Where would be a great place to start a revolution?

[JudasMaiden]

Where would a great place be for a revolution for us Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, etc be? Would it be in Africa, Latin America, Asia(excluding developed countries South Korea and Japan, countries like China, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, etc), Pacific islands (such as Micronesia, Samoa, Fiji, etc), or even Developed countries?

[Sinister Intents]

You can't really predict a revolution of any kind. If I had to pick though I would say places like the India and Greece but definitely not in the USA.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

United $nakes, United KKKnniggits, Narnia-Canadia, etc.

[Sinister Intents]

United $nakes, United KKKnniggits, Narnia-Canadia, etc.

Indeed! These are teh best places to start revolutions!!!
Also I think that in a lot of places around the world the material conditions aren't right for revolution to take place, and revolution is unpredictable, but the capitalsits will certaintly matke it very difficult to start it up and keep it going.

[RedWaves]

United $nakes



There will never be a revolution in America, never.


Take the slave era for example. From the birth of America all the way to the Civil War there was only a dozen or so slave revolts. I know it sounds weird, you wonder why there wasn't more than that. Point is, in America people are indoctrinated with this reality that they shouldn't even bother. That's how it was for the slaves, most of them were afraid. In today's America people are afraid of the unknown, they don't want to challenge anything.

There might be a few pissed off workers and some people that actually know what's going on but the passion for a revolution is just not there. Most people would be afraid anyway they might lose their American Idol or Football or whatever, cause most of America is so fucking distracted in fantasy land with entertainment to numb their pain of being oppressed and a slave to the rich corporate establishment.


I pretty much know I'm never going to see Communism rise in America in my lifetime. We're not taught this stuff in school, people aren't educated, and as soon as you bring it up their reaction is "that's bad!" cause they've been taught to believe it's so bad and all this (from what little they are taught of it, we never even learned about Karl Marx in school when I went, and they taught us the Bolshevik's revolution in Russia was a "conspiracy" to overthrow the wonderful awesome Tsar who was so great). Most of them don't want to learn either, and that's the biggest problem. They are told it's bad, so why even bother wanting to learn it? We've been taught to accept Marxism, Socialism, and Communism as bad but Capitalism never has been taught to be accepted as bad. Why do you want to stop at the American Dream? Kids are lied to from birth, but they never want to admit to the kids that the American Dream is bullshit too and most Americans still live in this illusion that if they keep working hard enough that they may end up becoming the exploiter class one day and it's never going to happen, or they really believe they're going to be Rock stars and Movie stars and all this and anyone can be famous, that is a lie too.


Just take Occupy Wallstreet for example. When people protest in America all they do is scream how pissed they are. They are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. They don't even get that their protesting accomplishes nothing, even if the protests have a message.
When it's not that, the other crowd don't have a clue what they are mad about, they are just screaming they are mad (like the Million March in DC against "corruption" with no specific target other than a bunch of idiots walking around wearing Anonymous masks and scream how mad they are)


People in America protesting don't even realize that holding up a fucking sign all day and shouting how mad you are changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. They are too scared to get violent at these protests too (say what you want about how crazy I am but violence really does help protests and it helps get shit done). You can hold up signs all day and the bourgeoisie aren't going to give a shit. They simply don't give a shit. There were millions that protested the Iraq war before it happened, and did that change anything? No.

Finally there is also the crowd of protestors that scream about the New World Order and Illuminati and want to protest using their balls to the wall conspiracy theories as their back bone and even they don't see just how ridiculous they act (cause the minute you disagree with Alex Jones, you're called a fucking agent provocateur). This is what most people would rather get mad about, cause da gubahmen wantin ta take mah gun is a way more easier way to get people mad than class warfare. Class war is the only war, and in America they live in denial over this fact and live in fantasy land cause they don't give a shit and don't want to believe it.


The passion is just not there. Even when people are mad, they are too scared to do anything about it cause they are so indoctrinated with this ideology that the minute you rise up to fight your masters they are going to stomp on your neck. That's why the TV show Cops was made. It's aimed towards the lower class to remind them that no matter what they do, the police will always catch them, hence the reason you never see rich criminals or well established neighborhoods on that show, it's always poor people.


You will never see a revolution in America and that's why. Like I used the slave revolts for my example, seriously take that into consideration. You would think there would be hundreds of slave revolts but there was only a dozen of them including the Nat Turner incident.
You're never going to see the slaves of America who work their asses off at dead end jobs rise up cause they are too scared to and it's been engraved in their minds that it's not possible. They are afraid of the unknown, just like the slaves of yesterday before the civil war.

[Hermes]

There will never be a revolution in America, never.


Take the slave era for example. From the birth of America all the way to the Civil War there was only a dozen or so slave revolts. I know it sounds weird, you wonder why there wasn't more than that. Point is, in America people are indoctrinated with this reality that they shouldn't even bother. That's how it was for the slaves, most of them were afraid. In today's America people are afraid of the unknown, they don't want to challenge anything.

There might be a few pissed off workers and some people that actually know what's going on but the passion for a revolution is just not there. Most people would be afraid anyway they might lose their American Idol or Football or whatever, cause most of America is so fucking distracted in fantasy land with entertainment to numb their pain of being oppressed and a slave to the rich corporate establishment.


I pretty much know I'm never going to see Communism rise in America in my lifetime. We're not taught this stuff in school, people aren't educated, and as soon as you bring it up their reaction is "that's bad!" cause they've been taught to believe it's so bad and all this (from what little they are taught of it, we never even learned about Karl Marx in school when I went, and they taught us the Bolshevik's revolution in Russia was a "conspiracy" to overthrow the wonderful awesome Tsar who was so great). Most of them don't want to learn either, and that's the biggest problem. They are told it's bad, so why even bother wanting to learn it? We've been taught to accept Marxism, Socialism, and Communism as bad but Capitalism never has been taught to be accepted as bad. Why do you want to stop at the American Dream? Kids are lied to from birth, but they never want to admit to the kids that the American Dream is bullshit too and most Americans still live in this illusion that if they keep working hard enough that they may end up becoming the exploiter class one day and it's never going to happen, or they really believe they're going to be Rock stars and Movie stars and all this and anyone can be famous, that is a lie too.


