Violence will be the ONLY way to bring change. - No facts, j

[munkey soup]

My personal opinion after months of thought on the matter.

Violence will ultimately be the only way to grab peoples attention and shake them outta their false reality. It will also be the only way to bring about true change, and the only way to secure it. People in the U$ have their current way of life too ingrained into their skulls. Peacefull protests will never wholly work, it will wake a few people up, but not enough.

As I have said before, I do not think the time is now, but ultimately a violent revolution will be the only kind to work. I am not advocating giving up on all peacefull means and avenues just yet though, because the little they do accomplish is still helpful. I would love to peaceful means bring about revolutionary change, I just don't think its realistic.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

wow comrade you know what i mean.....yeah protesting is a waste of time being a violent person will wake everyone up and more well follow along with the violent people then destroying buisnesses and fuck up the economy which well topple usa....or any other places

[munkey soup]

Not yet mi amigo, I'm not calling for it yet. And I'm not telling people to become a "violent person." And protesting isn't a waste of time because it keeps the hope alive, and makes our presence known.

Please people, do not think I am some wild eyed radical whos just itching for a fight. I just believe that ultimately a violent revolution will be the only realistic catalyst for true change.

[CheGuevara]

Yes, I agree with this, Munkey. However, protesting and other non-militant actions can draw some people towards the cause, and then they can be further brought to this point of view from there.

Anyway, look out comrades, man the electronic barricades, the pacifists of the CHE-lives board are going to come charging at us. Lock and load.

[Xvall]

I must agree...
The gevornment doesn't care about it's people's demands. This is proved by the fact that thousands of people march every day on Capitol Hill, demanding changes to the 'War on Terrorism', and not once has anything changed. The president is corrupt with his power. The American population is stupid. They are too busy entranced with Wheel of Fortune and Survivor Television series to care about what goes on around them, let alone do anything about it. If they see protesters, they won't care about it, unless they're protesting the business executives who run Wheel of Fortune and Survivor, in which case they will dislike the protests. Now, if a person hears an explosion at a nearby McDonalds or City Hall (Preferably with no one in it...), they might actually start noticing what's going on. ALthough I do think that peaceful avenues should still commence.

- Drake Dracoli

[STALINSOLDIERS]

haha thats a good one i see what you mean.....yeah your right i just dont think before i write things sometimes......you got a point.

[Guest]

i agree lets make more protest violent like when the police come and stop us and they start shootin their rubber bullets and tear gas lets not take it and be armed our selfs. and i am down with a little guerrila warfare myself.

[Guest]

i remeber this saying by Malcom X it was something like i don't call it violence when it is self defense in matter of fact i call it intellegnce it was something like that

[CheGuevara]

Yeah, I don't advise getting violent at demonstrations simply for the fact that it won't make a serious change in the system, and it could get your ass in trouble, and you can't do much good for a revolution from a jail cell. You'll never win by taking up arms in self-defence. You have to take the initiative.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Guest on 9:45 pm on April 14, 2002
i agree lets make more protest violent like when the police come and stop us and they start shootin their rubber bullets and tear gas lets not take it and be armed our selfs. and i am down with a little guerrila warfare myself.
but guest what u dont unerstand iz that portesting is bad anyway becuz we shudent portest we shud spend all r time building nucular weapons 2 throw at the pentagon 4 a revolution.

This post is fairly repetetive of what I've seen before. In the vast majority of the cases, Munkey Soup is exactly right and a truly socialist government will only come to power through violent revolution. However, lots of people on this board are whatever the opposite of "pacifist" is. They want violent revolution absolutely everywhere and they want it right now. Violent revolution has the best shot at establishing a real socialist government, but it has to happen at the right place, in the right time and with the support of the people.

I could say more, but I'd just be repeating myself. Anyone who really wants to know the thoughts of myself and others can just search old posts.

[Maaja]

Even Jose Marti said: *Action is the best thought!*

[Field Marshal]

We must accept the peaceful resistence and protests. These protest are attracting more and more people to become active. These protest are public recruiting centers for the people's army. One day we will have the army that is needed execute the orders that is neccessary to make the change. But for now, lets keep gaining more members, slowing climbing the latter of power. Then, and only then, can we strike.

[Reuben]

Cheguevara, I do not consider myself a pacifist. I realize of course that socialism can only come about through violent. I just do not believe it is currently the best option in the western world.

Although what I agree with completely is what happened at June the eighteenth a couple of years ago where banks were smashed etc.

[Fires of History]

CheGuevara,

I AGREE! I have always agreed with your opinion here.

Malcolm X once said, "Liberate our minds by any means necessary." And, yes, by ANY means necessary. LOCK AND LOAD!!! Not only here, but everywhere...


Munkey Soup,

Couldn't agree more Comrade. You are truly one of my Comrades because virtually everything you post I would say too. I agree with you that peaceful protests will never work. We can sing all we want, but power will not give up power willingly.

Many peace-loving folks I know laugh at me for the precautions I take, but better ready for violence than not. I would love peaceful resolution in the future, I simply do not believe it possible...

[Guest]

as resident CIA spook assigned to watch you fellas, I say bring it on. We can't do anything right now, you guys are protected by the first amendment, but just do something. I'm personally itching for the opportunity.

Furthermore don't you notice the fanatical elitism to which you subscribe. You kids actually think you know better for millions of people than they do for themselves.

[Kunkelz]

Although i’m not a pacifist, i don’t think it would be smart for us to get violent already.
Violance wil just scare potential left-wingers away, and you will just give socialism a bad name.
For a realistic revolution we will have to educate the peasant and our children, making them
aware of all the shit capitalism really brings, so we maybe can achieve socialism through peaceful means,
and if not we will have a far greater movement than we have now.
Keep this in mind comrades, we can’t achieve our goal if we don’t have the support of the people.

