would you be prepared to fight for socialism?

[bensquid]

*

[Che1990]

I would.

[RedAnarchist]

Fighting for socialism would be influenced by many factors -

You would need to be strong both physically and mentally.

You would need to be very learned in the thories of Communism. Someone who fights for something he/she doesnt understand is being exploited.

You would need others fighting alongside you.

Theres probably a few more factors as well.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Yes there are other factors, the one I see as the main one that most tend to forget. The people you are fighting against may well be friends family and otherwise totally innocent people. This is a major problem with any violent revolution.

If I saw one of the many modern day Hitlers, in revolutionary circumstances, running cold and scared from angry mobs, I could easily brutally beat them to death in cold blood. I am nearly a pacifist though, and I would genuinely give them a chance to explain things first.

However I would not kill a person because they simply disagreed with me (in my infinite wisdom <_< ) especially someone I knew.


If by fighting for it you mean taking action against the grain I am all in.

[slim]

It depends whether the fight would take me to a country where i couldnt speak the native language or understand the local history.

Another factor to consider is what kind of fighting. If it is aid work or actaul warfare, I would happily do both if my situation was different.

I am a promising student and i wish to lead an official government in the quest for justice. Maybe our forces will unite.

[More Fire for the People]

If some one was willing to teach me how to fight, yes.
In all reality, I plan on spending some time in Mexico after college to spread books like the Communist Manifesto and assisting with charity work.

[KptnKrill]

In defense of course.

[OleMarxco]

...And offense is the best defence&#33; :P
Therefore we need a revolution, renember?
As for the question --- of course, where do I sign up?....
(Perhaps not for Socialism directly, for it is merely a transistionary state for on TEH GLORIOUS WAY TO COMMUNE-ISM&#33;)

[Donnie]

If it was something like the spanish civil war then yes i would. Although i have no concept of warfare.

[codyvo]

I think the question is too vague. In certain situations I would fight but sometimes they don&#39;t need help, they already have the masses on their side. In other cases the revolution has no chance at all, and it wouldn&#39;t even be a valiant struggle it would just be an outright slaughter.I would also take into consideration the administration I&#39;d be fighting for and the location of the revolution, if it was in america, of course I would help, but I&#39;m in no situation to travel right now, not that I won&#39;t at another time but like I said I would go on an individual basis, I don&#39;t think I could make an honest statement supporting either yes or no.

[Clarksist]

Socialism... hmm...

Socialism is not something I would fight for. Because let&#39;s look hard at socialism, and all socialist rebellions so far. They lead to centralized leaders who are so blindly power-hungry that they forget about the people they used to fight to "liberate".

I could not fight for a cause I knew would fail. "Lesser of two evils" is not good enough. I could not kill for a "lesser of two evils". It would really have to be a communist revolution, otherwise I could not see myself fighting in a revolution.

[El_Revolucionario]

Well...I think the question goes back to a bigger question..should the revolution be non-violent or violent?

When fighting an armed revolution, it seems it&#39;s always the leaders/generals of the revolution that rise to power. However, the power should be put into the hands of the people. It seems non-violence would be the most logical thing.

A non-violent revolution will gain the support of the people easier than an armed revolution.

[Holocaustpulp]

Why not?

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:00 AM
Well...I think the question goes back to a bigger question..should the revolution be non-violent or violent?

When fighting an armed revolution, it seems it&#39;s always the leaders/generals of the revolution that rise to power. However, the power should be put into the hands of the people. It seems non-violence would be the most logical thing.

A non-violent revolution will gain the support of the people easier than an armed revolution.
True, so fucking true. But so many people with a leftist ideology do not agree.

[codyvo]

I agree, and I also believe that a violent revolution would just end with lots of bright minds dead and nothing gained.

[slim]

Debatepolitics it is. I forgot what i signed in as. either slim or collins ressurection.

[h&s]

It completely depends on what you mean by &#39;fighting.&#39;
If you mean guerilla / militaristic uprisings then no.
If you mean fighting the state on the streets, in the factories, and on the picket lines then yes. Not to do so there would be idiotic - you have to fight when you are attacked otherwise you&#39;ll die&#33;

[farleft]

If your not prepared to fight to the death then you shouldnt call yourself a communist.

There&#39;s no such this as an armchair communist.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:58 AM
If your not prepared to fight to the death then you shouldnt call yourself a communist.

There&#39;s no such this as an armchair communist.
:blink:
I would kill if I needed to. I would kill Marx, Lenin, Stalin all the fascists you statists so admire.

[intizar]

infact it is honor to fight for revolation and i love to die in battle field.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

infact it is honor to fight for revolation and i love to die in battle field.


