Would you join

[Millington]

If a revolution was being arranged, would you be prepared to join up and stand up for what you believe? Also is it best to use violence, or peaceful demonstration. I believe that peaceful demonstration is the way forward, by boycotting capitalist industries such as COCA-COLA, although eventually violence may to gain support as major industries won't care about a few people.

[redstar2000]

Threads like this always puzzle me.

Whether or not any given person would "take part" in a revolution (and what part they might take) can't be known until it happens.

People can say "what" they "will do" -- but no one really knows until the circumstances arrive.

And speaking of circumstances, non-violent or violent tactics depend very much on circumstances.

The general idea is that non-violence is better when you are small and weak; violence may be useful when your strength is "middlin'"; and when your strength is overwhelming, only a little violence is necessary because your enemies have mostly fled the scene.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If a revolution was being arranged, would you be prepared to join up and stand up for what you believe? Also is it best to use violence, or peaceful demonstration. I believe that peaceful demonstration is the way forward, by boycotting capitalist industries such as COCA-COLA, although eventually violence may to gain support as major industries won't care about a few people.

Like redstar said, whether or not any given person would "take part" in a revolution (and what part they might take) can't be known until it happens.

What is most effective of peaceful demonstrations and violence depends on the situation. There is no universal answer.

Boycotting coca-cola would hardly make any difference. If a nation like New Zealand would boycott coca-cola all together, the company would hardly see any difference, and the capitalist state will remain. Actually, when come to think about it, boycotting coca-cola could actually be "beneficial" to capitalism, as new brands and tastes would come in, creating competition, and winning hearts and minds of the NZ people. ;)

[Encrypted Soldier]

Both Redstar and NotWeirdOnlyGifted are right.

But if there is some revolution, than currently I'd just support, because I'm only 13 right now, but when I get older, and there is a revolution, I'd join and fight.

But then again... You never know.

[Red_Rich]

Id deffo join. I cnt see n e circumstance arising that ment i wouldnt. I dont think you can overthrow capitalism without violence.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 06:49 PM


Boycotting coca-cola would hardly make any difference. If a nation like New Zealand would boycott coca-cola all together, the company would hardly see any difference, and the capitalist state will remain. Actually, when come to think about it, boycotting coca-cola could actually be "beneficial" to capitalism, as new brands and tastes would come in, creating competition, and winning hearts and minds of the NZ people. ;)
Very true, 4 million less consumers will hardly make a difference. But I don't think that we will be boycotting coke anytime soon. Most of my generation dont know what communism, capitalism, imperialism, left and right wing is and couldn't name you 5 revolutions that ended in a new leftist system. Most are accually pritty clueless.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by Encrypted [email protected] 22 2005, 10:20 PM
Both Redstar and NotWeirdOnlyGifted are right.

But if there is some revolution, than currently I'd just support, because I'm only 13 right now, but when I get older, and there is a revolution, I'd join and fight.

But then again... You never know.
Good point, im 14, how will the keen youth of this age be used?, surely not in the front line

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Just the fact that you're 14 and have come to know the radical left is more than most grown ups have. Congrats :)

[apathy maybe]

The question is not would I (or others) join a revolution. But how to go about "arranging" one. I am sure that if a leftist revolution spontaneously erupted there would be a number of people out supporting it, the only trouble is, is it Leninist? Is it Communist? Anarchist? Will the Leninists shoot all the Anarchists as soon as they gain power? These are the questions that should be asked, not will I join or not.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I would join a revolution if It was supporting what I believed in of course.But action speak louder then words ya know.

[no_logo]

The balance of power between classes is an inevitably shifting social force. When the oppressed classes of society have more power than their higher-ups then it is the logical conclusion of the rich to submit to the poor. If they refuse to relinquish their power, then it is THEY who condemn themselves to bloodshed by refusing to submit to the demands of the vaster and more powerful democratic majority.

If the masses are not given what they want, and what they want is freedom, then the elimination of the elite is tantamount to the liberation of the masses (which are far more numerous). To say that the violence intrinsic to revolution is immoral would be correct, but it is far more justifiable than the oppression imposed by social stratifications and its enforcers.