[Angie]

Guest 160.39.181.67 says:
"as resident CIA spook assigned to watch you fellas, I say bring it on. We can't do anything right now, you guys are protected by the first amendment, but just do something. I'm personally itching for the opportunity.

Furthermore don't you notice the fanatical elitism to which you subscribe. You kids actually think you know better for millions of people than they do for themselves."Well, it's nice to know that at least you admit to siding with government-authorised terrorists.

Generally, though? People who are involved in dobbing others in don't usually make their IP address so obvious to those amongst us who could be hackers and/or crackers.

Oh, and another thing? Cappies are only generally welcomed with the Socialism vs Capitalism forum - we'll see you there, shall we?

Have a nice day. :)

[vox]

Angie,

It's just our old friend from Columbia University again.

vox

(Edited by vox at 10:20 am on April 15, 2002)

[Anthracis]

I think that it depends on where your revolution will occur that decides if you need violence or not. To me, it would be easier to have a revolution in smaller third world countries without violence but if you were to have a revolution in the US, France, Britian, or any of those other "major" powers, it would almost necessarily have to be violent. Also, if you follow what Trotsky said with the worldwide revolution. The only way for that to happen would be through violent overthrows of the many governments.

[revolutionary spirit]

Listen a true socialist revolution is not see up by a violent method.If you wish to carry on throwing bricks at cops or whatever then you are only gonna give the media ammo to shot people watching TV.Martin Luthur King won alot of rights for black people through peaceful protests and gandhi too.Fight to mantain the revolution but to win it you should keep it pretty much bloodless.Remember it isn't a few of us with AK's that's gonna win the revolution,it's the working class through superior numbers.I'd rather see an army of 50 million unarmed workers than an army of 300,000 armed militants.

[CheGuevara]

As for Gandhi and Martin Luther King, anti-imperialist and anti-racist struggles are far easier to launch than anti-capitalist ones.

When you get your army of 50 million unarmed workers, then we'll talk.

[Anarcho]

It has been shown, time and time again, that 300,000 well armed and trained troops can control 50,000,000 untrained farmers.

And as I've said here before, there is little to no support in the rural areas of the US for a revolution. Nationalism is strongest in the hinterlands of the US, I know, I grew up there.

And, if one is hoping to draw attention to things, one must be very careful on the targets one attacks.

McVeigh had the same goals, and he's dead, and his name is cursed by the people of the US. To most folks, the Black Panthers were a bunch of quasi-racist nuts.

Before a true revolution can take place, one must plan how to best re-create the image of socialism/anarchism/whatever your goal is.

[CheGuevara]

I never said there was strong support in the rural areas. Maybe among certain segments of the rural population....

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from CheGuevara on 5:40 pm on April 15, 2002
I never said there was strong support in the rural areas. Maybe among certain segments of the rural population....I grew up in a rural area, and the only people there who I met in more than a decade that were socialists were the hippies on communes that you so despise.

Revolutionary Spirit, the vast majority of lasting improvements that came from the Civil Rights movement did not come because of the hard work of black people done according to plans by black people, but the violent reactions to hard work done by young white people according to plans by black people. In other words, lasting change through peaceful means is possible, but not just through the work of your average factory worker and a poor kid like me. The richer people also need to speak up for the lower classes, and it doesn't seem like that's going to start happening on a regular basis anytime soon. For while white college students in the 60's (and today as well) were perfectly capable of being moral, idealistic and ready to change the world, this is because being in the racial majority does not require sacrificing morals or hurting others. On the contrary--skin color is determined before a person is born. Being in a position of power economically, however, is only possible through immoral activity done almost 100% of the time by a person who is nothing if not greedy. The people who became successful in America through hard work and producing quality goods--such as Dr. Brown's soda, for example--are dwarfs compared to corporations such as (racist) Coca-Cola. So in this respect, CheG was correct when he said that "anti-racist struggles are far easier to launch than anti-capitalist ones." (I do disagree on the point of anti-imperialist struggles being easier to launch than anti-capitalist struggles, but that's an irrelevant and unimportant point in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the disagreements we've had in the past, CheG.)

[flames of the flag]

wher is the line drawn beetween activist and militant so i can stay on the activist side until the fighjting starts, then and only then will i join in.

[CheGuevara]

Uh oh, I smell a pussy....

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Guest on 12:29 pm on April 15, 2002
as resident CIA spook assigned to watch you fellas, I say bring it on. We can't do anything right now, you guys are protected by the first amendment, but just do something. I'm personally itching for the opportunity.

Furthermore don't you notice the fanatical elitism to which you subscribe. You kids actually think you know better for millions of people than they do for themselves.


First of all, it's bullshit that you work for the CIA. Secondly, if you did, you wouldn't say so.

Why are you 'watching' us? If what we have to say is so laughable, a product of a bunch of 'kids,' why are you here? Why do you care then, why is the 'CIA' worried?

What are you 'personally itching' to do anyway? Put a bullet in our head because we disagree with the state of affairs? Lock us away in an amerikkkan dungeon because we want a representative democracy? Because we acknowledge the impotency of the amerikkkan system?

Also, you said, "You kids actually think you know better for millions of people than they do for themselves." Oh, I'm sorry, that's right, the CIA knows what's best for millions of people, not the people themselves. Do you honestly believe that the CIA represents the people? HA!

Not that you can respond to this, the 'guest' feature has been turned off because of idiots like you. Ha ha...

Bye for now, so-called 'spook.'

