Revolution

[RedLenin]

There has been a lot of discussion on this so I decided to give it a thread. How do you feel about revolutionary violence? Is violence necessary or can we do it Ghandi style and avoid violence. I personally feel that violence (hopefully minimal) will be necessary. The reactionaries are not going to let us have our way and they will fight to protect their positions in society. Workers militias are necessary to defend the revolution, in my opinion.

Also, to all you pacifists, how do we abolish capitalism (and smash the bourgeoisie state at least) without violence? Do you feel that the bourgeoisise will not put up a fight? Do you inted to do it like Ghandi, or as I call it, suicidal? There was violence in India. The British massacred Ghandi's followers. There was violence, just only by one side. Are you prepared to be massacred just to avoid defending yourself?

And to those who advocate (or feel the necessity for) violent revolution, when should it be used and how? Should we have a violent insurrection and devote force against the state, or should we use violence only in defense against reactionaries? Do you feel that we can fight the state with violence or are we destined to loose at that?

Those are just some things I'm curious about. I have long opposed violence but have realized the necessity for revolutionary self-defense. We must fight back against who ever atttacks us, but not try to be violent unless necessary. Overall, how do you feel about violence and proletarian revolution?

(yes there is a thread on revolution but I would like this to be specifically about violence versus non-violence.)

[More Fire for the People]

The revolution will be a combination of parliamentary, extra-parliamentary, peaceful, and violent actions.

Hopefully the revolution will pass with little death and not lead to some bureacratic-war-state (and hopefully not a vanguard-party state either).

[Big Boss]

I think the same. Peace must be maintained to the end but if violence has to be used to fight for the revolution then we must not be hesitant to use it.

[Pawn Power]

The revolution will be a combination of parliamentary

no, that would not be revolution, that would be reform. Revolution cannot come through parliamentary action.

[RedAnarchist]

It could be peaceful in some aspects, but the revolution will require violence. We cant just ask the ruling classes to hand over power to the masses, can we?

[Domingo]

Put it this way:

The way for peace is through violence.

No matter how much you want to avoid it, a revolution will bring up opposing thoughts and sparks will eventually fly.

Dont forget what a revolution is:

Basicly an overthrow of the government (for the cause) justly (because it is what the people want).

What are you going to do? Talk the government out of their rich and powerful postions? You have to force them out in most cases. It is just part of the package.

[More Fire for the People]

Violence will appropriate but what it is against will not be always justifiable, like attacking civilians will not be tolerated while protest, hostage-taking (to an extent), and violence against businesses will be acceptable.

[waltersm]

gain power through democracy or do it ghandi style then if violence is used asgainst you then it would be futile because of your numbers

[Nirvus System]

I think the nail has already been hit on the head when it was said it will be a little bit of everything.

But the level of violence really depends on the situation of the government/country in question. How strong opposing views, or how powerful the people are that currently control the system will determine how many of those sparks will fly and how vicious they will sting.

Personally, I feel that a revolution in a place like the United States will be more peaceful then revolutions in other places of the world, such as South America or Africa. But what the hell do I know anyways.

[lvialviaquez]

I would prefer to use peaceful resistance, Gandhi-style. However, I think that in any kind of major social change, violence will occur. What must be stressed is that violence will not be a core principle of the revolution and that any violence that results from the natural progression of events in such a revolution will be minimized as much as possible.

[RedLenin]

Personally, I feel that a revolution in a place like the United States will be more peacefull

Peacefull in the United States?! The US has the strongest bourgeoisie in the world! Not to mention a military that has enough fire power to blow up the earth at will, and literally millions of right wing reactionary militias. The US, unfortunately, will probably prove to be the most bloody revolution on earth.

[Nirvus System]

The difference is that they dont point their weapons at their own people. They control the people with rhetoric and people fight fire with fire. As much as the government is shit, the people fighting on both sides are much more tactful then they are in other countries. Words are the stronger weapon inside the United States (or Canada, or Britian, etc).

If it was another country overthrowing the US, then yes...it would be the most brutal battle the world will ever see.

