses in the USA?

Cuba doesn't have democracy, but neither does anywhere else.

[pce]

the u.s. has a democracy. it may be biased but it is there. in cuba, there is absolutely NO democracy what-so-ever.

[RedCeltic]

The US does not have a 'True Democracy' because rather than canditates elected by the people they are elceted through an electoral collage. This is how cowboys like GW become president.

But... PCE is correct. It is a form of democracy, even though it isn't pure, it's one of the founding pricipals of the republic. Before the establishment of the US Govt. there was none (except in Ancient Greece)

And Cuba regardless of what you think of Castro... he's a dictator.

[Kez]

Surely cuba is a proleriat (sp) dictatorship in which case there is no need for democracy
screw USA's "democracy", there should be rule that states that candidates can only spend lets say $5000000 on the election campaign as to let others have a chance.

comrade kamo

[RedCeltic]

Screw Democracy? Child, that is one of the major priciples I belive in.. .need I say again I'm a "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST" I'm as much against a non democratic govt. as I am against capitalism.

[Kez]

i am against the usa's definatition of democracy

[vox]

Actually, it kinds of begs the question can there be such a thing as undemocratic socialism? I think that without democracy, we're left with the kind of authoritarian collectivism of the USSR, which was antithetical to the very foundation of socialism.

vox

[RedCeltic]

"i am against the usa's definatition of democracy"

That's a better statement. So am I.

[CommieBastard]

The USA is not in the least democratic.
Democracy requires some form of involvement of the people in the decision making and legislative processes.
Purists would say that only Direct democracy can achieve that.
Some would say that Representative democracy is adequate for that.
But either way, the USA doesnt have either Representative or Direct Democracy. It has fuck all. The rulers of the USA may as well be random, cos hell, thats what they are.
They're put in place by the corporations, and once in place, controlled by the corporations. politicans in the USA are worse even than here. The US politicians do nothing at all and just get by off bribes from corporations.

THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN THE US.

For a start, for the people to actually be involved via representative democracy, they have to be capable of rational unbiased decisions. Are the US people capable of that? NOPE the Media controls them. They are puppets, robots (speaking about the majority here, not all).

THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN THE USA.

[Kez]

roars in apllause for commieB's enlightening speech

DOWN WITH USA DOWN WITH USA

hehe
comrade kamo

[Guest]

I agree with commie bastard entirely. I too would go to Mexico and join the EZLN if I was old enough for it to be logical. Also, pacifism can only work when violence is necessary, although a lot of pacifists don't seem to want to do anything.

[CommieBastard]

Also, a further note which i sent to RC in private, but which i think should be here too because it raises some more points, and some of the other ones a bit more coherently:

1. the USA has democracy to no degree whatsoever by any ACTUAL definition of democracy....
just because they claim to be something, doesnt make them some kind of very specialised version of it. Just like Stalinism ISNT communism, even though it claimed to be.

2. indubitably, for democracy is by definition a system in which there is participation by the people in the legislative process (be this directly or though directly proportional representatives) and in which the majority of people (not the majority of wealth) has rule

3. in an absolutely true democracy in which the people instead of the wealth had rule, wealth would quickly become equalised (not necesarily totally though), because the majority of people would want to get the majority of the wealth...

4. in politics we had 14 different measures of democracy.
unfortunately with my bad organisational skills ive lsot the notes...
but anyway, the US passed on one of them, the UK on two...
on all the rest they were either complete failures, or quite bad at it...

and that's it i suppose...
i will try and dig up those 14 measures, but as i said, my organisation is crap and they could be bloody anywhere...

[gooddoctor]

i think it's disgusting to hear people talk of more violence, especially those who were in london yesterday. you are traitors to the cause and had no place there. self-defence is permissible for those whose lives are directly threatened, such as in mexico and columbia, but that is not the case here. i'm a pacifist mainly for moral reasons, but also because it is the best and only way forward for the anti-capitalist movement in the west. we are fighting a war, and like any other war, you must concentrate on the battle in hand, think of how to win, and not get carried away by your emotions. to hear people equating violence with militancy makes me fucking angry. show me what you and your violence has done for the cause. violence is what has destroyed socialism and is the weapon of power politicians and imperialists. you don't even belong to fucking parties, you're unorganised, so who the fuck are you to tell the rest of us how to conduct the movement?! you'll destroy it for everyone just like the little stalinist fascists you are. you are no comrades of mine or any other socialists i know.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 5:43 pm on Nov. 19, 2001)

[CommieBastard]

wtf?
whose that even directed at?

[Kez]

gooddoctor,
although i respect many of your views, i really do have to say that you also must respect other peoples views, if you knew everything, then there would be no need for you to, but as you dont, then maybe you can learn off others, and maybe you are not always correct

comrade kamo

[CommieBastard]

yes, gooddoctor seems to be suffering from one of the many diseases of the western 'democrats' mind, which is that he claims he is all for democracy and free speech and then denounces the right to opinion and representation of those more extreme than him...

Destroy democracy in order to protect it?
nothing but a fat cat excuse to harbour power in their own pockets, my friend....

[Anonymous]

Greetings everyone, im going to take this from the top. Kamo in your frist post you call for militancy and speak of the uselessness of the pacifists and there views. A few posts later when pce says you post here alot too you describe as proof of your militancy violente and truly useless actions like fucking up nazi noses and mcdonads. This troubles me, if by militancy you mean useless violence you are wrong. on this topic just one more thing: you dont really know what ppl do out side this forum so please dont make such statements. Other actions you described i can agree with, namely going to protests and spreading your beliefs around.

to all that say US has no democracy what so ever i dont think i cant agree. Although i am no friend of yankees and there actions i think we must be rational and true about this. They do have some form of democracy, not enof for sure but something. i consider the best examples of democracy to be located in europe and the worst example of the western world to be america. But there are worse examples like the corrupt "democratic" goverments in some developing nations that rob the people and the contry blind, its all good as long as they dont step on the toes of the other robber , the US and europe, that way they can all rob in peace. the solution to this however i not a proletariat dictatorship, i wonder how much money fidel has... the problem is not democracy but rather the lack of it. Still, on the analises of US democracy deficiencies we have two problems that stand out concerning the political system it self and one concerning society in general that has political implications.

political problems are the lack of universal sufrage and bipartisan assembly. Universal suffrage is a much more just and justifiable way for goverments to be elected simply because it is more representative thus representative democracy will work better. This will also allow the yankee assembly or congress orr senate or whatever to has as much parties as get enof votes to get seats giving minorities a say in how the contry is run rather than excluding minorities alltogether.

the social problem is very easy to identify and realise its political implications. It is propaganda.


these are problems that must be fixed by people like red celtic and vox trough activism like theres: joining a party and being militante there not fucking up mcdonalds.

and vox about dictatorship being the anittheses of socialism/left i couldnt agree more. this is one of the very importante things many people dont understand, both in the left and in the right.

(Edited by El_Che at 1:54 am on Nov. 21, 2001)

[pce]

el_che, i agree with your points about democracy in the u.s. i was wondering which countries in europe you regard as having a better democracy than the u.s. and also why. i really want to know, i'm not trying to disprove you or anything.

[RedCeltic]

I don't think (at least I hope not) that Gooddoctor was directing that at anyone but voicing his opinions, which I share. He also has a right to voice his opinions. I agree it was a bit too heated.... but I understand his fustration.


They do have some form of democracy, not enof for sure but something. i consider the best examples of democracy to be located in europe and the worst example of the western world to be america.

Now this is a statement I can whole heartedly agree with. Representitive Democracy is not real democracy... but before there was such a thing as the US... there was none at all.

It may not be a good system, and in fact it isn't, as one can see it has efectivly kept socialism low key in the US.

It the US had more of an efective democracy, things would have been quite diffrent in the days of Eugene V. Debs. For one thing, he would have actually been seen as "Electable"... just think of how many people who would have voted for him, but voted with their fears.

Also to comment on what PCE said...

i'm not trying to disprove you or anything.

Understand that we are all egaliterians here, an are only stating opinions. I probobly have a false idea of what democracy is myself... no one is right or wrong... The how you interpet a word is very much subject to opinion.



(Edited by RedCeltic at 9:41 pm on Nov. 20, 2001)

[Nickademus]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 3:28 am on Nov. 21, 2001


Also to comment on what PCE said...

i'm not trying to disprove you or anything.