Just take Occupy Wallstreet for example. When people protest in America all they do is scream how pissed they are. They are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. They don't even get that their protesting accomplishes nothing, even if the protests have a message.
When it's not that, the other crowd don't have a clue what they are mad about, they are just screaming they are mad (like the Million March in DC against "corruption" with no specific target other than a bunch of idiots walking around wearing Anonymous masks and scream how mad they are)


People in America protesting don't even realize that holding up a fucking sign all day and shouting how mad you are changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. They are too scared to get violent at these protests too (say what you want about how crazy I am but violence really does help protests and it helps get shit done). You can hold up signs all day and the bourgeoisie aren't going to give a shit. They simply don't give a shit. There were millions that protested the Iraq war before it happened, and did that change anything? No.

Finally there is also the crowd of protestors that scream about the New World Order and Illuminati and want to protest using their balls to the wall conspiracy theories as their back bone and even they don't see just how ridiculous they act (cause the minute you disagree with Alex Jones, you're called a fucking agent provocateur). This is what most people would rather get mad about, cause da gubahmen wantin ta take mah gun is a way more easier way to get people mad than class warfare. Class war is the only war, and in America they live in denial over this fact and live in fantasy land cause they don't give a shit and don't want to believe it.


The passion is just not there. Even when people are mad, they are too scared to do anything about it cause they are so indoctrinated with this ideology that the minute you rise up to fight your masters they are going to stomp on your neck. That's why the TV show Cops was made. It's aimed towards the lower class to remind them that no matter what they do, the police will always catch them, hence the reason you never see rich criminals or well established neighborhoods on that show, it's always poor people.


You will never see a revolution in America and that's why. Like I used the slave revolts for my example, seriously take that into consideration. You would think there would be hundreds of slave revolts but there was only a dozen of them including the Nat Turner incident.
You're never going to see the slaves of America who work their asses off at dead end jobs rise up cause they are too scared to and it's been engraved in their minds that it's not possible. They are afraid of the unknown, just like the slaves of yesterday before the civil war.


ignoring the fact that you just ignored about half of american history, the labor movement, etc, what is your 'solution' then? if we will 'never see a revolution in America', do you suggest everyone just leave the country? is it to do with its geographical location?

if the criteria for a place having the ability to make revolution is, apparently, constant warfare against the state at every moment in history, what place is going to see revolution?

[RedWaves]

ignoring the fact that you just ignored about half of american history, the labor movement, etc, what is your 'solution' then? if we will 'never see a revolution in America', do you suggest everyone just leave the country? is it to do with its geographical location?

if the criteria for a place having the ability to make revolution is, apparently, constant warfare against the state at every moment in history, what place is going to see revolution?


Since when has America had a revolution in the last 100 years?


No, I did my homework, and I know American history. That's why I used the slave revolts as a comparison, cause there could have been several slave revolts just as there could be a revolution in America but it didn't happen.

Western society in general don't care about nothing and don't have the passion to do anything about it. Look at all the "I don't agree with the war but I still support the troops!"


I'd bet a revolution happens in the third world long before I believe one will ever happen in America. You are crazy if you really think Americans would rise up and fight the monster. The last time that happened was the 60's and there's a huge difference between protesting in the 60's and today. Back then you had people that could and would get violent and didn't give a shit either way. They wanted their human rights. In America today, as I used good examples, protesting today is just holding up signs and saying how mad you are.

America sells this illusion that you can be just like Gandhi or MLK and change the world by peaceful protest. No you cannot. If peaceful protest has proven anything in the recent years, it's that it does not fucking work. They prop those two up just to give that illusion but like Malcolm X said over and over, just sitting there and being peaceful don't accomplish much. A revolution is typically violent, and that's how change comes. If you want change and you want to show how much you're not going to take class warfare anymore you have to get violent, and you're never going to see that in America.


To be a revolutionary you have to realize that you have nothing to lose. That's why it will never happen in America, they are too scared to get violent and they feel they have a lot to lose. They are afraid of the unknown just like the slaves were when they had opportunities to revolt. The opportunities are there for them, but it comes with a price tag, and to them it just isn't worth it. Even if by some kind of magic we had a reincarnation of Lenin or Che come to America to try and organize a revolution it would not work cause before they would be assassinated, the people wouldn't give a shit about revolting cause they are too afraid just like the slaves of the early American history.



It will happen in third world countries long before it happens in the first world. I can't say anything about the UK as much as I want to cause I don't know how their whole country works, but when Thatcher died, I was thrilled to see people parading and celebrating her death. When Reagan died over here, people were fucking crying about it even though he was a piece of shit. That's a big different but I don't know much about the UK so I can't say much more.

[Hermes]

Since when has America had a revolution in the last 100 years?


No, I did my homework, and I know American history. That's why I used the slave revolts as a comparison, cause there could have been several slave revolts just as there could be a revolution in America but it didn't happen.

Western society in general don't care about nothing and don't have the passion to do anything about it. Look at all the "I don't agree with the war but I still support the troops!"


I'd bet a revolution happens in the third world long before I believe one will ever happen in America. You are crazy if you really think Americans would rise up and fight the monster. The last time that happened was the 60's and there's a huge difference between protesting in the 60's and today. Back then you had people that could and would get violent and didn't give a shit either way. They wanted their human rights. In America today, as I used good examples, protesting today is just holding up signs and saying how mad you are.

America sells this illusion that you can be just like Gandhi or MLK and change the world by peaceful protest. No you cannot. If peaceful protest has proven anything in the recent years, it's that it does not fucking work. They prop those two up just to give that illusion but like Malcolm X said over and over, just sitting there and being peaceful don't accomplish much. A revolution is typically violent, and that's how change comes. If you want change and you want to show how much you're not going to take class warfare anymore you have to get violent, and you're never going to see that in America.


To be a revolutionary you have to realize that you have nothing to lose. That's why it will never happen in America, they are too scared to get violent and they feel they have a lot to lose. They are afraid of the unknown just like the slaves were when they had opportunities to revolt. The opportunities are there for them, but it comes with a price tag, and to them it just isn't worth it. Even if by some kind of magic we had a reincarnation of Lenin or Che come to America to try and organize a revolution it would not work cause before they would be assassinated, the people wouldn't give a shit about revolting cause they are too afraid just like the slaves of the early American history.



