living in a puppet land called "Australia"

[matiasm]

Every day you hear something new, PM John Howard travels here and there, to vist Bush and to visit other imperialist leaders!

now this dickhead wants to take the rights of workers and force them on individual contracts, taking away their benefits, no sick pay, no holiday pay, no loading for working on Weekends, single mothers will struggle and i see a terrible change if this happens.

:ph34r:

[freedumb]

Senate majority sucks... you're right, it's gonna suck big time for the average worker and for society itself. Never has there been such a brazen attack by the govt and media on democratic institutions like Unions. He wants to turn us into mindless, 'non-ideological' workaholic drones.
Hopefully once workers have felt the full injustice of these 'reforms', Howard and his mates will get booted out in 2007. Having said that, is the ALP actually committed to winding the changes back?

Don't forget the changes to media ownership laws either... Murdoch will now have an even greater oppurtunity to shape public opinion.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Having said that, is the ALP actually committed to winding the changes back?

No, Beazley has publicly said he wont wind most changes back and state labor governments have already begun planning to implement AWA's on a large scale in their main roads and building departments.

The only way to oppose these attacks is through strike action, but the ACTU still refuses to call any large scale stop works, however latest indications are that their will be another national day of action on October 25, though it may be too little too late.

[matiasm]

do you think some sort of rebellion action to counterattack these actions that the government are planning would benefit?

[RevolucioN NoW]

Im not sure what you mean by rebellion action, but the only way to stop these laws passing the senate is by witholding our labor through strike action, and continuing to do so when they are passed so as to make the laws unusable, hopefully the ACTU will wake up in time but given its track record i doubt it.

There are political parties doing good work to oppose the IR laws, namely the Socialist Alliance (www.socialist-alliance.org) which has a strong rank and file union membership and is trying to force the ACTU to hold strike action, but to no avail so far

[apathy maybe]

You damn reformists and your Socialist Alliance! (j/k)

I hate Johnny Howard sooo much. I hope someone (preferably a white, grandmother) shoots him and kills him.

But anyway. Yes it is bad that the Govt. has control of the Senate. Just goes to show that the system should be done away with all together. :P

What can we do? We can write letters to papers and polies. We can strike and protest. We can do very illegal things (shooting the PM). What will it do? Stuff all.

The government senators aren't going to listen to a bunch of radicals. Sure they might listen to some business people, but they aren't going to listen to a bunch of radicals either. Sorry.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 7 2005, 03:22 AM
You damn reformists and your Socialist Alliance! (j/k).

:lol:

I am glad someone mentioned this, especially in relation to the changes to Australian workplace laws. It is frightening to think about the effect such changes would have on low paid workers. Especially if these are tied with all the other appalling policies suggested by the Howard government, such as cutting welfare payments to single parents and people with disabilities.

However the recent protests were massive and it was inspiring to see so many workers on the streets at once. Protests such as these are certainly worthwhile because they send a clear message to the government, as well as educating others with little understanding of political issues. This is always a good thing.

[bolshevik butcher]

Is this not effectivley a back door way of putting through anti-union laws?

[bombeverything]

It is indeed.

:angry:

[Fidelbrand]

I like Bob Hawke better.
Australia, please revolt!

[apathy maybe]

Bob Hawke was a scumbag who did only one or two good things (I can only think of one).

Bob Hawke and, the bloke who was treasurer but became PM, Paul Keating liberalised and "opened" Australia's economy. They left Keynesian economics behind (though not great, better then what we have now).

John Howard is worse then these two yes. But none of Australia's PMs (except maybe E.G. Whitlem) were any good.

[bombeverything]

Exactly. And this is why he was "dismissed".

[4514]

ah yes john howard, fucking tops mate! i'll give you the tip.
In new zealand the national party (liberals)
abolished work relations laws and smashed the unions, so the people voted in labor for the first time in a long time but you got it, they didn't change shit back,
we've had a labor govermant for 8yrs now? and what? all it is, is a workers party with no workers in it! dark times are coming.
so now its your turn and as much as i hate your sporting teams, nasal whinning, rugby team and did i mention your rugby team?
this i pledge to my aussie comrades,
side by side, arm to arm, i will stand with you and fight!

also fuck the new terrorism laws and all this cctv talk!
wasn't it strange the tv shows a movie/doco on the bali bombings? they couldnt be trying to provoke people and inject them with fear? no not in this demoncracktic, febledom loving country!

W.A voted no to extended shopping hours but the state goverment is trying to still push it through. i dont think ther's any other w.a people here so this probaly pointless mentioning.


4514
rank and file

[bolshevik butcher]

Thats wha happened in britain. 'New labour' came in and didnt help the unions at all.

[matiasm]

form a guerilla against the government is the only fix.....

[bolshevik butcher]

Why is that your peoples answer to everything. its not feesable!!!!

[viva le revolution]

Participating in bourgeois elections and mainstream parties is of no consequence to the average worker, They have had ample opportunities but have time and again showed their supine character and preference of maintaining the status quo.
The only way forward is by mass action not affiliated with any of the mainstream political parties or mainstrean party line. The workers must act on their own instead of relying on bourgeois parties, because then they will act purely for their own benefit without all the trappings of bourgeois politics.
A guerilla action is one option......
Demonstrations and mass unrest.....
Perhaps the best would be forming parties that are pure in theory towards marxism. However they should be left out of mainstream politics. like in India, parliamentarianism only serves to castrate any marxist party and push it down the road to pacifism, which will achieve absolutely nothing.

[bolshevik butcher]

Look, maybe in apkistan or india a guerialla action is feesable, it isn't in the west.

