Revolution [Archive]

redstar2000

2nd May 2005, 05:02

Originally posted by Clarksist
Revolution is the tough sticky part in both communism and anarchism.

Agreed.

In my eyes the only way to do it is through non-violence.

Lots of people agree with you about that; but lots of people don't.

Non-violent solutions are infinitely superior to violent ones.

Only if they work.

Now Gandhi achieved freeing India from its chains via non-violence.

A common misconception. There was actually quite a lot of violence in the course of India's long struggle for independence, beginning with the "Indian mutiny" of 1857.

And speaking of "freedom" with regard to India now is, at best, very misleading. The vast majority of people in India live in conditions that are unspeakably atrocious.

There is a strong Maoist movement in India now...and frankly, I hope they do make a violent and bloody revolution there.

Not because Maoist societies are all that great...but because what exists is simply unbelievably horrible and the Maoists would actually make things somewhat better for several hundred million people there.

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

bed_of_nails

2nd May 2005, 05:12

My friend, there is no non-violent revolution. That is reform.

If you attempt a non-violent revolution like Ghandi you will get the same results. Brutal beatings, harsh jail conditions, deaths of your friends, and just about anything you can imagine. It is a noble cause, and those that accomplish things without violence are far braver than those who fight back, but it is also harder to do.

The basic question at hand is if it is easier to get a revolution by standing around talking, or taking those same people, giving them monkey wrenches and telling them to go get their way.

DoomedOne

2nd May 2005, 07:08

But you have to understand violence is not an option. Revolution is possible non-violently. Not only that, but it is the only means to go about it. If you attempt to form a militant reformist group, or a guerilla group, then it's an attempt to simply exchange dictators. It is not a government for the people that is being installed.

Keys of Non-violence:

Education, Understanding and unity

Draw support of the undecided, if we are in state that requires revolution, then it would mean that there is a deep necessity for it, meaning that the tools to educate the people are out there. If they are not out there, then we are not in a state in which a revolution is necessary.

Sense of Community

People must want to stand together defiantly, not under some militant but under their moral obligation to their community. Under the ideals that they can achieve a more prosperous community. The average man does not spend his life keeping up with philosophy, he spends his life attempting to provide for his family and rest upon the complex system of his community.

With each disgrace, the fire is fueld

Every brutal beating or military attack against a non-violent movement draws support. It up-earth's the pillars of holiness of which the current government attempts to stand on. If the government cannot conduct their opposition on the same terms then their government is not truly a democracy. Nothing makes people more willing to stand for what they believe in then the knowledge that their people are being oppressed. That is why Dr King allowed himself to be beaten and arrested, to exemplify to people that steps must be taken to ensure freedom. That they cannot sit down and watch as their freedom becomes nothing more than a pipe dream.

The people are the government

With enough support the current government becomes nothing more than a bunch of old men and women in business suits pretending they have power.

This may seem over idealistic, like some connections made by the naive. However, there comes a time in which any radical ought to wonder, what is their cause now? The better humanity, or the revolution itself. Power corrupts, give them power, and the will to do what is necessary to achieve their ideal world, and every revolutionary becomes a dictator. That is why certain lines cannot be crossed, and one of these lines is violence. If good and evil really existed, then evil would be when someone throws morals to the dust for an end that justifies the means.

h&s

2nd May 2005, 12:55

Before I start here, I want to say that when I say violence, I do not mean warfare in a guerilla or other military style.
Revolution has to be done violently - there is no other choice.
The state is there to protect the ruling class's hold on power and society. It is the job of the police and other 'armed bodies of men' to ensure that the working class does not overthrow the rulers.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/mar04/miners%20strike.jpg
/\ This is what the police do to maintain capitalist rule. This was just the miners strike of '84 - imagine what they would do in a revolution - it does not bare thinking about.
Just letting this happen is neglegent - do you think that you could just watch thousands of your comrades get beaten to death?
I'm not saying that we should attack the state - thats pointless - but we should be fully prepared to defend ourselves.
Even worse if we are not prepared to defend ourselves we can not protect oursleves against what the capitalists throw at us in attacks if the revolution succeeds. Russia was invaded by something like 26 different countries post-revolution in support of the anti-semitic white army. How are we just supposed to let that happen? Condemn them from the moral high ground while they set up a dictatorship?
Didn't think so.

Invader Zim

2nd May 2005, 14:56

If you attempt a non-violent revolution like Ghandi you will get the same results.

Compared to what? Let’s look at the violent revolutions in history. Great, I'll take the beatings etc, rather than the Gulags, if it's ok with you.

But that whole argument is a bag of bollocks anyway. The fact of the matter is its not the nature of the revolution/reform which leads to the construction of the new society.

Anyone who tells you other wise is lying through their teeth, the reason why workers states, etc become what they do is because they rely heavily upon individual leadership. if you get a good leader, then fair game, however what if you don't or that leader dies? You could well get a Pol-Pot or a Stalin? Such people actively seek power, which is why history is dominated by such figures.

The only way revolution or reform will be successful is if the working class unites as a body without centralized leadership. As the expression goes, "power to the people", not to any pseudo-leftwing dictator.

Paradox

2nd May 2005, 16:00

I too wish for a revolution that is as peaceful as possible. I hope that as little unnecessary death and injury occurs; as little loss of innocents as possible. However, I realize that violence is most likely inevitable. We therefore must be prepared to defend ourselves from reactionary attacks. And as Enigma said, we must be decentralized. Workers' militias will have to be formed and the people will have to take it upon themselves to defend their revolution, not be led by "professional revolutionaries." Anyone in a "leadership" position I think must have no authority over the masses. Such "leaders" can make proposals based upon discussions and debates by the masses, but cannot enact such proposals on their own. Any action, demonstration, policy change, etc., must be enacted by a majority vote by the people themselves. The people must run the show, otherwise it's not a people's movement. And obviously, anyone in a "leadership" position must be recallable, and new people must be brought in through rotations on as frequent a basis as possible, so as to not disrupt the flow and productivity of the revolution.