[DoomedOne]

This is how I feel. It's not about being morally against violence, but if you have a revolution in which it exists as violent outbreak against the police, attempting to suppress all rebel forces as a wave of communist revolutionaries begins turning the world apart and emplacing workers unions, that's bad. The reason is, the workings of a totalitarian military are coming about before the workers are evn in power. I agree if revolution occurs it will occur via massive strike of the working force. Train and sub way workers have to stop operating, sailors have to being mass mutiny. Think 1905 style. Most of this can be peaceful. A worker's rebellion is easily mostly peaceful because, let's face it, workers are the pillar of which this world stands, and if they stop working, the country would fall to their needs. it requires a mass movement, however, far larger tha anything Bob Avakian could muster.

Revolution cannot be reached by attempting to reach out to all the lefters to units, grab a big stick, and begin the campaign. That's not a revolution, that's a civil war, and the government will use full military might against it.

Obviously, there will be people trying so ahrd to hold onto their ideals they will being insurgeancy. Not only that, but the military will atempt to form a police force to break up all riots and stop all strikes. It's not just a amtter of strikes, though, the workers have to completely take over their task job. Factory workers have to shut down and lock down the factories, teamsters have to stop shipping all food, and basically hijack their own trucks, cubicle workers have to do what ever possible to basically disrupt their companies, etcetera. At times, there will be choices to be made, and since different things like this will be rippling all over the country, at certain times it will become violent. Not only that, but the government will get down right sleazy to try and hold on.

[TC]

There are a lot of changes that you can get without violence, like moving a countries capital from London to Delhi, but depriving powerful people of their property is not one fo them. That has to be backed up by the threat of violence or taken by violence. Do you think the capitalists will just stand aside and let their wealth be nonviolently taken while they pay the people who have all of the guns? I don't think thats very realistic.

[viva le revolution]

A communist state can only be established through a violent revolution. A change brought through parliamentary means is just a futile exercise because no change can be brought to a system by following it's code of conduct. The bourgeois consist of the vast majority in parliament, second they have the backing of the militaru establishment, the media, owned by the bourgeois class will demonise anybody who does not agree with the status quo.
Throughout history, effective change has been brought by through revolution. Cuba, Russia, India, Algeria, Argentina to just name a few.
I would like to point out that the separatist movement in British India was anything but peaceful. The name of the independance movement was the "quit india" movement which included both hindus and muslims. Originally intended to be peaceful spearheaded by the indian congress party started with the boycott of anything british including british textiles and manufactured goods imported from britain. However things took a violent turn when the british authorities used force to crack down on dissenting voices.
The movement also soon turned violent with attacks on british forces and interests frequent even assasination attempts on british viceroys and officials. Gandhi however distanced himself from the movement and the authorities cracked down particularly brutally on the muslim population and took a more pro-hindu stance to fragment the movement. Gandhi kept silent during this outrage. thereby effectively cutting ties with the muslims and hindus who beleived in resistance by violent means and preferred dialogue with the british.
The muslims fragmented and formed the Muslim league party. Therefore the movement was split up. The congress pro-hindu and the muslim league pro-muslim.
The british were forced to leave india because they could not cope with the level of violence and resistance in india just after world war2 because they lacked the finances and manpower to do so. Therefore india was split up into india and pakistan along religious lines.

[S.J.]

Flower power didnt work in the sixties and the same mentality isnt working now!the only way to gey the powers that be to change is by violence.Call it Stalinism,facism,or what have you but this is the only means nessicary.The working class have been beaten down for how long,its time we take a stand,our voices have been ignored since the formation of labor unions its time we take action.Stop reading the lit of the revolution and start living it!

[Domingo]

Violence is usually a last resort to many usually.

In order to have a revolution (after you have the people),

you have to show them that violence is usually neccisary.

Not anyone will just start fighting, it requires an exrteme boost of confidence in a leader and self.

[OleMarxco]

Hmmm...interesting question....but....impropable. Why can't one convince alot of people, especially lower classes and workers which are the masses, to win the vote of a Communist-party which then "does it all like in the book" (Decentralizes power, makes worker-controlled industry and takes away burgeouise power, starts direct democracy and equalize power, remove money and state and then "abdicts")? We're the mayority, how could we fail?

