che guevara fashist?

[che]

first of all im am very sorry that my spelling in english is bad. please forgive me.

mosolines fashist party had in there ideology the sentence:
"war is the most divine value"

and che guevara sed that war is importent and didnt try to do diplomcy revolotions but violant ones...so could be that under socialism he had fashism?

[LSD]

The fact that both Guevara and Mussulini used violent means to achieve their ends is irrelevent. What matters is that those ends were radically different.

Both the Nazis and the French resistance used violence, but no one would claim that they are morally parallel.

[che]

totally right didnt thought about it that way...

but do you really think that as "revolutionary left" our revolutions can be done with violant? isnt that againt the "left" partys ideology?

[LSD]

but do you really think that as "revolutionary left" our revolutions can be done with violant?

Yes.

In fact, I can't imagine that it can be done any other way. While I wish that a revolution could be done peacibly, the bouregois is not going to simply "give up". They're going to fight, and they're going to fight hard.

We will have no choice but to fight back.


isnt that againt the "left" partys ideology?

No.

The revolutionary left is about liberating the worker and equalizing society. If that can be done peacefully, great, but if it can't, so be it.

[che]

so hippism is naive?

[LSD]

so hippism is naive?

Not naive, just limited.

A good deal of change can and should be made through peacful means. The problem is that there will come a time when the bouregois have had enough and will not allow any progress forwards.

It is at this point, that violence will almost certainly be needed.

[Organic Revolution]

a revolution needs to have violence. you cant just walk up to the white house and say "please leave... man" they wil just open fire.

[Abstrakt]

Gandhi had a hell of a revolution. Martin had an incredible revolution.

[LSD]

Gandhi had a hell of a revolution.

Ghandi convinced a dying bankrupt empire that it wasn't worth the trouble to hold on to a recalcitrant colonial dependency. Good work that needed to be done, but it was not a revolution.


Martin had an incredible revolution.

Martin ...Martin... Martin Luther?

Hardly a revolutionary by any standard. He managed to convince a bunch of feudal lords that it was in their interests to stop paying taxes. Big fucking deal.

Martin Luther King?

Again, important work, but not a revolution. He increased awareness of racial issues and forced the American government to confront the issue. We wasn't trying to change the socio-economic system, just reform it.

And let's not forget the important violence that bolstered the black power movement.

[Free Spirit]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 02:30 AM

so hippism is naive?

Not naive, just limited.


And so are all "believes" in one way or the other. Just for the reason that someone hits me it doesn't mean I won't product myself because I'm a hippie, It's self defence. It's the same with revolution except that capitalism has been hitting us all for a very long time and what I would be doing is total self & "human right"-defence. Yet I'm not the one who chooses violence; I choose the total opposite. The question is would I or anyone else have a choice in destroying capitalism if violence is the only solution. I won't say that it would be cause after all I'm not kind of a "limited" hippie.

[Oldergod]

"You never heard of a revolution that didnt involve violence...it just doesnt exist" - Malcolm X


to go up to an entire army and say "please put your guns down so i can talk to you about an idea you absolutely oppose" is suicide...

with that im going to leave you with two more quotes from Malcolm X:


"We want freedom BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY
we want justice BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY
we want equality BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY"

"When you tell your people to put their guns down, ill tell my people to put down ours"

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:09 AM
totally right didnt thought about it that way...

but do you really think that as "revolutionary left" our revolutions can be done with violant? isnt that againt the "left" partys ideology?
No, I for one tend to believe that there are other ways of revolution than just agressive violent ones. You can stage a mass protest/strike and shut down a city like what just recently happened in bolivia and take over a government that way. This however cannot always be a solution and ones the imperealist state becomes violent against the left then we must fight back with selfdefense.

[Oldergod]

by the way...che guevara wasnt a fascist

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:08 AM
by the way...che guevara wasnt a fascist
lol. I don't think anybody is saying that. But your right.

[Oldergod]

thats the title of the thread...unless im not reading it correctly...he did misspell it

[stealthisname67]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:07 AM
thats the title of the thread...unless im not reading it correctly...he did misspell it
he did also say that his writing in english was bad
(I don't think it's bad)

[Oldergod]

the point isnt his spelling though...it was that he according to how i read it...its calling che a facist...which we all know he wasnt...so its rather he really is calling him a facist or im reading it wrong

[*REVOLUCIÓN*]

It really does sound like
he thinks che was a fascist.
Except for the questionmark.
(God what am i talking about,
I hate semantics !)

[Abstrakt]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 07:51 AM

Gandhi had a hell of a revolution.

Ghandi convinced a dying bankrupt empire that it wasn't worth the trouble to hold on to a recalcitrant colonial dependency. Good work that needed to be done, but it was not a revolution.


Martin had an incredible revolution.

Martin ...Martin... Martin Luther?

Hardly a revolutionary by any standard. He managed to convince a bunch of feudal lords that it was in their interests to stop paying taxes. Big fucking deal.

Martin Luther King?

Again, important work, but not a revolution. He increased awareness of racial issues and forced the American government to confront the issue. We wasn't trying to change the socio-economic system, just reform it.

And let's not forget the important violence that bolstered the black power movement.
Then what do you call a Revolution?

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:27 PM
Then what do you call a Revolution?
A sudden and direct change of the government.

Rebellion is what Ghandi and Martin Luther King did. They refused the authority, but did not revolt.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Hi. I'm new to this board and would like to start off by introducing myself and saying hello. I'm 17 and from Swansea, Wales. So if a appear slightly dopey and innoncent, I have youth and location as an excuse.
I was very interested in this topic, as most of the members believe at some point violent revolution must take place. However it when this kind of revolution happens the society it creates is almost doomed to failure. As the leaders of such a revolution tend not to be those who really understand the ideas of Marx and others, but instead are people with more ruthless and destrutive sides. Making the state they create more authoratarian than it previously was. I am thinking in particular of Communist Russia and maybe even Hitler's Germany. In both of these countries atrocities where carried out under the cloak of Socialism.
Therefore I believe violence tends to destroy the ideals which are being fought for.
My knowledge is somewhat limited and if anyone here can give me examples of where violent social revolutions have worked out I would be very thankful.
T.