EDIT: Not that you really are a 'spook,' but why are you wasting your time here? I can tell you personally that there are a lot more sites that are much more deserving of your 'CIA' attention. Trust me, this one is rather tame.

'resident CIA spook' LOL LOL LOL!

(Edited by Fires of History at 12:32 am on April 16, 2002)

[pce]

"Furthermore don't you notice the fanatical elitism to which you subscribe. You kids actually think you know better for millions of people than they do for themselves."

i'm gonna go out on a limb and agree with what he/she is saying. i don't think any one person/group/party/etc can decide anything for the whole country. a violent revolution is not good if for no other reason than that it isn't democratic.

[MattTheKat]

Any sort of government not supported by a majority is fascism. I don't know how anyone thinks they're going to do any good with a resistant and, on top of that, resentful population to rule over. Especially with a system like communism, which has in the past relied largely on the workers taking it upon themselves to make things better. Political leanings aside if a communist was to take over America right now I would resist. You people act as if capitalists aren't human. Harsh reactions to conservative elements haven't done very much to spread communist ideals in modern times. In alot of ways they helped to administer the death blow. I'm not condemning military resistance on all occasions, though I do find it distasteful, but I am saying that the overthrow of a government by a minority isn't constructive. ESPECIALLY a system that is to some degree efficient and livable(anyone who thinks that the U.S. doesn't have a fairly good political/economical system is kidding themselves). I'm not saying things can't be changed for better, but if most people don't want a change it shouldn't come about. With a democratic country it should be no problem for the majority's rule to come about peacefully.

[Fires of History]

I agree with CheGuevara, we must all takes steps now.

YOU ARE AN ARMY OF ONE!!! ALL OF YOU!!!

I'm really into culture jamming or whatever people want to call it, which to me is nothing but my way of waging a war with the only person I can organize at the moment: me!

We can ALL start to fight back NOW. YOU ARE AN ARMY OF ONE!!!

Sure, it's not guns and bombs, but there is a lot an individual can do in a world of property with a littly ingenuity.

For fuck's sake people, at least DO something!!!

We can talk forever about 'the day the revolution starts,' well, takes steps now. Do something now. Even the smallest action is liberating! Plus, you never know what individual action will turn into a collective movement.

[CheGuevara]

Uh, capitalist, you missed the turn for your forum back at the main community page...

[Fires of History]

Quote: from MattTheKat on 12:41 am on April 16, 2002
With a democratic country it should be no problem for the majority's rule to come about peacefully.


You think amerikkka is a democracy? LOL!

"The most serious threat to democracy is the notion that it has already been achieved."

[RedCeltic]

Any sort of government not supported by a majority is fascism

Really? So the United States which has George Dubya in office even though he lost the popular vote is fascism? Ahhh thought so....

"Representitive Democracy" is democracy in name only.

[El Brujo]

I think for now a violent revolution would be good against far-right fanatics (racists, fundamentalists, ultra-nationalists, etc.) as for the people in the middle which actually have brains and could be convinced through reason, pacifism MIGHT work but In reality there would have been a revolution decades ago in this country if protesting really was efficient (especially against a bunch of McCarthy-ite dipshits).

[MattTheKat]

First of all, there wouldn't have been a revolution long ago if protesting was efficient because communism has never been popular. Blowing people up isn't going to make it popular either. Second responses like "you think amerikkka is a democracy" with no further statements just make you seem like a jackass who just likes to take the popular stance. Secondly, the popular vote versus electoral can be debated, but the electoral college isn't designed to let the minority dictate. The electoral college is there so that the interests of high population density areas don't inevitably precede that of smaller population density areas geographically. Its an attempt to account for everyones interests. Personally, I'd like a popular vote, but its a far cry from being fascism. Everyone just likes to complain how America is so horrible because its popular. I personally think that government is essentially immoral in that to be an efficient government you can't operate on moral principles. However, that doesn't mean that America isn't in general largely benevolent and incredibly efficient. This is all beside the point, my hypothesis still stands on violent revolution.

[El Brujo]

Communism wasn't popular BECAUSE of the censorship and prosecution. Thats why Im saying, If they are going to play dirty, so should we. "Tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye" to be exact. Look at it this way, almost no tyrannys have been destroyed through pacifism because of the tyranny's "dirty-playing" nature, so youl notice that almost all fascist or far-right regimes have either been overthrown by armed revolutions or collapsed by themselves.

Even the most influencial pacifist revolutionaries like Ghandi havent had that much effect on their society's. Ghandi wasnt the sole cause behind Indias independence like Che and Castro were for the Cuban revolution or how Lenin was for the Russian revolution.

[RedCeltic]

MattTheKat

Incase you missed the first hint from CheG... you are welcome to post your flames in the S v C forum. If you continue to post in this forum your posts may be deleted and you may be subject to being banned via the rules of this forum. Please... feel welcome and right at home in the S vs C... and post there as much as you want... just not here thank you.

We shall not ask politely again!--and please everyone ignore the cappie posts.

[RedRevolutionary87]

ok here is the problem. lets say you do get to power through some sort of fair elections, and now you say all the companies now belong to the people and the means of production belong to the people. do you really thing that multimillionare who owns the company is gonna step down?? HELL NO!!! hes gonna hire his own army to get you out of office

[MattTheKat]

Hah because I disagree with you I'm a capitalist? Its not a flame, its disagreement. Not everyone who is a leftist is in agreement you'll notice. You don't have to hate america and want to shoot everybody to be in the left wing.

