Revolution --- The enema for society

[Agent provocateur]

An extreme social revolution "cleanses men" as Che Guevara once said. Only that and nothing else. Not religion, not elections, not reforms, not public service announcements, not celebrity endorsements, not literature or art, not corporatism, not sex, not music, only a violent revolution will be able to get rid of the ills of present day capitalist exploitation.

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 26 2003, 04:20 PM
An extreme social revolution "cleanses men" as Che Guevara once said. Only that and nothing else. Not religion, not elections, not reforms, not public service announcements, not celebrity endorsements, not literature or art, not corporatism, not sex, not music, only a violent revolution will be able to get rid of the ills of present day capitalist exploitation.
How do you suppose to do this?

DeadMan.

[BOZG]

Are you actually stupid enough to think that someday, peoples consciousness will just explode and they'll think to themselves "Let's have a violent revolution right now"? People's consciousness, in my cases progresses, albeit at different paces. The majority of people will not arrive at a revolutionary conclusion without progressing through different levels of consciousness. Yes, society will never really change until there is a revolution but all the factors above which you said will not change society, will have an effect on people and their consciousness.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

In order for a revolution to take place, several things must be factored in. Firstly, do people care enough about their social position in order for a revolution to happen?

Violent revolution only displays one thing; human weakness. Violence is just another way people cannot politic their way out of a situation, thus resort to violence. Kinda sad, that one would think a violent revolution could actually happen when people in a capitalist society are pretty much set in their ways.

Am I saying its impossible? ..Quite possibly. People right now aren't ready yet for a revolution in my opinion, they're too stuck in their ways in a capitalist society. Personally speaking, a socialist revolution is definitely impossible in a capitalist society like the US or Canada, just because the majority will never back it.

If there was clear injustice, like the war in Iraq, or whatever, you'd see so many at the front lines of a revolt. A violent revolution you say? Ha! I hardly doubt the majority of people would actually fight to overthrow a capitalist state.

Don't get me wrong, there'll be quite a number that will, overall however, reality is, no majority in America or Canada would fight violently for a socialist revolution.

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 26 2003, 10:34 PM
Am I saying its impossible? ..Quite possibly. People right now aren't ready yet for a revolution in my opinion, they're too stuck in their ways in a capitalist society. Personally speaking, a socialist revolution is definitely impossible in a capitalist society like the US or Canada, just because the majority will never back it.
The only way masses of people would support a revolution is if somehow, the economy just collapsed. That's the reason Fascism was popular in the great depression. They offered hope, riches, land and much more. Of course they couldn't deliver it but whatever. People are blinded by money, so obviously if money becomes nothing, then the people will go thru the course of action to create a revolution. Remember, why would anyone revolt is there making 50 grand a year and can purchase all they want...

People only want a revolution after the economy collapses or a great political injustice has or is in motion; other then that, they will gladly stare into ignorance.

DeadMan.

[Al Creed]

To tell you the honest truth, it would take something unprecidented and insurmountable by any other means, for Canada to react in Violent Revolution.

We get our revenge through peaceful means. There are more ways than one, to skin a cat.

Don't believe me? Research the name "Brian Mulrouney."

Your anger is a gift, but to use it purely for violence is wasteful, when other options are available. When there is no other recourse, then by all means.

Violence for the sake of Violence, when nothing else is even given a try, makes us just as bad as those who oppose our ideas.

[DeadMan]

I am all about peaceful overturns. I am currently trying to proove the limit the people up here would need to react in violence. I beleive starvation is another one that would cause extreme violence towards the government for not giving out food like they did in the 30s.

DeadMan.

[Al Creed]

Ah, a fellow Pacifistic Ontarian!

Commiting acts of Violence in blind hate, it's not in my nature. It takes ALOT for me to reach my breaking point and even contemplate in acting out in violence. Some people call me a Wussy, and frankly, I don't mind.

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 11:11 PM
Ah, a fellow Pacifistic Ontarian!

