violence is necessary

[comrade715]

In order to overthrown the tyrannical system of capitalism, we must have a revolution. And it becomes necessary to eliminate people who have oppresses, massacred, and done injustices, and the capitalists have done that to the people. They deserve to be annhilated. We can't overthrow them without violence. It is necessary.

[RedLenin]

I agree we do need a revolution. And some violence may prove necessary. But, we should not desire it. It should be a last resort for when they come to kill us. We should try to remain as peaceful as possible and only use violence when we must. We should not massacre anybody unless absolutely necessary. Keep in mind though that violence is only a very tiny part of revolution. The real work, construction of a new society, is the largest part.

[rice349]

I agree violence is necessary. We need complete extermination of the capitalists, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, bourgeoisie.

[Matthew The Great]

Cobra nailed it right on the head.

[rice349]

Cobra brought up some good points, but his hesitance to use violence only when needed, won't deal with the problems of reactionary forces internally.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Indeed, I wouldnt go mad but its pretty much a neccesity of revolution to use violence and destroy the power of the capitalist class.

[More Fire for the People]

The problem is not with violence, but it is with who the violence is directed towards.

Loss of human life, and more importantly civilian non-bourgeoisie life is a key goal for the revolutionary masses.

[KptnKrill]

Violence is ignorance. In reality you accomplish little to nothing of great worth but inspiring hatred by using violence. What's truely needed is a social revolution, a revolution of thought, not of blood.

Killing people only causes problems, and history has shown for the most part that the price isn't worth it and the results are *highly* temporary.

But eh, why do I care? You're all talk anyhow.

[Zingu]

Violence is nessecary; but we will not be the aggressors.

The revolution will be peaceful until the capitalists attempt to strike us down; then and there, people will see who the real blood thirsty murderers are by that action.

In my personal view; it will be nessecary for round ups, mass arrests, imprisonments and executions. How else are we going to get rid of CIA trained agents, corporate goon military men and Nazi thugs?

Those types will be the prime threat to the revolution; and should be dealt with accordingly with; no mercy, remember what the burgeoisie did to the workers in the Paris Commune when they continued to freely walk the streets? They helped the French National Army march right in and commit mass murder and atrocity.

Those who are not a threat; Bill Gates and so on; should let remain free but are liable, and probably will be summoned to workers' courts to face criminal charges, but these trials must be transperant and fair.

[workersunity]

to that poster that sound violence is ignorance, socialism cant be present without violence, the reason is, without violence the old state mechanisms will still be around, itll will just be state capitalism, there will be no socialism, there will be no communism without violence, and cobra is right, also rice, your views seem to kill people just because they have an opposite views, what about the minority of libertarians that exist after the revolution and are no threat to the socialist society, cant just kill innocent people now can we

[Anarchist Freedom]

What are we going to charge the battlefield with flowers? :lol:

[h&s]

Exactly. We can not acheive revolution by 'moral' means and arguments. The state is a tool designed specifically by the ruling classes over the centuries for the conservation of their power over all of the other classes. Various revolutions in the past have changed which class owns this tool - kings, feudal lords, merchants, borgeoise, etc, but the state is still there to stop others from taking it. Engels called the state an 'armed body of men' there to protect the borgeoise.
There is no way that the borgoise will just lie back and let us throw them out of power and let us implement socialism/anarchism (whichever!) without a fight. Everyone has seen the violence it uses from time to time (miners strike anyone?) and even every day.
Without some level of violence it is impossile to overthrow the borgoise, and so, to a certain extent, violence must be embraced.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:58 AM
Violence is ignorance. In reality you accomplish little to nothing of great worth but inspiring hatred by using violence. What's truely needed is a social revolution, a revolution of thought, not of blood.

Killing people only causes problems, and history has shown for the most part that the price isn't worth it and the results are *highly* temporary.

But eh, why do I care? You're all talk anyhow.

Silly, silly idealism.

[KptnKrill]

No, what's silly idealism is to think that murdering the oppressors will solve anything.

In many areas of the world the line between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie isn't as clear cut as it was in western europe when marx wrote the manifesto. A new class has emerged, while they aren't rich many of them own their own businesses or have capital invested in others. The simple fact is that without a change in the way the majority thinks, revolution simply isn't possible.

Why any of you think violent revolution is necessary blows my mind. One needs only to look to several of the most recent revolutions. the Rose, Orange, Cedar, and Tulip revolutions while not necessarily socialist are all peaceful revolutions that involved a change of government.

But alas to create a socialism one needs more than a change of government but to also instill an alternative image into the mind of people. The greatest weapon of all is the human mind, more powerful than any gun, missile, or nuke.

The government is simply a mask of officiality that lies on top of the laws society already created. Changing it does nothing if society is essentially the same.

Another wonderful side effect of social revolution is, little to no violence is required.

[DeadFishCorpse]

I believe violence is not absolutely necessary, But we mught have to assasinate some key political figures and leaders. For example King Bush II and his imperialistic cabinet. Make them pay for the blood that has been spilled on their selfish money oriented account. But civilians? No not those who voted for Bush, nor right wingers. They have wrong ideas but we need to influence them through example, and not be hypocryts. Anarchists, Communist, Socialist; including myself often are guilty of preaching the revolution but not living it. We are guilty of eating at Mcdonalds, being somewhat materialistic, and thinking of ourselves and not caring if our actions will hurt our community and fellow human beings. We need to show the average right-wing voter that our ideas will work amd what better way to that than by example?