(Edited by MattTheKat at 11:37 pm on April 15, 2002)

[RedCeltic]

(Edited by RedCeltic at 10:05 am on April 16, 2002)

[chupacabra]

America is no democracy! I didn't even know my taxpaying $$ was going to Israel! This is a govt. run by selfish clowns who don't give a damn about anything but themselves! I would be more than happy to be in Europe where the people are more open-minded and care about the world.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from chupacabra on 8:24 am on April 16, 2002
America is no democracy! I didn't even know my taxpaying $$ was going to Israel! This is a govt. run by selfish clowns who don't give a damn about anything but themselves! I would be more than happy to be in Europe where the people are more open-minded and care about the world.

I wish my family never left Scotland...

[Fires of History]

Quote: from MattTheKat on 5:35 am on April 16, 2002
Hah because I disagree with you I'm a capitalist? Its not a flame, its disagreement. Not everyone who is a leftist is in agreement you'll notice. You don't have to hate america and want to shoot everybody to be in the left wing.

(Edited by MattTheKat at 11:37 pm on April 15, 2002)


So, are you claiming to be a leftist? What would you call yourself then? Answer this, and I'll take the time- *sigh*- to show you why statements like "I personally think that government is essentially immoral in that to be an efficient government you can't operate on moral principles" and "However, that doesn't mean that America isn't in general largely benevolent and incredibly efficient." are in direct contradiction to any leftist stance you would claim to have. Which is why I don't believe you are a leftist.

You're the jackass for coming here, of all places, and trying to defend the electoral system of the U$. Do you know where you are? If you want to make amerikkka sound representative, benevolent, and efficient, as you say, damn did you pick the wrong place to do it. There are a host of other more right-leaning sites that I think you would feel more at home in.

So, are you a leftist?

[gooddoctor]

unless i'm mistaken, the one thing we all have in common here is an interest in improving ordinary people's lives. how does war do that? the only people who ever lose in war are ordinary people. rich people hide away and pay other ordinary people to do their fighting for them with hi-tec machines. what most people here seem too young to realise is the value of civil order, and what it took to acheive it. if things ever get so bad that the right revolution comes along, be a hero then, but not before. in the meantime, go out and do voluntary work, earn a degree, join trade unions or non-governmental organisations - anything to give yourself the power to improve people's lives now, in case the revolution never comes. didn't che practice medicine before he met castro? vive.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from gooddoctor on 9:56 am on April 17, 2002
unless i'm mistaken, the one thing we all have in common here is an interest in improving ordinary people's lives. how does war do that? the only people who ever lose in war are ordinary people.War improves people's lives because after a war is won by a well-run, moral leftist group the group will fund good schools, provide quality healthcare and make sure that laws are obeyed. And besides "ordinary people", others who have lost wars include the Nazis, imperialist Brits and Confederates, to name a few.

[gooddoctor]

hey, the us just won a war in afghanistan, the israelis are winning a war in palestine. at the moment, so many "leftist" people are demonstrating against the widening of the war against terror to iraq, but it seems a few che-lives members can't get enough of it. why does everyone think that war is the answer to all our problems? i've had enough of armchair generals posturing, it sickened me during the afghan war, it sickens me now. meanwhile, our heros the farc (well-run, moral leftist group?) terrorise half of columbia, run the drug cartels, but do fund the occasional local amenity to keep the villagers quiet. war isn't black and white, and neither are revolutionary guerilla groups. oh, and you might not have noticed in your history lessons, but in order for the nazis to lose the war, our government sacrificed millions of our grandfathers lives - what's so great about that?

[Derar]

The US didnt win the war in afganistan ........ coz usama bin laden is still alive and free , as well as mulla omar .

So they didnt do shit !! plus alqaeeda is still at large around the world .....and the US is still recieving threatnings like everyday .

And they didnt win the war on Iraq coz Saddam is still in power .

And israel , is not winning shit ........ they bomb the hell out of innocent civilians in palestine, yet they cant stop the human bombs from rocking their filthy streets every otherday ....
All the advanced human technology couldnt stop the suicide bombers from entering israel .

So the word ( we won ) is just simple propaganda to keep fooling the american ppl .

[FtWfTn]

I don't know if Osama is still alive. . even if he was in bad health he could still keep himself alive with his money though i'm sure. . . .are we fighting Sadam right now? Or did I miss something?

[VolareMIRCantare]

Hi Everyone!

I have just read all the posts and I am quite disturbed by some of them.

VIOLENCE IS BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!WAR IS WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want a leftist government you have to have the SUPPORT of the upper class, you will not get their suppor through violence. Also communist governments have a bad reputation in the western world, it will not improve with commies attacking others. All you need is upper class support becasue the government will listen to them. No violence required. Also I think, or I hope, that no one in this forum would like to get beaten or shot so why would you do that to someone else. Please don't be a hypocrite. Also violent protestors shouldn't be allowed to protest at all. The police are trying to find reasons to shot the protestors and they give them one. The activist should not lower themslelves to the level of the evil police.

Now this is the most disturbing, some person, I don't know who (I wasn't looking at the names) said that war is good thing.

WAR IS NEVER A GOOD THING!!!!!

Why don't we ask a holocaust survivor what they think of war, how about a person in Afghanistan???

People dieing and lives being ruined is not worth any cause even the one we are fighting for.

I lived in Bosnia for 6 years and I had to leave becasue of war, and I never wanted to leave. 25000 Bosnians died in that war because they were Bosnian. Is that a good thing, and by the Milosevic is apperanatly a socialist. So maybe its ok that he did that, becuse he's a sociaist. I don't think so. I was very lucky and wasn't harmed and neither was my family but there were so many others that were. People were beaten and raped then left for dead. You were lucky if you just got shot!!! Does that sound like a good thing????