Commiting acts of Violence in blind hate, it's not in my nature. It takes ALOT for me to reach my breaking point and even contemplate in acting out in violence. Some people call me a Wussy, and frankly, I don't mind.
Ah, I'm a little different. I do get enraged easily, but I do not act on it. I will simply go out on a walk, drink some water or punch some thing soft, like my coat or wrap a sweater around my fist and punch a wall. I don't hurt anyone by doing this and I releave my anger. But I get enraged easily just like my father, and grandfather....I came from a long line of men with great angers who never act on it :lol: .

DeadMan.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

up with Toronto! LOL, for a capitalist society, i think its the greatest place ever!

i know i'm off topic, but what the hell.

[Al Creed]

Thats what I mean, Man. I get angry, INCREDIBLY angry, but It takes so much anger for me to even consider violence. I find outlets for my anger, creative and practical outlets.

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 26 2003, 11:23 PM
up with Toronto! LOL, for a capitalist society, i think its the greatest place ever!

i know i'm off topic, but what the hell.
You live there? Kudos on electing the leftist Mayor;)

I would rather have had a Goat as Mayor of Hamilton, than that smiling, environment-hating, money-loving dweeb, Larry Di Ianni.

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by RavenFan84+Dec 26 2003, 11:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RavenFan84 @ Dec 26 2003, 11:25 PM)
Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 26 2003, 11:23 PM
up with Toronto&#33; LOL, for a capitalist society, i think its the greatest place ever&#33;

i know i&#39;m off topic, but what the hell.
You live there? Kudos on electing the leftist Mayor;)

I would rather have had a Goat as Mayor of Hamilton, than that smiling, environment-hating, money-loving dweeb, Larry Di Ianni. [/b]
I live slightly up north of you two. I live up here in Kitchener/Waterloo.

DeadMan.

[Al Creed]

Thats more north than Toronto? I always thought it was somewhat parallell to Hamilton :huh:

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 01:03 AM
Thats more north than Toronto? I always thought it was somewhat parallell to Hamilton :huh:
I think it&#39;s parralel to Toronto, not Hamilton...ah whatever I live about 1 hour away :P .

DeadMan.

[airavata]

So you want an endless cycle of revolution and building everything up? A revolution is the last resort, a path which man takes when there is no possibility of redress for his grievances. It&#39;s an extreme measure which brings a lot of ancillary damage with it. Revolution just because it &#39;cleanses&#39; society? That&#39;s impractical, unfeasible, and insane.

[LuZhiming]

Revolutions are not the same as violent overthrows. That is a type of revolution.

[ComradeRed]

EXACTLY&#33;&#33;&#33; Not ALL revolutions are violent&#33;

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Exactly, a revolution isn&#39;t violence and violence alone. I hate to sound like a broken record, but Gandhi proved this&#33;



Getting back to the topic-at-hand, like I said, a violent revolution isn&#39;t something the majority of those living in a capitalist society would want now, or any time soon. Will it ever happen? Who knows, Max Weber always said that we dont know what the future will hold, thus we cannot think communism will come at the next turning point for society from capitalism...


I actually live in Scarborough, a smaller sect of Toronto, but still part of the GTA. Still is a great place to live&#33;

[LuZhiming]

But what I am saying goes deeper than Gandhi&#39;s actions. Revolution doesn&#39;t even mean overthrowing something. What Che says isn&#39;t much different than saying "Something profound cleanses men." Revolution is a broad term.

[airavata]

//
Exactly, a revolution isn&#39;t violence and violence alone. I hate to sound like a broken record, but Gandhi proved this&#33;
//


Not broken record at all. India&#39;s non violent struggle for independance was a landmark victory. Gandhi&#39;s method of ahimsa, satyagraha and non violence are important even today. Independance can be achieved without bloodshed.

//
Revolution doesn&#39;t even mean overthrowing something. What Che says isn&#39;t much different than saying "Something profound cleanses men." Revolution is a broad term.
//

I agree. A mental revolution? Sorely needed.