It will happen in third world countries long before it happens in the first world. I can't say anything about the UK as much as I want to cause I don't know how their whole country works, but when Thatcher died, I was thrilled to see people parading and celebrating her death. When Reagan died over here, people were fucking crying about it even though he was a piece of shit. That's a big different but I don't know much about the UK so I can't say much more.

no one in the UK cried when thatcher died? no one in the us celerbrated the death of reagan?

this whole thing is ridiculous because you're taking the current state of the class struggle in america, and simultaneously assuming that it will remain that way forever more, and mythologizing some ideal state of struggle that doesn't exist.

it's like saying france 'will never see a revolution' because of the anti-gay marriage parades, or greece 'will never see a revolution' because of the golden dawn

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Quite obviously Africa. I mean, all continents need revolution but Africa especially.

It is the poorest continent. The reason is because multinational corporations colluding with the World Bank are buying up their resources for pennies on the dollar and taking it for themselves so that the Africans can't use them to get basic food, water, and shelter. But I'm preaching to the choir telling you that.

My point is that pan African unity and revolution would cause the most change to them than any other continent, although Southeast Asia and certain parts of Latin America come very close to Africa's poverty. But in Africa, it would make the most difference to the lives of the people living there since that continent is the poorest and taken advantage of the most.

[Slavic]

No, I did my homework, and I know American history. That's why I used the slave revolts as a comparison, cause there could have been several slave revolts just as there could be a revolution in America but it didn't happen.

Sine when was the presence of previous revolutions necessary for a revolution to occur? Tell me what other revolutions did Russia undergo that caused the Bolshevik revolution? You can't name any because a revolution doesn't just spring forth from a history of revolutions, it occurs when the material conditions make it possible.


Western society in general don't care about nothing and don't have the passion to do anything about it. Look at all the "I don't agree with the war but I still support the troops!"

The "I don't agree with the war but I still support the troops!" is pretty standard nationalist sentiment. You can find nationalist through out the world, they are not just limited to the West.


To be a revolutionary you have to realize that you have nothing to lose. That's why it will never happen in America, they are too scared to get violent and they feel they have a lot to lose. They are afraid of the unknown just like the slaves were when they had opportunities to revolt. The opportunities are there for them, but it comes with a price tag, and to them it just isn't worth it.

You pretty much just disproved your point with your example. If, to be a revolutionary you have to realize that you have nothing to lose, then a slave would be in the prime material conditions to be a revolution. The only thing they have to lose is their life, you can't get much more detached then this.

[Sabot Cat]

Sine when was the presence of previous revolutions necessary for a revolution to occur? Tell me what other revolutions did Russia undergo that caused the Bolshevik revolution?

The Revolution of 1905, but I don't disagree with your overall point.

[Slavic]

The Revolution of 1905, but I don't disagree with your overall point.

Honestly I don't disagree with RedWaves that revolution in the U.S. and other likewise nations would hard. I just find his reasoning faulty and out of place. There is no such thing as a "tradition" of "lack of revolution" that is holding back a revolution in the U.S. The issue is the material conditions that persist in the U.S.

Although the recession that hit the U.S. has been hard, most people still are able to eat, and most people still have some sort of work. Also, the lifestyle of the typical American is much more lavish and relaxing then that can be found in third world countries around the world. Despite the hard times, the current lifestyles of most American don't lead to agitation and anger toward the establishment.

Another issue that makes it hard for revolution to occur in the U.S. is the lack of methodology for said revolution to unfold under. A leftist party, platform, agenda, what ever you would like to call it, none exists in the U.S. Even if the population where to get angry and agitated due to strenuous material circumstances, there is no ready outlet, leftest answer, for them to express this anger toward revolutionary ends. Americans would most likely flock to extreme right wing ideology or mindless violence. Not that mindless violence against the state doesn't have its merits, without a goal it is pretty much fruitless.

[SovietCommie]

Developed countries, so the rest of the undeveloped world will follow suit.

[Ritzy Cat]

Developed countries, so the rest of the undeveloped world will follow suit.

I don't think developed countries will be the ones to start the domino effect of revolution.

As it was previously "hypothesized", I agree with the claim that those with "nothing to lose" will become the upstarts of revolution. This will occur in countries with the most oppression, low per capita GDP, etc.

Undeveloped countries will ironically provide the model for the developed ones. If the class-conscious proletariat of other nations notice what can happen of revolutionary affairs.

Not to mention the armies/police forces of developed countries are much more elaborate than those of undeveloped countries. A revolution would simply be harder, because in undeveloped countries (notably in Africa) the population density is fairly high for countries, so they have less a battle to fight with the state before overthrowing it. Also the black market is very strong in these areas so revolutionary access to firearms is more widespread. It is simply a matter of raising their proletarian masses to class-consciousness, so they can realize what they are able to do.

[Prometeo liberado]

Since when has America had a revolution in the last 100 years?


No, I did my homework, and I know American history. That's why I used the slave revolts as a comparison, cause there could have been several slave revolts just as there could be a revolution in America but it didn't happen.

Western society in general don't care about nothing and don't have the passion to do anything about it. Look at all the "I don't agree with the war but I still support the troops!"


I'd bet a revolution happens in the third world long before I believe one will ever happen in America. You are crazy if you really think Americans would rise up and fight the monster. The last time that happened was the 60's and there's a huge difference between protesting in the 60's and today. Back then you had people that could and would get violent and didn't give a shit either way. They wanted their human rights. In America today, as I used good examples, protesting today is just holding up signs and saying how mad you are.

America sells this illusion that you can be just like Gandhi or MLK and change the world by peaceful protest. No you cannot. If peaceful protest has proven anything in the recent years, it's that it does not fucking work. They prop those two up just to give that illusion but like Malcolm X said over and over, just sitting there and being peaceful don't accomplish much. A revolution is typically violent, and that's how change comes. If you want change and you want to show how much you're not going to take class warfare anymore you have to get violent, and you're never going to see that in America.


To be a revolutionary you have to realize that you have nothing to lose. That's why it will never happen in America, they are too scared to get violent and they feel they have a lot to lose. They are afraid of the unknown just like the slaves were when they had opportunities to revolt. The opportunities are there for them, but it comes with a price tag, and to them it just isn't worth it. Even if by some kind of magic we had a reincarnation of Lenin or Che come to America to try and organize a revolution it would not work cause before they would be assassinated, the people wouldn't give a shit about revolting cause they are too afraid just like the slaves of the early American history.



It will happen in third world countries long before it happens in the first world. I can't say anything about the UK as much as I want to cause I don't know how their whole country works, but when Thatcher died, I was thrilled to see people parading and celebrating her death. When Reagan died over here, people were fucking crying about it even though he was a piece of shit. That's a big different but I don't know much about the UK so I can't say much more.

Wha????
Less writing and more listening please. It hurts my spleen to read this dribble. Please.:confused:

p.s. Shit like this can hurt you in a job interview. Just sayin.

[Manic Impressive]

I don't think developed countries will be the ones to start the domino effect of revolution.

As it was previously "hypothesized", I agree with the claim that those with "nothing to lose" will become the upstarts of revolution. This will occur in countries with the most oppression, low per capita GDP, etc.

Undeveloped countries will ironically provide the model for the developed ones. If the class-conscious proletariat of other nations notice what can happen of revolutionary affairs.

Not to mention the armies/police forces of developed countries are much more elaborate than those of undeveloped countries. A revolution would simply be harder, because in undeveloped countries (notably in Africa) the population density is fairly high for countries, so they have less a battle to fight with the state before overthrowing it. Also the black market is very strong in these areas so revolutionary access to firearms is more widespread. It is simply a matter of raising their proletarian masses to class-consciousness, so they can realize what they are able to do.
There's a lot I could say about this, but just two things. The more impoverished you are the more time you have to spend on basic survival, getting food and stuff. The more time you spend on that the less time you have for revolutionary activity. Second what has happened to every country that has attempted a left wing revolution? They get crushed by first world nations that want to protect their investments.

There are those who take the opposite view and say that the higher the standards of living the more likely people are to want more. This is a standard justification for reformism among the left.

I think both positions are incomplete. People get pissed off not when "they have nothing to lose" but when they lose something. When you take something someone had away from them, then they get really pissed. If they never had it in the first place then they ain't gonna miss it.

[Sea]

Honestly I don't disagree with RedWaves that revolution in the U.S. and other likewise nations would hard. I just find his reasoning faulty and out of place. There is no such thing as a "tradition" of "lack of revolution" that is holding back a revolution in the U.S. The issue is the material conditions that persist in the U.S.Revolution anywhere is hard. The only reason you're pointing out that it's hard in the US is because you live here and you're familiar with the specific reasons that it's hard here. If you lived somewhere else you'd be pointing out the relevant reasons and claiming it's harder in your country than in the US.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Indeed! These are teh best places to start revolutions!!!

They really are though, I am being perfectly serious.

Now for the post I wanted to address last night but was to tranquilized to do so. ^-^


There will never be a revolution in America, never.

Said every Tory ever during the first one, lol.


Take the slave era for example.

Ok?


From the birth of America all the way to the Civil War there was only a dozen or so slave revolts.

Revolts are not revolutions just as insurrections are not revolutions and so on. Why people continually try to make these terms synonyms is beyond me. There are distinct differences betwixt them which should be observed when discussing 'historical fuckery' or 'social rejection.' Moving forward, I think it would be interesting to compare the material conditions of say John Brown and his merry men and Toussaint L'ouverture and his; which is to say, at what point and how did the Haiti situation turn from a regular slave revolt, to a full-blown revolution.


I know it sounds weird, you wonder why there wasn't more than that.

Not particularly.


Point is, in America people are indoctrinated with this reality that they shouldn't even bother.

So, it's ideas, not material reality, that determines consciousness?


That's how it was for the slaves, most of them were afraid. In today's America people are afraid of the unknown, they don't want to challenge anything.

What America are you living in? American history has been defined as the full steam ahead, YOLO, adventurous nation-state that doesn't give a flying fuck about anything except the pursuit of unknown plunders and pleasures. Is that not American/'New World' culture in a nutshell? Have I been mistaken this whole time?


There might be a few pissed off workers and some people that actually know what's going on but the passion for a revolution is just not there.

I think more or less this is kind of a speak for yourself situation.


Most people would be afraid anyway they might lose their American Idol or Football or whatever, cause most of America is so fucking distracted in fantasy land with entertainment to numb their pain of being oppressed and a slave to the rich corporate establishment.


The Emergence of Popular Culture in Colonial America (http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring08/pop.cfm)

Nihil novi sub sole.


I pretty much know I'm never going to see Communism rise in America in my lifetime.

Ok, and I don't know how old you are, your lifestyle choices and preferences, your medical history, family medical history, etc. so this is kind of meaningless to me.


We're not taught this stuff in school, people aren't educated, and as soon as you bring it up their reaction is "that's bad!" cause they've been taught to believe it's so bad and all this (from what little they are taught of it, we never even learned about Karl Marx in school when I went, and they taught us the Bolshevik's revolution in Russia was a "conspiracy" to overthrow the wonderful awesome Tsar who was so great).

When I've heard of the Russian revolution, Tsar Nikolai, etc. being discussed at American universities, the spin was, the Tsar was a dick, so Lenin and crew were all like fuck you, shot the royal family up, which was lame and did other lame stuff because they were possessed by the ghost of Communism but it was ultimately a foolish and stupid reaction albeit a natural reaction nonetheless to the treacherous tyranny of monarchy. America is still anti-monarchy, btw. Has been since 1700s, btw. Or maybe you just didn't pay much attention in history class because tbh idk anyone who would call Tsar Nikolai II "great," or "awesome."

I can't speak of American primary schools or whatever but I can say in upper American learning facilities, in my experience, it hasn't been quite as you're portraying it. My point tho is, this is ultimately neither here nor there.


Most of them don't want to learn either, and that's the biggest problem.

Most people don't want to learn anywhere because our choices in pedagogical models is lame and public education is bullshit. What does this have to do with anything? People don't need to know how the fire burns them to know that burning them is not cool and thus should be remedied.


Just take Occupy Wallstreet for example. When people protest in America all they do is scream how pissed they are. They are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. They don't even get that their protesting accomplishes nothing, even if the protests have a message.
When it's not that, the other crowd don't have a clue what they are mad about, they are just screaming they are mad (like the Million March in DC against "corruption" with no specific target other than a bunch of idiots walking around wearing Anonymous masks and scream how mad they are)

Not sure how accurate your analysis of the above cited demonstrations are however I will say this. The attitudes towards "the people," and how they choose to demonstrate their rejection of the system as characterized both here on this forum and elsewhere are fucking shit. Here in this thread we could be guffawing at the American people's inability to express their rage against capital and so on and then in another thread you'll see people shit all over any and all direct action because it might bring "the hammer," down on labor/radical groups or portray them in a negative light. Perhaps you weren't in on the discussions here about black bloc, for example.