[KptnKrill]

Oh I completely agree, if elimination of someone is needed to get the ball rolling than I'm all for it. But to set the foundations of a revolution you can't rely on violence.
Take the three major violent revolutions of the 1700's.

french - slowly reverted back from revolutionary ideals as time continued.
american - were seeking to create a minimalist type of thing, these were people who were fighting for the right to expand westward and a lessening of taxes... It's safe to say that the ideals of the american revolution have been lost...
haiti - well look at haiti today... 'nough said :|

Another great example is the soviet union...
My point is that violent revolutions up to this point haven't been very successful in the long run. Ask anybody in political science and they'll tell you the single most lasting thing that affects government is public opinion.

A new society, more than a new government is needed. Trying to slap a new government onto an old society is just destined to fail. And it just seems like a backwards way of doing things.

[stevec1]

All violence stems from fear.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Prove it.

[Guest]

If you go to the core of the things, check yourself: You fear something, you...Destroy it before it destroys you. But sometimes it's just anger...and we all know it leads to the dark side ;)

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:28 PM
Oh I completely agree, if elimination of someone is needed to get the ball rolling than I'm all for it. But to set the foundations of a revolution you can't rely on violence.
Take the three major violent revolutions of the 1700's.

french - slowly reverted back from revolutionary ideals as time continued.
american - were seeking to create a minimalist type of thing, these were people who were fighting for the right to expand westward and a lessening of taxes... It's safe to say that the ideals of the american revolution have been lost...
haiti - well look at haiti today... 'nough said :|

Another great example is the soviet union...
My point is that violent revolutions up to this point haven't been very successful in the long run. Ask anybody in political science and they'll tell you the single most lasting thing that affects government is public opinion.

A new society, more than a new government is needed. Trying to slap a new government onto an old society is just destined to fail. And it just seems like a backwards way of doing things.
I think your last paragraph was a really good point. It totally agree with you that a new society is bay far more important than a new government. Also Rice don't you think it's hypocritcal to slaughter anyone who has an opposing ideology? We hate them because they kill opress and slaughter, so are we supposed to than become the killers, oppresores, and slaughters? But than again excpecting anything else from a Stalinist is foolish.

[rice349]

Also Rice don't you think it's hypocritcal to slaughter anyone who has an opposing ideology? We hate them because they kill opress and slaughter, so are we supposed to than become the killers, oppresores, and slaughters? But than again excpecting anything else from a Stalinist is foolish.

I dont know why you or anybody else hates them; however, I hate them because they exploit, take what they can with no regard for whom they damage or destroy in the process, and continue on as if nothing happened the very next day. I'm going to leave you with a very powerful quote that you should give some serious consideration--


"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." - you guessed it, Josef Stalin.

[Edward Norton]

[QUOTE]Oh I completely agree, if elimination of someone is needed to get the ball rolling than I'm all for it. But to set the foundations of a revolution you can't rely on violence.
Take the three major violent revolutions of the 1700's.

french - slowly reverted back from revolutionary ideals as time continued.
american - were seeking to create a minimalist type of thing, these were people who were fighting for the right to expand westward and a lessening of taxes... It's safe to say that the ideals of the american revolution have been lost...
haiti - well look at haiti today... 'nough said :|

Another great example is the soviet union...
My point is that violent revolutions up to this point haven't been very successful in the long run. Ask anybody in political science and they'll tell you the single most lasting thing that affects government is public opinion.

A new society, more than a new government is needed. Trying to slap a new government onto an old society is just destined to fail. And it just seems like a backwards way of doing things.[QUOTE]

You claim that violence, on its own by its own methods, causes the POLITICAL failure of revolutions and the societies that follow in their wake.

Your four examples do NOT back up the point you just made.

The first three revolutions were NOT proletarian revolutions nor did they aim to empower the working class in any way, they couldn't as prior to these revolutions in France, America and Haiti, there was NO such thing as a working class.

These were anti fuedal, nationalist/anti imperialist revolutions which saw the rise of the middle class as a major political force, the abolition of the old rural based fuedal/peasant society and the transition from fuedalism to capitalism with the industrialisation that follwed (with the exception here of Haiti).

As these were NOT proletarian revolutions, their aim to was not to create a classless egalitarian utopia, but to pave the way for modern industrial capitalism.

In this the revolutions in America and France ACHIEVED their objective! They did not fail in their overall goals!

To suggest also that because violence was used in these two revolutions, somehow they produced societies that were worse off from the ones they replaced is incorrect as well. If I were a Frenchman Id take my pick on 19th century France anyday over pre 1789 France!

The fourth example you gave us was Russia. While I do NOT agree with you that violence should be avioded at all costs, at least the Russian revolution is an example that we can all use in this arguement, as it WAS a proletarian revolution, unlike the first three examples you gave us.

Post revolutionary Russia did fail for MANY reasons, none of them due to the fact that the Russian revolution was violent!

First of all, as a NON-leninist communist, the fact that Russian socialism operated on the basis of top down authority with a party that built a dictatorship OVER the proletariat as opposed to a dictatorship OF the proletariat was the prime cause of making the Russian revolution dead before it ever really had a chance to live. The needs and will of the proletariat was either ignored of supressed due to the lack of any REAL proletarian democracy (don't confuse this with social democracy or the type of 'democracy' we see in Europe and the USA today, I despise both these systems).

This system also allowed policies like the NEP to be put in place which created the socio-economic conditions for the eventual restoration of capitalism in the USSR, concluding in it's dissolution in 1991. Had a real workers democracy operated in Russia, the chance of these policies being implemented at the expense of the workers would have been eliminated.

Another point which is tied in with the last point, so Ill put them together, was that Russia was UNDERDEVELOPED, both socially and economically in 1917, which meant that it either needed to have waited until it developed fully into a capitalist industrialised state or that revolutions would occur in the advanced western european countries like Britain and Germany, which would then aid Russia and the problems that she encountered.