To that end, i would prefer to live in a society that had done away with class warfare and know i was a murderer than to live in apathy; acompliced to the oppression by the rich of billions of poor workers world-wide and know that i had done nothing that was in my power to help them or their cause.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:43 AM
Just the fact that you're 14 and have come to know the radical left is more than most grown ups have. Congrats :)
Hey thanks man

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

if it wear a spontaneous peaceful demonstration i would probably join but there are so many circumstances... what kind of revolution...one juts to over throw capitalist government? Because that will take force.

[slightlyleft7_26]

A revolution would not have a large support in the USA, because everyone about 30 yrs and older have grown up tothe brainwashing that communism is evil....the only time for a revolution to take place would have to wait until those generations have gone and a newer, less brainwashed generation had come....but then again im only 14 too, so i might be wrong...

[Quixotic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:19 AM
Threads like this always puzzle me.

Whether or not any given person would "take part" in a revolution (and what part they might take) can't be known until it happens.

People can say "what" they "will do" -- but no one really knows until the circumstances arrive.

And speaking of circumstances, non-violent or violent tactics depend very much on circumstances.

The general idea is that non-violence is better when you are small and weak; violence may be useful when your strength is "middlin'"; and when your strength is overwhelming, only a little violence is necessary because your enemies have mostly fled the scene.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
This has always bothered me, although it's minor, you use quotations out of place =\. EX: People can say "what" they "will do" -- but no one really knows until the circumstances arrive.
that would have been perfectly fine with out the quotes :P.

heh, anyway, I believe violence is the way to go, if you want me to explain why, I will, and of course I'd take place in the revolution.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 24 2005, 06:25 AM
The question is not would I (or others) join a revolution. But how to go about "arranging" one. I am sure that if a leftist revolution spontaneously erupted there would be a number of people out supporting it, the only trouble is, is it Leninist? Is it Communist? Anarchist? Will the Leninists shoot all the Anarchists as soon as they gain power? These are the questions that should be asked, not will I join or not.
A real revolution would not be created by any individual group. Revolution occurs through class unity of the proletariat and struggle for change. Workers will strike and start to take control of their workplaces. We should all support this, its after then that the nature of the revolution becomes apparent, as it is the responsiblity of the popular working class groups, be they anarchist or marxist, to guide the revolution the way that they deem to be correct.
Even if you don't agree with those who guide the revolution, why shouldn't you join it to try and change its course?

[Danielle]

It depends on what the idea of the revolution were and if it was likely those ideals would be subverted which usually happens with revolutions. I believe peaceful demonstration is better because I still believe the mantra that violence is not the answer.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have to take issue with this thread - the revolution isn't comming, as though it were one particular violent revolutionary moment, but it is now! It is a set of conditions and factors which are being created. Don't sit at home and say "I'll pick up a gun when the time comes!" - work on building the conditions that might necessitate picking up a gun!
No grand social change was ever brought about by sitting and waiting to unfurl the red flags! When a crisis evolves, there must be a revolutionary movement in place to finish what they've started!

[BOZG]

Nah, I'm going to sit back and watch and then afterwards actively oppose it.

[Essential Insignificance]

If a revolution was being arranged, would you be prepared to join up and stand up for what you believe? Also is it best to use violence, or peaceful demonstration. I believe that peaceful demonstration is the way forward, by boycotting capitalist industries such as COCA-COLA, although eventually violence may to gain support as major industries won't care about a few people.

I don't really think the revolution will be "pre-arranged" and "agreed upon" to "commence" at an preconceived date.

Moreover... I think revolution will "spark" from a seemingly unforeseen -- infinitesimal -- event that will gradually "build" up to a full-scale revolt and revolution.

But really... who knows?

I think it's "best" to use what is necessary for the given conditions.

Peaceful demonstration against antagonistic "forces" (tyrants, Imperial powers, foreign capitalists) in third-world countries is completely and utterly moronic.

Revolutionary struggle is imperative there!

But the same -- really -- could be said for for those in capitalists nations.

But... "peaceful demonstrate" I think will never bring fruition to our "overall" cause.

Those who are serious about communism... will always advocate the necessary "violence" required against the ruling class to overthrow it.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:45 PM
It depends on what the idea of the revolution were and if it was likely those ideals would be subverted which usually happens with revolutions. I believe peaceful demonstration is better because I still believe the mantra that violence is not the answer.
And tell me where will a peacefull demonstration get you?
what do we want?
Power!
When do we want it?
Now please....sir.
The state isn't going to give in unless you force it.