[bezdomni]

Revolution needs to start as almost non-stop peaceful, mass-demonstrations. Civil Disobedience will be necessary (blockading government buildings/buildings, illegal unions, workers strikes..etc) and maintained as peaceful as possible until there is violent reaction from the other side, in which case violence is justified only to the point that the opposing side (and only those obviously guilty of being violently reactive) is incapacitated and unable to attack violently again.

There will need to be revolution in the bourgeois democratic political system as well (assuming there is one). There need to be revolutionaries in the streets and revolutionaries in the government for it to be successfully socialised and/or toppled.

The problem with a violent revolution is that instead of toppling the ruling class in order to set up a classless society, it ends up just creating a newer, more powerful ruling class. A group that is solely violent in acheiving their goals will be defined as a group that is solely violet in acheiving their goals and will not stop once they are in power.

[Paradox]

How is THIS thread, any different from this thread:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34955

???

Anyway, to put it shortly... go to the link, my answer is in that thread!!! :lol:

[RedLenin]

How is THIS thread, any different from this thread:

I thought that thread was going to be more about revolution in general and this one about violent resistance. I guess that thread sort of turned into this one. Oh well. I made this thread specifically for the debate of violent vs non-violent resistance. And Paradox I agree with you 100% on your stance on revolutionary violence.

[hamperleft]

In a coming revolution, i think that if we do it right, minimal violence will be needed, it could take longer, but without the loss of life it will be well worth it. I believe that if we just leave the government alone, and spread our ideals and beliefs throughout the general populace. The government, through its corruption, greed and oppression, will gradually tear itself apart. Take the former U.S.S.R. for example, since true communism was never reached, and the higher, and some lower levels of the Soviet government were corrupt, it gradually tore itself apart, but in berlin, the day, and the days following the tearing down of the berlin wall and the collapse of government, there was almost no power, or police force in berlin for several days, it was almost anarchy, and it worked, most people were happy for a time. Let the government tare itself apart(it’s doing a good job) and violence will not be needed in any great quantities.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Liberation from the bourgeis will definately entail violence. Do you think that a King of a nation would give up his power with people layinf down in front of tanks? No of course not the bourgeis will keep the people oppressed just so long as they can stay in control of us. While peace solves somethings Liberation is not always one of them. It just not worth it out side suffers to many deaths at the hands of the bourgeis. Our goal is liberation not annihlation of our forces.

[hamperleft]

I see what you mean, but what I am saying is let the bourgeois take themselves apart, let them tear themselves apart with their laws, and money, the government will become weakened and collapse, and if enough people are convinced of our ideas, they will join the revolution, and without the government, their will be no army, I admit, violence is unavoidable but if we do it right, it will be minimal.

[Jazzy]

I think that there would definately be times where violence would be unavoidable, but I would hope, as revolutionaries, that we as a a unified whole would try to keep it to a minimum. As I have stated in other threads, the world has enough hatred and violence, as revolutionaries we should not try to add to it but rather we should strive to change it. I would not consider self defense violence and with as many right wingers as there is in this world, we as revolutionaries, would definately come across times where self defense would be our only option.

[Sa'd al-Bari]

Real revolution can only come through violent means, arming and organizing the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. In the process, this tears away the old bourgeoisie state machine to replace it with a system that serves the proletariat and the masses.

Reformism, which is what parliamentary and peaceful movement would be described as, is logical for practical party work during the periods of consolidation and growing of the movement. However, when real revolution is imminent, reformism needs to give way to revolution, i.e., a violent and militant program that will allow the masses to arm and organize for the defeat and expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

[Clarksist]

Violence can so quickly turn from strategic, to terrorism (see the IRA).

We should only use violence in self defence. This way, if we are attacked without violently provoking it we will gain allies nationally and internationally.

Although I have been very outspoken in the past about my beliefs on this, I think that it is important to emphasize that very often anti-government violence turns into anti-citizen terrorism.