As you can see, many situations caused the Russian revolution to fail, and the ones I pointed out are described in a short and simple manner, another thread would be needed, as well as a few good books written, to go in depth as to the causes of the Russian revolution's failure and degeneration.

But to counter your post, I can point to the many FAILED attempts at a workers state that have been tried through non-violent means.

*Chile 1970-73

*Guatemala 1953-54

These two examples are where a socialist system was tried to be brought in and despite the fact that they were non-violent, they stuck to their programme until they were destroyed by counter revolution.

Even some liberals (not known for their love of direct action or radicalism) have considered it a MISTAKE that Salvador Allende did not arm the workers on the 11th September 1973, as Pinochet's fighter jets were bombing his palace and the working class areas of the capital. He turned them away after they approached him for arms to fight the military, in effect sending them to their deaths.

Other times, when socialist/communist parties are elected to power (after considering violence to be useless), they end up becoming reformist and social democratic. Examples of this are below:

*France 1981-83

*Italy 1996

*Brazil 2002-

*Ecuador 2002-

*Uraguay 2005-

*South Africa 1994-

*Greece 1981-89

I do NOT want to either see workers get crushed and killed in counter-revolution, beacuse they didn't fight the capitalist system that does not think twice about killing THEM or to see the workers get high expectations on voting reformists and social democrats into office, then end up becoming demoralised after the very people they vote in walk all over them and cosy up to the capitalist bosses.

I can see from your post that you are NOT a communist/marxist (of the leninist or non-leninist variety) and that your way of thinking is some sort of utopian pacifism.

Communists oppose capitalism because of it's system of exploitation of man by man through class inequality and wage slavery, not out of some liberal 'all life is valued no matter who you are' mentality.

I don't oppose the death penalty on principle, but on the method of it's application under capitalism (which kills and targets the proletariat in the main).

Come the revolution I have NO objections to seeing the worlds kings, presidents, dictators, emirs, sultans and prime ministers, along with their cabinets, officials and all of the corporate businessmen and their stooges in the military (upper ranks), secret police, police and fascists, being sent to their graves.

People who are responsible for imperialists wars, carpet bombings, invasions, torture, making children in the 3rd world work for a $1 a day, polluting the environment and destroying whole communities should get whats coming to them.

Its the only language these people know and they won't ever give up their posistions without a fight because they will lose EVERYTHING, their power, wealth, wage slaves and their corrupt lifestyles.

The capitalist class rules and thinks on the basis of the strong ruling over the weak.
We show them any kindness or reconciliation and they will see that as OUR weakness and will then use that freedom to move against us and destroy us and our revolution.

[Edward Norton]

My point is that violent revolutions up to this point haven't been very successful in the long run. Ask anybody in political science and they'll tell you the single most lasting thing that affects government is public opinion.

Well as a communist, I couldn't give a fuck about what some obscure 'intellectual' politics tutor at some university and his/her view that capitalist governemnts listen to 'public opinion.

I do disagree to the EXTREME, your views against violent revolution, but I will respect YOUR views in the hope that you will, in your OWN way, come round to seeing the need for violence in revolution.

But please don't use any more threads to air the views of some nonentity who thinks the world ceases to exist outside of the grounds of their university.

These people will say that, they are PAID to put the views and ideology of the capitalist system forward and impose it on their students.

Too many leftists and Marxists have been misled and confused by the liberal and social democrtic elite who make up the majority of university staff and who pose as radicals whilst urging people, under the gloss of some fancy 'intellectual' crap, to continue to WORK WITHIN the confines of capitalism.

It's time for the communist movement to forget about middle class posers and fancy 'intellectuals' at universities and instead go to the people were supposed to be with, the WORKERS!

[MKS]

Violence is nessecary unfourtunately. However a total disregard for life would be destructive and would be used by reactionaries to gather support.

Once the Capitalists leaders are gone, and the mechanisms they controlled destroyed, no one else should be killed without cause.

Also a good point was mentioned earlier. Where do we draw the line between oppresive Capitalists and the people just looking to make a buck and provide for their families? Technicaly arent we all capitalists, if not just by circumstance? Example: I work 40-50 hours a week at a factory, but I am also contributing to a corporation, not willingly, but because I need to pay rent and eat.

Also shouldnt mercy be shown? If it is, it will show the masses that Socialist are not merciless killers, but humans willing to forgive and look to the future. (hows that for idealism)

[RedLenin]

Yeah. We should not go around killing random bourgeiosie but only the ones who attack us. If we can avoid violence, then lets do it.

[rice349]

Yeah. We should not go around killing random bourgeiosie but only the ones who attack us. If we can avoid violence, then lets do it.

The modern bourgeoisie cannot be brought over to communism, it will be hard enough defeating them, much less educating them. We have two options "motivate" them to change via force; or simply imprison/exile/execute them.

[Guest]

and what weapons do you intend to use? I am a right wing conservative and..well for lack of a better term, a gun nut. Do you idiots have guns? Do you intend on fighting with molotav cocktails and AK-47s? If you plan on using soviet bloc weapons, good luck hitting anything beyond 300 yards. my right wing buddies are better armed and in the military. we are skilled in combat and marksmanship. do you idiots plan on acquiring supplies from raiding national gaurd depots? cuz youll never even get past the gaurds. You guys are not going to have a revolution. Not a peaceful one, not a violent one. You guys are a joke.

[RedLenin]

(Ignoring the reactionary troll)

Rice how far do you intend to go? Would you kill a kid who was born into the bourgeioie or just the ones who do the actuall exploiting? What attitude do you take towards bourgeiosie communists that were born into that class? I do not wish to kill anybody unless absolutely necessary.

