Should we give the example?

[Don't Change Your Name]

That's the most important debate we have.

Once we figure out how to fight victory will be ours.

Some leftists think we need to kill all the capitalists and fascists (with a war, for example, even if it goes against some of our principles). Others want to fight through "democracy" (voting a leftist party, which as we know is usually worthless and impossible with capitalism ruling the world). Others just want to make people protests (by syndicates, demonstrations, direct action, waiting for a capitalist crisis). Others want to educate the masses for a revolution (however the system doesnt really give us chances to do so).
So what should we do? If we start a war against the right-wing bastards we will be seen as a bunch of murderers (this will especially be shown by the capitalist media) and it will go against the paficist ideals many leftists have, and we would lose against the yanqui imperialism. But if we try a peaceful way there is a bigger chance of being ignored/murdered, losing and theres a chance that certain fascist groups will kill any leftist they see if we do this on a big scale.

How should we face the bastards??? That's our problem. Does the end justify the means? Should we start thinking about taking extremist measures? Or should we find more peaceful alternatives to change the world forever?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I say all of the above. Do anything and everything that you can. Vote, fight, protest, all measures are justified. I would say, do all three, but make everyone think that three different groups are doing this, even though they are just one organization with a lot of behind-the-curtains planning to mislead the public into thinking that only the fighters are the "terrorists" even though they are only doing the dirty work of the other two.

[Al Creed]

Personally, I prefer bloodless reform and revolution, through democracy and the spread of such revolutionary ideas through print and word of mouth.

Why erdaicate, when you can educate?

However, if there is NO other alternative left (basically, when push comes to shove) but violence, then, and only then, do I condone bloody revolution.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think any revolution, whatever form it may take, will have to start in the third world. Once the people of the third world refuse to be exploited any futher western capitalism will collapse.

[Kez]

The only thing is to get the masses onside, once this is done it doesnt matter what media says.

Therefore we must be everywhere the masses are, in the universities, the trade unions, the party with mass of workers etc

[toastedmonkey]

I agree with Misodoctakleidist, third world it is.

I think a method like Castro and Che employed in cuba, would probably be best

[@[email protected]@]

Perhaps, we should initiate a movement: Let the American soldiers go home crosses the Christmas day?

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 04:07 PM
I agree with Misodoctakleidist, third world it is.

I think a method like Castro and Che employed in cuba, would probably be best
how about the Mohandas-Ghandi-way? :)

[@[email protected]@]

BOY, REVL! :hammer:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Unfortunately, most right-wingers would be quite satisified locking us up, and if that didn't work, you could always "crack-down" and start sending them to labor camps and execution squads.

[Xuix]

I think we should start a world wide revolution, get every leftist person or group you know and ban them together. Like the earlier post stated, we could make the cappies think its more than one group and the different "Branches" of that one group could do different things. Depending on which country you live in you can make it a world wide thing, than it won't be ignored. World wide revolution? doesn't sound bad does it?

[Hooverfox]

I think Misodoctakleidist is right when he says that the third world is where it would need to happen. Its about the only place left on earth thats not been totally taken over by capatilism.

[Hawker]

I suggest a peaceful mean at first,then once we have educated the masses,then we can attack,but there is always the coporate media which will always dwindle the people on our side who we have educated.I suggest if their going to fight with propaganda then I say let us fight with propaganda.I say that we make our own news network,that will hack into satellites and broadcast our message around the world,but it's going to take some skilled communist hackers to do it.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 04:58 AM
Why erdaicate, when you can educate?
Why educate when you can eradicate?


P.S. some people will never change their views

[Soviet power supreme]

I really doubt that communism is achieved by parliamentism in western countries.The people are usually poor(workers,students) to run for the post and pro-cappie parties get their money from big companies.The ones who run election from

[guest#34]

Soviet
"I really doubt that communism is achieved by parliamentism in western countries"
But doesnt marxism/maoism/leninism require a revolution?

[Soviet power supreme]

Yes they need a revolution.What I meant that we cant achieve communism here in western countries by voting the communists in parliament.In my country(Finland) there are no true communists in parliament because they cant compete against the pro cappie canditates.

[guest#34]

Soviet
"What I meant that we cant achieve communism here in western countries by voting the communists in parliament"
why not start a revolution in finland? what's gonna stop u? in the u$, it's completely different, theres a large well equipped military that belongs to the U$, not to mention the CIA...

[ComradeRed]

BuyOurEverything, I completely agree with you on revolution; however, remember the CIA/FBI bastards quelling communist revolutions left and right. In central America they quell fruit market revolutions for better wages without a second thought. We need to do something fast, or else america will take more of the world.

