Next target?

[Kalashnikov_&_Red_Rose]

I am sure that USA will continue imperialistic way of foreign policy. Which country will be next? Can you try to guess? I think most realistic version is North Korea. Or Maybe Iran, but muslims already dont love America, so Iran can sleep easy some time, i think.
What do you think about it? :unsure: thx for your opinions

[cubalibra]

I think Iran will be next, so the Bush crime family can then control all of the middle east oil supply.

[PRC-UTE]

I think you're making a big assumption here. . . that the US/UK occupiers will win in Iraq. They won't.

If they were to go on from Iraq to attack another country, I wouldn't guess DPRK since they're well armed and up for it. They'll have a go at a country much weaker.

[duk]

i dont think USA will do any war soon because they dont have enough soldiers anymore! :P they are sending us soldiers from all over the world 2 iraq and they need more and more... in new york times they wrote that israel army is helping the usa ! here in my country lebanon usa will pay u at least $6 000 if u work wid the us soldiers in iraq! u can be a soldier too! anyway i dont think that usa will attack a country who may have nuclear weopons. so i think that cuba is the next target as bush said in the elections

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:50 PM
i dont think USA will do any war soon because they dont have enough soldiers anymore! :P they are sending us soldiers from all over the world 2 iraq and they need more and more... in new york times they wrote that israel army is helping the usa ! here in my country lebanon usa will pay u at least $6 000 if u work wid the us soldiers in iraq! u can be a soldier too! anyway i dont think that usa will attack a country who may have nuclear weopons. so i think that cuba is the next target as bush said in the elections
Seriously, if Cuba is next, I will be pissed beyond belief. Like an undescribable amount of anger. Ill probably commit civil disobedience or go to Cuba as a "human shield" type of deal, or something of the sorts.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Seriously, if Cuba is next, I will be pissed beyond belief.


If Cuba is next, I will pack my bag right away, and so should every true supporter of Cuba.



Ill probably commit civil disobedience or go to Cuba as a "human shield" type of deal, or something of the sorts.


What's the point? The US wouldn't care if you are alive or dead. If I were you, in case of a war, I would protest by carrying a gun, not a flag or a poster. At least that is what revolutionaries do, like Che, for instance.

[NovelGentry]

I think you're making a big assumption here. . . that the US/UK occupiers will win in Iraq. They won't.

This is completely unrealistic as a grounds that holds them from attacking elsewhere.


i dont think USA will do any war soon because they dont have enough soldiers anymore!

Yes we do.


Seriously, if Cuba is next, I will be pissed beyond belief. Like an undescribable amount of anger. Ill probably commit civil disobedience or go to Cuba as a "human shield" type of deal, or something of the sorts.

As a human shield, why not pick up a weapon? But I agree with a lot of other people, I think Cuba will become a major target.


If Cuba is next, I will pack my bag right away, and so should every true supporter of Cuba.

This is just foolish, local action here would serve a much better purpose as it might serve to raise the consciousness of more Americans. If you go there and fight you're just gonna be another anti-american helping out the terrorists, if you work here you are an American seeking an end to an illegal war, and there's a big difference in credibility between the two for the majority of Americans.


What's the point? The US wouldn't care if you are alive or dead. If I were you, in case of a war, I would protest by carrying a gun, not a flag or a poster. At least that is what revolutionaries do, like Che, for instance.

I think if it came down to this there would be a rather large solidarity movement for the Cuban people. This is something which will create serious agitation and reaction, something I don't think the US would be ready for in terms of domestic security.

[DaCuBaN]

I think Cuba will become a major target.

It&#39;s the obvious choice, really. Castro is a well known "personality", and as such the US propoganda machine (every nation-state has one <_< ) could make short work of laying the groundwork to undermine his control, and seek international support.

The thing is, this last time they tried it (Hussein) the French, Germans and many others didn&#39;t fall for it - they felt further rationalisation was required.. If they keep this up, I can truly see a Euro-American war on the horizon. I Give it ten years.

[Synthesis of thought]

If its iran i will not be surprised, i anticipate it actualy. i will protest beyond belief, if it is cuba, i think i will rebel. i am alone in my community, so i need to find support.

[PRC-UTE]

QUOTE
I think you&#39;re making a big assumption here. . . that the US/UK occupiers will win in Iraq. They won&#39;t.



This is completely unrealistic as a grounds that holds them from attacking elsewhere.


They don&#39;t have the troops to attack any other country. And if they are defeated in Iraq they&#39;ll need their troops back home.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:46 PM


They don&#39;t have the troops to attack any other country. And if they are defeated in Iraq they&#39;ll need their troops back home.
I don&#39;t know what world you are living in? The U&#036; has enough resorces at this moment in time to pursue various wars. You also must remember the U&#036; hasent even mobilized for a full out war. In Iraq we are basically seeing a testing ground for new U&#036; military technologies. I do think it is enevitable that the U&#036; will spreed its influence to far and will not be able to support it and, eventually collapse. I don&#39;t undestand when you say the troops would be needed back home?

[PRC-UTE]

I don&#39;t know what world you are living in? The U&#036; has enough resorces at this moment in time to pursue various wars.

There&#39;s an assumption that the US is unstoppable -- it&#39;s not true&#33;

They&#39;re scrambling to find enuf troops for the expected increased violence for January. They&#39;re stretched very thin. The Bush regime didn&#39;t expect to need this many troops for this long; they&#39;ve admitted that.

The Brits couldn&#39;t win in Ireland and America won&#39;t win in Iraq.

I think what happened in the Vietnam war could happen here -- an imperialist defeat could create instability and radicalism in the imperialist homeland.

[Commie Rat]

well at least i know im safe in Aus
thats about the only good thing Jonny Howard has done from Australia
sleep with bush

[leftist resistance]

I think Iran would be more probable than N.Korea.

We must end Bush&#39;s tyranny.Im sure most of the world don&#39;t agree with him,they&#39;re afraid to admit it though.

Bloody Bush :angry:

[DaCuBaN]

Bloody Bush

Blow the head of a spot, the root remains. Bush is not at fault in regards to any of this. The guy doesn&#39;t seem to be the brightest button in the box, but that doesn&#39;t make him accountable for the actions of US Imperialism over the last one hundred years.

We are not dealing with a "conventional" enemy: We are dealing with a system of oppression

[Pawn Power]

There&#39;s an assumption that the US is unstoppable -- it&#39;s not true&#33;
I never implied the U&#036; was unstoppable.

[Synthesis of thought]

The Brits couldn&#39;t win in Ireland and America won&#39;t win in Iraq.

thats cause ym ancestors are good shots :hammer:

[NovelGentry]

Excess troops will come in the form of peace time operations, Bush has already drafted the bill for redistributing of peace time troops, many will come home first and then shipped right back out either to Iraq or whatever the new target is. If I&#39;m not mistaken the bill calls for the "realligning" of 70,000+ US troops -- and I hate to tell you but there are a number of troops who still have yet to be sent out, I know 3 alone, and I&#39;m sure the case is similar for everyone else, if not more -- I know very few people.