[American_Trotskyist]

Here, to all of the 'pacifists' out there read this piece and then write about socialism, or better yet, read ANYTHING about socailism and then tell me that there can be no violence.

Non-Violance and Marxism (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/violence_non_violence0304.html)

[Latin America]

Edward Norton Posted on Apr 3 2005, 02:28 AM
Oh I completely agree, if elimination of someone is needed to get the ball rolling than I'm all for it. But to set the foundations of a revolution you can't rely on violence.
Take the three major violent revolutions of the 1700's.

french - slowly reverted back from revolutionary ideals as time continued.
american - were seeking to create a minimalist type of thing, these were people who were fighting for the right to expand westward and a lessening of taxes... It's safe to say that the ideals of the american revolution have been lost...
haiti - well look at haiti today... 'nough said :|

Another great example is the soviet union...
My point is that violent revolutions up to this point haven't been very successful in the long run. Ask anybody in political science and they'll tell you the single most lasting thing that affects government is public opinion.

A new society, more than a new government is needed. Trying to slap a new government onto an old society is just destined to fail. And it just seems like a backwards way of doing things

You claim that violence, on its own by its own methods, causes the POLITICAL failure of revolutions and the societies that follow in their wake.

Your four examples do NOT back up the point you just made.

The first three revolutions were NOT proletarian revolutions nor did they aim to empower the working class in any way, they couldn't as prior to these revolutions in France, America and Haiti, there was NO such thing as a working class.

These were anti fuedal, nationalist/anti imperialist revolutions which saw the rise of the middle class as a major political force, the abolition of the old rural based fuedal/peasant society and the transition from fuedalism to capitalism with the industrialisation that follwed (with the exception here of Haiti).

As these were NOT proletarian revolutions, their aim to was not to create a classless egalitarian utopia, but to pave the way for modern industrial capitalism.

In this the revolutions in America and France ACHIEVED their objective! They did not fail in their overall goals!

To suggest also that because violence was used in these two revolutions, somehow they produced societies that were worse off from the ones they replaced is incorrect as well. If I were a Frenchman Id take my pick on 19th century France anyday over pre 1789 France!

The fourth example you gave us was Russia. While I do NOT agree with you that violence should be avioded at all costs, at least the Russian revolution is an example that we can all use in this arguement, as it WAS a proletarian revolution, unlike the first three examples you gave us.

Post revolutionary Russia did fail for MANY reasons, none of them due to the fact that the Russian revolution was violent!

First of all, as a NON-leninist communist, the fact that Russian socialism operated on the basis of top down authority with a party that built a dictatorship OVER the proletariat as opposed to a dictatorship OF the proletariat was the prime cause of making the Russian revolution dead before it ever really had a chance to live. The needs and will of the proletariat was either ignored of supressed due to the lack of any REAL proletarian democracy (don't confuse this with social democracy or the type of 'democracy' we see in Europe and the USA today, I despise both these systems).

This system also allowed policies like the NEP to be put in place which created the socio-economic conditions for the eventual restoration of capitalism in the USSR, concluding in it's dissolution in 1991. Had a real workers democracy operated in Russia, the chance of these policies being implemented at the expense of the workers would have been eliminated.

Another point which is tied in with the last point, so Ill put them together, was that Russia was UNDERDEVELOPED, both socially and economically in 1917, which meant that it either needed to have waited until it developed fully into a capitalist industrialised state or that revolutions would occur in the advanced western european countries like Britain and Germany, which would then aid Russia and the problems that she encountered.

As you can see, many situations caused the Russian revolution to fail, and the ones I pointed out are described in a short and simple manner, another thread would be needed, as well as a few good books written, to go in depth as to the causes of the Russian revolution's failure and degeneration.

But to counter your post, I can point to the many FAILED attempts at a workers state that have been tried through non-violent means.

*Chile 1970-73

*Guatemala 1953-54

These two examples are where a socialist system was tried to be brought in and despite the fact that they were non-violent, they stuck to their programme until they were destroyed by counter revolution.

Even some liberals (not known for their love of direct action or radicalism) have considered it a MISTAKE that Salvador Allende did not arm the workers on the 11th September 1973, as Pinochet's fighter jets were bombing his palace and the working class areas of the capital. He turned them away after they approached him for arms to fight the military, in effect sending them to their deaths.

Other times, when socialist/communist parties are elected to power (after considering violence to be useless), they end up becoming reformist and social democratic. Examples of this are below:

*France 1981-83

*Italy 1996

*Brazil 2002-

*Ecuador 2002-

*Uraguay 2005-

*South Africa 1994-

*Greece 1981-89

I do NOT want to either see workers get crushed and killed in counter-revolution, beacuse they didn't fight the capitalist system that does not think twice about killing THEM or to see the workers get high expectations on voting reformists and social democrats into office, then end up becoming demoralised after the very people they vote in walk all over them and cosy up to the capitalist bosses.

I can see from your post that you are NOT a communist/marxist (of the leninist or non-leninist variety) and that your way of thinking is some sort of utopian pacifism.

Communists oppose capitalism because of it's system of exploitation of man by man through class inequality and wage slavery, not out of some liberal 'all life is valued no matter who you are' mentality.

I don't oppose the death penalty on principle, but on the method of it's application under capitalism (which kills and targets the proletariat in the main).

Come the revolution I have NO objections to seeing the worlds kings, presidents, dictators, emirs, sultans and prime ministers, along with their cabinets, officials and all of the corporate businessmen and their stooges in the military (upper ranks), secret police, police and fascists, being sent to their graves.