I believe that is an opinion, not a concrete fact. There is (in my opinion) nothing honorable about being shot in the leg, or even losing a bodypart. I do believe, however, that it is honorable doing something that will benefit mankind, and to fight for something you really believe in, but I think that is a subjective opinion.



I think the question brought up by the starter of this thread is too vague.

If it is pointless, I wouldn&#39;t (as there would be little point, hence "pointless"). If there was "hope", then most likely, in one form or another, yes. It depends on the situation.

[Che1990]

Do you think that a non-voilent revolution would work? and if it didn&#39;t, should a violent one start after the non-voilent one failed or should we all go home and brood?

I know what I would do, and it involves warfare.

[Che1990]

But I think it&#39;s a good idea to try non-violence first, before we go in guns blazing.

[Captain redstar (soon to be regi]

I&#39;d fight for the freedom of others and the creation of a socialist state, if i thought that it is what had to be done. i wouldn&#39;t fight for something that the majority of people it would be affecting did not want. In other words i wouldn&#39;t fight for the cause just for the sake of fighting.

[rikaguilera]

I would be ready to fight for this cause. I, as I stated here before, think that the fight would not just be a physical event, but one of education. Informing the people that (in the posted question) you would be trying to help. To inform others in such a way that you can bring them to your aid. This would be a harder hit to any enemy, than that of a baseball bat. Wars are not always won by physical strength, but a combination of numbers and intelligence. You get enough behind you and you have a spirit that I would stand shoulder to shoulder with., and fight any who opposed it. The start is not violent, but the end will surely be.

[Guest]

"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."
-Victor Hugo

[slim]

I propose the following hypothetical objectives:

1. Educate the masses on different ideologies including capitalism, fascism, nazism, communism, trotskyism, leninism, stalinism, anarchism, liberalism and marxism. Do so in such methods that it will persuade people to become more political in their thoughts and actions; it will drive them to greater understanding and they will fight for leftism.

2. All revolutionary forces are to be accompanied by a black bloc.

3. Black bloc tactics will be taught. Those who pass the course will receive a sort of recognition in form of a certificate or even a card. People with this recognition will be allowed to assume status in a black bloc. This suggestion is not a class system but a way of getting well trained units.

4. Alliances with neighbouring countries is recommended. They have armed forces and cash. All alliances must be recognised by the UN as they can stop the allies taking power for themselves. The revolutionary forces are to be seen internationally as the official "governing" body of the country.

5. Violence will only be as a result of government attack. If they declare war by striking our people then they will be met by full retaliation.



What do you think?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I know about modern day warfare, am trained in the use and instructing of the use of several of their toys, and have been in several exercises alongsde the British Army at least. I have also had people I know killed in Kosovow and Iraq.

In fact before Iraq I was still processing a scholarship to Sandhurst. Then I thought of the worste case scenario, could you kill someone that you didn&#39;t want to kill. To kill someone I would want to be sure that is what I wanted to do, and to be honest I would not appreciate people "liberating" me in the slightest. Like I said, the people you will be fighting will not be the armiesand such like in many cases, it will be people just getting by. In fact I would fight off a violent revolution over here, and would kill the people that brought it about. Before being shot as "counter-revolutionary" no doubt.

The dying for a noble cause is romantc bullshit. 10 minutes fame (when you are dead) is nothing compared to what could happen if you stayed alive. I can see the romanticism behind Che, and communism being appealing to certain people, but not to me. I would prefer to fight with my brain than a rifle (less likely to jam, and more dangerous). If "communism" is what intelligent individuals (and I think it is) aspire towards, then what have we got to be scared of, other than the death of the mind. This is far more likely during war, because your priorities shift.

If not wanting to kill for someone&#39;s cause means I can&#39;t play commie, then count me out. But if you think that this is what it is about then you have entirely missed the point of it all. Whatever I am, my politics are very and liberal, again the term does not mean a lot.

[Left-wingist]

Depending on the situation. People would have to be trained with enough arms to support them and the people that join the fight. If all is prepared than by all means let the revolution begin.

[anomaly]

In nations with democratic institutions, violent revolution is simply not needed to establish socialism. Therefore I would not fight, physically, for it. I would fight politically.