[anomaly]

Do any of you actually think that violent tactics willprove the least bit successful in a powerful capitalist nation? With the advanced weaponry of these richer nations, a force of unimaginable size, or of equal weaponry, would be needed. Rather, I suggest that we push for political revolution in these richer, industrialized countries. Specifically, I suggest that we utilize the relativley large size of the MArxist parties in France and Italy to gain power in these countries, and from there use a web-like model of support in the form of money and weaponry and manpower to pooer nations where violent revolution, in the absence of a democratic body, will be needed. These poorer nations can begin the revolution ithout any richer nation's help, but I think that any rich, industrialialised socialist state would be of great benefit to revolutionary movements abroad. The only question left is how to gain political power...should it be through a large vanguard party or through an alliance of smaller, yet ideologically similar, parties?

[Sa'd al-Bari]

Violence can so quickly turn from strategic, to terrorism (see the IRA).
I do not support terrorism. Lenin denounced terrorism as being part of a spontaneous movement rather than a conscious movement, the latter being what I advocate. For more on that, I suggest reading the “What is there in common between Economism and Terrorism?” section of “What is to be Done?” Terrorism, as a part of a revolutionary political program, is something that I condemn.

[slim]

Revolution in my view is possible in a first world state.

We need to educate the masses, set up underground newspapers, set up an intelligence network, a proper system of logistics, a co-ordinated structure of strategy among other things.

Also, one point, why is it that so many people on this forum worry about weaponry. When the time comes we should raid superstores for close quarter weaponry then when they win in actions they can steal enemy firearms. The army are trained at fighting regular troops and terrorists, not mobs of people wielding pickaxes and such. An image of brutal primativity needs to be created for the black blocs involved in the revolution. One suggestion would be to follow celtic tribal appearance. How many soldiers would be prepared to slaughter their own people especially when they are acting strangely, scare them witless.

Town streets are perfect for ambush so these tactics would compliment eachother.

For vehicles use molotovs.

[slim]

The purpose of my last post was to get you to realise that the government is not as powerful as their propaganda would suggest. Anything is possible.

[Che1990]

Che has something to say on the subject of this post.

When he travelled with Alberto Granado around Latin America (the motorcycle diaries) Alberto mentioned his plans of forming a party and creating a revolution by getting people to vote for him, to which Che replied

"A revolution without a single shot fired? You're crazy Mial."

What do you think? Was Che right and Alberto was crazy, or was Che mistaken and Alberto had the right idea?

[OleMarxco]

Not only that, Grenada ALSO said that he wanted to marry an aztec and start a family besides that, "reproducing" their numbers over the occupants there ;)

[codyvo]

I think at this time, no revolution would be possible, we simply don't have the numbers, in the US at least. If or rather when we have the numbers to do such a massive overthrow, I still think that a peaceful revolution would be the most effective, electing our officials, holding mass protests, organizing mass strikes and boycotts, it is the only way we would have a chance.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:40 AM
Revolution in my view is possible in a first world state.

We need to educate the masses, set up underground newspapers, set up an intelligence network, a proper system of logistics, a co-ordinated structure of strategy among other things.

Also, one point, why is it that so many people on this forum worry about weaponry. When the time comes we should raid superstores for close quarter weaponry then when they win in actions they can steal enemy firearms. The army are trained at fighting regular troops and terrorists, not mobs of people wielding pickaxes and such. An image of brutal primativity needs to be created for the black blocs involved in the revolution. One suggestion would be to follow celtic tribal appearance. How many soldiers would be prepared to slaughter their own people especially when they are acting strangely, scare them witless.

Town streets are perfect for ambush so these tactics would compliment eachother.

For vehicles use molotovs.
Another benefit, is that if they bombed us, they'd be destroying their own infrastructure. So we would want to attack places which were less guarded but were very important to the nation as a whole, so that we would be "in the clear" of bombings.

But if we were to attack the army, who says that the soldiers wouldn't be lied to, or maybe they'd just hide behind riot shield and throw flash bombs and frag grenades over to this "raging mob". We'd be surely fucked then.