[suffianr]

So what should we do? If we start a war against the right-wing bastards we will be seen as a bunch of murderers (this will especially be shown by the capitalist media) and it will go against the paficist ideals many leftists have, and we would lose against the yanqui imperialism. But if we try a peaceful way there is a bigger chance of being ignored/murdered, losing and theres a chance that certain fascist groups will kill any leftist they see if we do this on a big scale.

The problem is, right-wingers aren't born, but made.

How many do you kill before it's enough? Half of them? All of them?

The only way is to deconstruct the capitalist's way of life, not destruction of a group of people or their ideals. You can't kill ideals. True, you can kill people, but when is enough enough?

[ComradeRed]

Comrade suffianr has a point, you can never destroy ideals. We have to look at the schools of imperial america, they are telling them communism is bad, with no proof. Imperialism is bad if and only if the nation is not the U$A. We need to change this.

[Soviet power supreme]

why not start a revolution in finland? what's gonna stop u? in the u$, it's completely different, theres a large well equipped military that belongs to the U$, not to mention the CIA...

Well there isnt relly exploited working class in Finland.Well yes it is but workers are not in that position that they would start bloody revoulution.

[Domino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 12:44 AM
We have to look at the schools of imperial america, they are telling them communism is bad
I hear you, comrade. Here in Mexico the monographies that kids buy for school (you know, those papers with drawings and descriptions of certain animals, important people, wars, etc.) teach them that the EZLN is a group of terrorists. :blink:

I don't think we can change the cappie pigs, but we should try to change the young ones that are the ones that will be in charge of the world in the future. I certainly don't know how that can be achieved, the only way I really can think of is armed revolution.

[ComradeRed]

soviet
not all revolutions are violent

[FistFullOfSteel]

First of all,very good tread


But if we do revolution,Can we forbid Capitalism partys?Or should we be called "no-free land" etc then?

[FistFullOfSteel]

Originally posted by tetelives+Dec 27 2003, 05:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tetelives @ Dec 27 2003, 05:21 AM)
[email protected] 26 2003, 12:44 AM
We have to look at the schools of imperial america, they are telling them communism is bad
I hear you, comrade. Here in Mexico the monographies that kids buy for school (you know, those papers with drawings and descriptions of certain animals, important people, wars, etc.) teach them that the EZLN is a group of terrorists. :blink:

I don&#39;t think we can change the cappie pigs, but we should try to change the young ones that are the ones that will be in charge of the world in the future. I certainly don&#39;t know how that can be achieved, the only way I really can think of is armed revolution. [/b]
teach them the commie way.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 08:09 AM
soviet
not all revolutions are violent
no, only the best ones

[Kez]

Originally posted by ComradeRobertRiley+Dec 21 2003, 11:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRobertRiley @ Dec 21 2003, 11:38 PM)
[email protected] 14 2003, 04:58 AM
Why erdaicate, when you can educate?
Why educate when you can eradicate?


P.S. some people will never change their views [/b]
because as communists we fight for the well being of mankind, not your self satisfaction.

according to you we should shoot everyone, because at the moment most people wont fight for socialism, and will obstruct it. Remember, you wont be doing the revolution, its going to be the masses

[Hawker]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 13 2003, 10:31 PM
That&#39;s the most important debate we have.

Once we figure out how to fight victory will be ours.

Some leftists think we need to kill all the capitalists and fascists (with a war, for example, even if it goes against some of our principles). Others want to fight through "democracy" (voting a leftist party, which as we know is usually worthless and impossible with capitalism ruling the world). Others just want to make people protests (by syndicates, demonstrations, direct action, waiting for a capitalist crisis). Others want to educate the masses for a revolution (however the system doesnt really give us chances to do so).
So what should we do? If we start a war against the right-wing bastards we will be seen as a bunch of murderers (this will especially be shown by the capitalist media) and it will go against the paficist ideals many leftists have, and we would lose against the yanqui imperialism. But if we try a peaceful way there is a bigger chance of being ignored/murdered, losing and theres a chance that certain fascist groups will kill any leftist they see if we do this on a big scale.

How should we face the bastards??? That&#39;s our problem. Does the end justify the means? Should we start thinking about taking extremist measures? Or should we find more peaceful alternatives to change the world forever?
It can only work in the third world,and why do we need to do it?We will only become what we have hated.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Kamo if you are waiting for the masses then we will all be long long dead before any sight of a revolution is seen.


P.S. no I do think we should try to educate others first, im just pointing out that there are some who will never change no matter what you do/say.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think any revolution, whatever form it may take, will have to start in the third world. Once the people of the third world refuse to be exploited any futher western capitalism will collapse.

Most people in third world countries arent exploited. Many people live in rural areas and are farmers, in africa nomadic. Communism can only come about through an organized working class. Communism is a logical progression of capitalism because it recognizes the exploitation of the working class. In third world countries there is no working class or very little...Revolution, a communist one anyway, would have to come from an industrialised nation.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2004, 08:00 PM

I think any revolution, whatever form it may take, will have to start in the third world. Once the people of the third world refuse to be exploited any futher western capitalism will collapse.