That being said, in poorer nations of the world, which have fewer democratic istitutions, generally, I would fight for socialism, since violent revolution is neccesary. But I do not think we will need to &#39;fight&#39; for communism. Once world socialism is established, communism will be achieved rather easily. Our task at hand, though, is to create a democratic socialist state, would you all agree? And I&#39;ve been meaning to ask the anti-socialist communists, how do you propose creating communism directly out of capitalism? No one nation can be self sufficient and survive for very long (because no nation is really self sufficient). And for communism in one nation, you&#39;d need a self-sufficient nation. So what you&#39;re talking about is a world communist revolution, and that is not too likely.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am all for democratic socialism, or would be if democracy existed. It simply doesn&#39;t. I am not saying hat if the people went against the will of the big two or three at the ballot, then a vanguard would be se up in the name of Adam Smith and "liberty" ;), but there aren&#39;t enough people with the vote, especially those that aren&#39;t affected by the agents of socialisation, set up by the system, in rder for it&#39;s self preservation. We aren&#39;t waging a war against an enemy, the enemy is contained within our selves, and is convincing us to shoot ourselves to save time, and keep it legit.

I do think that bringing about a society in which a new ideology could be instigated, by popular demand is the true goal of our generation. Kill people, and the intellegencia of the world which we create would hate us for it. In the poorer nations, especially those that simply don&#39;t have resources, revolution would be suicide. Change will come from the wealthy nations. It will have to.

[anomaly]

Do you not think socialism would prove beneficial to a poor nation?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:00 AM
Do you not think socialism would prove beneficial to a poor nation?
Most definately yes, more so though than the first world nations. If you looked at the world as one nation, the poor, exploited proletariat nations would benifit most. As in even the wealthy nations there are class divisions, change is essential there also.

It is violent revolution I oppose, and I see this the same everywhere. America would fly off a any new attempts at "communism." I assume they would help the populace by supporting a U.S. Approved dictatorship, and killing many people, blaming it on communism. The poorer countries would be lucky to win, and even then do we need another Vietnam?

All I am saying is that any system that was achieved would be smashed by the current powers that be, and be portrayed as a victory for liberty. If the powers that be were already communist then wha would there be to oppose, other than poor implementation?

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Anyone worthy of the title of being a communist would fight and risk dying for socialism.

Just think of all the people before us who dedicated their lives to the cause, fought and were killed. They certainly didn&#39;t die for nothing. They spread the ideas and won real material gains.

I don&#39;t know about you but I find that inspiring.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

For me, it would wholly depend on the revolution. I see no point in dying fighting for a revolution which will never have the slightest hope of succeeding. However, if the revolution was for real, I agreed with it and there was a chance, I would do my utmost to take a real role. Overall though, as I stated, wholly dependsw of the revolution itself.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

sorry, i fucked up and double posted, sorry again

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Well if you take the author of this thread&#39;s question literally there shouldn&#39;t be any confusion.

Would you be prepared to fight for socialism?

That is what we are all striving for (except anarchists). So basically the question is: would you do whatever it takes (including leaving your family, friends and home behind, taking arms, risking imprisonment, injury and death etc.) for what you believe in, the establishment of socialism (a workers&#39; state)?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:23 AM
Anyone worthy of the title of being a communist would fight and risk dying for socialism.

Just think of all the people before us who dedicated their lives to the cause, fought and were killed. They certainly didn&#39;t die for nothing. They spread the ideas and won real material gains.

I don&#39;t know about you but I find that inspiring.
To be honest I wouldn&#39;t be proud if I fought and died for what was achieved in Cambodia, Russia, China, most places in fact that are "communist." This is partially because I would be dead, which is the par I have no problem with, it is what was achieved.

I would fight for a utopia, but fighting won&#39;t bring it about, it can&#39;t. If you went off to fight for some cause, chances are i will end up screwed, how do you know that killing friends and family will be worth what will be achieved? Or will you only do it if you are personally calling the shots? This death or glory, violent overthrow and general trigger happy aiude is exactly what needs to be avoided o prevent pas mistakes occuring. Is the plan shoot now and let history be the judge? Because I guarantee it will not be in your favour. Even if a violent revolution was the eventual only answer, there is a lot of ground work to do. When the "enemy" are clearly marked, I mean as clearly as an opposing sports team, then bring out the guns, until then I would rather de fighting off such military coups.

To be hones the title of communist seems a pretty lame reward for having to kill and/or be killed. I would rather be a communist in the truest sense wih my balls in tact.

[Black Dagger]

That is what we are all striving for (except anarchists)

I thought &#39;we&#39; were all striving for communism? &#39;Socialism&#39; is what reformists &#39;strive for&#39;.

[bunk]

Fuck a workers state, it can never liberate the workers and there is no point for it.....

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:21 PM
Fuck a workers state, it can never liberate the workers and there is no point for it.....
Agreed&#33; :D

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:21 PM
Fuck a workers state, it can never liberate the workers and there is no point for it.....
There is a point to it: to exploit the workers.

Didn&#39;t see that one coming did you?