[Subversive Pessimist]

This is just foolish, local action here would serve a much better purpose as it might serve to raise the consciousness of more Americans. If you go there and fight you&#39;re just gonna be another anti-american helping out the terrorists, if you work here you are an American seeking an end to an illegal war, and there&#39;s a big difference in credibility between the two for the majority of Americans.



A lot of people are not Americans.

I would say a pissed off commie with a kalashnikov will probably do more damage to American foreign policy then a few protesters in the US.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This is just foolish, local action here would serve a much better purpose as it might serve to raise the consciousness of more Americans. If you go there and fight you&#39;re just gonna be another anti-american helping out the terrorists, if you work here you are an American seeking an end to an illegal war, and there&#39;s a big difference in credibility between the two for the majority of Americans.

I don&#39;t think it makes any sense to dismiss taking up arms against empire as futile - in fact, it is a necessity&#33; I think instead, there are pragmatic questions resolving the best way to violently subvert the American war-machine. "Working to end an illegal war," in the sense I believe you may be using it, has thus far proven inneffective (Hippies? Ho Chi Minh and "Seek and Avoid" ended Vietnam&#33;), but I agree that shipping out to Cuba would be ineffective. In fact, acting as a fifth column, and causing meaningful damage to the American war-machine behind the lines is probably the most meaningful step any American could take, come a Yanqui invasion of Cuba. Bring the war home.

[RedAnarchist]

Wherever the next country on Bush&#39;s hitlist is, we should be ready in our respective countries to ensure our anti-war voice is heard. Lets not let the capitalists create a second Iraq, Bush has already done enough damage in this world.

[NovelGentry]

I would say a pissed off commie with a kalashnikov will probably do more damage to American foreign policy then a few protesters in the US.

And you will be hated by a huge majority of the US because of it -- this will serve nothing in terms of showing people what such revolutionary action should be reserved for, socialist revolution. While a large number of Americans do not support the war a HUGE majority would think nothing of your life or your cause if you were to kill and American soldier.


I don&#39;t think it makes any sense to dismiss taking up arms against empire as futile - in fact, it is a necessity&#33; I think instead, there are pragmatic questions resolving the best way to violently subvert the American war-machine. "Working to end an illegal war," in the sense I believe you may be using it, has thus far proven inneffective (Hippies? Ho Chi Minh and "Seek and Avoid" ended Vietnam&#33;), but I agree that shipping out to Cuba would be ineffective. In fact, acting as a fifth column, and causing meaningful damage to the American war-machine behind the lines is probably the most meaningful step any American could take, come a Yanqui invasion of Cuba. Bring the war home.

While I certainly agree that taking up arms against an empire is not futile, I do not agree the rest of the American public are going to believe that or see it as an excuse for attacking American infrastructure on American soil or foreign soil.

The problem with what you consider anti-war movements is that they are just that, anti-war movements. While we need an anti-war movement, what we need more is a pro-Cuban movement. We are not looking to end the war, we are looking for Cuba to win the war.

Any form of violence at this stage within the US against the US by US citizens is a horrid misallocation of revolutionary resources. Do you want to overthrow capitalism here some day or do you want to just end wars with our revolutionary action? Revolutionary people are no where near a majority here, in fact, I&#39;d argue if you gathered them all together they would not even make up a majority of people in Rhode Island, this countries smallest state (although not by population I don&#39;t believe), at any given time.

This would not be a revolutionary movement nor should it be treated as one. If you look to organize the revolutionary minds within the US for such a movement you are looking at horrid defeat. Indeed revolutionary people want revolution, but this type of revolution would be inherently reactionary as it would not be a product of our own socio-material conditions but a simple reaction to the actions by our nation towards another.

If you want to say we should be mobilizing the revolutionary mindsets of the US for revolution at this point in history you should be promoting that regardless of whether we attack Cuba or not.

[RedAnarchist]

What of revolutionaries who arent American (we non-American communists outnumber American communists by a substantial number)? Should we not help Cuba in our own countries or should we do what you suggest the American Left should do?

[NovelGentry]

What of revolutionaries who arent American (we non-American communists outnumber American communists by a substantial number)? Should we not help Cuba in our own countries or should we do what you suggest the American Left should do?

How are you helping Cuba in your own countries? This depends a lot on what role your country has to play.

The ideas which have been put across previously have been focused on mobilizing revolutionaries as a physical force to destroy resources and/or directly attack a government establishment. Everyone should always help Cuba when they can, unless you believe what they are doing is against what you stand for.

In order to answer your question I need to know what you mean by helping Cuba.

- Should you go there and act as a human shield? I suppose that depends on whether you think that is what&#39;s needed to be done to end the war. Americans, however, should not be doing this at all as it&#39;s communist ideological suicide in what is a very reactionary United States.

- Should you be organizing your revolutionary people to attack your government? To what end? To end the war, or to overthrow them an institute socialism? Decide what you are doing first, then ensure it is being done for the irght reasons, if indeed you have a revolutionary majority, but if you have a revolutionary majority I would only ask you this, why have you not attempted to overthrow them in turn for socialism yet?

While there may be a large number of revolutionary people world wide within the context of a single country I don&#39;t believe anyone has a revolutionary majority, if you do then you should either be having a revolution at this very moment or you should be socialist already. Thus that should not be any sort of question here. What should be a question is if your revolutionary actions are going to be viewed as something that needs to be extinguished by the reactionary population. I would argue that reactionary is reactionary and revolutionary is revolutionary, but there are indeed people who support revolution despite being reactionary, the difference is that they support it for reactionary reasons. Thus of course what actions you take may come with no stigma at all (but somehow I doubt this is the case).

Once again, you really have to consider what you are trying to do here. I for one will not promote any action by the revolutionary members against any government for reactionary reasons, nor should anyone else who is truly revolutionary.

Edit: I should just mention instead of promoting that action we should look to educate such people on the reactionary characteristic of that action.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Our focus should be on mobilizing and educating people, in order to achieve broad public resistance to war, not playing around with AK&#39;s and RPG&#39;s.

For one, it&#39;s near impossible to defeat the US army in a convential manner. Because we are in disadvantage, nummerically, equipment and training. You can only hope that they leave by becoming disillusioned (because of geurilla&#39;s) or by a public outcry. The act of propaganda is more important then the act of war.

Starting a geurilla war has another disadvantage as NovelGentry noted. You turn the public against you, as revolutionary it&#39;s the last thing that you want to do (for obvious reasons). We don&#39;t want to fight the (American) people, we want them to educate realize and fight capitalism.

An anti-war movement is not "just" an anti-war movement. It&#39;s a beautifull base for radicalization for the public. An anti-war movement can become much more then it&#39;s, even turn revolutionary. :ph34r:

So put down your AK, pick up your plackard and start shouting&#33;

[NovelGentry]

An anti-war movement is not "just" an anti-war movement. It&#39;s a beautifull base for radicalization for the public. An anti-war movement can become much more then it&#39;s, even turn revolutionary.

The only thing I&#39;m saying is that at such a point it is no longer an anti-war movement, it is now a pro-<whatever> movement, whether that <whatever> is revolution or not is another question.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

My point was that the anti-war movement shouldn&#39;t be dismissed so easily, it&#39;s really a great base for public radicalization.

[patriotic]

In my opinion, USA will attack Syria and Iran and maybe the militias in Lebanon.