People who are responsible for imperialists wars, carpet bombings, invasions, torture, making children in the 3rd world work for a $1 a day, polluting the environment and destroying whole communities should get whats coming to them.

Its the only language these people know and they won't ever give up their posistions without a fight because they will lose EVERYTHING, their power, wealth, wage slaves and their corrupt lifestyles.

The capitalist class rules and thinks on the basis of the strong ruling over the weak.
We show them any kindness or reconciliation and they will see that as OUR weakness and will then use that freedom to move against us and destroy us and our revolution.



Wow I am impress! Good writting! :)

[pandora]

Originally posted by Pedro Alonso [email protected] 2 2005, 01:14 AM
Indeed, I wouldnt go mad but its pretty much a neccesity of revolution to use violence and destroy the power of the capitalist class.
Sure, just ask Ghandhi :D he needed to use violence to dispossess the Brits, and MLK needed it in the South :lol:

To not use violence requires greater intelligence and steadfastness, violence is the lazy way, and always perpetuates more violence. Try to think outside the box :lol:

Violence is precisely the trap they wish for those seeking for liberation to entwine themselves in, because the perscription in easy, it keeps the defense plants humming, please look at Peru, Chile, and Colombia, violence by leftists was just the excuse used to percipitate death camps on all leftist rebels. I have not visited a mass grave in Argentina or Chile and I don't have to to know that such ideas play right into the hands of right wing death squads.

Thinking outside the box, expressing power without violent means is necessary for mulitple reasons, one being in many nations are tired of war and want peace. But they are not willing to trade their rights, a way to stand up and be counted with out being killed is all they ask. If we are truly intellectuals then we can create these ideals. But if we are ignorant we will not.

[NovelGentry]

Sure, just ask Ghandhi biggrin.gif he needed to use violence to dispossess the Brits, and MLK needed it in the South

Remember when both of them were shot, and then only a few years later their respective movements saw turmoil and now both of their respective nations grow closer and closer to fascism?

[pandora]

There Revolutions are the bright spots in both nations history, why belittle such success with looking at every failure of the United States and India, this is ridiculous! We're talking about nations of hundreds of millions of people over two generations and only two men. But if there were a thousand such people, and each of those thousand empowered a thousand more to take back their own personal power and count on the nature of community it would soon spread to a more lasting change. The problem with MLK is that he realized the direction he needed to take too late. It was when he organized his march of the poor he was shot. Same with Ghandhi, neither man was able to sufficiently empower enough people to take the reins for the Revolution themselves. But Ghandhi had the problem that he was fighing Nehru's development model to empower the local economy instead of GNP, that was where he got into trouble. \

So now we are at the heart cause of both men's assination, changing the paradigm of the economy, yet all you have to tell me is defeatism. That it can not be done without bloodshed due to past bloodshed, this is ridiculous! Peaceful means requires imagination, to except anything less is intellectual laziness. Violence should be avoided at all costs, even sometimes at self-sacrifice. For how can we teach others the nature of community and that human beings are good at heart if we are only satisfied by our own welfare.

That being said, self defense is sometimes necessary to alleviate oppression, otherwise it is always the messenger who is being killed prematurely, but self defense is not offense.

[NovelGentry]

There Revolutions are the bright spots in both nations history, why belittle such success with looking at every failure of the United States and India, this is ridiculous!

Because we don't need bright spots, we need ever lasting light to shine on our future.


We're talking about nations of hundreds of millions of people over two generations and only two men. But if there were a thousand such people, and each of those thousand empowered a thousand more to take back their own personal power and count on the nature of community it would soon spread to a more lasting change.

Or there would be a thousand shot, and their movements in turmoil.


So now we are at the heart cause of both men's assination, changing the paradigm of the economy, yet all you have to tell me is defeatism.

Where defeat reigns true, we should speak of defeatism.


That it can not be done without bloodshed due to past bloodshed, this is ridiculous!
. . .
Violence should be avoided at all costs, even sometimes at self-sacrifice.

It has nothing to do with the past. It has a whole lot to do with the present. You would have us lay down guns and take the bullets as we see them oppose us. Why? So that more may die than is ever necessary? We have an enemy, and they will try to kill us; they will try to kill our ideas.

We're not looking for martyrs, no matter how long after their deaths people will talk about them. You speak of sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice -- as if the blood of all these men will dye the minds of the bourgeoisie until they are so blind that they simply hand it all over.

There is another way to sacrifice, but in doing so we force them to sacrifice.


For how can we teach others the nature of community and that human beings are good at heart if we are only satisfied by our own welfare.

I'm not sure why you think we fight only for ourselves.

[pandora]

Originally posted by NovelGentry+Apr 3 2005, 11:37 AM--> (NovelGentry @ Apr 3 2005, 11:37 AM)

It has nothing to do with the past. It has a whole lot to do with the present. You would have us lay down guns and take the bullets as we see them oppose us.


[/b]


Interesting you ignored all my comments around self defense to make your point. The reason I stated the necessary need for self defense is precisely because we don't need any more martyrs I am offended you would put such words in my mouth. I have always been a fan of wrathfulness and power and strength where appropriate :lol: But not where inappropriate, and it takes a careful eye to know the difference.


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:37 AM
]Because we don't need bright spots, we need ever lasting light to shine on our future.

Why said anything about only having bright spots the idea is to empower people to stand up for their rights, that is a hundred million bright spots, but if you would have a uniform glare with out difference of opinion than you are speaking of a totalitarian regime which would press against freedom of speech than I am not for this.