[Sons_of_Eureka]

I would fight for a communist revolution and i would crush anyone who stands in the way of the creation of the peoples republic.As for the risk of death, my philosophie is the wellbeing of the people is far more important than the wellbeing of myself and as they say &#39;&#39;it&#39;s better to die on your feet than live on your knees&#39;&#39;

[slim]

Exactly.

[Joseph]

Why risk your life in an attempt to set up a state thats only going to end up creating a new ruling class? Be smart, don&#39;t do it. If the US government is pissing you off, do what Michael Moore does ie. Farenheit 911. Imagine how much damage will be inflicted on the US government if a hundred Michael Moores were running around the country digging up dirty details in US policies and publically releasing them. The public outcry would be enormous.

The US cannot be militarily defeated. Every empire must first be defeated from within before it can be defeated from without.

[TC]

So why is everyone on their computers instead of in Colombia or Nepal?


Personally i think that the Communist Parties around Europe and North America sending people to fight in the Spanish Civil War was one of the best most self-sacrificing things that western communists have done.


I certaintly wouldn&#39;t do it :-p

[Sons_of_Eureka]

Why risk your life in an attempt to set up a state thats only going to end up creating a new ruling class? Be smart, don&#39;t do it. If the US government is pissing you off, do what Michael Moore does ie. Farenheit 911. Imagine how much damage will be inflicted on the US government if a hundred Michael Moores were running around the country digging up dirty details in US policies and publically releasing them. The public outcry would be enormous.


It&#39;s not that simple,the people&#39;s of the world are being starved,murdered and exploited everyday.They die waiting for a light a the end of a tunnel &#39;democracy&#39;
but they will never achive it by kneeling down to the foreign devil imperialist.

The workers have a chance to achive a peoples republic,a chance for they&#39;re children to live and have what they&#39;re parents never had,clean water,free education,healthcare,food and a chance to live in peace.

The workers of the world must have solidarity with each other,the rich man won&#39;t listen to our voices so we must pick up the gun, and know that we die so others can live.


So why is everyone on their computers instead of in Colombia or Nepal?

Under the Soviet union,workers from far and wide were able to learn the skills of the revolution.One of whom who graduated from this was the &#39;Jackle&#39; who tried to help the revolution around the world.

Unfortunatly the peoples of the world don&#39;t have this anymore so many workers don&#39;t know where to go to help the revolution and not risk being shoned by fellow revolutionarys.


Personally i think that the Communist Parties around Europe and North America sending people to fight in the Spanish Civil War was one of the best most self-sacrificing things that western communists have done.


I think thats wonderful and am sad that many don&#39;t do this anymore.

[bezdomni]

I would be willing to fight for socialism, given the following conditions.

-Violence is kept reasonable and at a minumum.
-Any hope for peaceful revolution has failed.
-There is a glimmer of hope for victory.
-No civillians or children are harmed. The only people directly affected by any battle (from our side) would be those engaged in battle.
-The socialist military operated on true socialist principals.
-I am assured and confident in the leadership in the revolutionary military and in the post-revolutionary state.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:07 AM
-I am assured and confident in the leadership in the revolutionary military and in the post-revolutionary state.
Despite seeing the movement as not yet developed enough, and not wanting to kill all my friends/family, the main problem is what was said above. There are no guarantees, and when it comes to taking over by force, I would want a degree of certainty.

Of course you could follow your romantic ideals to the grave, or prison, however I doubt the cause would be that honourable. And like it has been mentioned several times, the powers that be have bigger guns ;).

[slim]

It is not about the bigger guns. I have made acouple of threads on the subject.

To win you need moral force above military force.

[RedAnarchist]

However we fight a Revolution, we must realise that there are so many factors which will affect that Revolution. A revolution today will not be like a Revolution from the 19th Century.

[slim]

The type of revolution that we ourselves must partake and fight in will be the bitterest in history. Never before has the enemy of the people been in such a powerful position.

We will be remembered through the ages as the ones who confronted tyranny and defeated it.

[RedAnarchist]

Its not a forgone conclusion that our generation will see a revolution, although i&#39;m am hopeful for one within the next few decades - and we will certainly see one or two in Latin America and Africa by the end of the decade.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 11:25 AM
It is not about the bigger guns. I have made acouple of threads on the subject.

To win you need moral force above military force.
I was joking (well semi joking) about that. However, I still fail to see how this will work. You talk of a revolution that will (bang) make things good? I just can&#39;t understand it, NO-ONE so far has been able to answer concerns about the goals of a revolution and the leaders. I just don&#39;t blindly trust these things. This is life not a religion.

Are the leaders to miraculously arise? The revolution to magically put everyone along the same lines? I just don&#39;t think a bunch of authoritarian, and confused people should be given weapons until the enemy is marked and they know EXACTLY what to expect, and what they are fighting for.