[NovelGentry]

I mus say, I definitely thought of Syria before Iran in terms of middle eastern countries. But I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s really tactically good to enflame the entire middle east, so I see them looking outside the middle east. Iraq makes sense not only from a tactial standpoint but from a purely capitalist one -- I think they would "finalize" iraq before trying to hit another country in the middle east, but I could be wrong, if they make an assumption that they could more easily take another country and use that as a tactical position against Iraq.

Cuba, however, makes a certain amount of strictly capitalist sense. They would look to regain the market they had there originally and recreate it as a supplier of sugar, not to mention with such an acquisition they would take hold of the recent advancments Cuba has made in biochemistry and pharmaceuticals.

[parecon3]

It will probably be Venezuala, if the US is willing to back another coup, but I heard that a Sandinista has been elected president in Nicaragua so they may attack there to. It is clear now that Bush wants to continue the US foreign policy of protecting Its "back door" (aka its imperialist and capitalist interests). Bush is occupping Haiti after that coup against Aristide (who was democratically elected and instituted democratic, agrarian, health care, and minimum wage reforms going against the US request to make neo liberal reforms). And since Bush also supported the failed coup of Hugo Chavez, there is probably going to be more imperialist actions taken in Latin America and the Carribbean.

[NovelGentry]

It will probably be Venezuala, if the US is willing to back another coup, but I heard that a Sandinista has been elected president in Nicaragua so they may attack there to.

In both these places you would need a coup with at least a slight support, and you could definitely find it in both. The coup against Chavez in Venezuela (not too long ago, although I forget the exact year) did indeed have a certain level of support. Then rolls in the propganda machine, where the US designs this coup to look like it has much greater support (despite the obvious contradiction that the coup itself had to be organized against a popularly elected President), but what people won&#39;t know will hurt them. Thus the attempt by the people or by Chavez&#39;s "government" supporters would then be targetted as the coup and we would be supplying military aid. I&#39;m not sure this will be easy given that the last coup attempted only lasted 2 days if I recall correctly before the poeple flipped the coin again.

Best quote I ever heard was a US government offiicial (I forget who) saying that they didn&#39;t feel Chavez&#39;s government has the interests of the US in mind. I laughed and got sick at the same time. I would hope the only interests of such a government would be the people that government is designed to represent.


And since Bush also supported the failed coup of Hugo Chavez, there is probably going to be more imperialist actions taken in Latin America and the Carribbean.

I certainly agree with the possibility of an invasion of a Latin American country, however, it has been the target of US imperiallism consistently for a LLLLOOOONNNGGG time - so not much would be changing other than making that imperialism far more obvious. A great can of worms to open so that we are able to point out it&#39;s ugliness to the rest of the world.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1

I for one will not promote any action by the revolutionary members against any government for reactionary reasons, nor should anyone else who is truly revolutionary.


So put down your AK, pick up your plackard and start shouting&#33;

I don&#39;t think I am even going half-way far enough when I call this privilaged bullshit. To stand by and not work physically to stop the machinery of the deathmachine, and to actually discourage confrontation with the state is counter-productive, and contrary to any understanding of working class solidarity. It&#39;s very nice that you&#39;ll go on your protest walk, and ask nicely that the great body of the American public become revolutionaries, but the rest of the world doesn&#39;t have the privilage to sit and wait while we hand out pamphlets, sell 1" buttons, and generally accomplish nothing. We must lead not by words, but by example . . . and calling active resistence to the state "reactionary" isn&#39;t even leading by words&#33; It&#39;s reinforcing a) the false idea, among the general public, that meaningful change can be won by reform, and b) the false idea, among so-called radicals, that, if we bide our time, history will present us with the right moment for revolution. Well, both of these ideas are fucking bullshit - what is reactionary is not going out and taking real, concrete action, seizing history by the throat and carrying out insurectionary activity, but having the gaul to sit on yr privilaged white ass and comdemn those who are willing to get shit done. The history of capitalism has shown this as the ONLY effective method of advancing our international class interests, and dressing up as a revolutionary to beg politely for reform just makes you look silly.

2

My point was that the anti-war movement shouldn&#39;t be dismissed so easily, it&#39;s really a great base for public radicalization.

The anti-war movement is only a great base for public radicalization only insofar as it is fucking useless, and allows us the opportunity to present radical alternatives. If placard-waving white liberals could actually excert some sort of meaningful influence in terms of changing the system, then calling for revolution would be nothing but machismo and somewhat disturbed fondness for explosions. This however is not the case, hense the need to take real, serious action to physically fuck-up current systems of domination.

3
Returning, breifly, to the topics touched on in "1" - I didn&#39;t suggest AKs or RPGs. I certainly agree there are more effective ways of persecuting a war against the upper class - but we are not faced with a stark choice between petty "1-2-3-4&#33;" anti-war movement bullshit and Latin-American style guerilla warfare. I&#39;m sure we&#39;re all smart enough to adopt insurrectionary tactics that suit the reality of our situation . . . assuming that we&#39;re willing to smarten up and recognise the need for immediate insurrection.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The victory of the Vietnamese should largely be credited to the anti-war movement. If the public had backed up the war efforts, then the US would have won. The hardware, men and skills of the US army was largely unmatched by the NVA and NLF.

The US could have won by just staying there untill the entire population had been murderd or just dropped a few nukes. That alone would have been enough, but they didn&#39;t. Because the ruling elite knew, that that would spark a hugh public outcry and even threaten their power and powerstructures.

No army of geurilla&#39;s has ever won, solely. It has caused lower morale among the public and troops, higher warcosts, disruption of lines of communication and fed the anti-war movements.

A guerilla war is fought on two fronts, one at the home of the attacking country and other at the battle field. Both are very important, you should find out where you are more effective. Fighting the propaganda, political or the battlefield, geurilla war.

Unless you are at the scene when the US attacks or you have military experience and can teach the locals - a thing or two about insurgency - otherwise then that it&#39;s better to stay in your own country. And educate, organize and set up the public against the war.

I assume that you don&#39;t have vast knowledge on warfare or that you haven&#39;t been in war, so it&#39;s better for you to use your political knowledge to educate others. If I am wrong, then I apologize.

This is not about if "placard-waving white liberals" can achieve meaningfull changes in the system. This is about making the public conscious. You can better make the public conscious when you&#39;re talking, organizing and uniting with the working class, instead of fighting an unwinnable war.

The anti-war movement is especially a very good platform for radicalization, because the people in it have already "proofen" themselves to be independant thinking of some sort. These are the people best reachable when educating about communnism/anarchism/whatever.

[NovelGentry]

It&#39;s very nice that you&#39;ll go on your protest walk, and ask nicely that the great body of the American public become revolutionaries, but the rest of the world doesn&#39;t have the privilage to sit and wait while we hand out pamphlets, sell 1" buttons, and generally accomplish nothing.

Indeed, the rest of the world does not have that priveledge, and I would argue that the rest of the world is in a far better position for revolution than the US, but hardly 100% capable. So instead you would have me rise to the revolutionary calling and attack the government establishments in my country to free the working class people of their rule&#33; Alas ye 3,000 American communist breathren, it is time for our revolution&#33; Let us march on D.C. and remember to pick up any reactionaries along the way, we&#39;ll need all the help we can get tell them "There&#39;s a revolution happening, and it will succeed." Surely they will follow.