Understand that we are all egaliterians here, an are only stating opinions. I probobly have a false idea of what democracy is myself... no one is right or wrong... The how you interpet a word is very much subject to opinion.


pce i get the same problem now. I feel like i have to tell people when i'm being argumentative and when i'm just curious. i've actually felt the need in a couple of my posts to say that i'm not trying to be superior or anything.

perhaps this is a result of the huge influx of new members lately. goddess there are so many members now. and i've defiantely slipped when it comes to posts (believe it or not at one point i was actually very close to redceltic in the number of posts)

but what i'm trying to say is that i understand where you are coming from.

(btw pce how did that paper or article that i looked at turn out?)

[pce]

nickademus, i turned it in and have written more since on different subjects as well as submitting political cartoons. however i doubt anyone even read any of them because no one reads our school newspaper. most of it is filled with school spirit crap and thoughtless articles which really makes me mad. whenever i say anything people think i'm putting others down. but i'm not, i just want us to produce a newspaper that people want to read...oh well, such is life

[Nickademus]

i hate to sound like i'm an agist but i think it has a lot to do with age. very few people are fortunate enough to care about things such as politics at your age

[Nickademus]

i really do comend all of you on this board who are so political and yet so young

[Anonymous]

quote from pce
i was wondering which countries in europe you regard as having a better democracy than the u.s. and also why.

IMO it is for several reasons, some might think this is tipical europian snobism but i feel that europe is socialy more advanced that US although it is not as economicaly or militarily as powerfull it has a social and cultural advantage. Europe is a paradise as my parents say, and i feel i must agree, i also must recognise it like the US europe has the condictions it has because it lives on the back of the rest of the world. There is also an alternative and very personal reason why i think europe`s democracy is more active: the left is europe is much more active. It was in europe that Comunism/Socialism was born, france almost had a revolution in the days of the paris comune, spanish revolution failed because of fashists Stalin and franco, portugal rebeled against Salazar and almost became comunism in fact colectivism was practiced in alemteijo for several years, in germany and england there were movements like this but with less expression. So what ? well although those days are long gone the fact is the the left is more active and i my opinion is making a come back in europe. Also the left center europian parties and very very differente in there social policies for the "democracts"...

Now all this a side there are more objective reasons. Those being: the prime minister type goverment as oposed to the presedencial system of the US, its more like and elected monarc if you ask me, one man has to much power and as a result very time you elect a new presidente the direction of your goverment can sometimes shift the policies 180º, in our sistem the head of state has almost no power the person with more power is not the presidente but the prime minister that is kind of an organiser and "leader" of the 12 or so ministers each minister takes care of one area alone, sure some times if another party is elected things do change but its more about party values than one mans carisma or whatever; we elect trough universal suffrage and thus there is no bipartisan parliament but a truly representative one. As an example of how this works i can speak to you about my contry. Portuguese assembly of the republic has to give its ok to every major law, its composition is 50% socialist part about 30% social democrats 10%popular party 8%comunist party and 2% left block party or maybe its 1% left block because they only has 2 seats (they are my party:) ). Now if socialist party (the party in goverment) wants to pass a law or bill for you yankees, they have to make deals with the rest of the parties because they dont have house majority, this means that even left block can have its ideas implemented because it can trade that for its aproval. As you can see the minories in such a sistem dont have the real power but can make little changes and can voice there opinions with equal time as the rest of the members of the house. Votes are made on a party and what it proposes rather than on a man. What this avoids is things like ppl voting for bush because they think al gore is a stiffy has no personality etc...

and i dont get upset if ppl disagree with me... :)

[Guest1]

Going back to the first subject this thread touched on, I'm not sure why we're being judged. Each person does what he can. I've been going to as many demonstrations as I can, I'll go to mayday, I'll go to the next world trade conference and I'll probably join a party soon. I post here because I don't think I'm perfect. I like to get exposed to what the rest of the left is thinking, to see what many people are doing and to have someone who to have an intelligent conversation with who doesn't say "I'm primarily a Socialist, but believe Capitalism is a brilliant system" (my economics teacher - wtf) or "I don't think the injustices you speak of happen anymore, Capitalism no longer is a wealthy vs. poor system".

