Revolution

[shyguywannadie]

Would you join a communist armed revolutionary group in a western country(which doesnt yet have the masses on our side)?

e.g. the UK :ph34r:

[BOZG]

No because I oppose individual terror as a method of struggle. Without mass backing no revolutionary group can succeed. A revolution is an act of the masses, not for the masses.

[Individual]

Your choices are not very broad.

"Yes, I am a true communist"

I do not need to be a 'true' communist to want to fight in a revolution. Someone could fight in a revolution in order to better their living conditions and the government in which they live.

'cuz i want to piss off my daddy'

Wtf is that? What if I wouldn't join a revolution for other reasoning? What if I am a 'true communist', but am not going to join a revolution of 100 people trying to over throw the American Empire.

Logical idea, however our word means nothing. We can say that we are going to, but the question (which is un-answerable without faced with true circumstances) should be: would you fight in a revolution faced with circumstances in your favor, in which the revolution would benefit yourself, your community, and making a better World.

The choices you have made to answer are bogus.

[schumi]

I have to agree with AlwaysQuestion and BOZG.
First of all your choises are too blackandwhite and second of all I dont think that a war can be won if the people dont want you to fight for them and dont support you.

[commieboy]

That was a bad poll man...And i voted yes...mainly because i like to shoot my guns!

But anyway, i don't usually go "pro violence" but you've got to set some guidelines with "Revolution"

like what will we do for funds? sell coke like FARC.....?

Who will we fight? you see, i don't live down the street from a barracks or anything...

How will you fight? You're not going to blow up civilians like Palistinian fighters....

Revolution is a dirty business, and these days it's turned into criminal and worthless.....Fuckin' have a nationwide strike or somthing before you flock to the woods to play soldier...

[Hayduke]

A revolution without the masses on your side ?

No never that is impossible. :blink:

Read Ernesto's guerillia warfare to understand the importance of the masses on your side.

[Hayduke]

Okay let me tell you exactly how it will go.....

You start a few club of young people that are willing to fight for a classless society. ( I highly doubt you get many tough. ) In a country like the U.K your first actions will quikly be described as terrorist attacks. And the media is horny to lay a connection from communism to terrorism.

And then the U.K sends the green suits for you........ you're smart enough to guess the result.

[Hayduke]

" The guerrilla fighter needs full help from the people of the area. This is an indispensable condition. This is clearly seen by considering the case of bandit gangs that operate in a region. They have all the characteristics of a guerrilla army: homogeneity, respect for the leader, valor, knowledge of the ground, and, often, even good understanding of the tactics to be employed. The only thing missing is support of the people; and, inevitably, these gangs are captured and exterminated by the public force. "

-Ernesto Che Guevara-

[Hayduke]

- poll edited -

[DeadMan]

I would fight for an armed revolution in my country. I don't think I would ship out to a country that has it better then me (like the UK) to fight a fight that would do little without the populations support. If there was to have one in the US or in Canada then my name would prolly go up as a yes. But as the moment, I would say no.

DeadMan.

[mia wallace]

of course i would... i hope i'll have a chanse to actually do it once.

[Postteen]

I voted yes,but I also think that the revolution must begin from our own minds.The last solution for me would be to take the guns.

[Fidelbrand]

I rather go Gandhi's way.
Armed revolution isn't attrative and feasible in this contemporary world.

[Postteen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:19 PM
I rather go Gandhi's way.
Armed revolution isn't attrative and feasible in this contemporary world.
That's what i'm saying!I love Gandhi!! :wub:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:19 AM
I rather go Gandhi's way.
Armed revolution isn't attrative and feasible in this contemporary world.
Gandhi wasnt trying to change the fabric of reality. He wasn't trying to change the way people view the world and themselves he was trying to change the ruling class of india.

Revolution may not be desirable but it is inevitable (unfortunatly). The ruling class will not allow the workers to take control without a fight. Laying in the middle of the road or holding hands and throwing daisies around the streets is not going to smash capitalism or the state.