And to you FBI agents reading this right now, we aren't serious. Right guys? ;)

[anomaly]

Again, the objective should not be primarily violent revolution. We should attempt a political revolution, through all means possible, and this includes unification. After we establish power in some state, we can then sufficiently fund armed revolutions throughout the third world. Besides, the only chnce for armed revolution is guerrilla warfare, and how effective would that be in such a large country as the USA? In fact, any revolution in the USA is damn near impossible, and therefore I suggest we ignore the powerful country, and attempt socialist political revolution in Europe and violent revolution in Latin America, preferrably the former before the latter, but not neccesarily. hopes for revolution in the USA in the near future should be abandoned. We must concentrate on more probable alternatives like those I mention. Once we have succeeded in the points I make, we can sufficiently compete with the USA. For those of you interested in armed revolution, you should probabl try it in Latin America someplace, where the jungles makes it an ample place for guerrilla warfare and where your enemies will much smaller in number. Venezuela, among other nations, seems right for revolution currently. But armed revolution in a first world country, that is extremely risky, and it will cost the lives of thousands, perhaps hundereds of thousands of comrades (that's how large a force you'd need). Again, take armed tactics to poorer nations and try to start a movement there. But for first world countries, we must focus on political revolution.

[comrade_mufasa]

Omg :rolleyes: why is there 1 million "Violent or non-violent revolution" threads all the time. I just seem to repet myself.

A revolution in the U$ can only happen after there has been a massive true leftest revolution in 1 or more important 3rd world nations, like any oil producing nation. This would mess with the economy giving better conditions for a revolution to start in 1st world nations. Most of us want a peaceful revolution but this will not happen and we need a violent revolution if it is to work. Again I say, I still support a "work with the capitalist goverments, as needed" revolution. This means that the revolutionaries have "suit and tie" meetings with the capitalist goverments. While on those negotiating tables the revolutionaries should be firm and forceful to show that they mean every word they say. They should have the armed part of the movement known and ready to move but not in the front as the focus of the revolution. The capitalist goverments will try and keep power on thier side by supporting "no violence" so the revolutionaries can us this to gain ground with nagotions and agreements. They will give into little demands of the revolutionaries, but will not give up the real power. If anything happens the armed end will be mobilzed with no hezatation.

The last thing I would like to point out. Is anyone on this board read in military tactics becouse alot of you are just throwing out plans, yet no one can do this. The actual fighting plans will be thought out when the revolution might actually happen.

[slim]

Originally posted by Clarksist+Jun 3 2005, 07:50 PM--> (Clarksist @ Jun 3 2005, 07:50 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 09:40 AM
Revolution in my view is possible in a first world state.

We need to educate the masses, set up underground newspapers, set up an intelligence network, a proper system of logistics, a co-ordinated structure of strategy among other things.

Also, one point, why is it that so many people on this forum worry about weaponry. When the time comes we should raid superstores for close quarter weaponry then when they win in actions they can steal enemy firearms. The army are trained at fighting regular troops and terrorists, not mobs of people wielding pickaxes and such. An image of brutal primativity needs to be created for the black blocs involved in the revolution. One suggestion would be to follow celtic tribal appearance. How many soldiers would be prepared to slaughter their own people especially when they are acting strangely, scare them witless.

Town streets are perfect for ambush so these tactics would compliment eachother.

For vehicles use molotovs.
Another benefit, is that if they bombed us, they'd be destroying their own infrastructure. So we would want to attack places which were less guarded but were very important to the nation as a whole, so that we would be "in the clear" of bombings.

But if we were to attack the army, who says that the soldiers wouldn't be lied to, or maybe they'd just hide behind riot shield and throw flash bombs and frag grenades over to this "raging mob". We'd be surely fucked then.

And to you FBI agents reading this right now, we aren't serious. Right guys? ;) [/b]
Youre right clarkist,

Theyd be killing their own people and their capitalist industry would fall.

As for the soldiers, guerrilla tactics would not allow them to bring up riot shields. They wouldnt dare use grenades, it would be a humanitarian crisis, we could claim they killed innocent bystanders. The army would never use that kind of concentrated firepower on home soil.

