For Changes Blood Must Be Spilt

[DRS]

what do you people think of this?

For a change of goverment, sacrifices would have to happen and violence would be the best answer? We all know that talking gets you know where, and no leader listens to the people, the only way we get heard is when we strike out, and they are at loss to something.

the only change that i know about that went pretty calmly was when gorbachev turned the greatest communist super power ever into a McDonalds loving capitalist country.

whats your ideas?

[Edward Norton]

Well what exactly are you suggesting???

Urban guerrilla warfare?

Street riots/direct action demos?

Yeah, I agree with you that no change will come peacfully, espc. if its a change from a soceity of heirachy and authority and capitalism to a society of freedom and communism.

[DRS]

yeah, big things like you said capitalism to communism, or possible smaller things.

i was just wondering if anything could be done peacefully, because when it comes to the people of a nation and a bad leader.

but i dont see how things like this could happen in civilised countries for example, how could geurrilla warfare happen in england? lol

they would have the armed police at the peoples door and then possibly the death of the people

i can only see revelotions like this happening in less civilised countries

[Essential Insignificance]

For a change of goverment, sacrifices would have to happen and violence would be the best answer?

Your employment of the word "government" has in consequent, blurred what you’re actually trying to ask.

It’s not a question of it being the "best" answer--but, rather a necessary answer.

However, that all depends on what kind of political situation your conversing about.

Of course peasant rebellions, upsurges, revolts and upheavals all imply violence and aggression, both, directly and indirectly in opposition to the residual population. Yet the political climate of than given locality can illuminate some of the perplexities and uncertainties in regards to how things are going to turn out and the amount of "brute force" that would be requisite for a change in the material conditions; or, at least the political environment.

Nay, the degree of violence is mostly incalculable for the most part, but knowledgeable suppositions can disclose some veracity.

As for a communist revolution--it is (will) both aggressive and authoritarian in nature--where the vast majority of an nation enforces it’s collective will upon the antagonist remaining ; in this case, the ruling class and the social constructions of thus.

Violence in most cases is a means to an end; which in my belief, is necessary and far outweighs the "pacification" and "ineffectiveness" of current day consciousness.

The degree of violence required for the overthrowing of the existing conditions buy the oppressed, depends, exclusively, of the ruling classes "strength of character"; and if they want to struggle and maintain the current system of production, exchange and consumption; in other words their productive capital, resources, wealth, assets and property.

I think they will.

Bring it on!

[Cheech06]

Well i have been thinkin bout this for a while, and ive been thinkin of ways to change things peacefully...it could work, and so would a revolution, but i think that things need to be changed in socialism....One good example, would be Fidel sayin that the was doin his best followin the dictatorship as a marxist...but times change and why does he have to follow one man? Change things as u go along. I think that socialism fails cause of the the dictatorship. I think that there should be at least one year of dictatorship...and after that one year...there will be democratic elections..but the whole goverment will be based on some kind of leftist constitution that will be developed. Of course people have to have their rights, u have to win to people over, but votin in a leftist goverment the people will feel more involved and favor it. Thats all i got so far...but if yall have any suggestions or want to add...please do. Peace.

[Essential Insignificance]

Well i have been thinkin bout this for a while, and ive been thinkin of ways to change things peacefully...it could work, and so would a revolution, but i think that things need to be changed in socialism

It all depends; on what the bourgeois and the bourgeoisies weapons of mass destruction (armies, police force etc), are going to do. Something tells me that they are not going to want to give up their capital and supremacy, that they have "worked so hard for"; and whats been in the family for generations. "Its my heritage!"

No one likes to lose what they have, regardless of how little or how much you have.

The peaceful road is a possibility; but an unlikely one. The degree of carnage is going to be binding on the whim of the ruling class; do they want to go easy or hard--hard I say.

[Subversive Pessimist]

For a change of goverment, sacrifices would have to happen and violence would be the best answer?

Not neccesarily. There are several that has changed the world without violence. Ghandi, Allende etc.


One good example, would be Fidel sayin that the was doin his best followin the dictatorship as a marxist...but times change and why does he have to follow one man? Change things as u go along. I think that socialism fails cause of the the dictatorship.


It's supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's not a dictatorship in the way most people think. It's is the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoise. Even though he is not democratically elected, he has done great things for Cuba.

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:51 AM

Not neccesarily. There are several that has changed the world without violence. Ghandi, Allende etc.





Hmm Ghandi replaced foreign imperialism with national capitalism and we all know what happened to Allende.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Hmm Ghandi replaced foreign imperialism with national capitalism and we all know what happened to Allende.