I voted no. Any working class action should be by the working class as a whole...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Beatle [email protected] 26 2004, 09:01 PM
That's what i'm saying!I love Gandhi!! :wub:
All this crap about Gandhi. Ok, so he led a non-violent movement that was involved in the transition of power from the British, but what was really the point. For a start the British ruling class used Gandhi as a puppet to quell violent dissent and only handed over power when the international trend shifted. If the British really wanted to keep India do you honestly believe that some skinney old fart in a white cloth would have stopped them. Get real!

Secondly what did Gandhi actually achieve. All he managed to do was transfer power from the British ruling class to Indian capitalists who did nothing, and still are doing nothing, to end poverty, famine, disease and depravation there. Furthermore he managed to ignite religous violence which has lasted for 50 years and ended up having to lose a great big chunk of land to Pakistan...

Gandhi achieved nothing of any significance to the world or to the Indians, especially the working class or peasentry. Just because he advocated non-violence does not make him a good leader or a moral crusader.

[SittingBull47]

probably not, like someone else said it must be with the masses, not for them.

[redstar2000]

Trying to make revolution without support of the masses is a just plain nutball "idea".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[roman]

This is a pig question. oink oink oink. I think the poll should be deleted and thread renamed or something. Topics like "are you a terrorist?" is bad security culture, even for a forum like this.

[mia wallace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:19 AM
I rather go Gandhi's way.
Armed revolution isn't attrative and feasible in this contemporary world.
i agree with trying to have as less violence as possible, but sometimes strugle and violence is the only way if you want to get something working...

p.s. beatle kat why did you changed your avatar?? :blink:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think the support of the masses comes with struggle. Talking isn't enough. Fight, and show them what you can do for them, and how you can improve society, then support will follow.

[Soviet power supreme]

Well this is kind of guessing game.

Well think about Fidel.He did started guerilla warfare and succeed.
But on the other hand look on Che's Congo and Bolivian campaigns.Those shows that it doesnt work always.

But there is a chance that it might work so I would grab that. :ph34r:

[demonio comunista]

umm...cha. i mean really. of course I would join the revolution, because they would need help getting the masses on their side. and if its just a group of maybe 15 people, then the masses aren't going to be on their side, so you need to join up and get more and more people so the masses will join our side. and then if you waited until the people were on their side, then of course you would be considered more a follower than leader. that might be ok with some of you, but personally I like to be a leader more than a follower. but thats just my opinion. :)

[Retro]

I voted no.

Im not axious to end up labeled as a terrorist for something that i beleive in. I will be doing more harm than good in today's society.

The United States has made it dangerous to be a group fighting for a cause...

If im going to fight a war, im going to some place where i know i can help, and help further achieve my ideals.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by mia wallace+Feb 27 2004, 08:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mia wallace @ Feb 27 2004, 08:21 PM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 11:19 AM
I rather go Gandhi&#39;s way.
Armed revolution isn&#39;t attrative and feasible in this contemporary world.
i agree with trying to have as less violence as possible, but sometimes strugle and violence is the only way if you want to get something working...

p.s. beatle kat why did you changed your avatar?? :blink: [/b]
yes, Mia, I agree.

But as democracy is the buzzword of the century, a somewhat universal non-violent mass campaigns / mobolization would be ok too.
The problem is how to yank those depply ingrained capitalist ideas out of the lay public. This is the most formidable job of all. Once this part it&#39;s done, things shall go smooth.

I know i m being a little bit idealistic here. But deep down inside my mind, i do not think it is impossible. :)

[shyguywannadie]

Ghandi did NOT get rid of capitalism or anything of the likes&#33;

All he helped towards was instead of British capitalism its Indian capitalism.

Not a step foreward just a step sideways.

Also there was much more than just Ghandi at the time, there was also violence going my indians against the British.