You are no different than any other communist who believes being revolutionary goes no further than taking part in revolution. So instead what you would have us do is open our arms the reactionaries of the world who do not have a snowballs chance in hell at understanding why they should make post-revolutionary society work. This is the stuff legends are made of, legends of collapsed and fallen attempts at socialism which thought they could instantaneously revolutionize reactionary people (see: Lenin and Mao).

Surely it&#39;s not tha big of a problem, we can just use forced collectivization and have a cultural revolution, hell, if we combine maybe we can get discount amounts on mass starvation for doing it in true wholesale bulk fashion.


and calling active resistence to the state "reactionary" isn&#39;t even leading by words&#33;

Since when does active resistence to the state have to imply anything other than active resistence to the state. There are a number of reasons to resist the state, both verbally, mentally, and physically, and beliving in socialist revolution is only one of them.

I sure hope some pissed off liberals join this battle, there&#39;s nothing I want more than to see Bush out of office&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:


It&#39;s reinforcing a) the false idea, among the general public, that meaningful change can be won by reform

I&#39;ve been called reformist before, I&#39;m sorta desensitized to it now.


b) the false idea, among so-called radicals, that, if we bide our time, history will present us with the right moment for revolution.

The only right moment for revolution is in which revolution is sure to succeed and sure to stabalize into a constantly progressive post-revolutionary society who&#39;s goal is communism. I see this point as being when we have a majority of revolutionary people.

If you do not then you call up some of your vanguard and go attack your parlaiment, cause Canada sure as hell isn&#39;t as socialist as people make it seem. Go force your "revolution now&#33;&#33;&#33;" bullshit down someone elses throat.


what is reactionary is not going out and taking real, concrete action, seizing history by the throat and carrying out insurectionary activity

Indeed, it&#39;s so revolutionary to seize history by the throat rather than realize that history has and always will be driven by material conditions. It&#39;s even more revolutionary to deny those material conditions for the sake of using the act of revolution as the only requirement towards being revolutionary. Even still, it is more revolutionary to use all this to subsequently attack someone on a message board by making general blanket statements about them having a reformist attitude. I awe at your revolutionary prowess, and your obviously excellent understanding of Marxism.


but having the gaul to sit on yr privilaged white ass and comdemn those who are willing to get shit done.

I&#39;m not condemning anyone who&#39;s willing to get shit done, but getting shit done is a lot different than creating successful revolution in a country DOMINATED by reactionary thought, and if you think you can do that you are only condemning yourself. More important than creating successful revolution, however, is creating successful socialism following that revolution, oddly enough this becomes even more impossible than revolution itself in a country DOMINATED by reactionaries, some people learn this the hard way.


The history of capitalism has shown this as the ONLY effective method of advancing our international class interests

You need far less than history to justify the necessity for revolution. All you need is a miniscule understanding of material conditions, I have indeed shown this in the book I&#39;m working on by examining the nature of freedom and the infringement there of which is produced by material conditions, or at least I believe I have shown it -- Not that it&#39;s anything Marx hasn&#39;t shown us in the past, but I think my look is a relatively fresh look which focuses strictly on why reform cannot work.


and dressing up as a revolutionary to beg politely for reform just makes you look silly.

Alright, they get it already, I&#39;m a reformist&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:


then calling for revolution would be nothing but machismo and somewhat disturbed fondness for explosions.

You&#39;ve done wonders at dispelling this possibility.

But in all seriousness, the necessity for revolution is bound by material conditions and the infringement on both bourgeoisie and proletariat freedom from capitalism, NOT on the incapacity of the liberals or the government which they uphold. This isn&#39;t to say these governments work, they do not, but they too are only created by this material authority.


but we are not faced with a stark choice between petty "1-2-3-4&#33;" anti-war movement bullshit and Latin-American style guerilla warfare. I&#39;m sure we&#39;re all smart enough to adopt insurrectionary tactics that suit the reality of our situation . . .

Agreed, but it&#39;s not the revolution itself that I&#39;m worried about failing.


assuming that we&#39;re willing to smarten up and recognise the need for immediate insurrection.

The truth is, no one but YOU is revolutionary, in fact we are all reactionary. We&#39;re just waiting for you to start up the revolution so that we can follow knowing of it&#39;s guaranteed success. I for one as a reactionary willing to fight in the revolution feel that I should be offered better pay in post-revolutionary society than other people who did not fight in the revolution. In fact, I&#39;d like an official place of power within the post-revolutionary state if you wouldn&#39;t mind. I did help the revolution afterall.

EDIT: btw, does anyone else see the irony in me being lectured on revolution by someone who&#39;s name is "virgin" Molotov Cocktail?

[NovelGentry]

Unless you are at the scene when the US attacks or you have military experience and can teach the locals - a thing or two about insurgency - otherwise then that it&#39;s better to stay in your own country. And educate, organize and set up the public against the war.

I disagree with this on the ground that being anti-war isn&#39;t enough. As I pointed out in a private message to Comrade Strawberry who indirectly asked me my suggestions for what we should do if the US does attack Cuba:

Unlike anti-iraq war movements the government which are focused on peace or "no blood for oil" slogans which dumbdown the extent of US imperialism we would be recognized as an extension to Cuban revolutionary solidarity. We would in essence bring the revolutionary aspects of Cuba directly to the US -- directly into the homes of the people. We must make it so that any afront to Cuba is an afront to us, more, an afront to all those who are unwilling to accept US imperialism (which would thereby include peace movements).

The overall goal here is to simply make Cuba&#39;s problems due to US imperialism US problems


I assume that you don&#39;t have vast knowledge on warfare or that you haven&#39;t been in war, so it&#39;s better for you to use your political knowledge to educate others. If I am wrong, then I apologize.

While it&#39;s true you should use your political knowledge to educate others, there is no reason why direct action cannot be involved either. The trick is to explain your position of direct action which is one as it relates to being FOR the opposition, rather than AGAINST the home base, your goal should not only be to make people realize that what we are doing is wrong, but to make them realize that what the opposition is doing is right. This is how you can build revolutionary consciousness and not just a nation aware of it&#39;s own imperialism, but one that is willing to actively fight against it.


The anti-war movement is especially a very good platform for radicalization, because the people in it have already "proofen" themselves to be independant thinking of some sort. These are the people best reachable when educating about communnism/anarchism/whatever.

Agreed, but once again, it cannot be presented continually as strictly anti-war, it must be presented as pro-revolution.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

So basicly we agree. I also think that we shouldn&#39;t be "the negative" of something, but rather present an alternative and fight for it. Maybe I should have explained better.

My only point was that the anti-war movement shouldn&#39;t be discredited and should be supported. Because we (revolutionaries) can operate from within it, influence it in a revolutionary direction and like I said it provides a great base for revolutionary activities.

I used the example of placards and shouting. But ofcourse there are more methodes such as striking in solidarity, blocking rails, motorways, military transport, surround military bases, support refuseniks and their families etc. etc.

Playing human shield, has no use at all. You will simply be branded as ignorant, anti-American by the government and ofcourse they will not doubt a second to shoot.