[Comité De Salut Public]

Looks like this message board is full of effete pseudo-revolutionaries intent only on making "reforms." I&#39;m not attacking anybody just making a few observations. Do you think that the minority of capitalists in each of the advanced western "democracies" will yield to persuasion and the popular will? Read Zinn&#39;s A People&#39;s History of the United States which declares that the answer to that question is in the NEGATIVE. Do you think that the capitalists will let the Third World nations wrest power from the hands of the oligarchs and let the people determine their own destinies? Let William Blum&#39;s book Killing Hope answer that question&#33;

Gandhi&#39;s revolution did not accomplish much--- just got rid of the British which was inevitable no matter which of the methods were used (violent or nonviolent). Well what about the caste system, female infanticide the breaking up of India into the different country of Pakistan. Do you subscribe to these things?

"For never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep." John Milton Paradise Lost

[airavata]

Gandhi&#39;s revolution did not accomplish much--- just got rid of the British which was inevitable no matter which of the methods were used (violent or nonviolent). Well what about the caste system, female infanticide the breaking up of India into the different country of Pakistan. Do you subscribe to these things?


If Gandhi had not taken a firm stand the dithering fools of the Indian National Congress would&#39;ve accepted Britain&#39;s totally ludicrous proposal of dominion status. The British crushed all the violent protests against their rule with brutal efficieny -- the 1857 sepoy revolt, indigo strikes.... etc etc.
The British leaving India was not &#39;inevitable&#39;.
India being partitioned was unfortunate. The people of India and Pakistan are nearly the same.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

A violent revolution is the only way, Ghandi didnt get rid of capitalism.

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 12:55 PM
A violent revolution is the only way, Ghandi didnt get rid of capitalism.
Gandhi did not get rid of Capitalism because it was NOT his goal. His goal was to bring Independance to India at all cost, including his own life. Look at Ghandi, he was a short, skin bold man who wouldn&#39;t of made it 5 feet in a violent revolution. His methods was proof enough that the people of India wanted Independance and the British Empire finally cracked and gave it to them.

Gandhi was a man of words, he probably could talk his way into and out of any situation. Unlike alot of the people today, who would resort to violence.

DeadMan.

[Al Creed]

That is true. Ghandi never stood against Capitalism, only Imperialism, because Imperialism was the direct cause of his people&#39;s misery.

I do not support a full-blown, Violent revolution right away, because, frankly, I think we&#39;re better than that. Most of us are incredibly intelligent people, who could devise methods, that refrain from the usage of violence, and that can bring about the greatest amount of change with losing the least amount of blood (or even none).

Call me a "Pseudo Revolutionary" if you wish, I really don&#39;t care.

Now, as I have stated earlier, if there is no other, possible recourse to create change without violence, and if violence is the only other, possible solution, then let there be violence.

I just think that Violent revolution, when nothing else has been given a chance, is primitive.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

primative maybe. Violent nessessary. If ghandi would have tried to defeat capitalism without violence, he would have failed.

[airavata]

Gandhi never wanted to defeat capitalism. Where does the question of capitalism come into Gandhi&#39;s picture?

[Comité De Salut Public]

The British in India would have inevitably been removed just like the French in Vietnam and Algeria. Any fool with a high school education can see the logic in that. I&#39;m not trying to impugn on Gandhi. He was obviously a very spiritual person but look at this more closely. Gandhi is beloved by the corporations and elite because he was gentle and not uncompromising. Just like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is beloved by the elite and corporations while Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are vehemently criticized. :che: :castro: :marx: :trotski: :engles: :cuba:

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by Comité De Salut [email protected] 27 2003, 01:44 PM
The British in India would have inevitably been removed just like the French in Vietnam and Algeria. Any fool with a high school education can see the logic in that. I&#39;m not trying to impugn on Gandhi. He was obviously a very spiritual person but look at this more closely. Gandhi is beloved by the corporations and elite because he was gentle and not uncompromising. Just like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is beloved by the elite and corporations while Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are vehemently criticized. :che: :castro: :marx: :trotski: :engles: :cuba:
Yet, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is the most recognised and he accomplished more in the long run. He protested in the most rascist parts of the USA, the south. It&#39;s not about how you revolutionise, it&#39;s what counts afterwards. As long as you have the balls and the knowledge to say &#39;No, I don&#39;t want this, I will fight in the revolution.&#39; then it doesn&#39;t matter if your violent, non-violent or anything, as long as you help in the fight and the results are the same...but I must admit, reading about a violent revolution is better then reading about votes and protests...

DeadMan.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Eesh, I got everyone on the Gandhi thing again, lol...

Gandhi stood for non-violence, yes there were defeats, a plethora of defeats to say the least. India was divided by hindu and muslim, and this furthered the seperation to take place.

Was it for the better? Well, despite Gandhi objecting to the entire process, I think he knew it was necessary, because if it were not to have happened, there would be major civil riots, and mass murders. Gandhi tried to avoid this, thus the seperation was somewhat necessary...

Even when Gandhi commented about Hitler and what should be done, he had said that one must make injustice visible and present.

Comité De Salut Public, I think you&#39;re looking for a very mickey mouse revolution. One where there are no flaws whatsoever. I don&#39;t think a revolution cannot have flaws or defeats. Of course there&#39;ll be defeats, but what makes a revolution, or revolutionary just that, is their willingness to carry out their beliefs and the beliefs of the people to the end. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified this greatly.

Until we accept those defeats and look at what happened in the greater scheme of things, then we see how great the revolution was.

(Remember the Massacre at Amritsar? 15,000 Indians killed point-blank range by the Brits. It was a peaceful protest, and they were unarmed. Gen. Dyer ordered their executions)

[airavata]

Remember the Massacre at Amritsar? 15,000 Indians killed point-blank range by the Brits. It was a peaceful protest, and they were unarmed. Gen. Dyer ordered their executions

At Jallianwalagh Bagh. Bhagat Singh was executed for protesting against this.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Bhagat Singh, great guy. He was totally with Gandhi on the non-violent protests, until Gandhi started doing things that he felt were not necessary, and prolonged the independence campeign.

At 23 that man died for his country. He&#39;s an inspiration to say the least.

Airvata, have you seen &#39;The Legend of Bhagat Singh&#39;? I bought it last week, friggin amazing movie. With subtitles of course, its originally in hindi.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Comité De Salut [email protected] 27 2003, 06:44 PM
Just like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is beloved by the elite and corporations while Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are vehemently criticized. :che: :castro: :marx: :trotski: :engles: :cuba:
Please enlighten me, what was so great about Malcom X?

Note: This is not sarcasm.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

X displayed the aggression of the africans. Who wouldnt be aggressive when you see your people being hung in front of KKK members, or being hosed down and put in prison cells just based on racial differences?

Many can argue that X could even be considered a guerilla activist, as he was leading the Black Panthers against the White oppressors. Was it right? In the great scheme of things, I tend to disagree with many of his philosophies. However, was it a display of his feelings? Of course. Like I said, who wouldn&#39;t feel this way? Martin Luther King Jr. turned that anger into nonviolent purposes. I guess that&#39;s why most see his work as more productive in a sense...

It was X&#39;s speeches that made the most difference in my opinion. He spoke at Harvard University once where he talked about beauty. He stated things like, "Who told you your nappy hair was bad? And that your skin was ugly?" He cherished African definitive features, even changed his last name to &#39;X&#39; as a protest to the white slave owners who put their names on their slaves. That&#39;s why most African Americans have european last names.

It was nearing his death that he had realised his ways, and that the plight of the Black Panthers shouldnt be to oppress the white man. But after seeing such travesty, it is only obvious that such situations would push one to such extremes.