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:37 AM
We're talking about nations of hundreds of millions of people over two generations and only two men. But if there were a thousand such people, and each of those thousand empowered a thousand more to take back their own personal power and count on the nature of community it would soon spread to a more lasting change.

Or there would be a thousand shot, and their movements in turmoil.

First it does not seem you read my reply very well, the first duty of a thousand is to empower a thousand who empower a thousand more, that makes hundred thousand and then a million. The idea is not to have the thousand involved in a cult of personality as has won out due to media speculation in the past but to have a universal movement towards human rights and dignity with communal underpinnings towards world socialism built around workers rights and healthcare.

Killing the thousand would have to occur earlier than present time, because there are already more socialists and communists than this. The problem occurs only if you refer to military training which is unnecessary if violence is not the answer sought, it is an inner revolution of understanding that makes one sufficient to teach others to empower themselves. Because there is no clear understanding of how this occurs, it is a natural phenomena, then the initial teachers are intially unorganized it is an organic phenomena. When more and more are empowered then the movement occurs organically by itself. You are still expecting a super man, an Ubermensch, a very Capitalist ideal! :lol: Instead of the labor of the simple people.



Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:37 AM


[email protected] 3 2005, 11:37 AM
So now we are at the heart cause of both men's assination, changing the paradigm of the economy, yet all you have to tell me is defeatism.

Where defeat reigns true, we should speak of defeatism.

This is ignorance in the highest order, and disrespects all past Revolutionaries and the acheivement of their efforts. Just because you don't get what you want all the time does not mean the dignity and generosity of those who have come before has not led to the gate way, opened the gate way and prepared the way by giving advantage to millions of people.

I know it is hard to see in one life, but there have been huge successful efforts in respects to Civil Rights in many countries. I know many who have struggled in these theaters who would slap you upside your head for the impetus of such an answer. Perhaps Fidel would be among them.

No it is not easy, it is a long struggle, but there is much hope and a home in the comradery of the movement along the way, your pessism is infectious I hope it does not persist! :(

[NovelGentry]

Interesting you ignored all my comments around self defense to make your point. The reason I stated the necessary need for self defense is precisely because we don't need any more martyrs I am offended you would put such words in my mouth. I have always been a fan of wrathfulness and power and strength where appropriate laugh.gif But not where inappropriate, and it takes a careful eye to know the difference.

Then it is by your own words that you admit "violence is necessary." But what would you have us do, wait till their guns are drawn? Plan for violence -- and plan for lots of it. Every step they would take towards you, consider it a growing threat; one to be put down as quickly as possible. Or is this too "inappropriate" ? Then what is to be appropriate? Only when we should have our heads split should we think to use them to raise a gun?

You give no inclination as to the nature of what you would consider appropriate. If I did not answer it is because the argument stands nothing to gain from it.


Why said anything about only having bright spots the idea is to empower people to stand up for their rights, that is a hundred million bright spots, but if you would have a uniform glare with out difference of opinion than you are speaking of a totalitarian regime which would press against freedom of speech than I am not for this.

And who said anything about oppressing difference in opinion?


First it does not seem you read my reply very well, the first duty of a thousand is to empower a thousand who empower a thousand more, that makes hundred thousand and then a million. The idea is not to have the thousand involved in a cult of personality as has won out due to media speculation in the past but to have a universal movement towards human rights and dignity with communal underpinnings towards world socialism built around workers rights and healthcare.

Quite the contrary, it is you who has not read my post well. Any attempt to empower would wind them up dead by the hand of the state. Your empowerment only goes so far as they allow it, and then your empowerment must come from the barrel of a gun. Fred Hampton ring a bell?


Killing the thousand would have to occur earlier than present time, because there are already more socialists and communists than this.

And few who have actually sought to empower anyone, as of yet.


The problem occurs only if you refer to military training which is unnecessary if violence is not the answer sought, it is an inner revolution of understanding that makes one sufficient to teach others to empower themselves.

Unfortunately for the inner revolution and it's subsequent empowerment, it's opposition will have military training.


Because there is no clear understanding of how this occurs, it is a natural phenomena, then the initial teachers are intially unorganized it is an organic phenomena. When more and more are empowered then the movement occurs organically by itself. You are still expecting a super man, an Ubermensch, a very Capitalist ideal! laugh.gif Instead of the labor of the simple people.

I'm not sure why you presume this. I would wager you have little understanding if any, as to what exactly I propose.


This is ignorance in the highest order, and disrespects all past Revolutionaries and the acheivement of their efforts.

On the contrary, it would be ignorant to not speak of defeat. We need a healthy dose of reality to learn from the mistakes of the past, and unfortunately, I don't see any socialist utopias lying around; I do believe there are many mistakes and I do believe we need to make them clear, if not loud as well.


Just because you don't get what you want all the time does not mean the dignity and generosity of those who have come before has not led to the gate way, opened the gate way and prepared the way by giving advantage to millions of people.

Agreed. They have given a great advantage, the advantage of knowing what not to do. Maybe you mistake this for an all out dismissal of their achievements, but if you do it is from your own delusions as to what you would want I should say.


I know it is hard to see in one life, but there have been huge successful efforts in respects to Civil Rights in many countries. I know many who have struggled in these theaters who would slap you upside your head for the impetus of such an answer. Perhaps Fidel would be among them.

Of all the lesser self-critical revolutionaries you could have picked you pick FIdel, a man quite keen on admitting the flaws of himself, his government, and the movment as a whole. It is only by recognizing our failures that we should hope to know what success actually is.


No it is not easy, it is a long struggle, but there is much hope and a home in the comradery of the movement along the way, your pessism is infectious I hope it does not persist!

You've concluded pessimism from reality and knowing nothing of my optimism, you attribute it to me.

[aberos]

i think the use of force is entirely warranted and necessary, but it should not be done in excess because then any members of the society that you are trying to exterminate will either be scared into communism, or they will battle it fervently. it is important to only kill what must be killed, and indoctrinate everything else.

[Edward Norton]

Sure, just ask Ghandhi he needed to use violence to dispossess the Brits, and MLK needed it in the South

Well being British and being well versed in the bloody imperialist history of my country, I can say to you that Ghandi's role in the anti-colonial struggle in India was overstated!

There were many VIOLENT actions carried out in India that coincided with Ghandi's movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Bombings, assinations, violent riots and many other actions taken by Indian freedom fighters who rightly rejected pacifism.

Even Ghandi himself said that he would NOT condem or oppose others who used violence, he may have rejected violence himself but he at least had some principle in not grassing out violent freedom fighters to the British.

Besides at the end of the day the main reason the British, along with all the other European nations pulled out of their colonies was economic (as Marxists, we should always see that economics and profit are ALWAYS tied in to power realtions). Don't forget that NO European nation gave independence to ANY of their colonies before WW2. Britain, along with others was bankrupt after fighting a total war for six years, a war that used EVERY aspect of their economy to stay in the war and exhausted them finacially in 1945. Many years after 1945 Britain was paying back money to America as part of the 'lend and lease' contract the Americans gave us to stay in WW2.

India, by the mid 1920s, had actually cost MORE to keep under imperial rule than the profits Britain got back from it in terms of labour and resources. Thus the laws of capitalism fell into their place, colonies are like factories, if it costs too much and the profit margin to low, 'downsize' it, let it go and relocate to more profitable areas/markets.

Besides, if Ghandi's legacy is the India we see today, the India of sweatshops, racist violence, religious backwardness, Hindu fascism and the India of the corporate crime of Bohpal, then forget it, that legacy means fuck all and isn't worth a violent or non-violent struggle!

Then there is Martin Luther King (MLK).

Well all he really achieved was the right to vote for blacks. Whilst noble in the sense that it put white and black workers of equal footing, it didn't emancipate them! The 'right' to vote for either blacks or whites in the working class is useless, just a right to vote for another capitalist lapdog who will lie through the teeth to you to get your vote and then when in congress, vote to cut your health benefits, pension rights, union rights, civil rights, all of course in the name of 'competitiveness' and 'war on drugs' and 'war on terror' and other bullshit PR catchphrases that they spew out.

Besides, other than voting Black people don't have it easy in the US.

Who is the cannon fodder for the US military in their imperialist wars?

Who makes up the majorty of death row inmates?

Who gets to see police violence on a daily basis?

Who gets the most shit housing, jobs, education and services?

The answer to all of these questions is that black people are in the majorty of all these cases!

Black people see the violence of capitalism on a day to day basis in the US, to tell them NOT to use violence is in effect siding with their oppressors and saying that they should accept their exploitation, even if you don't think that is what you are saying, by the very way the system works that is how it works out!

And like India, MLK was NOT the only one who contributed to the SLIGHT improvement in the lives of black people in the US.

Remember the Black Panther Party (BPP)? You know the people who said what no one else in the liberal middle class dominated civil rights movement said, that "self defence is no offence". Of course middle class pacifists distanced themselves from this, but after going on some demonstration and going back to their cosy suburban homes, they didn't see the DAILY abuse black people got. Unlike other movements, the BPP were the only group that actually grew out of the very community they represented. They lived in the inner city projects, saw with their own eyes the police violence and poverty black people had to put up with and they did something about it!

They armed themselves, kicked out the drug dealers and other harbingers of poverty from their communities, resisted the police in the only language the police understood, VIOLENCE!

Far from being bloodthirsty, they did REAL work in their communities, running their own schools, shops, co-operatives and dealing with REAL criminals and fighting crime WITHOUT the racist abuse and corruption people got from the biggest crime gang in US cities, the police.

Crime fell to levels not before known in the areas they ran!

Saying this the BPP and Malcom X did far more that the liberal elite of MLK.

Besides the BPP took a class line as well, reaching out to other workers in solidarity and thus rejecting middle class reformism.


To not use violence requires greater intelligence and steadfastness, violence is the lazy way, and always perpetuates more violence. Try to think outside the box

That has NOT been backed up with ANY hard facts, lol pacifists have "greater intellingence", well your text here does not show any evidnece on that!

Think out of what box?????

The box of capitalist thought, well by aiming for ARMED revolution, that is exactly what we are doing, thinking outside of THEIR box!

If I were a capitalist, Id take my pick on the easy option of crushing a non armed movement, which would take a day or two and not many, if any losses, on my side than have to deal with an armed workers revolution which would have a GOOD chance of defeating me!


Violence is precisely the trap they wish for those seeking for liberation to entwine themselves in, because the perscription in easy, it keeps the defense plants humming, please look at Peru, Chile, and Colombia, violence by leftists was just the excuse used to percipitate death camps on all leftist rebels. I have not visited a mass grave in Argentina or Chile and I don't have to to know that such ideas play right into the hands of right wing death squads.

Is it?

If thats the case, then how do you explain the fact that the BIGGEST armed capitalist state, the most oppressive and the most war eager is non other than the USA, a state with NO proletarian violence taking place inside of it! If your statement held ANY truth to it, which it doesn't, the lack of revolutionary violence in the US means it should have NO military and an UNARMED police force!

Capitalism is ALWAYS armed, violent and oppressive! For us it's a question of how much more of this should we put up with. Pacifists like yourself are not helping in ANY way as you are simply diverting people into a dead end of either reformism (cmon, its had its day) or utopian pipe dreams (always ending up in bloody counter attack by the capitalist system).

You mentioned Chile of all examples.

If you actually READ my post, you would of seen that Chile in 1973 was and still is the PRIME example of why reformism/non-violence NEVER works.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that Chile is an example of how bad revolutionary violence is???

There was NO violence in Chile other than the violence of the military junta.

Maybe if the revolutionaries tried violence instead of reformism and parliament and trying to appeal to the 'democratic/constitutional traditions of the Chilean military' to 'respect the will of the people', they would have got somewhere!

Capitalism will crush us either if we use violence or not, at least by using violence in the revolutionary struggle we INCREASE the chances of victory, something too many people seem to forget about these days!


Thinking outside the box, expressing power without violent means is necessary for mulitple reasons, one being in many nations are tired of war and want peace. But they are not willing to trade their rights, a way to stand up and be counted with out being killed is all they ask. If we are truly intellectuals then we can create these ideals. But if we are ignorant we will not.

Liberal bullshit and hippy idealism/crap!

Back this up with any facts, historical examples etc...

Who gives a fuck about 'nations wanting peace', communists are nation destroyers and class destroyers. Don't ever give the ruling class 'peace' (in effect a breathing space for them to regroup and REARM). Put as much pressure on the capitalist state as possible then strike them DOWN.

It is you who is ignorant and I say this not as an insult but in the hope that you will read up on history and the workers stuggle and then cast out this dead end middle class liberal ideology you have.

Take it as a helpful hint!

[MKS]

The importance is not in the method of revolution, whether "peacful" or violent, what is important is that the strenght of the men who sustain the ideas and changes brought forth during the revolution. MLK and Ghandi did great things, but once they died, so did what they created or helped to create. They worked hard to build a facade of rightgeous action, when it crumbled under the test of time. Once could only have to look at the footage of the burning cities of America after MLKs killing, or the violent uprisings of Hindu Indians against Muslim Indians after Ghandis killing.

Non violence is a great ideal, but a non violent revolution cannot be sustained as there will always be violent factions looking to destory it, from within and without. When they see you are willing to fight back they will think twice before coming for you.

[aberos]

then a more important question to ask is what is more important, the movement or the leader of the movement?

[Guest]

im still waiting for you idiots to try something. you talk the talk, but you clearly dont walk the walk. start some shit, see how long you last. i bet you idiots dont know what end of a gun the bullets come out of. and the black ones among you probably shoot sideways and throw the bullets. didnt you get the memos you dont throw spears anymore. jeez.

[aberos]

well i am glad to see that you feel the need to anonymously hide behind spiteful words on an internet forum. i would placate to your need to incite anger from my friends and i here, but i think it would be better to let you sit in front of your computer and feel a sense of accomplishment in posting a thoroughly repulsive blog. good for you. and while i understand that as a biggoted anti-revolutionary this site would be rather upsetting to you, i would simply ask and advise you to not visit our forum. you have made your point and we are now all aware that you think we are idiots and silly black folks. thank you for your opinion, but please leave now.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:43 AM
im still waiting for you idiots to try something. you talk the talk, but you clearly dont walk the walk. start some shit, see how long you last. i bet you idiots dont know what end of a gun the bullets come out of. and the black ones among you probably shoot sideways and throw the bullets. didnt you get the memos you dont throw spears anymore. jeez.
Awww, the Nazi is still angry that aparthied is over.

Poor bonehead, you're begging for an encounter with the ARA, aren't you?
Look, you don't need to hide behind swastikas - there are better ways to express your kinks! Sure, an anti-fascists boot to your temple would be fufilling, but wouldn't you be happier biting the pillow while I go in without lube?
Drop the rascist fascade - live your masochist fantasies in a safer, consensual way. We don't you to get hurt.

[Black Dagger]

If we are truly intellectuals then we can create these ideals. But if we are ignorant we will not

I dont want to be a 'true intellectual', i'm not sure, but i dont think many of the other members want to be either. Because it seems being a 'true intellectual' equates to being a 'true reformist'. That's what pacifcism is, reformism. How else can you smash the old regime/class? Why would the ruling class ever 'give up' their priviledge if not by force? Pacifist 'revolutions', as Edward Norton rightly pointed out, are childs-play for any determined reactionary state/group, state-violence will defeat a passive revolution every time.

As for the second part, everyone who rejects pacificism is 'ignorant'? You realise how patronising that statement is right?



To not use violence requires greater intelligence and steadfastness, violence is the lazy way, and always perpetuates more violence. Try to think outside the box

Hold up, not only am i 'ignorant' but im 'unintelligent' because i think that violence is a necessary evil in any real revolutionary struggle? There's a difference between opposing all violence and recognising the potentially authoritarian ends, authoritarian means can create. That said, it is possible to be aware of this, whilst still supporting violence as an inevitable result of the class struggle itself.

Moreover, even if the 'intelligent' and 'true intellectuals' that will apparently be 'leading' (?) the revolution do hold themselves to pacificsm, you're naive if you think that this will prevent other more radical groups and people within the revolution from not engaging in direct action against the state and violent elements of the ruling class, or against fascists etc. (even if only in self-defence, at the very least). As you can gauge from the reaction of other posters in this thread, pacificsm is not the dominant paradigm of revolutionary discourse (and hopefully never will be). Whilst i agree that violence and coercion are completely undesireable forces in revolution, to say that they are also completely unnecessary (pacificsm/non-violence), seems to be divorced from not only history, but the ongoing social/political reality of the state and how it is formed and maintained (ie. primarily through violence and coercion... but also gramscian hegemonic 'conformism' etc.)