So is playing geurilla, when one has absolutly no experience or military knowledge or the necessity to. For locals it&#39;s necessary, but for us it&#39;s not and we can contribute far more to the anti-war cause here.

[bunk]

The reason why the US didn&#39;t drop the nukes was because they thought that Russian and China would retaliate.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:27 PM
As a human shield, why not pick up a weapon? But I agree with a lot of other people, I think Cuba will become a major target.
I&#39;d consider going down there, and fighting along side the Cubans.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think Syria&#39;ll be next.

[patriotic]

But which are the intentions of America? "the roots of the problems of the Arab world have nothing to do with the Palestinian problem, nor with colonization. They are excuses called upon to delay reforms which delayed only too much ". Such were the remarks made recently by Sheik Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani, the emir of Qatar, a country laboratory for the project of the Large Middle East. Because Qatar took lead: it was one of the first Gulf States to join OMC and to undertake political reforms, and an Israeli commercial office has been in function with Doha for several years. For the neighbors, like Iran or Saudi Arabia, this small emirate is the example given by Washington. The reforms recommended by Greater Middle East thus aimed the "democratization" of the area and the economic opening through the fight against illiteracy, the promotion of the woman and the support on the initiative economic private. An ambitious project? Admittedly. To carry it out, the strategists of the Pentagon counted on the effect "domino": the fall of the mode of Saddam Hussein and the introduction of a democracy were to contaminate the close modes. But this tactic did not prove to be profitable. However, Washington always cherishes the dream to see falling the modes of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (cf black gold and the White House, of Robert Baer). And George Bush currently has the means of them. Two weapons were already directed on Syria: Syria Accountability Act and the resolution 1559 of the Security Council. A thing is sure: the pressures on Damas will grow louder and louder, to oblige it to withdraw its troops of Lebanon, to democratize its mode and to cease its interference in the Lebanese businesses. For Habib Malek, academic libano-American close to the Republicans, "the time when Washington rewarded Syria in Lebanese currency is completed". Because in America of after September 11, 2001, only the firmness of use, is confirmed in the doctrines of "strike preventive". In addition, the speeches held lately by the ambassador David Satterfield, the assistant of the Richard Armitage, Secretary of State or by the democratic senator Bob Graham, confirm that the United States will go until the end of their calls to the covering of the sovereignty of Lebanon. And it is not departure Powell the Hake of the Secretariat of State, and its probable replacement by Condoleeza Rice, which will modify the intransigence of the Bush administration. Because Mrs. Rice is also famous for her not very tender standpoint with regard to Syria. To make fold the totalitarian mode of Damas, Washington has more than one turn in its bag. Lately, of the members of the Congress invited to freeze the assets of Lebanese which "collaborate with the Syrian mode". And useless to recall that Damas does not have only one friend in the two rooms of the Congress. Nevertheless, an action of the American army in Syria is drawn aside by the observers, at least on the short term.

[duk]

if usa will attack lebanon . we all true lebanese ( militias and nonmilitias ) are ready 2 kill some americans :P

[redstar2000]

I have some disagreements with both "trends" of opinion expressed in this thread.

But let me begin by noting that we "haven&#39;t done much" so far about the present imperialist wars that the U.S. is conducting. The U.S. is engaged in what it calls "counter-insurgency" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Colombia right now...and while there is some small scale anti-war stuff going on, believe me when I tell you that it falls far short of what happened in the 1960s.

Before concerning ourselves with the "next target", we need to consider the targets that are already under attack.

First, I disagree very much with the idea that an anti-imperialist movement in the U.S. has to be "for something" -- that is, a movement that endorses or supports in some fashion the politics of the target country.

One thing that&#39;s wrong with that idea is the hint that a different group of Americans (us) are competent to determine the political shape of the targeted country. Self-determination, if it means anything, means that Afghanis, Iraqis, and Colombians work out their own politics without interference from any Americans at all.

But worse, taking a position of active political support for a political current in a targeted country means we are "stuck" with apologizing for any folly or even crime they may embark upon. Does anyone look forward to the prospect of defending the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or the FARC in public? Are there any characteristics of those regimes that we would like to replicate in the U.S.?

Thus I think our position should be a very clear one: regardless of the politics of the targeted country, we should say U.S. OUT NOW&#33;

We are not "for" the targeted country; we are against U.S. imperialism unconditionally.

Secondly, there&#39;s the matter of what tactics a domestic anti-imperialist movement should utilize. In the 60s and 70s, there was a broad range of tactics employed.

1. Ceremonial mass demonstrations in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco every spring and fall. These events generally featured moderate opponents of the war as speakers and attracted around a half-million up to a million people.

2. Locally-based opposition -- this took place year-around and the tactics, while nominally non-violent, often escalated in the confrontation to a more vigorous level. This was SDS&#39;s "model" of how to oppose the war -- and while usually campus-based, sometimes spread into the community as well, "picking up" community issues "along the way".

3. Attempts to organize opposition to the war among potential draftees and people already inducted, later spreading to discharged veterans of the war. G.I. coffee-houses were opened in towns near military bases and G.I.-oriented underground newspapers were published.

4. Finally, there was the Weather Underground (a splinter from SDS) which hoped to "bring the war home" by bombing government and corporate offices...the bombs were small ones and rarely did significant damage. People in an office building would be warned by telephone 20 minutes or so ahead of time that a bomb was in the building and evacuation would be necessary. As far as I know, the Weather Underground never injured anyone except themselves (when a bomb-making experiment went disastrously wrong in Manhattan, killing three WUers).

There were other things also, of course, but those were the "big four". From what I observed, Nos. 2 and 3 were the most "effective" and Nos. 1 and 4 were least "effective". But my opinion could be biased as 2 & 3 were the ones I took part in.

It&#39;s wrong to say, by the way, that the anti-war movement was responsible for ending the war. The Vietnamese won the war...and we helped them win it a little faster than they otherwise would have.

Our main failure was to establish a solid anti-imperialist constituency in the United States...one that would "instinctively" mobilize at the hint of another imperial adventure and thus serve to constrain the ambitions of the ruling class.

And while we did win over several thousand people to "communist ideas" -- it was mostly Maoist foolishness and did nothing to really promote the idea of communism in a serious way.

One final point. A number of you have expressed the laudable desire to go to Cuba and help fight off an American invasion. I&#39;m afraid that&#39;s a fantasy -- the Cubans would not know you and would have no particular reason to trust you...not to mention how difficult it would be to even get into Cuba in war-time conditions. The struggle against U.S. imperialism is most efficiently waged wherever you live now.

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

First, I disagree very much with the idea that an anti-imperialist movement in the U.S. has to be "for something" -- that is, a movement that endorses or supports in some fashion the politics of the target country.

As do I, but that is the nature of anti-imperialist movements... and by definition they must only be anti-imperialist. What I am proposing is that while these serve a purpose, it is more appropriate for us to find a place in a movement which is pro something.

I find this to be a problem with the way leftists work in general. We tend to discredit the actions of what we disagree with a lot more than credit those we do agree with -- as such, people may become anti-imperialist and anti-war, but never FOR what we want them to be for. This isn&#39;t to say they can&#39;t become that, simply that we seem to promote the idea a lot less.