What everyone has to realize is that the human race is supposed to be evolving, and I think that means we become less and less ingorant. The world must learn that PEACE is the only way.

A revolution can be peaceful it just requires so much more work then a violent one. We can't be lazy, it time to organize the protestors and to work together towards a peaceful era.

Peace Love Happiness Harmony

[RedRevolutionary87]

unfortanetly we cant change anything without violence. as i said before the current violent government will not step down nicely, so we cant evolve untill they are out of the way, the only chance for peace and communism is to fight fo it

[VolareMIRCantare]

To the best of my knowledge this is forum for leftists which includes SOCIALISTS. Socialits want to take care of everyone and taking care of EVERYONE is not waging WAR upon them!!!!

[RedRevolutionary87]

ya well socialists dont realize that they will never acheive what they want, or they want to compromise and allow some free enterprise but make it more restricted, and that ofcorse is no better than regular capitalism, just the government cashes in thats all, people adjusted marxes beliefs to suite theyre own need thats all it is.

socialist will never make anyone free, just make them think they are

[MattTheKat]

Yes I am a leftist. What I meant by those comments were that I find that government is essentially corrupt, but that the U.S. is probably one of the better governments to live under. Its not like everyone is starving and dying here and I'm not trying to say changes can't be made for the better either. I just don't see why everyone hates it so much. No one seems to be pissed at Yasser Arafat whose been blowing up innocent civilians for years upon years. On this subject though, I don't think that violence is beneficial. With the support of the masses you can do greater things then with their subjugation.

[VolareMIRCantare]

Thank you very much matt, you are completly correct.

All you need is the peoples' support and anything is possible. Never underesimate public opinion.

[RedRevolutionary87]

actualy the usa is a problem becaus eits people live nice lives off the back of the starving in the rest of the world, we only need to look at the countries the usa supports and we see how this is true.

"one thing the revolutionary needs to understand is that freedom can only be achieved through the barrel of a shotgun"___mao tse-tung

[Fires of History]

Quote: from VolareMIRCantare on 12:44 am on April 30, 2002


If you want a leftist government you have to have the SUPPORT of the upper class, you will not get their suppor through violence....All you need is upper class support becasue the government will listen to them.



:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

WUH!?

Sorry, the upper class is the problem, not the solution. Fuck them. I would never cater the needs of the people, and the demand for justice and equality, for a bunch of fucking upper class whiny twits. I don't want their support, not like they would give it anyway. Why do you think the upper class would support a revolution, any change for a matter of fact, anyway? They won't support the people, the workers, the poor...

Yeah, maybe the government will listen to them, but, you see, THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!! Not the solution.

(Edited by Fires of History at 1:24 am on April 30, 2002)

[RedRevolutionary87]

im glad someone sees the light

[VolareMIRCantare]

Well, let's say the upper class support the leftists and the governmnt in turn changes, I don't think thats bad thing. One day they will support us because they realize that some of them are opressing others and will want to change their ways. Then they will be leftists and all the classes will unite. The lefties will have won. We can't exclude certain groups from our utopia. Marx said that a communist revolution will only work in a capalist society.

[RedRevolutionary87]

ya marx said it has to be in a capitalist society because of the industrialization, marx was pro violence, plus the upper class wont give up theyre power kuz they realize they are doing bad things, hell they already kno that.

you have this elusion that all people are nice, its not like that, this system has bread greed, and the only way out of it is forced sharing, then afterwards we can be all nice and peacefull when people find it natural to share

[MattTheKat]

I think I could make my thinking clearer. I think you're more likely to see a more obvious change sooner through violence. However, I think that a change more likely to be succesful that will ultimately be for the better cannot happen in such a way. Violence breeds resentment and provides grounds for those who oppose you to attack you.

[RedRevolutionary87]

and what do you think the ceo will simply give awayhis company because the law says so, I THINK NOT. you come to power peacefully and tell them to step down, they will simply hire an army and take you down from power, so either you fight back, or communism dies, so in the end freedom can still only be achieved through violence, wether you fight first or fight after

[CheGuevara]

Who gives a fuck if violence breeds resentment? I'm no fucking quaker and this isn't going to be no fucking tea party, I don't intend to kiss the asses of the people who have been fucking us over.

[VolareMIRCantare]

If you want this revolution to start and be successful you have to keep an open mind and look at all the options before you take the easy way. Violent revolutions may work, but only TEMPORARALY. It will encourage others to pursue their own cause through violence then you'll have anarchy. A peaceful revolution is a lasting one.

P.S There is no need to swear!!!!

[VolareMIRCantare]

If you want this revolution to start and be successful you have to keep an open mind and look at all the options before you take the easy way. Violent revolutions may work, but only TEMPORARALY. It will encourage others to pursue their own cause through violence then you'll have anarchy. A peaceful revolution is a lasting one.

P.S There is no need to swear!!!!

[munkey soup]

I can understand what you're saying Volare, but true change cannot occur without violence. Sure small changes can be made through peaceful means. But when you start threatening the way of life most of those in power enjoy, the will not sit back and let you try and change things. The U$ is notorious for covert-operations to overthrow movements, just look at the Black Panther movement. The minute the corrupt people in power feel threatened, they will do everything in their power to take out the movement threatening them.

Also, the way our lovely U$ "culture" works is that the only way you're gonna get peoples attention is through violence (Unless you can amass a good amount of peaceful protestors, and if you can, I will cheer you. But most U$ citizens don't really care about what their lifestyle is doing to countries around the world. And see if you can truly change a thing by just talking).