This is also something I'm genuinely irritated about. Here were are. The American worker is pissed. He's looking for ways to improve his situation and express his outrage of his plight. Then he sees the "Left," those radical organs allegedly campaigning for his interests. There is talks of revolution and class warfare. Yet, when any direct action is taken or any action outside of some over-glorified newsboy hucksters aka party sanctioned action, it's "dangerous," and "counter-revolutionary," and a bunch of other negative words. It's a fat load of shit. The whole thing. It's a racket. However, when shit really gets real, no one is honestly going to give two shits about your crypto-middle class moralities or your party bullshit or defeatist absurdities and will just handle business.


People in America protesting don't even realize that holding up a fucking sign all day and shouting how mad you are changes nothing.

Whats been the "socially acceptable," alternative as demonstrated by the American 'Left'? Any real action is derided here as "individualist," or "idealist," or "counter-revolutionary," and is characterized as "loner madmen," actions which result in nothing but hammers that rain from the heavens upon the proletariat. Thus it becomes, the only socially acceptable way to voice protest is shouting loudly repetitive one-liners, holding up signs, wearing idiotic V masks and sitting round getting maced in the face, apparently, because hell forbid we walk the talk, that would be "criminal." Crazy Anarchists.


Absolutely nothing. They are too scared to get violent at these protests too (say what you want about how crazy I am but violence really does help protests and it helps get shit done).

Speak for yourself. You're projecting too much.


The passion is just not there.

Says who? You? You're just echoing the opinions of Tories from 2-3 centuries back. Why should I or anyone care at this point?


Even when people are mad, they are too scared to do anything about it cause they are so indoctrinated with this ideology that the minute you rise up to fight your masters they are going to stomp on your neck.

I live in a neighborhood in which people have and will shoot, maim and kill cops. Wtf are you talking about?


That's why the TV show Cops was made. It's aimed towards the lower class to remind them that no matter what they do, the police will always catch them, hence the reason you never see rich criminals or well established neighborhoods on that show, it's always poor people.

See above. Interesting reference with Cops tho.


You will never see a revolution in America and that's why. Like I used the slave revolts for my example, seriously take that into consideration. You would think there would be hundreds of slave revolts but there was only a dozen of them including the Nat Turner incident.

...and the sun will never set on the British empire, God save the King. OH wait.


You're never going to see the slaves of America who work their asses off at dead end jobs rise up cause they are too scared to and it's been engraved in their minds that it's not possible. They are afraid of the unknown, just like the slaves of yesterday before the civil war.

Last I will say is. Your slavery illustration is pretty problematic, too, tbh. I and I think most people, would reject your defeatist nonsense which I would argue, taken to it's logical conclusions, leads to Third-Worldist bullshit.

[AmilcarCabral]

The behaviour of people is very complex. That question is hard to answer, because communist revolutions might take place first in poorer countries where people suffer a lot more and are more desperate for a dictatorship of the proletariat as a salvation. But at the same time people of poor countries and of very poor countries like Haiti are too conformists, are able to live happy without electricity, without running water, and in the middle of turmoil and at the same time they are too weak and too uninformed about politics in order to be powerful enough to destroy capitalist states and replace it with workers-governments.

And the poor people of rich developed countries are less conformists, are not able to live without electricity, without water, without food. And might have more political knowledge, more access to knowledge (internet, books etc), but the catch-22 is the police and military forces of capitalist governments of rich developed countries are extremely power a lot more powerful than the police forces of poor capitalist countries. So in this way a communist-revolution in rich capitalist governments is too hard.

So both the poor people of poor capitalist countries and the poor people of rich capitalist countries are almost totally disabled to overthrow capitalist states and replace it whem with socialist workers-states. The odds against the oppressed are just too powerful in both rich and poor nations



Where would a great place be for a revolution for us Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, etc be? Would it be in Africa, Latin America, Asia(excluding developed countries South Korea and Japan, countries like China, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, etc), Pacific islands (such as Micronesia, Samoa, Fiji, etc), or even Developed countries?

[IBleedRed]

A global workers' revolution will have the most chance of success if it begins in the First World IMO

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The G20 countries, specifically China, the US and the core EU countries, would have to experience revolution in order to dismantle capitalism. The very shape of the global capitalist economy would disintegrate and the ideological domination of western culture would be disrupted.

[AmilcarCabral]

Red: You know the population of USA has lots of personality disorders. One of them is mysanthropy, another is social phobia, another is an excess of hedonism and another is group-narcissism and another problem i see a lot in americans is self-deafeating personality disorder. THE WHOLE POPULATION OF USA HAS LOTS OF PSYCHOLOGIC PROBLEMS THAT ARE DESTROYING ANY CHANCE OF COMMUNISM IN USA

Group-narcissism, family-narcissism and individual-narcissism (among single unmarried americans) is so powerful that people would rather see the whole USA go down to hell than to help each other in a spiritual collective powerful force in order to join any anti-war political option like Cindy Sheehan, The Green Party, or any other third anti-war party. I don't know but the excess of mysanthropy and social phobia is just too ingrained in the DNA of all americans. I think that behaviourial script of mysanthropy ingrained in all americans has been inherited imported all the way back from the time the pilgrims came to north america.

THAT EXCESS OF MYSANTHROPY AND AMERICANS HATING OTHER AMERICANS, AMERICANS ONLY CARING ABOUT THEIR OWN SPECIFIC GROUP (GROUP-NARCISSISM) DESTROYS ANY POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

I think that the USA is the only country of the world where people hate each other a lot, maybe in Germany, England and some other countries of Northern Europe there is a lot of individualism as well. But USA is the nation of this world where people behave in the most mysanthropic way.

There is just no national conscience at all in this country. I feel in America like if i am in Planet Mars, not like if i am a regular nation.

And then there is the problem of an excess of hedonism in the philosophy of life of most americans. Most americans even hate exercising for the pain it causes. Americans just hate pain, evade pain like an enemy and do not want any thing that gives them pain. And a society so hedonist like that do not have the necessary tragical attitude, the necessary will to power, that the Egyptians, palestinians, greeks, spain citizens, arabs and other people of other nations to protest.

Notice that you never see fat obese people in the egyptian protests. The general american population have collapsed physiologically, the great majority of americans have forgotten altogether about the importance of their bodies and physical abilities. Because the US Matrix escapist system has provided americans with ways to forget about their own bodies, the importance of the body, with the super modern big cars, SUVs, remote controlled big screen TVs with hundreds of channels, playstations, xbox simulated games, etc.