Self-determination, if it means anything, means that Afghanis, Iraqis, and Colombians work out their own politics without interference from any Americans at all.

I&#39;m not trying to discredit you by yelling out "you&#39;re not an internationalist" -- but this seems inherently nationalist, it assumes that the proletarians of the world should not be finding solidarity, but instead should be sorting out issues individually with their own country. To say that nationality doesn&#39;t matter and it is instead a world wide working-class struggle seems sort of contradictory with "no influence from Americans" if you ask me.


Does anyone look forward to the prospect of defending the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or the FARC in public? Are there any characteristics of those regimes that we would like to replicate in the U.S.?

No, but I&#39;m not saying to support these groups, rather support working class solidarity as a whole - regardless of your party. More importantly, we should point out the their piss poor characteristics, which are more often than not in line with the same exploitative characteristics of capitalist/imperialist goals.


We are not "for" the targeted country; we are against U.S. imperialism unconditionally.

Nor am I indiscriminately for a country. Instead, I am for the working class of that country, but this is something which most certainly separates a American vs. Cuban war from an American vs. Iraqi Insurgents war. From a national perspective it is tough to say different groups fighting in Iraq have any goals beyond the current "get the US out." Which is certainly something worth fighting for, but more appropriate for the communist (and thus internationalist) there should be a push for those groups that support Iraq&#39;s post-war rebuilding as a socialist one.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NovelGentry
I&#39;m not trying to discredit you by yelling out "you&#39;re not an internationalist" -- but this seems inherently nationalist, it assumes that the proletarians of the world should not be finding solidarity, but instead should be sorting out issues individually with their own country. To say that nationality doesn&#39;t matter and it is instead a world wide working-class struggle seems sort of contradictory with "no influence from Americans" if you ask me.

Back in the days when there was -- or at least appeared to be -- an "international communist movement", your objection would have carried considerable weight.

But we haven&#39;t had anything like that for a long time. Here and there, there may be groups that call themselves "communist" or "anarchist", but we&#39;ve learned the sad lesson that the names on the packages cannot be trusted to reveal the contents.

The so-called "Iraqi Communist Party" had (and maybe still has) a member as part of the quisling "government", for example.

The only part of "proletarian internationalism" that makes sense now is direct support of workers in other countries who are struggling against American-owned corporations and their local subcontractors...such as the "anti-sweatshop movement".

It&#39;s also an unpleasant "fact of life" that our own human limitations make it extremely difficult to offer useful advice to people engaged in struggle in other countries -- we simply don&#39;t know enough.

I&#39;ve actually had the experience of offering such advice...only to be informed of some relevant facts of which I was completely ignorant. I "meant well" but I didn&#39;t know enough to say something useful.

Someday, when there is (hopefully&#33;) an international revolutionary movement again, it will be possible for insurgent workers to gather and offer one another advice that is really useful. That might be possible in western Europe right now -- as the relentless attack on working class standards-of-living goes on across the continent. They have "a lot in common".

But I find the spectacle of Americans -- the most insular and conceited people on the planet -- sitting around thinking up good advice to give the Iraqis (for example)...to be ludicrous if not offensive.


What I am proposing is that while these serve a purpose, it is more appropriate for us to find a place in a movement which is pro something.

I find this to be a problem with the way leftists work in general. We tend to discredit the actions of what we disagree with a lot more than credit those we do agree with -- as such, people may become anti-imperialist and anti-war, but never FOR what we want them to be for. This isn&#39;t to say they can&#39;t become that, simply that we seem to promote the idea a lot less.

Well, this is true. I think it probably stems from the fact that since the collapse of Leninism, we no longer have a "vision" that is both theoretically and practically "clear" about what we are "for". I think the central problem for revolutionaries in the first few decades of this century is to develop such a vision -- something that we can argue for as a matter of plain common sense.

Our criticisms of capitalism and imperialism are very well-developed; on this board, even people in their mid-teens can put forward cogent and even, at times, eloquent arguments that just trash the opposition.

But a classless society? That&#39;s terra incognito...we speculate, offer semi-coherent and fuzzy "visions", frequently contradict ourselves, mix up materialist and moral concerns (sometimes even throwing in a table-spoon of theology :o), show enormous tactical confusion, fail to abandon bourgeois prejudices, etc., etc., etc.

I&#39;m not trying to discourage anyone; I think we can develop a coherent vision of the kind of society that we really want to live in.

But we have a long way to go.

:redstar2000:

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

[Rasta Sapian]

let the crusades begin&#33;
sign up for the hunt&#33;
where?
in the lands of gold and oil&#33;

[NovelGentry]

But we haven&#39;t had anything like that for a long time

I&#39;m not saying one exists so much as I&#39;m saying we have to look to all the separate movements within the countries and build that unification.


Here and there, there may be groups that call themselves "communist" or "anarchist", but we&#39;ve learned the sad lesson that the names on the packages cannot be trusted to reveal the contents.

And I would promote nothing less than looking at each organization individually as objectively as possible to determine how our local solidarity movement should respond to their actions.

Bare in mind that this must not be seen as an initial international movement. Instead the links should be built bilaterally and grow into something strictly international (with a EVENTUAL single unified movement but initially unified support for the movements within separate countries).


The so-called "Iraqi Communist Party" had (and maybe still has) a member as part of the quisling "government", for example.

And I&#39;m not proposing in the least that we side with such groups. It is not an issue of accepting this or that communist party, it could work on an individual level. What I am proposing here, however, as is applicable to this thread, is such a solidarity movement between us and in generality the Cuban people as a whole. Not striclty with their government... and not strictly with a single "party" in Cuba.

Iraq I think is safe to say a completely different situation than would be a war with Cuba. While the US Government&#39;s intentions may be similar, in fact the war may resemble it quite a bit, I&#39;m not sure it does on a socio-political level. I would go to the point of saying that Iraq is filled to extremes with reactionary people who all agree they want the US out, but are looking to post war society as table to play their cards on.


It&#39;s also an unpleasant "fact of life" that our own human limitations make it extremely difficult to offer useful advice to people engaged in struggle in other countries -- we simply don&#39;t know enough.

I agree. The only ADVICE we should be giving is on a national level, to the working class of our own country on how they can help the situation of the working class in these other countries as well as helping themselves in their own.


But I find the spectacle of Americans -- the most insular and conceited people on the planet -- sitting around thinking up good advice to give the Iraqis (for example)...to be ludicrous if not offensive.

I&#39;m under the impression you completely misunderstood my position. You referred to being completely free of interferance, which I do not agree is the case. Any such solidarity movement is interference that actively looks to help others is such. It is added noise they will be listening to. If it is in any way mutual and helpeful, it is not going to be able to ignore by either side. This is not to say that we are in any position to tell them what to do or push them in any direction if that is what you thought I meant by help. Instead it should be seen as a direct line to a friend -- attempting to give them support in more forms than just saying "we&#39;re with you"... including providing material needs (food, clothing, etc). In no way did I ever mean for my words to intend that we should be actually pushing them in any direction or trying to help them with the revolution itself, we help the people, which in turn will help the revolution if it is indeed one of the people.