[CheGuevara]

We're not going to accept any compromises. Win or die. The movement has been looking at all the options for the last 100 years, and you could see where they've gotten us. Nowhere. I doubt after our revolution and seeing we're serious that the pussies will do much fighting, but if they "pursue their own cause" through violence, we can take them on, and it won't be anarchy, we'll have won and we'll kick the shit out of them.

[MJM]

War is a result of Imperialism/capitalism isn't it?
We all want peace but how do you get it? well you have to fight against war mongers. How do you do this? You have to revolt against the Imperaialists. INTERNATIONAL CIVIL WAR, if we win, the final war.
Would you fight in this final war, a war to end all wars, I would.
You can preach peace all you want but it won't happen as long as the system stays the same, democratic socialists have been trying to fight via bourgeois democracy for over 100 years, when is enough enough?

[VolareMIRCantare]

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL WAR!!!!!

Words spoken by a true genius (sarcasm)

What is wrong with you? War is a terrible thing!!! Why would you inflict it upon the world for any reason.

Hey why don't us commies get a whole bunch of nukes and we'll have the power. Then we'll use them. Then the world will be destroyed becasuse of all the envornonmental damage.

Gee thats great, the lefties won but everyone's dead.

Does that sound good to you?

Even one person dead would be a tragedy, even if it was a capitalist.

The people in the western world are so un-affected by the perils of war its disgusting!!!

[CheGuevara]

Some of my friends are former guerrillas from Latin America, and most of them would fight against capitalism again if they had the chance. I'm young and I've already sold my labor to capitalists several times, and I'm not looking forward to a life of it.

(Edited by CheGuevara at 3:07 am on April 30, 2002)

[RedRevolutionary87]

well ive said all i have to say, no matter how you aproacgh it you will have to embrace violence, its not our fault, its the systems fault, when the time comes i will fight without a second thought in my head

[munkey soup]

Listen, we don't want war because it'll be fun, you'd hafta be one sick individual to think war is fun. But do you honestly think change is gonna happen through peaceful means? That's a good idea, but it's just a dream. How is peaceful protest gonna work if you're trying to overthrow a corrupt regime that is prepared to kill as many as possible to stay in power?

[j]

Violence? Pacifism?

People seem to believe that these things are mutually exclusive or one is the true "right thing." The truth is, who knows?!

Before we can begin to think about how a revolution will take place we need to change the minds of the people. An earlier post stated that a government that rules people that disagree with their politics on a large scale is a facism. I don't know if that definition is correct but it holds some weight in this discussion.

The People of the United States are actually quite content--the majority anyway. The people see injustice but don't really care. Even the socially minded folks pass the homeless on the street and hope not to be asked for some spare change. People want to drive their SUVs to Wal-Mart. They wave american flags and say "fuck Bin Landen." They are under the false presumption that we are the truly the land of the free and the home of the brave. You say revolution (whether violent or peaceful) and people get scared. People don't realize what is going on in this country. I live in a tough urban neighborhood in Boston and the people next to me wave american flags. These people are black and hispanic. They have been treated like shit by the USA and are still willing to wave that flag. People don't know. We must disemminate (sp) the information and let people know what is truly happening. They need to know how corporate america is succeeding in killing us. They need to know how the media manipulates us in every possible way. People don't have the information!!!

Before any discussion can be held on revolution (violent or peacful) the people must first know the truth. People are brainwashed and have "bought into the system." This is the system that is bringing us down. And we all HAVE to buy into it to some degree. ( the computer that I'm writing on and you are reading this on are created by the corporate).

Malcolm said "By any means necessary." Right now our means are spreading the truth and the information. Teaching our friends and allies to "unlearn." This is the battle we need to fight. You can't pick up "Che Guervarra--A Revolutionary Life" and throw at somebody and have them read it. You have to convince them that is worthwile to read!!! I'm not against violent revolution but our revolution is on the information front before it can be anything else.

j

p.s.-sorry for the long post, hope I didn't violate any rules or anything.

[I Will Deny You]

I think that both sides have a point, but both arguments have major faults. CheGuevara said that he doesn't "intend to kiss the asses of the people who have been fucking us over." While this is good news because ass-kissing is unsanitary in general, he doesn't seem to realize that communism depends on the willingness of the people to work. When a man begins to notice that slacking off for two hours each day at work won't mean less pay, he has to have an alternative reason to work. And if the system isn't one that he likes, it's going to be tough cookies (to avoid using an obscenity, as a courtesy to our more sensitive members) for everyone who relies on his services. Jailing fascists militants is one thing, but if you've got a country run by CheG and two of his Latin American guerillero friends and no one likes him or wants to support him, he'll run into problems. Education is definitely needed, and a substantial amount will be needed before your "revolution". You can only imprison so many dissidents at once, you know. If you look at New Jersey (I'm not about to make another Joisey joke because you reacted harshly to my last one, which was all in good fun, but I'm just using it as an example because I'm familiar with it and I know you live there), the group of people there that has been oppressed the most throughout history is women. Black people have been enslaved and have owned slaves. Asian people have won and lost wars. And Hispanic people have quite a history themselves. Women are consistently oppressed, and I can't think of a single example of women as oppressors. However, women are probably the group in New Jersey (and many other places in the world) who have made the greatest strides toward equality. You'll notice that there was never once a war for women's independence or equality. We gals got to where we are today through peaceful demonstration and education. (Why do I feel like I'm repeating an old argument? Hmm.)