All that has turned americans into a population living a simulated reality. Just like the simulated argument of philosopher Nick Bostrom says in this website: http://www.simulation-argument.com/

And I predict that Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama will probably be marketed and advertised by the corporate TV news network to the masses. And the stupid mind-controlled masses will probably elect them, with the support and help of progressive liberals like The Nation Magazine, Democracy Now, Alternet.org, Thom Hartmann (Of the Russia Today News Network), Moveon.org, thinkprogress.org and other liberal wing talking heads of The Democratic Party. And business will continue as usual in USA (A few at the top of super-rich, movie artists, sports celebrities and the white-collar high-wage working class like doctors, lawyers and bank managers living real well, earning between 75,000 and 1 million dollars a year, while the great majority living a shitty depressive life on USA of working, domestic chores, lawn-mowing, paying bills, paying taxes, and zero fun, zero movie theaters, zero traveling, zero gyms, zero spas, zero plastic surgeries, zero vacation cruises, zero theme parks, zero music concerts, zero parties, and cheap low quality pleasures like local TV channels and low quality sit-coms)

I leave you with a great song dedicated to the USA. Because this is how I think most radical revolutionary leftists who live in USA feel, a country, a society, where the majority of people are very much in love with The Democratic Party and with The Republican Party. And where they won't overthrow the capitalist government. But where the only chances of any hope and change might be a natural disaster like a shower of meteorites, or a big tsunami


ewNMOUDfP9M
Solution for USA: Learn to swim !!


.






There will never be a revolution in America, never.


Take the slave era for example. From the birth of America all the way to the Civil War there was only a dozen or so slave revolts. I know it sounds weird, you wonder why there wasn't more than that. Point is, in America people are indoctrinated with this reality that they shouldn't even bother. That's how it was for the slaves, most of them were afraid. In today's America people are afraid of the unknown, they don't want to challenge anything.

There might be a few pissed off workers and some people that actually know what's going on but the passion for a revolution is just not there. Most people would be afraid anyway they might lose their American Idol or Football or whatever, cause most of America is so fucking distracted in fantasy land with entertainment to numb their pain of being oppressed and a slave to the rich corporate establishment.


I pretty much know I'm never going to see Communism rise in America in my lifetime. We're not taught this stuff in school, people aren't educated, and as soon as you bring it up their reaction is "that's bad!" cause they've been taught to believe it's so bad and all this (from what little they are taught of it, we never even learned about Karl Marx in school when I went, and they taught us the Bolshevik's revolution in Russia was a "conspiracy" to overthrow the wonderful awesome Tsar who was so great). Most of them don't want to learn either, and that's the biggest problem. They are told it's bad, so why even bother wanting to learn it? We've been taught to accept Marxism, Socialism, and Communism as bad but Capitalism never has been taught to be accepted as bad. Why do you want to stop at the American Dream? Kids are lied to from birth, but they never want to admit to the kids that the American Dream is bullshit too and most Americans still live in this illusion that if they keep working hard enough that they may end up becoming the exploiter class one day and it's never going to happen, or they really believe they're going to be Rock stars and Movie stars and all this and anyone can be famous, that is a lie too.


Just take Occupy Wallstreet for example. When people protest in America all they do is scream how pissed they are. They are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. They don't even get that their protesting accomplishes nothing, even if the protests have a message.
When it's not that, the other crowd don't have a clue what they are mad about, they are just screaming they are mad (like the Million March in DC against "corruption" with no specific target other than a bunch of idiots walking around wearing Anonymous masks and scream how mad they are)


People in America protesting don't even realize that holding up a fucking sign all day and shouting how mad you are changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. They are too scared to get violent at these protests too (say what you want about how crazy I am but violence really does help protests and it helps get shit done). You can hold up signs all day and the bourgeoisie aren't going to give a shit. They simply don't give a shit. There were millions that protested the Iraq war before it happened, and did that change anything? No.

Finally there is also the crowd of protestors that scream about the New World Order and Illuminati and want to protest using their balls to the wall conspiracy theories as their back bone and even they don't see just how ridiculous they act (cause the minute you disagree with Alex Jones, you're called a fucking agent provocateur). This is what most people would rather get mad about, cause da gubahmen wantin ta take mah gun is a way more easier way to get people mad than class warfare. Class war is the only war, and in America they live in denial over this fact and live in fantasy land cause they don't give a shit and don't want to believe it.


The passion is just not there. Even when people are mad, they are too scared to do anything about it cause they are so indoctrinated with this ideology that the minute you rise up to fight your masters they are going to stomp on your neck. That's why the TV show Cops was made. It's aimed towards the lower class to remind them that no matter what they do, the police will always catch them, hence the reason you never see rich criminals or well established neighborhoods on that show, it's always poor people.


You will never see a revolution in America and that's why. Like I used the slave revolts for my example, seriously take that into consideration. You would think there would be hundreds of slave revolts but there was only a dozen of them including the Nat Turner incident.
You're never going to see the slaves of America who work their asses off at dead end jobs rise up cause they are too scared to and it's been engraved in their minds that it's not possible. They are afraid of the unknown, just like the slaves of yesterday before the civil war.

[SyndAnon]

Latin America is a prime place to grow a left revolution, they have a long history of revolution, and are looking for something different. Something that will help them.

[Firebrand]

I reckon its a little too early to say but a lot of countries in Europe might start experiencing revolutionary conditions too.
People don't revolt because they have nothing to lose by doing so. People revolt when they realize they have everything to lose if they don't. Overall people are usually perfectly willing to put up with the status quo. They might not like it but they are used to it and they know how to deal with it. In history people have hardly ever revolted against a shit stats quo, what they revolt against is the realization that not only is the status quo shit, but if they do nothing its going to get worse. Change begets change.

The conditions most likely to trigger revolution, it when a lot of rights and privileges ordinary people had come to take for granted are suddenly taken away while the privileges of the rich increase.
Austerity anyone

[bill]

Zizek always says that revolutions usually happen on the upswing, when a bad situation has already started to get a little better but then explodes when people's patience for recovery runs out. His examples: France, Russia, Egypt.

I don't know how well Syria would fit into this. Then again, it's become clear that their revolution was just a prelude to civil war...

His writings, however, are extremely desultory and his examples are usually anecdotal and superficial. It's a very interesting claim (like many of his claims), but I'd like to read a thorougher explication of it. That would be really helpful.

[Lokomotive293]

Other - Wherever it happens first

Fact of the matter is, you don't start a revolution at all. Our job is to spread class consciousness and organize the working class to prepare it for the revolution, so that when a revolutionary situation happens (and a great part of what constitutes a revolutionary situation happens outside of our influence, according to Lenin), we can lead the working class to victory.

If you look at history, it's quite obvious, however, that it's a lot more likely for a revolution to take place in an underdeveloped country.

[AmilcarCabral]

Loko: I would like say that I think that one of the main problems of why there isn't a revolutionary objective situation in most countries of the world (even though the great majority of workers are experiencing a destruction of their own living standards as a result of the destruction of the buying power of all world currencies, including dollar and euro) is that the oppressed in general, the poor, the extremely poor and all low-wage workers of world indeed feel like shit, feel depressed and are crazy, desperate and obssessed about rising to a middle class lifestyle where they can reach self-realization. But at the same time I think that they would like to rise to a middle class life of all basic needs fulfilled thru capitalism, not thru socialism [not thru politics, not thru political activism, not thru joining workers parties, not thru socialism, not thru leftist ideology, not thru marxism].

It seems to me that most people of this world, who belong to that section of this world (who feel like shit and are the great majority) think that capitalism is the natural system. That a few being super-rich like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, The Walton Family (The owners of Wal Mart), The Bush Family, movie celebrities like Angelina Jolie, Kim Basinger (who bought a luxury apartment for herself to use it as a personal exercise gym), Madonna (who owns 10 fitness gyms), Alex Rodriguez (The baseball star who earned 25 million dollars inn 5 years) , Jennifer Lopez, Julio Iglesias, Luis Miguel, Don Francisco (The Univision talk show host), Glenn Beck , Nancy Pelosi (who owns 90 million dollars) and many many more families and people who are living a paradise on earth is *very natural* and ordained by God.

And most people think that if you are a worker of Mcdonalds, Wal Mart, Publix supermarkets, Kroger supermarkets, K-Marts, and other shitty dead-end painful jobs, and you live a shitty life of eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, smoking cheap cigarettes to kill depression, etc. And that if you live in that ugly dark gloomy depressive reality and destiny of working, working, working, lawn-mowing, domestic chores of doing laundry, doing the dishes, and working exclusively to pay bills, and to pay lots of taxes (Americans are taxed to death).

And that the real reason of that ugly depressive life is really your lack of abilities, becausae Tom Cruise, Donald Trump and Bill Gates went to a university, studied a lot, and are super-humans with lots of abilities. And that Bill Gates is a hard working man who even builds computers and softwares and that's why he is super-rich. And that if you are a Mcdonalds worker you are poor because you are an inferior piece of human trash compared with Bill Gates and Tom Cruise. And that you have to suck it up, suck this ugly depressive reality. And that the only hope US workers have is voting Hillary Clinton into the white house in 2016, because even though US low-wage workers and the poor know that Hillary Clinton and the whole democratic party is real evil, they can live with that type of evil. Because because it is less evil than the republican party.

And that socialism, leftist ideology is terrorism, is crazy, is a crazy nut ideology invented by Marx that leads to a gloomy dark depressive dictatorship like Nazi Germany. And that capitalism is better than socialism,. because Cuba is poor because it is socialist and USA is rich because it is capitalist.

And that Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin were just crazy people like David Koresh and other crazy utopian cultists and that the right ideology is the free markets, capitalism. And there is no other world, no other solution and we have to live with this reality of Tom Cruise, Bill Gates, Obama, Bush and doctors and lawyers living a paradise on earth. While Mcdonalds workers, the workers of Target, K-mart living a shitty life of cigarettes smoking and food-stamps.

That's the mind-set of the great majority of US low-wage workers and poor americans in general.

I don't really know how can we destroy that consensus-reality that claims that capitalism is natural, socialism and marxism is a crazy utopian ideology tried by USSR but failed, and that in this world there have always been a few rich, and a majority poor. And that if you are part of the poor majority you have suck it up. and accept that consensus-truth (Consensus reality: what ever is believed by the great majority must be true)

Consensus reality is that which is generally agreed to be reality, based on a consensus view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or knowing, and therefore it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real. Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real.

We can use this consensus as a pragmatic guide, either on the assumption that it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more "practical" than perceived alternatives. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be; anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be "in effect... living in a different world." Throughout history this has also raised a social question: "What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in?"

Children have sometimes been described or viewed as "inexperience with consensus reality," although with the expectation that they will come into line with it as they mature. However, the answer is more diverse as regards such people as have been characterised as eccentrics, mentally ill, enlightened or divinely inspired, or evil or demonic in nature. Alternatively, differing viewpoints may simply be put to some kind of "objective" (though the nature of "objectivity" goes to the heart of the relevant questions) test. Cognitive liberty is the freedom to be the individual's own director of the individual's own consciousness and is fundamentally opposed to enforcement of the culturally accepted reality upon non-conforming individuals. Effects of low cognitive liberty vary from indifference to forced-medication and from social alienation to incarceration to death.


.




Other - Wherever it happens first

Fact of the matter is, you don't start a revolution at all. Our job is to spread class consciousness and organize the working class to prepare it for the revolution, so that when a revolutionary situation happens (and a great part of what constitutes a revolutionary situation happens outside of our influence, according to Lenin), we can lead the working class to victory.

If you look at history, it's quite obvious, however, that it's a lot more likely for a revolution to take place in an underdeveloped country.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is a poorly reasoned thread. The defeatism of what's his name is obviously rooted in an idealist essentialism. As if the absence of a supposed anti-slavery revolution (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) or slave rebellions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion#North_America) amongst African Americans is reflective of the essentialist character of Americans in general over a 150 years later. If pressed, I imagine he cannot provide a reasonable answer. Referencing the apolitical tendency is also moot. This exists from Bangladesh (as per the anecdotal account of an Indian revleft-user reporting about this), the Netherlands (personal experience), and I imagine globally. This is exactly the prevailing subjective conditions of a non-revolutionary situation. References of "consensus reality" are likewise unfounded, if only for the reason that a successful social revolution abroad will inspire revolutionary enthusiasm.
The Anatomy of Revolution also explains that it is not hopelessness and despair that enables revolution, but on the contrary it is hope.

The subjective conditions cannot be measured, but the objective conditions can:

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.592 90322580644;ti=2003$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid =tyadrylIpQ1K_iHP407374Q;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS ;iid=rcO6CXqmEjV-wS-29qejCpw;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuy j0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0 ;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.174;dataMax=0.94 3$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=3.2;dataMax=99$map_s;sma =49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

This graph shows the Human Development Index Scores verses the number of wage labourers on the vertices. By measures of the objective conditions we can see that South Africa is, in terms of the objective conditions, most ripe for socialist revolution. The high rate of wage worker is contrasted with the relatively low human development. In terms of subjective conditions we see that South Africa is brewing with unrest. Some time ago I saw a report on the growing resentment toward the ANC establishment amongst youths. Unfortunately, bourgeois populist Malema spearheads this sentiment.

Of course, objective conditions are by no means sufficient. Even though Sri Lanka's working population is only 58% wage worker it may very well have a revolution prior to more advanced countries.

[Rafiq]

The U.S. is the most likely.

[Fourth Internationalist]

These sort of threads always irk me. What's the point of hypothesizing about where a revolution will start?

[Marshal of the People]

Ummm... guys, should we be openly calling for a revolution on the internet? I am pretty sure it is illegal.

[Future]

If you really want to start an international revolution, you take down the biggest of the big. Capitalism has to be overthrown in the West before the rest of the world has any real chance at socialist longevity in my opinion. That's why I focus my energy on educating the working class in the States. Don't get me wrong, I will support the efforts of any country or region worldwide in their attempts at local liberation - but if you really want to ensure a successful international socialist revolution, you liberate the working classes of the first-world corporate dictatorships first.

[motion denied]

Ummm... guys, should we be openly calling for a revolution on the internet? I am pretty sure it is illegal.

So is downloading music/movies.

[IBleedRed]

Ummm... guys, should we be openly calling for a revolution on the internet? I am pretty sure it is illegal.
Nah, we're too irrelevant for anyone to care.

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear brothers and sisters: Indeed art is a revolutionary powerful force that can increase the feelings of revolutionary instincts. And according to this song by Rage Against The Machine, since the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans there have always been renegades, great revolutionary men that have paved the way toward human progress like Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, Paul Robeson, Richard Pryor, Chief Sitting Bull, etc.


5nQUlbKdc74
Martin Luther King and Malcom X, they were renegades !!


So we have to be realists, but at the same time positive. Che Guevara said that in this world nothing is impossible. That's like the law of attraction. According to the law attraction if you really desire something, you can get it. All radical leftists have to do is to feel a deep crazy hungry desire for an objective revolutionary communist situation, the formation a super large leftist communist labor front, which would lead the overthrow of capitalist governments to be replaced by workers and poor citizens governments in all countries of the world





So is downloading music/movies.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

There's nothing wrong with speculating about where a revolution will begin, but we mustn't become too self-assured when it comes to predicting history, which is quite unpredictable.

In the 19th century socialist Edward Bellamy's magnum opus, Looking Backward, the main character asks his friend what places are "safe" from a leftist revolution:


I asked Mr. Bartlett the other day where we should emigrate to if all the terrible things took place which those socialists threaten. He said he did not know any place now where society could be called stable except Greenland, Patago- nia, and the Chinese Empire."Unfortunately, Mr. Bartlett, and by extension Edward Bellamy, were proved quite wrong by this guy named Mao.:laugh:

[AmilcarCabral]

Ibleed: true, too many people think that in USA if you say "down with capitalism, we need a communist revolution", that FBI will raid your house. Thats not quiet true. According to many intellectuals who know a lot about the national security state, they claim that the national security counter-revolutionary forces of the US government only harass people that are electoral and political threats, real actual potential threats that can be either US president or some other powerful figure within the US ruling class and US government.

I think that the goal and objective of the national security forces of the US government to let people talk all they want, even offend Obama if they want is to give americans the illusion of freedom. But real freedom doesn't have any thing to do with total freedom of speech. Real political freedom, is based on being able to rule America, to be part of the ruling political force of USA.

So to all the people here, don't worry you can say we need a dictatorship of the proletariat right now with the workers-state expropiating the businesses of Wal Mart and all the banks. And nothing bad will happen to you, because of the fact that you are not an electoral and political threat to the ruling class of USA.

That's why Martin Luther King, and JFK and JFK JR. were killed by CIA because they were potential threats to the ultra-right wing plutocracy of the US government


.


Nah, we're too irrelevant for anyone to care.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

That's why Martin Luther King, and JFK and JFK JR. were killed by CIA because they were potential threats to the ultra-right wing plutocracy of the US government.


Houston, we have a conspiracy theorist! You think the guy who orchestrated the Bay of Pigs invasion was a threat to right-wing plutocracy?:laugh:

[Marshal of the People]

So is downloading music/movies.

Not if you have purchased them.

And I think calling for a violent revolution is a bit more (how should I say this) illegal than illegally downloading movies and music. In fact Jacques you could say the exact same thing when talking about murder instead of revolution. Just because you do one thing which is illegal isn't an excuse to go around committing other crimes like murder etc.

[Marshal of the People]

Nah, we're too irrelevant for anyone to care.

But if they ever needed an excuse to throw us in jail, shut the website down etc they would have a pretty good one.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi Marshal: The philosopher Schopenhauer said that morality, and laws are the negation toward life. All laws and all moral codes are not natural, they have been created by the oligarchic ruling class dating back all they way since the ancient greeks and ancient romans, and then reformed, with a little bit a shred of liberty to the masses, with French Revolutions and many other revolutions and social conquests.

But however a real free person, has the right to do what ever he want (provided he has the power to do that). So if the oppressed of USA have the power to overthrow and destroy the US government, they should do it right now if they want. There are no laws and no moral codes.

If you need a lot of money, just steal a bank. Laws only exist if you get caught.

And by the way a communist revolutionary should not know the word "fear", that word should be erased from the dictionary of communists. We cannot fear any thing, not even CIA, FBI and the whole US armed forces


,



Not if you have purchased them.

And I think calling for a violent revolution is a bit more (how should I say this) illegal than illegally downloading movies and music. In fact Jacques you could say the exact same thing when talking about murder instead of revolution. Just because you do one thing which is illegal isn't an excuse to go around committing other crimes like murder etc.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

The U.S. is the most likely.
Americanegocentrist.

At least explain why, because I really can't see how the hell that could happen.