I think the central problem for revolutionaries in the first few decades of this century is to develop such a vision -- something that we can argue for as a matter of plain common sense.

Indeed, but this vision focuses on a pragmatic mix of what methods we already have, the ideological, and what we need the strictly practical.

It would appear that we are doing little to promote even the ideological at this moment -- and I do certainly believe that the your following mentioned criticisms of capitalism/imperialism combined with this are enough to begin making people think revolutionary.


But a classless society? That&#39;s terra incognito...we speculate, offer semi-coherent and fuzzy "visions", frequently contradict ourselves, mix up materialist and moral concerns (sometimes even throwing in a table-spoon of theology ohmy.gif), show enormous tactical confusion, fail to abandon bourgeois prejudices, etc., etc., etc.

Agreed, and I would argue that this is indicative of our own demi-lack of consciousness. But these issues are something we all must work on individually, there are certain goals which we all have in mind, which we can lay down, and which we can promote. You make it sound as if we are selling this stuff, and if this is what you actually believe then I think you&#39;re coming at it from a completely off angle. It is not our position to sell it, it is our position to make people aware of it,t he only person who should be selling it to them is them, and that will ensure they are both relatively conscious and revolutionary when the time comes.

Selling it to people only invites reactionary thought. I&#39;ve said this before, and it is the very same reason I don&#39;t hand out pamphlets, but instead make them available. Indeed I have "caught" people reading the panphlets from my back window of my car and engaged in discussions with them which got them thinking far beyond what the pamphlet ever could have. I didn&#39;t begin lecturing them, I asked them questions, about what they believed, and then I offered responses which were both coherent and easy to follow by anyone who&#39;s not familiar with communist words or basic principles. What we need is this kind awareness of us on a huge scale. We make the people aware that we exist, and indeed let them come to us, once they have done that we present them with an alternative to their ideas by hearing them out as opposed to presenting them with our ideas to show them how wrong they are.

Our ideas DO exist, at the moment it is the platform which is flawed as it is built around the idea that we have something to sell, and in doing so you create the requirement for us to create something to sell.

[patriotic]

if usa will attack lebanon . we all true lebanese ( militias and nonmilitias ) are ready 2 kill some americans
Myself, i think that i am a true Lebanese, and im proud of being Lebanese, but if America choose to attack Syria or the militias in Lebanon (wich are not Lebanese, Hizballah is Iranian) i will not fight her, in fact i may help her to let the Syrian army get out from our Land.
I&#39;m not with the American dream but in the case of Lebanon, US and UN will help me so why shall i fight them?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Support the US Imperialist army?

Proud of nationality?

How can you be proud to be of a nationality? So should Americans be proud or be ashmed? Don&#39;t be ridiculous.

[xx_refused_xx]

If the US went to war with Cuba, I would do the same thing, pack my bags and get on a boat and go over there, then arm my self with an AK-47 and fight (and die) for Cuba.

[leftist resistance]

Myself, i think that i am a true Lebanese, and im proud of being Lebanese, but if America choose to attack Syria or the militias in Lebanon (wich are not Lebanese, Hizballah is Iranian) i will not fight her, in fact i may help her to let the Syrian army get out from our Land.
I&#39;m not with the American dream but in the case of Lebanon, US and UN will help me so why shall i fight them?

And you&#39;ll find your country ruled by American imperialists next

[commiecrusader]

Surely a more effective tactic than going to Cuba to die pointlessly, would be to attack US bases withing America? Or sink their ships in the harbour?

[duk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:29 PM

if usa will attack lebanon . we all true lebanese ( militias and nonmilitias ) are ready 2 kill some americans
Myself, i think that i am a true Lebanese, and im proud of being Lebanese, but if America choose to attack Syria or the militias in Lebanon (wich are not Lebanese, Hizballah is Iranian) i will not fight her, in fact i may help her to let the Syrian army get out from our Land.
I&#39;m not with the American dream but in the case of Lebanon, US and UN will help me so why shall i fight them?
yeah maybe we will only change the country who control us . if usa will fight syria in lebanon , we will have a civil war for sure. we have 2 be against any war in lebanon , if we have problems we must solve them in other ways. and plz do not forget in 1984 how usa tried 2 occupe us and thx god we could kill 240 us soldiers in 1 attack to let them go out like cowsss :P

[jwijn]

First of all, the US would never attack Cuba. It would be political suicide and cause significant unrest. I am not talking about unrest from communists and pro-Cuba activists, but rather from the cubans themselves. While the older cubans still believe in regime change, this is mainly because they profited off of Batista and had quite a degree of wealth, and thus stand to have something to gain. The newer cuban exiles, however, love cuba but were exiled or left because of a) seeking economic opportunity (some chance they&#39;ll find it in the US) or b) were exiled because of dissenting with the government. However, they would resist an invasion because they have nothing to gain and still love Cuba

[POFO_Communist]

Attacking cuba may be political suicide for the current US administration, but it&#39;s Bush&#39;s last term and I&#39;m sure he&#39;ll do something stupid.
If cuba did turn into another Iraq or worse, the republicans would still win the next election with whatever candidate. Voters in general have very short memories and don&#39;t really care what happens outside of their own backyard.

Cuba is not safe from ruin, neither is any other potential victim, the US has simply become too agressive. It is time to oppose it actively, not passively.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:05 AM

But a classless society? That&#39;s terra incognito...we speculate, offer semi-coherent and fuzzy "visions", frequently contradict ourselves, mix up materialist and moral concerns (sometimes even throwing in a table-spoon of theology ohmy.gif), show enormous tactical confusion, fail to abandon bourgeois prejudices, etc., etc., etc.

Agreed, and I would argue that this is indicative of our own demi-lack of consciousness. But these issues are something we all must work on individually, there are certain goals which we all have in mind, which we can lay down, and which we can promote. You make it sound as if we are selling this stuff, and if this is what you actually believe then I think you&#39;re coming at it from a completely off angle. It is not our position to sell it, it is our position to make people aware of it,t he only person who should be selling it to them is them, and that will ensure they are both relatively conscious and revolutionary when the time comes.

Selling it to people only invites reactionary thought. I&#39;ve said this before, and it is the very same reason I don&#39;t hand out pamphlets, but instead make them available. Indeed I have "caught" people reading the panphlets from my back window of my car and engaged in discussions with them which got them thinking far beyond what the pamphlet ever could have. I didn&#39;t begin lecturing them, I asked them questions, about what they believed, and then I offered responses which were both coherent and easy to follow by anyone who&#39;s not familiar with communist words or basic principles
Sounds like you&#39;re engaging in "critical dialogue" with people on the street, a beautiful way to get people to think.

We are each of us examples to others of the change we want to see in the world. Our basis human interactions with others who are kind or cruel to us explain what we would be like in a communal living situation, and whether we are true Communists.

Nothing is worse than the bar room Communist as the German&#39;s call it that yells at the bar keep and wait people like dogs&#33;

We must always analyze how we treat others in human interactions. Many "radicals" are fairly classist when you break it down. They are afraid to rely on others whole-heartedly. To sleep and live with the poor. To be without. THis has always been the big test.

--The next war. It&#39;s against us. First world spoiled people in the Northern hemisphere as well as middle class intellectuals in other countries. We ignore it every day, as officers care more and more artillary, and our media turns into propaganda for the ruling class. Next will be economic warfare, cutting off social services, hospitals, schools, retirement benefits, as they get back to the old school by paring off the middle class till we&#39;re back to feudalism and colonialism entirely.

But we never really left it. Some of the "families" have ruled hundreds if not thousands of years. There have been some disruptions with war, but not many.

People think things will just continue. My grandmother has lived long enough to see they haven&#39;t as family farms that were self-sufficient have been replaced by crowded apts. outside of the cities, and people have less and less autonomy. More and more foreign wars for raw resources. And average people less able to buy "quality" goods. That is good whole foods, well made tailored clothes, yes we got cars, but lost public transporation and the farm, and almost all our rights. She&#39;s seen bills to the "corporations" rise to the point that no one can "make it" anymore. We have and are becoming slaves again working 6-7 days a week, long hours with all our money going to the"man"

Most businesses that service the poor and middle class are going under in my town, while stores with big ticket items that service the rich are going up. End of story.

How much longer can we ignore the man being arrested and beaten by the military on the side of the road before we realize he is us.

[NovelGentry]

Well said... this is very much similar to my summations right now for my book in the section under "Necessity for Revolution" and I too bring up the point of cars and lost public transportation... it goes far beyond these issues too, which I&#39;m sure you well know.

Many people stop at thinking things will get better -- all I see is public schools deteriorating, libraries with constantly aging and eroding books, average debt among all ages rising (despite a small decrease in credit card debt not that long ago for 18-24 year olds), the creation of the modern peasant (family farmers who sold their land and now work it so that they may buy their own food back from big companies, some simply allow them to keep portions of food), etc..etc..

The list goes on, and the gap grows wider. CEOs of the top 100 companies make over 1,000 dollars an hour. The top 13,000 families have nearly the same income of the lowest 20,000,000. Drops in healthcare coverage, over 25,000,000 Americans being left in the dark, the recycling of labor (people are fired and rehired for less money). 25% of children under 6 go to be undernourished, this included the 12-15% of American families below the poverty level who on average can sustain one meal a day per family member (ASSUMING THEY BUY NO OTHER NECESSITIES).

Indeed capitalism increases the overall wealth of a society, many of us have cars, homes, computers, etc... and almost all of us actually own none of it. Private property is more a mythin to the American family than it ever was. And the only prosperity we have, that is the only thing that truly prospers in our society, is poverty.

I&#39;m not saying we need the world&#39;s pity, there are indeed people who are much worse off than the "average" american, but I hear a decent amount of stuff (particularly lately) about how well off Americans are. The truth of the matter is we are not well off, we own none of which we are loaned and despite this illusion of prosperity the only thing working class American children will inherit is the debt of their parents and their parents parents for decades to come. We are fed the illusion of monetary success and indeed to other countries we often radiate it, but this will only last so long, and one day the prosperity of poverty will catch up and we will begin to see how we and ALL working class people of ALL nations truly suffer.

[pandora]

Yes, I think I see ideas such as "The Next Target" a bit naive when the Title of the subsection of the Sunday New York Times "Week in Review" was "Farewell Africa."

Snide bastards, as if they could write off a whole continent of people&#39;s deaths as a necessity for us to live in the supposed Splendour we now sustain&#33;

In reality whether you&#39;re a coal miner in the Applachians or Arizona or a coal miner in the Congo your lungs will rot either way.

But what is truly deplorable is the way the New York Times writes off the death of a whole continent, real or imagined in an "Oh well" fashion, like it&#39;s unimportant and a simple fact while drinking your morning coffee. Anyone who believes that and did not spit their "African blend French Roast" all over the front page of that article is a bastard.

Suffice to say, the corporations promote these images of hopelessness so we can accept the next stage of subsugation. Don&#39;t not believe for a minute that the attempt to ho hum Africa is not a way of getting us to accept that millions upon millions should die, and help is an illusion will be played out in the first world with the shrinking of social services.

The old hypocrisy of looking at the barbarity overseas while spitting on the poor in the street is alive and well in America today. I do see though hope. I see people despite all hopelessness, coming together as community, and creating real help with small communities in other nations. Communication and a sense of families helping families is a big part of this.

But when we get used to doing it all ourselves and that the corporations and governments can take off with the loot while leaving us all to fend for ourselves with little or no resources we are fooling ourselves. We can do it, but we need resources, we need to "Take the Power Back" and take our planet back from these imbeciles before it&#39;s too late.

But it must be a Revolution of Love or it will be simply more blood shed.

[cubalibra]

The revolution begins January 20th, 2005 in Washington D.C.&#33; Come all&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[RedAnarchist]

Does it? :blink:

Whats going to happen on Jan 20th?

[slightlyleft7_26]

jan 20 2005.....inauguration ceremony....remember guys bring yer eggs&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

i feel that the US, if they ever manage to clean up the iraq mess that the bush regime made, they will probably go after iran or some other oil rich country. if they go after cuba, i iwll be incredibly pissed, and i will definatly fund the cubans in whatever means necessary. however i do not think that the iraqi conflict will end anything soon, it is Vietnam all over again. i feel the only country the US "should" attack possibly is in korea, but since i am against war, unless it is absolutly necessary, i would not support it. also, if the US and other western countries and their allies can have massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, why can other countries not also have the nuclear arms? it doesn&#39;t make much sense, the US says that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are bad, and that it must disarm everyone in possesion of such weapons, well then i suppose they must take care of their own problems first, and disarm themselves before worrying about anyone else. so in conclusion, i feel it will be the middle east if ever out of iraq, iraq=vietnam 2, cuba next= me angry, US dictatorship=ignorant egotistical pigs

[PRC-UTE]

It could be Cuba, as they just found oil off their shores. It&#39;s a scary thought as the current US regime is a reckless and unrestrained group of criminals.

[Daymare17]

Iran or even Saudi Arabia. The latter may seem improbable to some, but actually Saudi Arabia is the most unstable country in the region. If there is a revolution there soon (and it must break out within a few years) then they will have to attack, despite that they are bogged down in Iraq. They already have thousands of troops based along the coastline, ready to grab the oilfields in case of a revolution.

[CommoditiesAretheOpiumofPeople]

I doubt it will be Cuba, because I doubt Dubya considers it a threat, he&#39;ll probably wait til Castro kicks it and then influence Cuban politics to make sure the successor&#39;s a die-hard capitalist, and if not in the next 4 years then the republicans will at any rate. I agree that if they do attack any nation it will probably be Iran, but I think that launching into yet another war would create an outrage, apparently you can fool th public twice, but I doubt that US republicans can pull it off a third time since sept 11.

[bubb&#1071;ubbgoeswoo]

I agree, I seriously doubt there will be another within the next couple of years.People know that the Iraq war was wrong and their information was false.They&#39;ll have to have a really good reason.I&#39;m sure they can think of one though.

[Elmo]

Why is no-one stating the obvious, its going to be a south american nation, there in politacal confusion and easy targets, most of them in civil war as it is.

[Motorcycle_diAries]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:29 AM
I think Iran would be more probable than N.Korea.


It&#39;s Iran for sure.