how will our revolution be fought?

[fokker-scourge]

will we do a peaceful ghandi (spelling) without fighting but peaceful boycotts and marches




or will we will we have too fight with Stick Stones, and Gunss!

[KC]

Peaceful = Reformist. If you want to reform the existing system, peaceful is the way to go. Unfortunately for us, peace won't work; since we're not looking to keep the system, but reather change it, supporters of capitalism will fight to keep it. They won't give it up. Violence is an unfortunate but necessary part of the revolution.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Yea, look at Chile, the people peacefull elected a socialist, and tried to get things changed, but the right had thier coup and killed him, put in a dictator and has stayed that way sience, so in my opinon in needs to be armed

[anomaly]

I think the question of how to wage revolution is far more complex than just saying 'nonviolence=bad'. The truth is, in some cases, nonviolence is the means through which we should have revolution. In the USA, for example, we canot successfully wage any revolutionary war. The military is simply too strong, and the people are simply too conservative. Here, only through politics and peaceful demonstration will the revolutionary cause gain any respect.

At the same time, to say that politics and peaceful demonstration will always win the day is extremely naive. We look at the thrid world in general, and the general conditions of tyranny, whether political tyranny, or social-economic tyranny, and we see that given such low levels of freedom and the preexisting possibilities for change, no peaceful revolution will accomplish anything. Sometimes, we need to fight. Revolution is not concrete, it is highly relative of the particular situation any one people find themselves in.

In short, I think that generally we should use peaceful means in 1st-2nd world countries, and violent means in 3rd world countries. But even on this summation, the borders on when to use violence and when not to use it are rather fuzzy. Can violent revolution succeed in the first world? Yes, but it will be difficult. Can peaceful revolution succeed in the third world? Yes, but it will be difficult. If we truly are revolutionaries, then we should leave ourselves open to any and all types of revolution, as long as they can be successful.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I agree with that, I think that we need to have peaceful demonstrations to get people to have new ideas, but in the end it will always come down to conflict, because if there is a peaceful revolution, the counter revolutionaries will use violence, or the gov. will use violence so the revolutionarys will use vioence, its impossable to avoid violence if you want a revolution(at some point)

[slim]

The original question addressed,

We should strangle capitalist big business in the cities by capturing supply routes and holding them.

This is no easy feat. Enemy troops would surely swoop in on a fixed position so the best alternative is to spy on the roads and keep track of what vehicles go past at what time and its destination. By setting up this network we can prepare for a flying column strategy when the time comes. Capture the foodstuffs and use them for our own fighters.

Once the communities have sorted out an independent and safe defence from annexation then the groups can set up attack formations that can spread influence, support and bring the fight to the enemy.

[novemba]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:43 AM
2nd world countries
What do you mean by 2nd world countries? Technically they are 'communist' states.

Anyways, there is one often over-looked aspect of popular revolution. The fact that it must be popular. In a country like the US where the military is seemingly "too strong" to take on, you have to consider who the army is comprised of. It's comprised mostly of poor people who have no other job options or sources of income, and the Army can train them for jobs when they finish duty. So if you have mass popular support, than any army won't be an issue because most of the army would join the revolution.


We consider that the Cuban Revolution contributed three fundamental lessons to the conduct of revolutionary movements in America. They are:
(1) Popular forces can win a war against the army.
(2) It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist: the insurrection can create them.
(3) In underdeveloped America the countryside is the basic area for armed fighting.
&nsbp;&nsbp; Of these three propositions the first two contradict the defeatist attitude of revolutionaries or psuedo-revolutionaries who remain inactive and take refuge in the pretext that against a professional army nothing can be done...