As for the FBI. We are talking. Talking is not a crime.

Conspiring is a crime. We are not conspiring because we are not proposing hard plans for a violent revolution. We are not drawing up maps and battle plans, we are not organising to raise an army.

We are simply talking about what will happen in the future and what we should do to stop the inevitable from causing bloodshed on an unimaginable scale. By talking about it we are reducing the number of deaths, we are preventing a dictatorial regime. We are planning ahead for the inevitable storm that will sweep us into a dangerous world.

I want to make sure everyone can be saved from the tide.

[farleft]

Unfortunately a communist revolution can only be violent, there is no other way it can come about, this is similar to the political power thread.

[Joseph]

There should be no violent revolutions... too often violent revolutions are not about progress... rather they are about power, revenge, excitement, or glory... don't be fools... every successful revolution has merely led to a transfer of power to a different 'small group' [edit* who end up not distributing it to the people properly]... and absolute power corrupts absolutely, a law of mankind that is rarely wrong.... inevitably every socialist dictatorship or oligarchy will end up corrupt(or any form of government to some degree).. it is just a matter of time... so progression needs to happen in a system where the power of the government is limited through checks and balances...

In today's world, massacres are frowned upon in the international communities... if things are really bad and the population is stirred up enough to launch a nationwide protest... the government will probably be forced to give in and make the changes... there is no need to plan a civil war, so don't

S. Korea is a good model for how to transition from a totalitarian government to a election based one.

[Joseph]

How about a nationwide protest that shuts down the economy of the country to force the government to make changes to their system

[bunk]

If it's possibe then i'd like a peaceful way, this includes direct action... But i think violence will be necessary. Whe nwe are attacked we must react with everything at our disposal.

[Joseph]

So what you are planning is to overthrow the modern governments that are already being limited with checks, balances, and elections to replace it with either A)another government with checks, balances, and elections(that would just be stupid) or B)a socialist dictatorship or oligarchy that will inevitably end up with a high degree of corruption and abusiveness(that would just be stupid).

If you are one of those revolutionaries who are only after power, revenge, excitement, or glory... please don't even bother responding... you can shut up and die for all i care;)

PS) The US government cannot attack or label their own citizens as terrorists if they are protesting peacefully.

[No. 355728]

On regard to the topic, thus acknowledging the difference between the social and political revoloution, i do have a question on the subject.

The fact that the revolution is in its nature authoritarian, is somthing most anarchist wont agree on or simly neglect. In a social revolution we are introduced in an situation with a necessity of authority, presented in this analogy.

On board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

My question is if the political revolution is coherent with the social revolution, and its relevance.

[Joseph]

:S

Perhaps you are overanalysing it... or perhaps im just confused... I will try to interpret and explain as best as i can...


No. 355729: On regard to the topic, thus acknowledging the difference between the social and political revoloution, i do have a question on the subject.

The fact that the revolution is in its nature authoritarian, is somthing most anarchist wont agree on or simly neglect. In a social revolution we are introduced in an situation with a necessity of authority, presented in this analogy.

On board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

My question is if the political revolution is coherent with the social revolution, and its relevance.
No... im stumped... i have not a clue what you are trying to say... what do you mean by social and political revolutions?

[Joseph]

Living in a state of anarchy any time soon would be disasterous because the people would not ready for it.... so small steps need to be made towards this readyness.... some think that it would be faster if they had total power... some think it would be safer to happen slowly on its own...

Now obviously the ones who think it would happen faster if they were directly in power, are totally wrong... because people usually cannot be trusted with that much power... a few generations of leaders may be able to resist corruption but eventually the government will end up deeply corrupted and will lose its original purpose.

[No. 355728]

Joseph, as i have read works written by anarchists, which i find intriguing , it implicates that the social revoloution will rise without a political one. Most anarchists advocate social revolution as the means of breaking down the structures of government and replacing them with non-hierarchal institutions. They therefore neglect the fact that a revoluotion would be brought upon and orginazed from the state thorugh a political revolution.