Most people in third world countries arent exploited. Many people live in rural areas and are farmers, in africa nomadic. Communism can only come about through an organized working class. Communism is a logical progression of capitalism because it recognizes the exploitation of the working class. In third world countries there is no working class or very little...Revolution, a communist one anyway, would have to come from an industrialised nation.
Im sure they&#39;ll be made part of the working class eventually. I don&#39;t think a revolution will occur in highly industrialised countries becuase the living standards of the working class are arificially high due the the exploitation of cheap labour abroad, what i should have said is that revolution should come from the industrialising countries becuase they are the workers really being exploited by capitalism.

[iloveatomickitten]

Democracy won&#39;t work very well - the change to total communism would be far too slow and ecconomic collapse would soon follow - you can&#39;t weaken the capitalists to much while retaining capitalism just isn&#39;t going to work very well. Democratic channels take too long unless power can be taken fully - not likely. Therefore democracy has to be suspended either violently or by some other unforseen means - as long as it is quick and gives a firm base of power to the new "government."

[The Feral Underclass]

Misodoctakleidist

Communism came into being as a direct criticism of capitalism. The theory then progressed to be the last historical step of human development. Feudelism, capitalism, communism. Communism relies on a working class to liberate itself. Without a working class there can be no exploitation, wage slavery and no realisation of such and a desire to fundamentally change society into communism.


Im sure they&#39;ll be made part of the working class eventually.

But then you&#39;ll be in the very same situation as you are now with western countries. Also, what would first world countries be like at this point. Capitalism can not last forever, and the next logical step from capitalism is communism. If this is the case it could be argued that by the time third world countries had become developed, communism would have reached western countries. But this is very abstract and not really important.


I don&#39;t think a revolution will occur in highly industrialised countries becuase the living standards of the working class are arificially high due the the exploitation of cheap labour abroad,

17% of the UK is living under the poverty line. That&#39;s 10.2 million people. A sixth of the population. We can not concentrate on third world countries but on our own working class. If we build a movement and organize then people will eventually become conscious. As long as there is a movement demanding capitalism justify itself and are dedicated and active realisation of the system can not be stop.


what i should have said is that revolution should come from the industrialising countries becuase they are the workers really being exploited by capitalism.

I agree.

[Misodoctakleidist]

17% of the UK is living under the poverty line. That&#39;s 10.2 million people. A sixth of the population. We can not concentrate on third world countries but on our own working class. If we build a movement and organize then people will eventually become conscious. As long as there is a movement demanding capitalism justify itself and are dedicated and active realisation of the system can not be stop.

My point is that poverty in the UK has not resulted in revolution and there is little desire amongst the general population for revolution. For revolution to occur in western industrialised countries the economic conditions have to change which is why i think a communist revolution will be rooted in exploited workers in the developing countries rebeling or striking or doing something which will lessen their exploitation to the extent that the western bouoirsie will have to exploit their own workers more.

[The Feral Underclass]

My point is that poverty in the UK has not resulted in revolution and there is little desire amongst the general population for revolution. For revolution to occur in western industrialised countries the economic conditions have to change which is why i think a communist revolution will be rooted in exploited workers in the developing countries rebeling or striking or doing something which will lessen their exploitation to the extent that the western bouoirsie will have to exploit their own workers more.

Good point. The problem is though that in these countries the governments use brute force if you go on strike. In the UK or US you may get some concessions.l In a place like Angola, which has no industry, if the people striked, which they wouldnt, they would be forced back to work. In Burma the same. Strikes are banned, as they are in indonesia.

It does help for the economic conditions in first world countries to worsen. It means people become more conscious. Look at argentina or in german in the 20&#39;s. But these situations will come eventually. Capitalism can not survive forever. There will be no more markets, or they will have to take some drastic mesaures to maintain itself. If there is a movement which edploits that then society will change.

We shouldnt wait for third world countries. They have no cpower in the world. If a revoution happened in a third world country the US would probably smash it and restore a dictator. If it did succeed it would be cut of from the rest of the world and would probably end up as some maoist autocracy.

Just because it is hard to fight for in the UK dosnt mean we shouldnt do it.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I&#39;m not particularly knowledgable on the third world but i think economic conditions in countries like britain an america definatly have to change before a revolution can occur. I think capitalism has been maintained for so long through continued globalisation but that can&#39;t continue forever, as you said "There will be no more markets". I agree that we should fight dor it in the UK, if we gave up revolution would never be possible.

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree that we should fight dor it in the UK, if we gave up revolution would never be possible.

As long as people stay dedicated to that principle, revolution will always be possible.