As for democracy, I do believe American non-democracy is better than third world democracy. In Egypt, there are Presidential elections, it's completely democra - well, not quite, only the president is allowed on the ballot by law. In Canada, we have something that is still not democracy, but closer to it. We actually have 5 parties in parliament. The NDP, soon to be SDP, is most likely going to over-take the conservative party, getting at least fourth place in the next elections, possibly third as it will most likely over-take the Bloc Quebecois (nationalist French-Canadian party). The Canadian Alliance, currently second, will fall apart. I'm not that optimistic, they won't make second, but it's a start. The not-so-liberal-not-so-left-wing Liberals will most likely remain in power though.

[RedCeltic]

i hate to sound like i'm an agist but i think it has a lot to do with age. very few people are fortunate enough to care about things such as politics at your age

In America, (at least where I live) the majority of people don't care about politics period... even at my age.

[CommieBastard]

I refuse to accept that America is democratic. In my politics course we have done several different ways in which democracy can be defined, the US simply does not come close to democracy.
Democracy is where the majority of people have rule. FULL STOP. If the majority of people don't have rule, then it isn't democracy. Now, in such countries as yours el che, you might be able to argue that the majority of people get their say through their representatives. I would disagree, but at least there is some basis for the argument. In the US, and also notably in the UK, which has all the flaws you identified of the US, there simply is NO democracy. It is the majority of wealth that rules. It is corporation interest. And i don't mean in bribes or anything, the system is inherently built in a way that such people have power.
I would go over all the criticisms of US democracy, but i think i already listed all the major ones.
Oh yeah, in my politics course there were 14 different criteria a democratic system had to meet before it could define itself as democratic. Now, the US met one of them, the UK met 2, but on all the others they were severely lacking. I would get them all out, but my organisational skills are very poor, so i don't have a clue where ANY of my notes are...
push me on this one, and i may just go looking, but then again, im lazy, so i may not...

[pce]

PUSH

[Guest1]

Get it, get it, get it, get it. I would be interested in seeing it, actually (just curious, not to counter because I agree with you).

[gooddoctor]

sorry about my little outburst earlier. it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but just a venting of frustration with people's inability to recognise the possibility of resolving our conflicts without actually killing anyone. it is possible! coming home off the back of the london anti-war protest to find a thread which attempts not only to undermine the effectiveness of non-violent direct action like london and the protest rounds (which i firmly adhere to) and advocates violence, but implies that there is no room for it in today's movement (apparently though maybe not actually), was a tad too much for me. to all those who disagree, tell me, if violent revolution ever happened, who or what exactly would we be attacking? i can't think of anything physical i want to destroy, i thought socialism was supposed to be about creating.

observe the consequences of the indiscriminate application of violence in the slaughter of innocent afghanis, the death of carlo giuliani in genoa and the black bloc who destroyed that macdonalds at london m1 2000, or the stalemate and corruption in columbia. both sides are guilty of using force and it has gotten each nowhere, only added to the cycle of violence. we must break this self-destructive tradition for the greater good. all organised violence is caused by capitalism, and i for one refuse to stoop to their level.

also, whilst i recognise the short-term efficacy of violent revolution to bring about peace and social justice, its implications are disastrous for international economic and political integration and democracy in the long run. in times of political crisis you cannot ignore the rule of law. to cite a topical example, this is exactly what blunkett is doing with his authoritarian anti-terrorist bill. it derogates and is in contravention of the european convention on human rights and the most basic of british law and that is why it will fail to make it through the lords (if there's any justice in the world). similarly, when socialism succeeds in replacing the entire capitalist system, from the beginning of the revolution it must observe the rule of law and democracy in order to stand up to attacks against its legitimacy. after all, that is why we have come out into the streets, because capitalism holds both international law and the most basic of human rights in contempt, so we must fight for stronger law and order. that means observing it ourselves.

our greatest stregnth is in our integrity - we must assume the moral highground on all fronts if we are to succeed. in transcending the imperialist's tendancy to resort to violence every time someone questions the regime (the only option left to them when faced with crisis since the social injustice caused by capitalism cannot be rectified under neo-liberal, rationalist economics) we prove that we will not be pawns in any imperialist power plays. we are the people and must not be drawn into the futile violence of the capitalist regime which is waged against our interests. first and foremost the revolutionary vanguard, the only legitimate representative of society, is for the people, and people need peace before they can be free to live their lives. it's up to us to give it to them, under capitalism or socialism, not take it away.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 5:28 pm on Nov. 27, 2001)