[No. 355728]

On regard to the second reply, i agree with you, but i did not impliment the fact that authority is " total power". And im not advocating any form of dictature, only a democratic form of political revoloution, in wich the state would have a role as an organizer, wich could arise in the perspective you put it. Namely through reforms and what you call readyness. In my opinion i think that it would take time to develop such a society that we refer to as anarchism, which is a form of an organized society in an industrially and technological andvanced nation, and im not saying it would happend "faster".

[No. 355728]

I do off course acknowledge the idea, put out by Max Stirner, that the man, acts on his necessities and is an egoistic being, in contrary to the youth which is acting on his idealistic dreams, the ideas behind the objects and tries to form his surroundings after them, and the child that is absorbed by the objects.

It is in my opinion that this form of political revolution, which is democratically evolved in a society, would control this man, by the collective of the society and hence lead to anarcho-communism .

[danny android]

I personally believe in going the peaceful route. I think that it is most effective and is deffinitly looked most highly on by all people. I am very much so ant-war and a pacifist. However i do realize that self-defense is only natural i believe that one must be defending their lives and their rights before they should use violence as a means of revolution.

[No. 355728]

I completely agree on the point that a peaceful revolution is the most effective and in the interests of the collective, what Rousseau called the general will. I do also realize that in order to develop the society towards anarchism, the open society as characterized by Karl Popper, is crucial.

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:24 PM
If it's possibe then i'd like a peaceful way, this includes direct action... But i think violence will be necessary. Whe nwe are attacked we must react with everything at our disposal.
I agree, start peaceful, then fight back with all our shit.

[Idealist phreak]

I would go trough peaceful means, but I am also realist and there might be somekind of "counter-revolution" the old state tries to get back the power trough violence and it must stopped, any mean necessary.

1.) Peace, but loss.
2.) War, morally wrong. (See the Hemingways quote from my sig.)

I would have to say that I like peace more, but in tough situation things MIGHT change.

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by Idealist [email protected] 19 2005, 05:42 AM
2.) War, morally wrong. (See the Hemingways quote from my sig.)
Then isn't it morally wrong to let people die from starvation and do nothing (nothing that gets results)?

Although, there is a good non-violence quote from the Foundation series (by Asimov)

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

I don't know, but I do know. We need a violent revolt.

[Paroxsiticxc]

This revolution must be in the minds of the people first off. Think of 1968 in France, what started with student protest turned into workers protest. The goverment almost fell, you have to inspire the workers first. Many working class members don't even realize that they are part of the working class, or even think of themselves as being exploited by capitalism. They see no way of changing it because society has taught us "this is how things are" when in fact we can change them. All that's needed is the workers stop working, the upper-tier depend on us slaving away to get that brand new car, that flat screen tv. We sell out lives away to get material posessions thinking they will make us happy. So if the workers stopped working, nothing would get done, the upper-tier would panic, the country would fall, our economy collapsing, along with the structure. It is durng these times we must take back the land away from the rich and the land will belong to everyone, and all people will be equal, and free unless they try to assert rule over us. No one should restrict anothers' freedom. Now i know we anarchists share similiarities but differences with you communists but we need not fight amongst each other. We need to unify and work together in the struggle against capitalism, against fascism, against the state, and fight for freedom, equality, and solidarity!
This revolution once living in the hearts and minds of all the common people we must then go out and make our mark. It would be nice if we could maintain a peaceful movement, but we all know the brutality and tyranny that the State will bring down upon us. The rich control the insitutions of the State, they have the armed forces, the police, the courts, their "law" all on their side. The Gestapo police and their military will come to suppress us, it is in this self defense we will have to use force. For we cannot stand by and let our enemies crush us. During the fighting we must not only fight but start building from the ruins. We'll make some accomplishments, and collectivize the factories, centers of production, farms, etc. Once we bring the State crashing down and smash it completely, it is then we can work to build a new society, for we cannot reform capitalism or the current status quo. This is why we must destroy what is in place now and together we will create a better society where we treat each other as equals, and no tyrany, or authority shall say they have more say than those around him. Because we all are equal, we all deserve to be free, to think for ourselves, to decide for ourselves, to live OUR life by our decisions and choices, not kept in check by some decisions dictated for us or by some laws meant to control the masses. Comrades we have to want to make a better society but only we can do it, we must unite.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Idealist [email protected] 19 2005, 05:42 AM
I would go trough peaceful means, but I am also realist and there might be somekind of "counter-revolution" the old state tries to get back the power trough violence and it must stopped, any mean necessary.