In response to Volare's "Why would you inflict it upon the world for any reason", here's the answer: to end slavery or to end imperialism. That's why I support the what the American troops did during most of the (US) Civil War, World War II and the American Revolution. I'm not trying to tell you that the Civil War was the 19th century equivalent of a Tupperware Party, but it was fought for a reason and it was worth it. And what about World War II . . . wasn't that justified? I disagree with the use of nuclear weapons, but up until then, and especially in the fight against the Nazis, I think the Allies had the right idea. No one likes war. But sometimes it's necessary. Most wars are petty, stupid and avoidable, but there have been wars that were needed and achieved their goals.

By the way, j, you didn't violate any rules. :) Nice post. I agree with you.

[I Will Deny You]

Double post, sorry.

(Edited by I Will Deny You at 2:56 pm on April 30, 2002)

[MJM]

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL WAR!!!!!

Words spoken by a true genius (sarcasm)

If thats all you got out of my post you need to read it again, sarcasm can be a powerful weapon in the right hands.

A world wide socialist revolution would be the last war, because war is a product of Imperialism.
Did you think by last war I meant the end of the world/civilisation? That was not what I meant.
Maybe we can just carry on in the world today and have the wars come and go. If you think war will stop under the current system more power to you. I however know this isn't going to happen.
Whats your idea, tell the ruling class war is bad and they'll suddenly stop?

[CheGuevara]

It won't be run "CheG and two of his Latin American guerillero friends" (two 'r's in guerrillero, btw). I know you were exaggerating to prove your point, but even I will admit the revolution won't be WON by 10, 100, or even 1000 guerrillas. STARTED is another matter, though...Anyway, it will gain a decent amount of support or it will die. Even with a decent amount of popular support, or even a majority, it could still die, or should I say be killed. I never declared violent revolution to be 100% successful, only the best chance to end worldwide exploitation.

As for women, how about that little problem of equal pay for equal work? Just a minor setback, I forgot how important it was for women to be able to perform a monologue with the word 'vagina' in the title.


(on a serious note, despite my making fun of what some women mark as serious progress, I know there have been some major advances with regard to voting and reproductive rights, etc)

(Edited by CheGuevara at 6:39 am on April 30, 2002)

[Derar]

" Attacking is the best way of defense "

i dont know who said that .......

but fuck peacefull demonstrations and shit ...... coz they wont lead us anywhere ..... the US is immune to these kind of peacefull process .

We've been having peacefull demonstrations since the vietnam war ...... and what we got till now is a world controlled by America and it's greed ....
Peacefull demonstrations have been going on and on and on and on ...... but who listens ? fucking no one ....... nobody cares !
Not even millions of protests stopped the war on afganistan , the israeli massacres in palestine , the war on iraq , the better treatment of the POW , the US acceptance of the koyote agreement ......

Deep Inside we know that violence is the only way left !

[Anarcho]

Quote: from MJM on 5:53 am on April 30, 2002

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL WAR!!!!!

Words spoken by a true genius (sarcasm)

If thats all you got out of my post you need to read it again, sarcasm can be a powerful weapon in the right hands.

A world wide socialist revolution would be the last war, because war is a product of Imperialism.
Did you think by last war I meant the end of the world/civilisation? That was not what I meant.
Maybe we can just carry on in the world today and have the wars come and go. If you think war will stop under the current system more power to you. I however know this isn't going to happen.
Whats your idea, tell the ruling class war is bad and they'll suddenly stop?





A good idea. The only problem with it is that the Socialist movement is very fragmented. Once the world-wide revolution takes place, what sort of socialstic state will we have? Utopian Social-Anarchist? Maoist?

A World government is not going to end wars, it will just make them harder to fight.

[Fires of History]

On April 24, 1916, a rag-tag group of Irish nationalists stormed and occupied the Dublin post office, as well as other strategic points throughout the city. Pearse knew they were all dead, and that this desperate act was at best a spark; so did Connolly.

But these men and women were true heroes because they said enough is enough. They turned a hopeless situation into action for change. They committed an act of rebellion in an atmosphere of little support, and a situation where even there fellow countrymen ridiculed their plans and ideas. Defeat Britain!? Are you crazy!?

But they did. And their act, so inconceivable in the eyes of so many, became the rallying cry for freedom for millions in years to come.

"If our deed has not been sufficient to earn Irish freedom, then our children will win it by a better deed."
-Patrick Pearse, at his court martial on May 2, 1916.

"The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the oppressor inconceivable." -Andrea Dworkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit:

I will never forget the first time I took my best friend culture jamming with me, or whatever you want to call it.

The 'public works' group I am a part of had designated a series of [anonymous] strewn all over the city as needing 'work.' With my novice companion, we set out late in the night with two other jammers.

I could sense his apprehension and concern for his personal well being. He was still hesitant to a degree, and even I could appreciate his desire to avoid getting caught.

But over the night I saw a dramatic change in him. As we systematically destroyed who knows how much 'capital' worth of property, I could see a tremendous shift in his attitude. What started out earlier as a cautious concern about whether or not he was really doing the 'right thing' slowly evolved into a confident assault on the physical manifestations of imperialism. He later talked about the feeling of empowerment as one that he had never experienced before. He also, most importantly, expressed his thoughts about how the journey from quiet, law-abiding citizen to property-damaging 'criminal' was one he felt could never be reversed.

MJM, that is why I applauded your graphitti so strongly a while back. Within our so-called peaceful society there are three types of people. Those who quietly accept whatever is presented to them, unthinking, unchallenging of the status quo. Then there are those who know but don't act. And then there are those who have stopped being quiet, who have acted, no matter how large or how small- and their numbers are growing everyday.

The first and the last are the most interesting to me, and the difference between the two is simple. The former never questions authority and could never conceive of breaking 'laws,' of acting out in such 'immature' and 'criminal' ways. The latter of course being those who have, and are simply waiting.