P.S. do you really think that the british would have given up India because of them? no, the British left when THEY wanted to, not becauseof Ghandi&#39;s persistance or the violence against them.


As was said before: of course I would join the revolution, because they would need help getting the masses on their side. and if its just a group of maybe 15 people, then the masses aren&#39;t going to be on their side, so you need to join up and get more and more people so the masses will join our side. - demonio comunista

I agree totally

[Postteen]

What I&#39;m saying is that the last thing for me would be to use violence(Lennon also has a big affect on me..)However I would definately join to revolution in order to bring communism or get rid of a government.No question at all&#33;

[cubist]

yes aslong as hostile action is used only in necassary terms and when met with hostile force, and providing the political statement of the revolutionary was integral and believable

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:38 PM
I voted no.

Im not axious to end up labeled as a terrorist for something that i beleive in. I will be doing more harm than good in today&#39;s society.

The United States has made it dangerous to be a group fighting for a cause...

If im going to fight a war, im going to some place where i know i can help, and help further achieve my ideals.
How can being a "terrorist" do more harm then good? In a society that brands everything that is not with its corporate agenda as terrorists, I would be rather ashamed not to be a terrorist. If I am going to fight a war, I&#39;m going to fight. We should be ready to fight even if it means certain death. Even if it means almost certainly dieing in vain forgotten forever. It would be better then doing nothing except aiding the capitalists.
Victory or death&#33; Both are far better then a life of shame under capitalism&#33;

[YDSofLVA]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 07:48 PM
No because I oppose individual terror as a method of struggle. Without mass backing no revolutionary group can succeed. A revolution is an act of the masses, not for the masses.
As long as you attack only the government and take GREAT care to not inflict casualties of any kind onto civilians its not terror. That&#39;s how Mao did things.
Terrorism and the like is only the result of trying to kill civilians.
America would label you a terrorist. but America is full of quite brilliant evil individual who like wordplay and use it as a weapon against the average stupid American.
Sorry. but our proletariat is in the hands of the media which is in the hands of the government. The ogvernment that will label anyone a terrorist. I.E. Afghani Soldiers.
So sad

[BOZG]

YDSofLV,

I&#39;m using the phrase "individual terror" in the sense of how Trotsky posed it, not in the common usage of the word.

Regardless of who you attack, individual terror can only retard consciousness and to paraphrase Trotsky "belittle the masses in their own consciousness". It rules out the need for the masses to emancipate themselves and to rise up, it pushes people to take a backseat role in their own liberation.

[Kez]

i think BOZG has summed it up well here, but just to add.

There seems to be a tendency among certain left comrades that communists can be somehow "seperate" from the masses. No, this is not possible, and what is this talk of somehow fighting is gonna make the workers join in the fight, no, it simply isolates them as BOZG has said. Does no-one here read a book or something, this is basic knowledge...fucks sake.

Thank god this board isnt representative of the left as a whole.

And another thing, Fidel only won with a General Strike, it wasnt the direct result of his fighting, but the movement of the workers.

[Comrade Zeke]

I am not really a big Communist more of a Social Democrate but as all the other people in here it is the masses that support the revoltution as Che would say "I am not a liberator,the people Liberetate themselfs&#33;"

[dark fairy]

Roman you scared ther shit out of me i was like i don&#39;t remember posting anything here i was like whoa&#33;
but yeah all i can say is that i am a communist at heart and if i can support something good then whoo&#33; but then there is a catch because it can&#39;t just all be good im no eutopeanist man i can&#39;t spell&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2004, 06:09 AM
I am not really a big Communist more of a Social Democrate
Did you really just say that???

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 1 2004, 02:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 1 2004, 02:24 AM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 09:38 PM
I voted no.

Im not axious to end up labeled as a terrorist for something that i beleive in. I will be doing more harm than good in today&#39;s society.

The United States has made it dangerous to be a group fighting for a cause...