Yes, but they both changed society without violence. The point is that, you can change the world without violence, without picking up guns, even if it is very difficult, or even seem impossible.

Don't get me wrong, I even support FARC and ELN, and all the communist revolutions around the world for that matter, but if it is possible to change the society through reform, it is always the best thing to do.

[bunk]

It didn't work though did it, it doesn't do any good if you change society and are then overthrown.

[Kez]

if we could change through reforms, we would, the issue is that the capitalists wont let us, therefore we must take extra parliamentary action, such as the strike etc

[Subversive Pessimist]

It didn't work though did it

Yes it did. He did a lot of great things during the time he was in government.


it doesn't do any good if you change society and are then overthrown.

It wasn't like he was overthrown right away.

However, if we are attacked, we must defend ourselves, and strike back.

I don't think the Bolivian revolution did do any good, even though it was an armed revolution. Get the point [not trying to be rude, just curious if we understand each other]?

Are you opposed to reform?

[Edward Norton]

[/QUOTE]but i dont see how things like this could happen in civilised countries for example, how could geurrilla warfare happen in england? lol

they would have the armed police at the peoples door and then possibly the death of the people

i can only see revelotions like this happening in less civilised countries[QUOTE]


Well the nature of guerrilla warfare is subjective to the environment in which it takes place.

In poorer 'Third World' countries that will mean fighting in the forests and the jungles and the mountains.

However if you looked at my original post you will see that I metioned URBAN guerrilla warfare. That meas that the cities are the jungles in which revolutionaries fight in.

If you want to find out about the theory of urban guerrilla warfare, then read up on a man called Carlos Marighella, who was a urban revolutionary in Brazil in the late 1960s. Also look up on the history of urban guerrilla groups like the Red Army Faction (Germany), Red Brigades (Italy), ETA and GRAPO (Spain), N17 (Greece), DHKC (Turkey) and the SLA and the Weatherman Underground Organization (USA).

The methods of urban guerrilla warfare differ to that of its rural counterpart.

Lastly, your point about the police, army and state apparatus killing revolutionaries, well they do that anyway, look at Mumia Abu Jamal (framed for a murder coz of his radical journalism) and look at people like Sherman Austin imprisoned fr simply running a direct action website.

The US and te FBI now consider 'unofficial' demos as 'terrorsim' and will use the nessecary force t quell them. Basically since 2001, any dissent against the system that actually challenges the power structure of capitalism will now be dealt with by the police and FBI/DGS/MI5 etc...

Peaceful demo's are ignored, strikes on their own are not that effective (only a general strike, with no time limit attached could pose a credible challenge to the system) and well, we all know how USELESS elections are so lets not even go down that road!

Anyways when push comes to shove and revolution becomes apparent, if we dont use force, the ruling class WILL and MANY more people will die then in a rage of counter-revolutionary terror than if we use force and do away with a few CEOs and politicians.

Allende in Chile, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, Jao Goulart in Brazil, Spain's democratic republic, ALL of them ended in a right wing bloodbaths with no gains in the end being made for people!

And Im afraid Chavez in Venezuela will be heading down the same road towards a mass grave, UNLESS he arms the people and pushes his 'Bolivaran Revolution' from reform into a real revolution that eliminates the ruling class and establishes a workers state!

[Subversive Pessimist]

Carlos Marighella


MINIMANUAL OF THE URBAN GUERILLA (http://www.bellum.nu/wp/cm/cmmotug.html)

[bunk]

I'm not opposed to reform i just think that a revolution is needed.

[Djehuti]

Iam a marxist, not a pacifist. Ofcource i realise that most, if not all major changes is made under violence or threat of violence. Violence is the foundation of every class society. But violence glorification is as bad as pacifism, we must always analize.

Never the less, pacifism have never achieved anything, or at least almost nothing.
And ofcource we must use violence sooner or later, to think other is idealistic.

But we must not glorify the violence, but be ready to use it when needed.

[Essential Insignificance]

Hmm Ghandi replaced foreign imperialism with national capitalism

People are persistently seeing this particular "revolutionary act" as something contradictory to the Marxian cause or the cause of freedom and justice.

I have never been a personal aficionado of Gandhi and his, so called "pacifist movement"; but he did do a lot of necessary "things" for India, enriching the inevitable introduction of the material, productive, forces of modern day society.

[Djehuti]

Gandhi was surely a nice man, but it is wrong to give Gandhi all creds for getting rid of the britts. It is much more likely that the britts went hope because of the hundreds of strikes and riots, then that some old man got beaten without defending himselfs. The big militant resistance in India resulted in that the brittisk military presense in India was to expensive, and that the profits were at risk, so they went home.

[DRS]

He is the reason they done all the rioting and had a uprising against the british

[Djehuti]

Thats idealistic!

[V.I.Lenin]

The British had depleted all the resources of India,as the grandson of Mohandas said regarding the horrible condition which the British had left India in,that their resouces had been reduced insomuch that they couldnt produce even a safety pin,this was how horrendous the conditions were upon the departure of the Brits.

While its quite easy for most to admire Mohandas,even reverencing him as a holy man and calling him by the affectionate term 'Bapu',still,one needs to understand completely that his pacifist policies caused unnecessary suffering and death among his countrymen,especially among fellow-Hindu's.

Here was a man who advocated non-violence to Hindu's while the Muslims aggressively attacked all the more,I personally feel that Mohandas,by his exaggerated idealism,sought to create nothing more than a nation of sheep,an easy prey willing to stretch their necks on the chop-blocks of their enemies without offering one shread of physical resistence,a very disturbing aspect of a man who apparently cared more for his personal 'saintly' persona than for the lives and suffering of his religio-national brothers and sisters.

There had been uprisings against the British in India before the arrival of Mohandas,the only real difference is,that as I said,Mohandas pushed his 'satyagrapha' non-violent means of civil disobedience which attracted media attention,as well as drawing attention to British brutality in regards to public scurgings,mass-killings,etc.

Then of course there was the Muslims which did not wish to see the creation of an exclusively Hindu government at the emergence of national independence,and while Mohandas campaigned for Muslim-Hindu unity Muhaamed Ali Jinnah was fronting a Muslim movement 'the Muslim League' and advocating the creation of a Muslim state,thus splitting ancient Bharat into two opposing nations upon one soil.

However,as I initially stated,the British had come to view India as a drag on their own overall economic structure in that they had raped India insomuch that it was no longer necessary to fund colonial occupation of an outpost which required much more in expenses than any materials they could continue to possibly extract,that,in effect,it was to Britains advantage that they withdraw from India.

The Gandhi ordeal for the most part was nothing more than a staged psycho-drama in which far too many human lives were sacrificed unnecessarily,and for what? - the vanity of an egocentric? for the sake of promoting merely one more holy man of India? whatever the case,the British colonialization of India stands as just one more example of human greed and brutality.

[BloodandMuscle47]

I feel that although throughout the course of history, political change rarely came w/o human sacrafice, we can still reform the ways of a nation through mass protest and peaceful demonstrations. If in fact blood must be shed, I feel that it must be the blood of the corrupt leaders and officials who plague us and hold the nation back from its rightful prosperity and commonwealth.

[Essential Insignificance]

The whole (majority) of human world history is build upon the foundations of bloodshed and violence; one man suppressing another to survive and flourish.

History is the conquest of one class over another, only to find itself the subjugated by another class or group of people.


If in fact blood must be shed, I feel that it must be the blood of the corrupt leaders and officials who plague us and hold the nation back from its rightful prosperity and commonwealth.

So do I; yet, I don’t think the ruling class are going to go down without a fight.

[InfinitaPaciencia]

I believe that what happened in India was one of the greatest acts of non-violence and it inspires me to this day. However nonviolence is not effective in getting rid of colonialists. It is effective in making the statement of who is "bullying" who and drawing a line that clearly depicts "good" and "evil". I mean look at the Civil rights movement, the race riots, the sit ins. But that wasn't fighting for a change of Gov't, it was "fighting" for REFORM. However, if we are talking about removing a gov't, then all the statements have been made and the lines are drawn...All that is left to do is organise and fight. Also non-violence is a representation of the will of man to no "lower" themselves to the level of the people who oppse them, but it would not be effective because it is simply impossible to fight with hands tied behind your back and blindfolded. You might as will chain yourself to an iron ball and jump in the ocean. Because violence is absolutely unavoidable. I mean you can be part of a Million Man non-violent movement, and stand up against 1,000 ready-to-kill opposition and your numbers will go down....Fast!

So I guess, yes, blood must be spilt...but not the blood of non-violent ppl...if they insist on being there...let them wait until all the warriors who wish to fight have been depleted...then they may try their tactic, see if it works.

[socialistfuture]

man the revolution has began in the first world, seatle, genoa, parts of canada....

these are huge - and they are only gunna get bigger



before u can get off ure knees u need to get off ure ass

[Subversive Pessimist]

man the revolution has began in the first world, seatle, genoa, parts of canada....

You mean tea parties and teenagers picking up hammer & sickle posters?

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:02 PM

You mean tea parties and teenagers picking up hammer & sickle posters?
maybe he is a little over optimistic but do you know anything about seattle or genoa where a protester was shot?