“I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” –Emiliano Zapata

(Edited by Fires of History at 10:24 am on April 30, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

A revolution's a long way away. I'm thinking hundreds of years. Besides, socialism/communism wouldn't work in America cos they're just too fuckin rich. Cappies won't give up their money for a fairer society...

FoH - so you're advocating suicide missions then??

[gooddoctor]

life's for living, we've got to do the best we can with what we've got. in the end of the day, the trouble in the world is not our fault, and we don't have all the answers to fix it. we can do our little part, but unless the people cast their votes, who the fuck are we to tell them that their governments will be destroyed and replaced with something we like better? we aren't fascists, it's not our job to tell people how to live their lives. our countries would be better off without liberal capitalism, sure, but would they really be better after a civil war? do you have any idea what desperate, irresponsible people would do to protect their power? and what sort of rulers usually emerge after the apocalypse? people who have respect for human life and democracy? i think not. in fact, there's enough war in the world already without creating more; it destroys enough lives and economies elsewhere without bringing it into our own countries and defiling our own homes. have some respect for your community.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 4:37 pm on April 30, 2002)

[Kez]

The way is see it is:
Both methods have advantages and disadvabtages
I reckon peaceful way is best when you have good support
Violence is needed when you have NO Support, or mass Support
When i say violence, i dont mean, smashing windows, but assasination

so for now peaceful is best

[gooddoctor]

but how can you commit violence without support? that only makes you a terrorist. there has to be a definite and acheivable goal if violence is used, like trying to expel invaders or topple a dictator during a mass movement. we have none of these things in the west. our governments dictate, but you cannot kill a government, an idea, only a person. also, there's on real mass movement that doesn't work within democratic boundaries. that's the main problem with political violence on the left, it's like banging your head against a brick wall, you only hurt yourself.

[munkey soup]

"ter·ror·ism:
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from CheGuevara on 1:36 am on April 30, 2002
As for women, how about that little problem of equal pay for equal work? Just a minor setback, I forgot how important it was for women to be able to perform a monologue with the word 'vagina' in the title.
First of all, Eve Ensler is G-d and you've just committed heresy. ;)

I never said that everything is perfect for women in New Jersey. But what minority has ever made as much progress as women? And you also failed to explain how women's lives would be better if there had been violent revolution.

Sorry about my bad spelling, everyone. At least my writing isn't half bad compared with how I talk.

[CheGuevara]

They'd be better because it's either a violent revolution or no revolution at all.

So, how does one judge 'popular support'? Zogby polls? Elections, in which FAR LESS THAN 25% of the general population supports the winner? A revolution will test 'popular support'; if there's enough, we'll win.

[Fires of History]

Guerrillaradio,

About your question: it depends on the situation. Would the Irish of 1916 have waged a 'proper' war if they could have? Yes. Would the Palestinians today be waging a 'proper' war if they could? Yes. Suicide attacks are a result of no other means to wage war on one's oppressor. It isn't something to 'advocate,' it is simply the inevitable result of no other means of waging war.

I will say this though. For most of the people I know, there is a strange Either/Or idea in their heads.

Either you are peaceful, or you are a suicide bomber.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There exists a ~L A R G E~ grey area in the middle. You don't have to run around with guns to effect change. You don't have to kill yourself and bomb people to fight back.

While I think CheGuevara is a little over the top sometimes, I completely agree with him. No amount of million ____ marches will accomplish jack shit on its own.

I've said again and again that BOTH fronts are needed. People should select their comfort zone and run with it. If marching is your thing, great.

The problem I see is that there are NOT two fronts right now. We have plenty of marchers, but we ALSO need those willing to take it just a notch beyond that. Killing people? Never. Destroying the means, methods, and resources of imperialism? Yes, forever, and always.

We need a peaceful movement, yes. But we also need a widespread contigent of people pressing the issue through more...how shall I say it... 'clandestine' action. And the latter is what we are currently missing in the misguided and widely-held belief that only peaceful picketing is needed to bring real change.

Am I a 'criminal'? Sure, fine, whatever. Am I a 'terrorist'? Sure, fine, whatever. But such labels would mainly come from the ruling elite anyway, in their consistent effort to keep people peacefully marching and nothing more. What better way to keep people in line...literally.

“Nothing wrong with a few professional protesters, when the world is full of professional oppressors.” –Alan Bamford


Munkey Soup,

I like your reference. My main reaction is to the "...unlawful use..." part.

'Unlawful' just refers you to 'Illegal.'

1 il·le·gal, adjective: not according to or authorized by law: not sanctioned by official rules.

Which brings us to 'Law.'

1 law, noun: a binding custom or practice of a community; a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority; the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules

Two thoughts:

1. Who, really, makes law?

2. I do not recognize such 'binding authority.'

“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” –Martin Luther King

(Edited by Fires of History at 11:02 pm on April 30, 2002)

[munkey soup]

FoH, summing up my thoughts on your post: Absolutely!!

There is a book written by a guy whose name I cannot remember. Anyway, he did a study, and found that revolutions that used both a violent and non-violent front are extremely effective. I've never read it, but I remember my Pol Sci teacher (who, according to Kamo, I shouldn't be listening to because she is part of the right-wing anti-communist conspiracy, but thats another topic) talking about it. I'll try and find out more about it.

Anyways, FoH, I agree with you 110%. A "Terrorist" is all of a sudden some evil person who wants to rape your children and destroy the world. I don't like bin Laden or his cronies, but not all terrorist causes are like theirs. But Bush is on his Crusade now to rid the world of all terrorists (which is not only impossible, but creates more "terrorist" along the way), which now means anyone who is fighting to try and free themselves from their oppressors.