If im going to fight a war, im going to some place where i know i can help, and help further achieve my ideals.
How can being a "terrorist" do more harm then good? In a society that brands everything that is not with its corporate agenda as terrorists, I would be rather ashamed not to be a terrorist. If I am going to fight a war, I&#39;m going to fight. We should be ready to fight even if it means certain death. Even if it means almost certainly dieing in vain forgotten forever. It would be better then doing nothing except aiding the capitalists.
Victory or death&#33; Both are far better then a life of shame under capitalism&#33; [/b]
What do you mean by terrorist? Are we talking civilian killing here? Are you talking about murdering the people you want to liberate in the name of liberating them?

While you are going around being proud of being a terrorist you have polarized the working class. I suppose now, in your crazy mind we force them to accept what we are saying regardless of what they think of us.

The anarchist movement first used violence to achieve its goals but it failed. It failed miserable. They revised their tactics. Unilateral violence is not going to solve anything. No matter how noble your intentions.

[sh0cker]

I voted yes, but it depends on other conditions, for which county and how many of us&#33;

Probably I would not go in some revolution of few thousends of poeple who are poorly armed against army..


sh0cker

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:17 PM
I voted yes, but it depends on other conditions, for which county and how many of us&#33;

Probably I would not go in some revolution of few thousends of poeple who are poorly armed against army..


sh0cker
Why would you assume that you could fight...95% of the people in this thread would shit themselves with fear as soon as 6 foot 4 15 stone police men and soldiers where charging at them with knives and shooting at them. You included.

Furthermore, why would you presume that anyone would want you to fight for them. This revolution sounds very elitist. This elitist organization of "hardened revolutionaries" sound as if they are the ideological pinnicle of society. Is that what you class yourself as...ideological superior to everyone else...

Why dont you people drop the act, realise you&#39;re not Che Guevara and read a book...Good starting points is here. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=21255)

[Kez]

TAT, get the fuck off your high horse, your nobody to judge if others would fear a pig or not. If you have an argument, argue it in a way people will be convinced, not by talking down to them.

We must realise who were fighting this revolution for, the workers and poor who are the victims of our enemy capitalism. How can we fight for the workers without the workers (masses) on our side? This is just the "moral" argument against individual terorism.

Secondly, how you propose to fight revolution without masses participation? Where you gonna get funding from? the big part of this is from workers donating to a revolutionary org.

If we start shooting police, what will people think? Media (an organised tool) will potray us as terrorists and we will become more and more isolated from the workers, is this what we want?

As redstar said, without the masses this is a nutball idea.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Would you join a communist armed revolutionary group in a western country(which dosnt yet have the masses on our side)?

I like the way you say &#39;yet.&#39;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 05:38 PM
TAT, get the fuck off your high horse, your nobody to judge if others would fear a pig or not. If you have an argument, argue it in a way people will be convinced, not by talking down to them.
And you never do that do you...

I know full well that people would shit themselves. Soldiers shit themselves. You teenage boys being shot at by hardened military men are going to shit themsleves. And most of the people wouldnt fight. It&#39;s a fact. It&#39;s a fact I have stated. If you think I am being righteous then that&#39;s you&#39;re hard look. The sooner people get out of this "i&#39;m che" mentality the better. People shouldnt be molley koddled because they have an opinion. None of these people would fight. How do you know you would? I dont know if I could. Can you imagine being shot at. No&#33; So dont assume that you do and that you&#39;d be brave enough to go out and do it.

I think you should also take a leaf out of your own book:

Kez

No, this is not possible, and what is this talk of somehow fighting is gonna make the workers join in the fight, no, it simply isolates them as BOZG has said. Does no-one here read a book or something, this is basic knowledge...fucks sake.

Thank god this board isnt representative of the left as a whole.