[Stancel]

Revolutions have been won non-violently. The people just need to make their voices heard, prime examples are the Carnation Revolution in Portugal and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

[RedLenin]

Yes no violence. I don't know about any of you, but I see violence as contrary to anarchism anyway. By using violence you are exercising power over someone else. If there is to be a revolution it should definitely be non-violent.

[novemba]

Im down for a revolution at a world wide scale. Lets do this. Think of all the support from all the oppressed people everywhere...and in the US if we could utilize gangs and there leaders and have the underground as an allie, it would be unstoppable.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:18 PM
Yes no violence. I don't know about any of you, but I see violence as contrary to anarchism anyway. By using violence you are exercising power over someone else. If there is to be a revolution it should definitely be non-violent.
And just how will that work? Now I'm not supporting guerilla war or anything stupid like that, but the fact remains that the borgeiose will do everything it can to retain power: the revolution's gonna' be violent anyway, like it or not. With that in mind, isn't it better for the people to arm themselves to protect their revolution than to see them being killed in their hundreds?

[T_SP]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 25 2005, 05:49 PM

A real revolution would not be created by any individual group. Revolution occurs through class unity of the proletariat and struggle for change. Workers will strike and start to take control of their workplaces. We should all support this, its after then that the nature of the revolution becomes apparent, as it is the responsiblity of the popular working class groups, be they anarchist or marxist, to guide the revolution the way that they deem to be correct.
Even if you don't agree with those who guide the revolution, why shouldn't you join it to try and change its course?
Ahhh spoken like a true Trot!! :D :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Stancel+--> (Stancel)Revolutions have been won non-violently. The people just need to make their voices heard, prime examples are the Carnation Revolution in Portugal and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia.[/b]

Sounds great!

But...the capitalist ruling class wasn't actually overthrown in Portugal, was it?

And in the former Czechoslovakia, didn't those "overthrown commie bastards" end up as some of that country's leading new capitalists?

And isn't the working class in both of those countries still at the bottom of the shitheap?

Perhaps you should reconsider...real revolutions may indeed require something more than "peaceful means".


cobra90x
I see violence as contrary to anarchism anyway.

There is a strain of anarchism referred to as "anarcho-pacificism" (often based on religious motives).

Most anarchists these days don't take it very seriously.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[complex]

Malcolm X was right. None of you know what a revolution is. A revolution is bloody and it knows no compromise. A revolution must be violent for many reasons. Che never protested, Che picked up a gun and fought till' the death!!!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:27 PM
If a revolution was being arranged, would you be prepared to join up and stand up for what you believe? Also is it best to use violence, or peaceful demonstration. I believe that peaceful demonstration is the way forward, by boycotting capitalist industries such as COCA-COLA, although eventually violence may to gain support as major industries won't care about a few people.
It sounds to me as if you think you will need violence because your ideas would be adopted by "only a few people". That suggests you don't care whether or not a majority or even a large number of people agree with your ideas, you'll resort to violence to get your way.

I would suggest you use non-violence. That way if people adopt your beliefs it is because they are doing so willingly, not because they fear the violence to which you resort.

:(

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:24 AM
Malcolm X was right. None of you know what a revolution is. A revolution is bloody and it knows no compromise. A revolution must be violent for many reasons. Che never protested, Che picked up a gun and fought till' the death!!!
That depends if it is a revolution of the people or a group. Armed revolutions created by small groups of people aren't worth anything to the people - the only people who can (and will :P ) put power into the hands of the people are the people.


I would suggest you use non-violence. That way if people adopt your beliefs it is because they are doing so willingly, not because they fear the violence to which you resort.
As I've said already, how the hell do you suppose you are going to protect the revolution if you sit back and refuse to use violence? I'm not advocating armed revolution, but the workers need to arm themselves to protect their gains from the last desparate attempts of the state to crush them. The state will stop at nothing to stop a revolution from overthrowing the borgeoise, and the people must be prepared to defend themselves against this.


Ahhh spoken like a true Trot!!
:lol: