Log in

View Full Version : The science of revolution; taking up arms?



antigovernment
12th January 2002, 21:14
the priority concern in a revolution is not whether or not you have a gun in your hand, but whether or not you have your community organized. Because that's where revolution comes from, the community. From the people. However, as you mobilize, I believe it's definatly necessary to also be prepared to defend yourself, otherwise the state will take you down. The state naturally resists revolution, if they see a movement growing that they know has potential to knock them down, then they will eliminate it with violence. If your movement is PREPARED to defend it's self against that violence, the state is in trouble. This will lead to further class conflict, and more state repression, but it's also the downfall because it's putting every last resource it has into stopping your movement. Naturally, this will erupt into full fledged class warfare. Thus we must be prepared to handle all areas of this, we must get this down to a science. Prepare ourselves for economnic warfare. Because as the state has proven time and time again, nomatter if your peaceful or violent, they'll point a gun at you and pull the trigger.

It's not the fact that your movement has guns which make it dangerous, it's the fact that you're ideas make YOU dangerous, thus your movement is a threat to the state. The state has this organized "democracy" which consists of the police, army, navy, marines, and what have you. In order to sustain this security aperuatus, the state must seek to eliminate any potential threat to it's existance. The biggest threat is the idea of revolution. The idea for change. What I mean here is that the mind is a weapon, where the gun is only a tool.

Revolution is a science. In order to carry out a revolution, we must understand this sceience. We must understand how to sustain social equalibriums within our society, and sustain a security within our communities. This only comes about through education; as I said earily, mobilizing. Organizing the communities. This will build a counter-intelligence, which naturally leads to counter-action.

We in fact, already have a counter-intellegence, but it's apathetic, because we are passified. We are passified by the dominance of counter-production, mass marketing, and comercialization. It passifies us every day. The 9 to 5 job - the clampdown - passifies us as well. Therefor we must unpassify ourselves by organizing and taking action. Even if were small. Because all it takes is a spark to light up a bon fire. What I mean by that is there is social influence within a society when another person starts doing something. For example, in Argentina, people started marching down the streets to protest the IMF. Then naturally peopple in the sorounding community joined into the march. Then more people. And more. Then the whole city was into it. Sometimes it takes a small group of people, or even a single indivisual to ignite that spark so everyone will see it, and respond to it. Because alot of people have been indocrinated with apathy. We're pounded with the dominance of this corporate culture value system every day. They are literarly indoctrinating us so we cannot mobilize amongst ourselves. We break through this with education. But remember, education is a dangerous thing. As I said, mobilizing for revolution is a threat to the state. It goes against the interests of the upper class (who are very small, but control very much). Therefor their main concern is to silence you. And violently. There isn't a single revolution where the state hasn't reacted violently. To be serious about revolution is to be serious about self-defense. It's only intelligent (that is if you want to achieve a revolution). There are other tactics within economic warfare that can be utilized in guerrilla format to shake, break, crack, and hack the state as well. We can win. We can take them. There are more of us then there are of them. We are smarter than them, and our power - the power of the people - has lasted longer than them. It's lasted longer than any government. There power of the people has never seized. We will win.

peaccenicked
12th January 2002, 21:28
well said

El Che
12th January 2002, 21:44
complicated bisness... If the people are indoctrinated with apathy then they will not follow you. The fire you ignite will not speard unless you get your message across frist, and its acepted. Now i dont know about you but if you ask me this is no simple task, but in anycase i agree with you as do most of us here. Thats is effectively what we try to do, get our message across. However if we do this within the system in a democratic way, playing by there rules, then in that case for them to react violently would be from them to undermind there own system and destroy the people`s faith in this "democratic" system. If they did what you predict they would do then we would already have won.

CheGuevara
12th January 2002, 21:52
Or if they did if we tried to do it peacefully, they could always just shoot us and say we had guns. Nothing new about that. Or we could just dissappear, or "hang ourselves in our jail cells with our underwear" If we become a threat, they'll shoot us whether we have guns or not.

(Edited by CheGuevara at 10:54 pm on Jan. 12, 2002)

CommieBastard
12th January 2002, 23:22
Which is not necesarily a reason to have a gun...
possibly even a reason not to have a gun?
anyway, i am not saying that i definately support either a revolution using or without guns...

anyway, i completely agree with antigovernment... i have always said that the first battle which the left must win is the battle for the minds of the people, and i have also always said that any fighting must be a fight of defence for the left. In the people's eyes, an aggressor is always wrong.

here's a couple of extracts from a discussion i had with kamo...

"even if we defeat capitalism, the revolution must go on for nigh unto forever, never will we be truly free, never will society be perfect, until the entierety of human nature can be changed...
expect and take a little, give a lot. thats what this world needs, but its going to be a major uphill struggle...
and first of all we must convince people bit by bit that our principles are not only pleasant, but plausible, and that means a major major campaign...
by all means stock up the weaponry, but do not even display it until you are sure that the people will follow it instead of fear it.
also, do not use aggression, you must always be in the position of the defense against the alternative lifestyle and society that you found, for only in this way can you ensure that not only will people follow you, but that those people will be following a noble virtue.
...
well, basically, even once we've conquered and rid ourselves of capitalism, in the future there will be a philosophy yet more progressive than communism, as communism once was to capitalism, and capitalism to feudalism before it.
You see, in history, there is always a prevailing thesis, which is then countered by an anti-thesis, which will eventually come to form a synthesis.
so, we will always have revolution, always have change... the best we can hope for is to make the system that we put in place next unresistant to change...
anyway, thats why i say the fight will always be there, why revolution will always occur.,..
well, anyway, you cant win the UK by just going out there and shooting some cops or soldiers...
it's not quite like the batista regime, or the tsars of russia..
the way to win the revolution in the UK is to get your weapons ready, then set up an alternative communistic system within the UK's national boundaries, and only use the weapons if the prevailing order attacks your new system...
there are two ways that i might consider of doing this, declare one region independant of the UK govt. and set up ur own system, or the one more likely to be peaceful, and also more likely to be supported, force into existence communist worker's co-operatives, which are not only more efficient than capitalism, but also undercut capitalist prices. And most essential of all, all monies earnt by a revolutionary force should be spent in the improvement of the lot of the working classes..."

A revolution fought on noble principles of forgiveness and peace, will create in turn a society founded on noble principles, which is forgiving and peaceful.

Dreadnaht1
13th January 2002, 00:06
I've always believed in armed revolution but does that mean a revolution with guns? Not necissarily. I always thought of it as armed with the people rather then armed with guns. If a revolution has 100% support from the people then there cannot be any resistance from the state and the revolution would have a 100% sucess percentage. Too bad all revolutions aren't like that.

-Dread

El Che
13th January 2002, 00:31
well i didnt quite understand if it was kamo or CB that thought it would be a good idea to creat a state within a state but in any case i think the idea is quite absurd. We are the minority, we are the ones trying to change the society, the economic system and the state. Just because it is difficult to put these changes into effect, exaclty because we are the minority, i dont think the answer is to give up on the majority and just take matters into our own hands. Were we live people vote and there for chose what political proposals they are repressented by, and i for one will not give up on them. Nore do i feel i have the right to go against them.

CheGuevara
13th January 2002, 00:57
Yet another fool putting far too much faith in the capitalist elections.

CommieBastard
13th January 2002, 01:01
wtf? would you like to explain exactly how creating a state within a state is going against the majority of people? the only thing it goes against is the govt. and the repressive system. If you create a state within a state, then you can set an example, show how good things can be, and spread the influence of your message within the state, until eventually, the state becomes the one you set up.
I by no means advocate 'giving up' on anyone...
and as for the choice which i presented as being the one i favoured most, setting up workers co-operatives within the state, that is even more involved with the people...

El Che
13th January 2002, 01:20
Guevarra your the fool so you can go fuck your self in the ass.

And CB the idea that you would be allowed to set up a state within the UK or for that matter that anyone would follow you is childish to say the least. No offense its the way i see it, if you dont agree thats fine.
And if you advocate revolution you go against the majority and if you advocate a new state you give up on them. I think this is are very simple ideas.

CommieBastard
13th January 2002, 01:43
you are right, they ARE very simple ideas, and you have shown that you either read nothing i said, or understood nothing i said...
for a start, i am not saying that this is something that should be done now, as i have said many a time, the first battle that must be won is that for the people's minds...
but the workers co-operatives already exist in the UK, there is a co-operative shop, a co-operative bank, lots of co-operative stuff, but it is doing poorly at the moment, and there are not as many as there should be. THe left wing press is also out there if people can find it, and many more people are listening to it. The movement treads onwards, and though it has not yet reached success, it may very well be within the next 30 years. As for whether the state would tread down on a state within a state, they probably will, and thats why the guns will be needed.
you do not give up on the majority by creating a new state, for you are providing an alternative for them. did i ever say that the new state's borders would be closed? it would provide a choice that has not yet been seen.

El Che
13th January 2002, 01:49
well speaking for my self i think no Portuguese would want to split there contry up into two Portugals, not now not in 300 years. As for worker co-peratives, unions and anything else related to the workers struggle i am all for it.

(Edited by El Che at 2:50 am on Jan. 13, 2002)

CheGuevara
13th January 2002, 02:46
[quote]Quote: from El Che on 2:20 am on Jan. 13, 2002
Guevarra your the fool so you can go fuck your self in the ass.

pretty heavy stuff.

El Che
13th January 2002, 03:43
yea heavy

Dreadnaht1
13th January 2002, 05:06
Yet another topic rammed into the ground through childish name calling. Deja Vu.

-Dread