Why don&#39;t you get down of your high horse and trying looking at what I am saying and how I am saying it instead of attacking me just because I said something. Or, alternativly...dont speak to me&#33;

[Kez]

From my experience on here ive learnt people here arent all socialists/communists/anarchists but people who are interested in talking "left" politics.

As for whether i would shoot, the fact that i take part actively in the revolutionary struggle means i will face this prospect. If i dont want to face the prospect i quit now, no point doing somethings, then not the whole process. You seem to think your the only one thats taken a knock on the head, boring mate, boring.

Russian Marxism was born fighting against individual terrorism, because the forerunners such as Lenins brother were inexperienced. We should learn from history, and not repeat it a) its gonna fail b) why waste your life?

EDIT: The comment i used which you quote was incorrect and i withdraw it and replace it with advice that we all need to read up on our history, and if we dont the lives lost in previous battles will all be in vain.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 07:15 PM
You seem to think your the only one thats taken a knock on the head, boring mate, boring.
No...No I dont...that&#39;s just your crazy perception

[Winston Smith]

If there was a worthy reason yes I would even if it wasn&#39;t supported by a majority.

[Kez]

Originally posted by Winston [email protected] 12 2004, 06:04 PM
If there was a worthy reason yes I would even if it wasn&#39;t supported by a majority.
But if you do that surely your isolating socialism/revolution from the masses?

[Pingu]

i would help the revolutionists, and shoot back at the cappies if they shoot at me, but i am a pussy, i don&#39;t want to kill people, because the capitalist militairy force&#39;s are just tools of the cappies, they aren&#39;t thinking with their minds.

I just don&#39;t know if i will pick up a gun, but i will help the communists of course, in healthcare or something :rolleyes:

[God of Imperia]

You know, I think it isn&#39;t right just to join a revolutionary group just because they are communists, people can say that they are a lot of things, but they have to prove and keep proving it ...
I would never blindly follow any kind of flag, but I would join one if it seems a righteous one to me

[bunk]

"If there was a worthy reason"
Surely the worthy reason is communism and getting rid of capitalism?

"I would never blindly follow any kind of flag"
I agree, some groups have some of it&#39;s ideaology i think. I don&#39;t live in Colombia and don&#39;t really know what the conditions are like there but im not sure i agree with selling drugs for funds.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 07:41 PM
"If there was a worthy reason"
Surely the worthy reason is communism and getting rid of capitalism?
They still have to prove that they are, saying isn&#39;t enough

[pastradamus]

Communism must destroy capitalism at all costs. No Revolution begins with the masses support but rather gains it over time eg Che & Castro in Cuba.

[God of Imperia]

At all costs? Why don&#39;t you just nuke the whole planet. Everybody is dead so there is no more capitalism...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 12:12 PM
Communism must destroy capitalism at all costs. No Revolution begins with the masses support but rather gains it over time eg Che & Castro in Cuba.
And this is exactly why they have always failed. These "communists" create a revolutionary situation without having the support of the workers to remove one state structure with another state structure, they believe is somehow going to move towards communism.

Of course it can not. The state diametrically opposes the concept of workers liberation. As history proves, over and over again, no more so than the present situation in Mozambique, that attempting to achieve a society based on unity, using a theory which requires a fundamental change in human psychology, without the support of the people you are trying to free, is disastrous. It results in dictatorships as this so called benevolent state grapples with power and economic managment and eventually reverts back to capitalism. Russia, China are the most popular examples of countries reverting back to capitalism. Loas and Vietnam are opening up their markets, as has Angola, Tanzania and Mozambique. Cuba is not far behind.

Creating a revolutionary situation in the name of achieving workers liberation can not, has not, and will never succeed if it is not supported. The only way you can achieve a lasting, meaningful revolution is if you have the support of the working class, and further still, that it is them who is organizing it.

[El Tipo]

Yes, sometimes ya gotta do whatcha gotta do.

[RedAnarchist]

Why was this necrovoted back up?

[Bilan]

Please don't revive these threads.
Closed.