1.) Peace, but loss.
2.) War, morally wrong. (See the Hemingways quote from my sig.)

I would have to say that I like peace more, but in tough situation things MIGHT change.
It is the curse of revolution.

Do we change an unjust system through violence, or do we wait till politically we can rise?

If peace means the risking of lives of the proletariat, then peace is not truly peace anymore and revolutionary tactic must be taken up.

[codyvo]

I'm pretty sure that everyone in here agrees that to start a revolution, you would need the majority of the people on your side. If this becomes the case, then why not do it peacefully? If you have more than half the people then you could win the elections, or if they are unfair, then you can demand the resignation of Bush or whoever might happen to be president. If for soe reason all those people can not take power by diplomacy then as a last resort we can train an armed revolutionary force to overthrow them, but everyone should first try to have a peaceful revolution.

[danny android]

It is no doubt that a revolutionary party needs to have self defense. However it is difficult to draw the line between self defence and agression. Having a group of people protecting each other from the police brutality is differnent than someone blowing up a starbucks or something else. It is important to draw the line of violience between self defence and agression. People respect self defence, people fear aggression. And we do not want people to fear the left and hide behind the arm of the right.

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:20 PM
How about a nationwide protest that shuts down the economy of the country to force the government to make changes to their system
Exactly, but there will be reactionaries.

[redstar2000]

The "mass general strike" can, on occasion, overthrow individual governments...remove despised individuals from positions of power.

Massive and on-going demonstrations also sometimes work.

But overthrowing an entire social system appears to require a more aggressive approach -- actively attacking and destroying the old state apparatus entirely.

We have to physically enter the old government's buildings and arrest the members of the old government. We have to take over those buildings and fill them with revolutionaries. Or, at least, render those buildings unusable by anyone (burn them down or blow them up, perhaps).

Our revolutionary organs (soviets or whatever) must declare, in one fashion or another, that we are the legitimate "government" now and will henceforward make all the decisions that a "government" would make. (Anarchists would use slightly different terminology, but the effect has to be the same -- the old regime is gone for good.)

Under no circumstances should power be "shared" with the old regime or its representatives...we must finish them, period.

We do not "take over" the old police or the old army...We totally abolish them. This is a crucial step -- any "half-measures" in this regard will come back and bite us in the ass!

From now on, the armed masses and the political organs that it establishes are the only legitimate authority...all power is in our hands.

And we must move swiftly to consolidate that power; if there are any remaining areas where the old regime still exists, we must attack them in an overwhelming fashion. "Defense-ism" is the deadly mistake here...the idea that we can hold a "liberated zone" while the old regime reorganizes its forces to attack us. Many a revolutionary movement has perished because it made this mistake. Once we have won some initial victories, we must press forward to total victory.

No one can say "how much" violence will be involved in these events...but there will be some and possibly quite a lot. If the old regime's army is extremely demoralized, the violence may be relatively minimal.

But it's probably prudent to expect the worst and prepare accordingly. As soon as revolution looks like it's "getting under way", we should loot gunshops and police stations for weaponry. Nearby army posts should be asked for weapons...and if they refuse, should be attacked.

Remember, I think it's likely to be a half century or more before these become practical questions. So teach your kids these lessons as they may be the ones who have to actually do it.

Don't forget the advice of the old French revolutionary: Those who make the revolution half-way have signed the orders for their own executions.

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

[Xian]

Socialist Revolution will come to America when the youth are taught to respect and love and take care of their fellow brothers and sisters. More people will grow up hating corporate organization and the companies will go bankrupt. No violence is needed. It will take several decades of individual change and determination on the people's part.