If you attempt a non-violent revolution like Ghandi you will get the same results.

Compared to what? Let’s look at the violent revolutions in history. Great, I'll take the beatings etc, rather than the Gulags, if it's ok with you.

Well, peaceful or not, people participating in revolutions get locked up, killed, beaten in both cases. It's just that in the case of non-violent resistance, the brutal treatment you receive from the reactionaries raises the awareness of the people and shows them how hypocritical the state and its forces are.

As DoomedOne said:

It up-earth's the pillars of holiness of which the current government attempts to stand on.

redstar2000

2nd May 2005, 17:33

Originally posted by Doomed One
But you have to understand violence is not an option.

Why ever not?

Revolution is possible non-violently. Not only that, but it is the only means to go about it.

Both of those assertions are very dubious...to put it mildly.

If you attempt to form a militant reformist group, or a guerrilla group, then it's an attempt to simply exchange dictators.

Well, we don't know that, do we? Granted, that's been a common outcome...but hardly "universal". If the Spanish anarchists had won the civil war, do you think one of them would have become a "dictator"?

That is why certain lines cannot be crossed, and one of these lines is violence. If good and evil really existed, then evil would be when someone throws morals to the dust for an end that justifies the means.

I find your view incomprehensible.

It seems to me that violence/non-violence are tactical questions; you pick whichever will be more effective in a particular situation.

I don't think people should "fall in love" with either -- nor does it make much sense to me to publicly "boast" of either. A movement that boasts of its non-violent character is perceived as weak by others...especially the old ruling class. A movement that boasts of its eagerness for violent confrontation is apt to provoke a violent ruling class attack that it is not yet strong enough to effectively resist.

I think a neutral public response is more useful and effective in the long run. When asked if we are "violent" or "non-violent", we should simply say that "it depends on the situation"...and let it go at that.

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

chebol

7th May 2005, 03:27

In May-June 1968, Charles de Gaulle travelled to Germany to visit the French troops stationed, preparing them to march upon their own people if the demonstrations keep building.

The state is MORE than willing to turn it's weapon's on it's *own* people. (Which we are not. They are the boureoisie. We are the proletariat. Bugger nationalism.)

Clarksist

11th May 2005, 22:38

Non-violence is superior to violence because if the revolution succeeds, you won't have any revolutionary "whiplash" so to speak. No one got their families murdered or their houses burned down, and they won't seak such a harsh revenge against the revolution.

Just letting this happen is neglegent - do you think that you could just watch thousands of your comrades get beaten to death?

To steal a line from Ghandi, "I'm willing to die for this cause, but there is no cause I'm willing to kill for." In other words, I'd be happy to die for the cause, but I couldn't be part of a revolution which turned the cause into a blood-hungry mob (not to say it necessarily would).

To often the revolution turns into hunting the bourgeoisie. Our fight shouldn't be against rich people. (even Bill Gates gives to charities) It should be a fight against capitalism, not capitalist. Now to not defend is completely neglegent and wouldn't make sense. Violence to protect people is a very worthy cause. Violence > Cowardice ; Non-Violence > Violence.

At least, that's how I feel.

My friend, there is no non-violent revolution. That is reform.

What's so bad with reforming a state into a classless society? This has bothered me when this same attitude is applied and people think that anything with a hint of capitalism is evil. I'm completely against capitalism, however if there was a way to make it work where all the same goals of communism and anarchism are met (such as a classless society and a society without oppression) why not. While I doubt such a society could exist, I fear that the left is turning into way to much of a beligerent body instead of a philosophy based on freedom. (I'm not saying Bed of Nails has this feeling, but it seems like he might)

(R)evolution of the mind

11th May 2005, 23:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:38 AM
What's so bad with reforming a state into a classless society? This has bothered me when this same attitude is applied and people think that anything with a hint of capitalism is evil. I'm completely against capitalism, however if there was a way to make it work where all the same goals of communism and anarchism are met (such as a classless society and a society without oppression) why not. While I doubt such a society could exist, I fear that the left is turning into way to much of a beligerent body instead of a philosophy based on freedom. (I'm not saying Bed of Nails has this feeling, but it seems like he might)
It's just that it seems very unlikely the system could be reformed. Now, while I do not consider trying to reform the machinery of the bourgeois state a worthy cause, I do believe in a constant revolution supplanting the capitalist system, making it irrelevant by offering alternatives to the indented operation of it as far as it is possible within the confines of the system. And it's already happening and the capitalists most affected by this are screaming bloody murder! Free software! Wikipedia! Peer-to-peer file sharing! The revolution is here! Yet there's still much work ahead of us, and at the point such alternatives become widespread enough, the capitalists are going to take some serious measures against such alternatives and other revolutionary methods are needed.

guerillablack

12th May 2005, 04:36

Until the white population in America decreases to a certain point, i see no revolution in this country. As twisted as that may seem it is the truth.

12th May 2005, 04:58

Okay, so we all always talk about this revolution like its coming to us on Christmas. I think we too often overlook revolution, and skip right to the fun stuff. Revolution is the tough sticky part in both communism and anarchism. Because terrorism is a cowardly way to go about it, but all others seem to hold a sort of authoritarian grasp over the fighters which is completely against what we are fighting for.

In my eyes the only way to do it is through non-violence. Non-violent solutions are infinitely superior to violent ones (by now I'm sure you've caught on that I'm not a Leninist). Now Ghandi acheived freeing India from its chains via non-violence. Now on this forum there are talks of starting our own communes like the hippies, but those have always failed. So how do we revolt? If we use violence, then how do we organize without being authoritarian? And if we use non-violence, how do we start a lasting society?

This is something I think the movement needs to clear up so the flood gates can lift, so to speak.

This is one of the most challenging problems we face. The fact is that Capitalism must evolve towards imperialism. People have to see something wrong with their environment before their mind is open to change. So the obvious option would be to accelerate this as fast as possible. When some law passes or something that starts the country out on an imperialist road, laugh, don't try to stop it; you'll have the last laugh. When a sufficient amount of people are prepared for this change they are ready to be educated. Education is one of the most important aspects of the revolution. The proleteriat must have similar ideologies in order to work together to launch a successful revolution. Of course this doesn't mean that outsiders should be rejected from the movement; I believe that these people must be implemented to ensure the success of the movement. The problem with this is the risk of them becoming reactionary later on; this bridge can be crossed when we get there. All communists must fight together whether they agree with each other or not (i.e. Stalinists fighting alongside Marxist-Leninists, etc...). Since all communists want to achieve a communist society, the only difference between communists is HOW this is done. Once the people are educated, they must be organized. Organization is the second factor in determining the outcome of the revolution, for obvious reasons. Not much else to say past that; once this is started and the old society is overthrown, a new one must be created. How this society should be created, I talk about it here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35236).

There will be a revolution in one state. As a consequence of this revolution, the power will be put into the hands of the proletariat. Agrarian reform and nationalization of all industries will be implemented. There will still be money, and personal income will be equal for all. Education and all of that good stuff will be free for all citizens of this state. A democratic government will be created to protect the interests of all the people; not a representative democracy!! The prosperity of this state will inspire others to implement this same system. Once this system is global, problems such as the abolition of money can be solved and a truly global communist society can start.

bunk

12th May 2005, 08:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:36 AM
Until the white population in America decreases to a certain point, i see no revolution in this country. As twisted as that may seem it is the truth.
the other racial groups are just as reactionary

Black Dagger

12th May 2005, 08:56

True, but whites have a greater interest (as a whole, note that this homogenises the population) in opposing revolution since the majority of wealth in the US is concentrated in the white ruling class. As i said this is a generalisation, as of course there are working class whites too, but as a comparison to non-white populations.

bunk

12th May 2005, 10:10

I would say that splitting the movement or making a focus on a racial group is doing more harm than good. There are plently of non-white bourgeoise

OleMarxco

12th May 2005, 10:45

If we revolute, what should we attack first and what should our tactic be? Hiding in the woods? Hiding among the populace? Travelling with underground bases? Attacking from within or outside? :)

Originally posted by "Someone"
There are plently of non-white bourgeoise

Are you on crack? <_<

Black Dagger

15th May 2005, 13:59

Non-violence is superior to violence because if the revolution succeeds, you won't have any revolutionary "whiplash" so to speak.

That's utopian. There will ALWAYS be people who oppose a revolution, least of all the capitalists and their class allies. Moreover, remind me again how non-violent 'revolutionaries' can defeat a capitalist militia? The police? Or even a citizens' militia? At the moment in the United States, for example, there is an estimated 50 000 'soldiers' of the Christian Patriot movement. These survivalists are opposed to the state, however they're also opposed to miscegenation, homosexuality, jews, and all 'non-white' people, starting to see the problem? These people ARE violent, and they will be a problem, quite a large one, during a revolution and in a post-capitalist society.

Moreover, what will you do when non-violence fails? Transform into a 'violent' revolutionary 'over-night'?

No one got their families murdered or their houses burned down, and they won't seak such a harsh revenge against the revolution.

You seem to be forgetting that the rich will be losing their wealth (and probably their homes too), you don't think that might piss them off a tad? And what about everyone else who opposes the revolution? The authoritarian-right is not going to go 'quietly into the night', they'll fight to the death, as should we.

In other words, I'd be happy to die for the cause, but I couldn't be part of a revolution which turned the cause into a blood-hungry mob (not to say it necessarily would).

You say you can't "be part of a revolution which turned the cause into a blood-hungry mob", but where is the line drawn? What makes a 'blood-hungry mob'? Killing police officers? Army officers? Nazis'? Right militias? Is self-defence the action of a 'blood-hungry mob'?

Our fight shouldn't be against rich people. (even Bill Gates gives to charities)

Revolution is an act of class war, this isn't a fucking 'love-in'. 'Our' fight is against capitalism, and guess who personify that beast? And your defence of Bill Gates is pathetic, he's an arch-capitalist, but hey, he gives .0000001% of his wealth away to reactionary charities (how revolutionary!) so all the 'angry mob' should lay off him? Right.

It should be a fight against capitalism, not capitalist.

Capitalism has a face, it's the capitalist. Capitalism is not a living entity, it's a system that has to be defended by PEOPLE, and those people will be the capitalists and their allies. They are the PEOPLE 'we' are fighting against, if that's too hard for you to stomach, don't call yourself an anarchist, a communist, or anything with a revolutionary connotation.

Now to not defend is completely neglegent and wouldn't make sense. Violence to protect people is a very worthy cause.

Class war IS self-defence. EVERYDAY we experience the violence of capitalism, whether it be in the form of wage slavery, poverty, or a police baton, revolution is an act of self-defence, and an intelligent one at that.

Violence > Cowardice ; Non-Violence > Violence.

I agree that, ideally non-violent means should be the first strategy. However, it would be naive for anyone to think that non-violence can topple a determined ruling class (but hey, if it works, i'm all for non-violence). But it is my strong suspicion that as soon as the the ruling class decide that all this damn rebellion is getting out of hand, history has shown us, that they will not hesitate to shower the people with bullets, batons and bombs, and nothing non-violent will be able to protect those people or the revolution.

At least, that's how I feel.

I feel that you're wrong on this one :P

What's so bad with reforming a state into a classless society?

Apart from the fact that it's impossible? At least you didnt say 'stateless', but please, explain to me why exactly the capitalists will 'reform' a state into a stateless and classless society, ie. communism?

This has bothered me when this same attitude is applied and people think that anything with a hint of capitalism is evil.

It's called being an anti-capitalist, a communist, you know?

I'm completely against capitalism, however if there was a way to make it work where all the same goals of communism and anarchism are met (such as a classless society and a society without oppression) why not.

How could capitalism ever work with a communist society? How can capitalism function simuntaneously, within a classless and stateless society? If capitalism exists then society cannot be classless because there will be people who own the means of production, exploiting those who don't.

While I doubt such a society could exist, I fear that the left is turning into way to much of a beligerent body instead of a philosophy based on freedom.

If it means turning away bourgeois 'revolutionaries' then great! Communists are 'beligerent' towards capitalism and capitalists, precisely because communism is an anti-capitalist philosophy, these two forces can never be reconciled.

RedLenin

15th May 2005, 16:47

Revolution is an act of class war, this isn't a fucking 'love-in'. 'Our' fight is against capitalism, and guess who personify that beast?

Well, I dont think we should start desiring a class war. Yes, it may very well be inevitable, but it is the last thing we want. I am not as strict on class as you appear to be. If someone from the bourgeosie wants to fight with us, all the better. Our class war will not be with the entire bourgeosie, but only with the armed reactionaries who fight us. And only in self defense as well. Living under capitalism does not justify taking up guns and shooting rich people IMO. We must go about the revolution non-violently, and only use violence when it is necessary to defend ourselves against reactionaries. And like I said our war is not with every person in the class but only with the fighting force. Class war always seems to be inevitable, but it should never-the-less be a last resort.

Clarksist

15th May 2005, 16:53

Until the white population in America decreases to a certain point, i see no revolution in this country. As twisted as that may seem it is the truth.

That's not the truth, its a narrow minded and racist comment. All your doing is generalizing all caucassions because the majority of rich people are white. But there are many rich capitalists of other ethnic backgrounds.

That's utopian. There will ALWAYS be people who oppose a revolution, least of all the capitalists and their class allies. Moreover, remind me again how non-violent 'revolutionaries' can defeat a capitalist militia? The police? Or even a citizens' militia? At the moment in the United States, for example, there is an estimated 50 000 'soldiers' of the Christian Patriot movement. These survivalists are opposed to the state, however they're also opposed to miscegenation, homosexuality, jews, and all 'non-white' people, starting to see the problem? These people ARE violent, and they will be a problem, quite a large one, during a revolution and in a post-capitalist society.

I'm not saying that non-violence works in every situation. I'm saying that non-violence should be completely exhausted before we turn into violence.

You seem to be forgetting that the rich will be losing their wealth (and probably their homes too), you don't think that might piss them off a tad? And what about everyone else who opposes the revolution? The authoritarian-right is not going to go 'quietly into the night', they'll fight to the death, as should we.

Oh, it will piss them off, but wouldn't it piss more people off even worse if we line up every millionaire and kill them without a second thought? Now I'm not saying you condone that, but seeing past revolutions of any kind, very often you see the lining up of enemies and the execution of them.

You say you can't "be part of a revolution which turned the cause into a blood-hungry mob", but where is the line drawn? What makes a 'blood-hungry mob'? Killing police officers? Army officers? Nazis'? Right militias? Is self-defence the action of a 'blood-hungry mob'?

Self defence isn't being blood-hungry. The actions of seeking out to kill people who are not provoking is a blood-hungry mob action.

Revolution is an act of class war, this isn't a fucking 'love-in'. 'Our' fight is against capitalism, and guess who personify that beast? And your defence of Bill Gates is pathetic, he's an arch-capitalist, but hey, he gives .0000001% of his wealth away to reactionary charities (how revolutionary!) so all the 'angry mob' should lay off him? Right.

I'm not defending Bill Gates, what I'm saying is that there are well meaning, kind capitalists, and let's be realistic about that. As far as Bill Gates goes, I don't think he gives enough of his ill-gotten money away, but all I'm saying is that there are capitalists who aren't these faceless evil creatures we sometimes try to make them be.

Capitalism has a face, it's the capitalist. Capitalism is not a living entity, it's a system that has to be defended by PEOPLE, and those people will be the capitalists and their allies. They are the PEOPLE 'we' are fighting against, if that's too hard for you to stomach, don't call yourself an anarchist, a communist, or anything with a revolutionary connotation.

Okay, as I said before, not every capitalist is completely evil, once the revolution comes to pass, will we just forget the rich people, do formerly rich people not deserve equality? I agree it'll be capitalists whom defend capitalism... big shock there. As for not calling myself anything with a revolutionary connotation if I can't "stomach" the murdering of every single person who owns a business or has employed someone... come on dude.

Class war IS self-defence. EVERYDAY we experience the violence of capitalism, whether it be in the form of wage slavery, poverty, or a police baton, revolution is an act of self-defence, and an intelligent one at that.

Agreed, but whether that revolution is violent or non-violent...

However, it would be naive for anyone to think that non-violence can topple a determined ruling class (but hey, if it works, i'm all for non-violence). But it is my strong suspicion that as soon as the the ruling class decide that all this damn rebellion is getting out of hand, history has shown us, that they will not hesitate to shower the people with bullets, batons and bombs, and nothing non-violent will be able to protect those people or the revolution.

Believe me, I don't expect for millionaires to just roll over, but there are different non-violent strategies. And as to that last comment, I don't think violent self-defense is wrong.

Apart from the fact that it's impossible? At least you didnt say 'stateless', but please, explain to me why exactly the capitalists will 'reform' a state into a stateless and classless society, ie. communism?

I'm not saying its just waiting to be voted on in November, I'm saying that there shouldn't be this massive stigma to anyone who is working for it.

How could capitalism ever work with a communist society? How can capitalism function simuntaneously, within a classless and stateless society? If capitalism exists then society cannot be classless because there will be people who own the means of production, exploiting those who don't.

Do I think it can, no. But if it could should we all be against it? That's all I'm saying.

Black Dagger

15th May 2005, 17:56

Our class war will not be with the entire bourgeosie, but only with the armed reactionaries who fight us.

Well obviously, no one mentioned shooting Johnny Capitalist Jr. simply because he's a member of the bourgeoisie, but we must remain suspicious of ALL bourgeois elements, even those who decide to randomly 'join the fight'. If anyone is likely to betray a revolution it'll be the bourgeois 'revolutionaries'.

We must go about the revolution non-violently, and only use violence when it is necessary to defend ourselves against reactionaries.

This is a bit of a 'sticky' issue. Personally, i'm still undecided on whether or not revolutionaries should actively pursue/crush reactionary elements like the KKK, loyal police, Chrstian Patriots and so forth. At the moment i'm leaning towards yes. This position does not translate to the mass-killing of the bourgeoisie, i think the principal of self-defence still applies in their case (ie. they should not be attacked unless provoked), but as for more militant reactionaries, i think a more active approach is definately a possibility. And besides, if the revolution is successful the bourgeoisie will become obsolete, as the means of production will be out of their hands, their material wealth will be gone and so forth, so there's no reason to summarily execute them.

And like I said our war is not with every person in the class but only with the fighting force. Class war always seems to be inevitable, but it should never-the-less be a last resort.

I agree.

I'm not saying that non-violence works in every situation. I'm saying that non-violence should be completely exhausted before we turn into violence.

I agree, but in a revolutionary situation i dont think non-violence as a strategy is going to last very long, but still, it is useful.

Oh, it will piss them off, but wouldn't it piss more people off even worse if we line up every millionaire and kill them without a second thought?

Except i never advocated that, so your hypothetical is pretty meaningless. The point remains that you said that a non-violent 'revolution' is the best way to go because it wouldnt piss people off, i said that people will ALWAYS be pissed off, because this is a communist revolution, if you're bourgeois-you lose, if you're a Christian Patriot- you lose, and so forth. This is why we have to be prepared to use violence, because it WILL be necessary at some stage, even if by some fantastic turn of events capitalism and the state 'wither away' in the face of non-violence, we will need violence down-the-line.

The actions of seeking out to kill people who are not provoking is a blood-hungry mob action.

Okay, but i never advocated that, so your criticism is unjustified.

I'm not defending Bill Gates,

Which is followed by,

what I'm saying is that there are well meaning, kind capitalists, and let's be realistic about that.

That's exactly what you're doing (and did in your previous post).

but all I'm saying is that there are capitalists who aren't these faceless evil creatures we sometimes try to make them be.

No, they're not 'faceless', they all have faces, they're people- they're capitalists. But the fact remains that they exploit other human beings, that is inescapable, so no amount of 'sweet talkin' is or can change that. I never said they were 'faceless evil creatures', but if you're waiting for me to show some empathy for the 'misunderstood' capitalists of the world, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Okay, as I said before, not every capitalist is completely evil,

Again, i never used the word 'evil', but just out of curiosity, where are these 'good' capitalists? Because as far as i can tell, all capitalists extract wealth from the labour of others, ie. exploit them. Where is the 'goodness' in that? And no, giving to reactionary charities doesn't balance the equation.

do formerly rich people not deserve equality?

If they're not counter-revolutionary, they deserve equality. If they try to oppose the revolution, to sabotage it, to harm others, they dont deserve the fruits of a communist society. They can leave, be exiled, and depending on the situation (ie. what they have done) killed. But for the majority, they will (i hope) be absorbed peacefully into society, as any other person, enjoying the same benefits as everybody else.

As for not calling myself anything with a revolutionary connotation if I can't "stomach" the murdering of every single person who owns a business or has employed someone... come on dude.

Yet again, i never suggested this, so stop putting words into my mouth. You should not refer to yourself as a communist if you're not willing to fight or defend the revolution with force, period. That is what i said, and that is what i 'meant', plainly.

Believe me, I don't expect for millionaires to just roll over, but there are different non-violent strategies.

Of course there are, but if they don't work, force needs to be used.

I'm not saying its just waiting to be voted on in November, I'm saying that there shouldn't be this massive stigma to anyone who is working for it.

Yes, there should be. Reformists are ANTI-revolutionary, why shouldn't they be 'stigmatised'? They oppose 'us' and side with the capitalists.

Do I think it can, no. But if it could should we all be against it? That's all I'm saying.

This is just silly. There is no such thing as a communist-capitalism, it's a contradiction, classless and class-based, it's not a question of 'if it could work', it can't work, that's pretty damn obvious.

comrade_mufasa

15th May 2005, 18:14

What one wants and what one needs are two diffrent things. We want a non-violent revolution, but we need a violent one. I would like to point out that just becouse some thing is non-violent doesnt mean that its promoting "hugs and kisses" it just means that there will be no fighting, or more over, no killing.

Originally posted by redstar2000
A movement that boasts of its non-violent character is perceived as weak by others...especially the old ruling class. A movement that boasts of its eagerness for violent confrontation is apt to provoke a violent ruling class attack that it is not yet strong enough to effectively resist.

I think a neutral public response is more useful and effective in the long run. When asked if we are "violent" or "non-violent", we should simply say that "it depends on the situation"...and let it go at that
That is how it needs to be done. We should have a armed movment ready to move into battle if needed, but we should keep working on the negotiating tables. While on the negotiating tables we should be firm and forceful to show that we mean every word we say and we should have the armed part of the movement known but not in the front. We could also be for non-violence in terms of large battles, but be for violence in terms of assasinations of politcians and tactical bombings of bourgeoise goverment buldings.

dmnyanks

15th May 2005, 19:17

I really cannot see the problem for all of you guys wanting the return of socialism.

JUST VOTE FOR IT!!

No really I am being serious, socialism is meant to improve the quality of life for the proletariat by giving everyone equal social and economic rights and removing the class divide. Since in every country the proletariat out numbers the bourgeois in a democratic country, all they have to do is vote for it.

I do relise that a basis of maxism and other socialist philosopys is that revolution may only be attained by violent or oppressive means yet things change.

Of course in all capitalistic countries money is the driving force of democratic change, the party with most disposable cash can pay for advertising and propaganda which will sway the voter.

This is not altogther true however, since apparently socialism is what the proletariat wants then they only need education to what the socialism will do for them and they will vote for it.
People are disasitisfied with the current system. In Britain the voter turn out was almost the losest on record and the percentage of the population who voted for the winning party was the lowest ever. In the french presidential election a fasist almost won.

If you guys all club together get a candiate in every consituancy, use the current system and use your collective wealth for the cause then you may get a seat or too and then in 50 years, who knows?

Of course even if a democratic country did get a socialist goverment you would have to make huge improvements in the life of the voters before you could make major changes to the system and get a perminant socialist goverment.

That is the main problem, no socialist goverment, even if it did get power in a capialist country by any means, could ever last. The lack of insentivex, the lack of development and aspirations would leave any economy shattered and destitute as it has done with every other country that has tried.

If your desperate for socialism and oppression then just go live in vietnam or cuba, because you have the choice unlike them already living there.

Everyone may be equal under a socialist goverment but they are equally poor and impoverish.

Clarksist

15th May 2005, 21:53

Except i never advocated that, so your hypothetical is pretty meaningless.

No you didn't, I was continuing the idea that being far too violent would result in things of that nature.

Okay, but i never advocated that, so your criticism is unjustified.

No but you asked where to draw the line at blood-hungry mob.

Again, i never used the word 'evil', but just out of curiosity, where are these 'good' capitalists?

Well I have family members who have self owned businesses who are the only ones working at it, and they think capitalism is the only thing that will work. They only use their money for good. Do I think they are wrong, yes. Do I think they are bad people, no.

And I know you didn't call them evil, but I'm saying many in the movement consider them "evil".

But for the majority, they will (i hope) be absorbed peacefully into society, as any other person, enjoying the same benefits as everybody else.

Agreed.

Yet again, i never suggested this, so stop putting words into my mouth. You should not refer to yourself as a communist if you're not willing to fight or defend the revolution with force, period. That is what i said, and that is what i 'meant', plainly.

Okay.

Of course there are, but if they don't work, force needs to be used.

Agreed.

Yes, there should be. Reformists are ANTI-revolutionary, why shouldn't they be 'stigmatised'? They oppose 'us' and side with the capitalists.

I don't think they should be stigmatised because someone manipulating the system to change it for the better isn't opposed to us.

it can't work, that's pretty damn obvious.

True.

That is how it needs to be done. We should have a armed movment ready to move into battle if needed, but we should keep working on the negotiating tables. While on the negotiating tables we should be firm and forceful to show that we mean every word we say and we should have the armed part of the movement known but not in the front. We could also be for non-violence in terms of large battles, but be for violence in terms of assasinations of politcians and tactical bombings of bourgeoise goverment buldings.

That sounds reasonable, but assassinations will only strengthen their thought that we are "in the wrong".

Of course in all capitalistic countries money is the driving force of democratic change, the party with most disposable cash can pay for advertising and propaganda which will sway the voter.

This is not altogther true however, since apparently socialism is what the proletariat wants then they only need education to what the socialism will do for them and they will vote for it.
People are disasitisfied with the current system. In Britain the voter turn out was almost the losest on record and the percentage of the population who voted for the winning party was the lowest ever. In the french presidential election a fasist almost won.

And how will we educate the proletariat without capital? And over in the USA the 2004 election was one of the highest turnouts, and the two major candidates were pretty similar. However, I do agree that we might be able to reform some.

Of course even if a democratic country did get a socialist goverment you would have to make huge improvements in the life of the voters before you could make major changes to the system and get a perminant socialist goverment.

That is the main problem, no socialist goverment, even if it did get power in a capialist country by any means, could ever last. The lack of insentivex, the lack of development and aspirations would leave any economy shattered and destitute as it has done with every other country that has tried.

Maybe, most socialist countries so far don't/didn't have the environment to be self-sufficient economically, which a socialist nation really does need.

If your desperate for socialism and oppression then just go live in vietnam or cuba, because you have the choice unlike them already living there.

What if we are just desperate for socialism?

RedLenin

15th May 2005, 21:57

JUST VOTE FOR IT!!

The problem with this is that you cannot change a bourgeosie dictatorship into a proletarian dictatorship. This state was specifically designed to oppress the proletariat for the capitalists and it cannot be any different. Reform will just create a well-fare state and it will still be capitalist. A bourgeosie dictatorship cannot become a proletarian one. The state is a tool of class oppression but we cannot just steal the state out of the hands of the capitalists.

If your desperate for socialism and oppression then just go live in vietnam or cuba, because you have the choice unlike them already living there.

Well, this just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. There has yet to a single example of socialism or communism ever existing on this earth.

Everyone may be equal under a socialist goverment but they are equally poor and impoverish.

To me a centralized socialist "government" is an oxymoron. Socialism means that the means of production are held in common, if they are all owned by a state, it is not socialism.

I suggest you visit the learning forum and browse through the various stickies before you reply to something that you know absolutely nothing about.

dmnyanks

15th May 2005, 23:06

And how will we educate the proletariat without capital? And over in the USA the 2004 election was one of the highest turnouts, and the two major candidates were pretty similar. However, I do agree that we might be able to reform some.

Use capitalism. Get jobs, make money, knock on doors, put your collective together.
Everyone else works as a individual working as a collective should work better.

Maybe, most socialist countries so far don't/didn't have the environment to be self-sufficient economically, which a socialist nation really does need.

Surely the whole point of revolution is the make the enviroment you need. Does anywhere have the right enviroment? Is it even possible?

What if we are just desperate for socialism?

:D
I'm afraid as marx pointed out the only way of creating a socialist government is through violence (grrh I can't find the exact quote) which sort of suggests oppression.

This state was specifically designed to oppress the proletariat for the capitalists and it cannot be any different.

Are you talking about america? I wouldn't know really know. Interesting pilgrims aboard may flower or whatever it was called are now wildly concidered socialist (off topic I know what quite interesting)
However I fail to see how you can back up your claim.

In Britain there was certainly no such thing - the state has developed over hundreds of years with no agenda democracy although capitalism was developed to envoke imperialsm - anyway what I am saying is that in Britain there is nothing which if demanded by the majority which would stop a socialist goverment.

Which doesn't seem to be a popular term but to think that there could be a country possible the size of america without a government is just delusional. You suggest that 3 hundred million people just start working for the good of the whole with no organisation. It may work with a commune of 10 but not 3 hundred million.

Please where can I find out how to distrobute an entire countries produce equally
to 300 million without any form of government. Not all desions can be made by industrial democracy and as soon as people are differenciated they gain power and goodbye socialism. A government of some form is required.

MKS

16th May 2005, 01:12

I'm afraid as marx pointed out the only way of creating a socialist government is through violence (grrh I can't find the exact quote) which sort of suggests oppression.

I guess whatever Marx said is absolute truth?
Its easy to talk of violence, and the nessecity of warfare and violenece, but until you've been in it, have seen it and felt it, you would understand how senseless violence and warfare is.

You go to war because you want to do something fast. You use violence because you don't want to wait. You don't want to work conflicts out. You don't want to use your mind, your intelligence, your wit.
Quote from Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn was a man who had fought in war and knew personally the horrors of such conflict.

dmnyanks

16th May 2005, 08:27

I guess whatever Marx said is absolute truth?
Its easy to talk of violence, and the nessecity of warfare and violenece, but until you've been in it, have seen it and felt it, you would understand how senseless violence and warfare is.

I completly agree with you, I strongly disagree with warfare and violent revolution but there has been no example of socialism (nationwide context) being sustainable without it. So to talk about socialism, one should be sure that it is what everyone wants, needs, accepts and is wholey worth the violence.

Zingu

16th May 2005, 16:54

I like to use the Animal Farm analogy on dealing with reformists.

Do you think, the farmer (capitalist), with all of his dogs, and farmhands (CIA, Military, FBI, Police ect.) are going to just agree when the animals (proletariat) come up to him and nicely ask

"Mister farmer dear sir, we were wondering if you could relinquish this farm, despite it meaning that you will lose all your property and power, and giving it to us, to run our best benefit? Sure, it would mean booting you and your henchmen out, but please?!"

No!

Historically, elections have NEVER worked on progessing to a proletarian state;

1) Party becomes corrupt and drifts to the right (take example of any Social Democractic or "Socialist" or "Labor" Party in Europe, NONE of them are radical)

2)Capitalists subvert the election or state process (CIA crooked the Italian elections to make sure the Italian Communist Party did not win)

3) Capitalists downright crush the democractic leader and install a regime to suppress any proletarian movement (Salvador Allende in Chile in 1970s, or now, a US attempted coup in Venezeula in 2001)

dmnyanks

17th May 2005, 20:04

Your entire argument is upon the basis that the government is corrupt. However you have no evidence to back up this statement.
If the government is as corrupt as you are suggesting it would soon come out into the public domain and the opposition or the media would use it to discredit the government.
Asking Mr farmer to give up power is the whole point of democracy.

If you truely do have a system that can be proved to benefit the majority then it will succeed and no democratic government could suppress it.

The reason there is no longer any radical opposition is that this is obviously not what the majority wants. Labour although never socialist had to reform because they were not popular with the masses, not because the government and there hench men forced them to.

Concider Britain under old labour. The country was undergoing industrial decline with 3 day working weeks and massive industrial disputes. This was not popular and no party which offered this would be likely to get into government hence they had to evolve.

This brings me to the point. The reason my suggestion of voting for socialism has been dismissed is that the majority, the proletariat, DO NOT WANT SOCIALISM. People do have the education, they do have the intellegence and they are entitled to there own beliefs and convictions. To renounce them and enforce your own, against there will, is arrogant and tyranical.

Shogun

17th May 2005, 20:13

but how will the communists fight if they are outnumbered and they are out gunned? Do you have a general or tactics i am very confused.

The Ghost of Tom Joad

21st June 2005, 21:20

Violence is unjustifiable. It contradicts our ends. After all, we seek an END to violence, which is the ultimate form of exploitation. Let me follow this by defining what I view violence as: an act of malicious, and unprovoked (including vengeful) harm being done unto another human being. Destruction of state property or beating a police officer over the head when s/he is about to haul off one of your comrades to who knows where is an act of DEFENCE. Defence, by its very nature, is not violent. It may be reactionary, but it is very far from violent.
Now, assassinations, bombings, and the like are all forms of violence and the very tools of the state that we so adamantly oppose. If the Spanish republicans would have used the same tactics as Franco as opposed to forming a people's liberation army, then they would have most certaintly lost the war no matter which side came out "victorious." In the process of revolution, it is necessary that we constantly check ourselves and ensure that we do NOT become that which we oppose. Otherwise, we will be no better than bloody fascists.
As for "voting out" the current class, well, that won't really work very well. Even if it did, what's the point? If I am responsible enouch and capable enough of choosing who can run my own life, am I not just as capable and responsible enough to do the job myself? The very flaw of with hierarchy is that it assumes superhuman qualities in people. This can be best summed up in a piece by Errico Malatesta, "The Nature of Good Government":

None can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is nearest the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom coupled with experience, is the only way of discovering the truth and what is best; and there can be no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to err.

But when one talks of freedom politically, and not philosophically, nobody thinks of the metaphysical bogy of abstract man who exists outside the cosmic and social environment and who, like some god, "could do what he wishes" in the absolute sense of the word.

When one talks of freedom one is speaking of a society in which no one could constrain his fellow beings without meeting with vigorous resistance, in which, above all, nobody could seize and use the collective force to impose his wishes on others and on the very groups which are the source of power.

Man is not perfect, agreed. But this is one reason more, perhaps the strongest reason, for not giving anyone the means to "put the brakes on individual freedom".

Man is not perfect. But then where will one also find men who are not only good enough to live at peace with others, but also capable of controlling the lives of others in an authoritarian way? And assuming that there were, who would appoint them? Would they impose themselves? But who would protect them from the resistance and the violence of the "criminals"? Or would they be chosen by the "sovereign people", which is considered too ignorant and too wicked to live in peace, but which suddenly acquires all the necessary good qualities when it is a question of asking it to choose its rulers?

The Ghost of Tom Joad

21st June 2005, 21:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:54 PM
I like to use the Animal Farm analogy on dealing with reformists.

Do you think, the farmer (capitalist), with all of his dogs, and farmhands (CIA, Military, FBI, Police ect.) are going to just agree when the animals (proletariat) come up to him and nicely ask

"Mister farmer dear sir, we were wondering if you could relinquish this farm, despite it meaning that you will lose all your property and power, and giving it to us, to run our best benefit? Sure, it would mean booting you and your henchmen out, but please?!"

No!

Historically, elections have NEVER worked on progessing to a proletarian state;

1) Party becomes corrupt and drifts to the right (take example of any Social Democractic or "Socialist" or "Labor" Party in Europe, NONE of them are radical)

2)Capitalists subvert the election or state process (CIA crooked the Italian elections to make sure the Italian Communist Party did not win)

3) Capitalists downright crush the democractic leader and install a regime to suppress any proletarian movement (Salvador Allende in Chile in 1970s, or now, a US attempted coup in Venezeula in 2001)
I would also like to point out that in the end of Animal Farm the pigs start walking around on two legs. "Corrupt leader" is nothing more than a redundant statement. Whoever is in power will do whatever they can to hold onto it; what makes us so different from the bourgeosie and neo-liberalists, who did all that they did for the sake of "the people" when we are killing and silencing just as many? As I said before, violence cannot be used a means of revolution simply because it will only turn us against ourselves. If we take Sun Tzu's The Art of War and apply it solely to defence, then revolution will be much truer and much more possible. Bear in mind, of course, that if an officer stands in my way and tries to assault or detain me, I'm going to fight back. However, if any one person is on the ground, on the verge of death, it is our responsibility to help him or her. That would keep true to the idea of "rehabilitation" over punishment. It might also very well win us a new ally.

redstar2000

22nd June 2005, 02:37

Originally posted by The Ghost of Tom Joad
Violence is unjustifiable.

No, it's certainly justifiable. It is always right to rebel.

It all depends on the situation. There are situations in which it is useful and situations in which it is counter-productive.

And if we are at all serious about revolution, then we must learn how to make that distinction accurately.

I would add that when some some radical elements use violence inappropriately, nothing is gained by the rest of us falling all over each other to "distance ourselves" from our mistaken comrades.

The spectacle of so-called revolutionaries cringing and whining about the violence of the oppressed is...both demoralizing and unedifying, to say the least.

If a public criticism is in order, fine, make it. But hyperbolic rhetoric about "left adventurism", "anarchist provocateurs", etc. serves no purpose that I can see other than exhibit a disgusting deference to the existing social order and the monumental delusion that it can be "peacefully changed".

No one wins any respect by projecting the attitude: no matter what, our ass is covered!

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