[matiasm]

and why is this (guerilla in the west) not feesable? are you speculating on this opinion? or is it a valid opinon?

[bolshevik butcher]

Because we dont have a large peasant population. We are an industrialised society, where ost of our population lives in the cities. Especially the working class.

[matiasm]

Yeah your right on that. But adaptation, strategies and other means can be beneficial. Researching would
be the best option. but it would be a very delicate and complicated matter.

Maybe isolating tasmania.....as a start

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 10 2005, 08:45 PM
Because we dont have a large peasant population. We are an industrialised society, where ost of our population lives in the cities. Especially the working class.
I don't think it is entirely reliant on that.

The very nature of first world countries is that we have liberal pseudo-freedoms and also the rewards of the colonialism of the third world.

In this "advantageous" position, false consciousness is widespread and any large progressive movement is inevitably difficult to muster.

Not until this facade has been broken, and the people of the first world directly expereince the oppression expereinced in the third world (afterall, major riots with police are rare in the first world), will any more revolutionary means be applicable.

This is why (absolute) pacifism is a first world phenomena.

[bolshevik butcher]

Im not an absolute pacifist myself, i jsut dont beliueve in guerilla war as a viable form of take over in the first world.

[matiasm]

well in all honesty, i dont see any other way....

building relations with other leading countries in order to overthrow a first world country is not going to work without it.

but to act upon a mean of guerilla warfare in what you beleive and what is right to overthrow a corrupt government system would give you more power and more alias that are willing to enforce you with help that you need.

we arent alone on this earth...

[bolshevik butcher]

Personally i preffer the popular revolt strategy. If we had a general strike and most of the country was on the socialist side there would be no need for mutch blood shed.

[matiasm]

yeah i see your point..

but i believe building relations with other nations early and forcing the corupt out of the system would benefit much greater in the future of a new system with a new social government.

[bolshevik butcher]

I dont think theres anyhting wrong with socialist groups biuilding up relations with other soicalist gorups and 'socialsit countries.'

[viva le revolution]

Both alternatives are viable. It depends on the location.
In poor third world countries where communism and socialism take a back seat to nationalism and religious fundamentalism and with large un-developed land consisting of rugged terrian suitable for guerilla warfare with few cities, guerilla warfare is the best alternative. Not only because of the topographic aspects but also because of the lack of knowledge in communist and socialist concept theory in general, a party must take it upon itself to educate the masses and serve as a tool of furthuring the cause.
In first world countries, because of the prevalence of urban areas and the higher dependance on urban population and the industrial proletariat, with the higher levels of literacy alongwith the comparatively higher freedom of expression alongwith the platform of freedom of association, a mass based party is possible in the early stages of the revolution, with a large base among the industrial proletariat, a large popular revolt system is possible, not only because of the factors said above but also because of the topographic unsuitability for guerilla warfare. ahigher literacy rate negates the need for a centralized party authority to interpret the theory of communism or how to put it in practice.

[bolshevik butcher]

I still think that a popular revoltis possible in poor third world countries. For instance in tibet, the maoists have control of thecountryside, but no cities. Surley they will eed the industrial protalettariat to rise up to really have any chance of ever taking over neapal?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 12:56 PM
I still think that a popular revoltis possible in poor third world countries. For instance in tibet, the maoists have control of thecountryside, but no cities. Surley they will eed the industrial protalettariat to rise up to really have any chance of ever taking over neapal?
Actually in Tibet and other agrarian based economies and nations, control of the countryside is tantamount to isolating the countrie's armed forces and administration, limiting their sphere of influence and action. Control of the cities in an agrarian economy is merely rubber-stamping the new government.
However you are correct, they need the support of the proletariat of the urban areas but that does not declare victory impossible without them. many possibilities and options are availible.

1. To overrun the towns and cities after gaining considerable numbers. They must not be too hasty in carrying this out, and only must do so with the proper strength. Taking over urban town's and cities one at a time constitutes positional warfare which is unsuitable for a guerilla army. However with the proper numbers it is possible.

2. To instigate urban warfare, slip in a few combatants into urban areas to create unrest there and harrass their opponents on their own home ground.

3. Sabotage of communication equipment used by the government thus isolating each town and taking it over one at a time.

However all these options will be time-consuming and require lots of danger and input. I agree with you that the best alternative in that case will be the rising up of the proletariat to effectively smash the last refuge of the government, however only previous guerilla action made that possible. The reason for their strength and survival was the guerilla's control over the rural countryside, which effectively gave then control of the country's main resource, agricultural output.
A purely proletarian popular revolt is not really feasable because there are not enough urban areas nor the significant proletarian numbers in an agrarian country to be taken seriously, any revolutionary action based purely on the proleatrait in an agrarian economy is bound to fail,

1, beacuse of the lack of numbers in the proletariat.

2. Because the survival of the country is not dependant on the proletariat but on the rural workforce in this regard. There will be no immediate nor short term effect on the economy nor government.

3. The production of the country is based on agricultural output which will be largely unaffected by a purely proletarian action.

Success can only occur in this case by a collaboration of proletariat and peasant. The peasant in guerilla actions raises awareness amongst the population of the existence of the movement and through guerrilla warfare isolates the government is small urban pockets across the country, the proletariat then rises up in popular revolt to smash the surviving administration in these pockets and firmly assumes leadership.

[bolshevik butcher]

they need the support of the proletariat of the urban areas but that does not declare victory impossible without them.

I disagree, well a,mybe victory initself is possible, but what about soical progression beyond an agrian economy, that will not be possible without them?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 05:15 PM
they need the support of the proletariat of the urban areas but that does not declare victory impossible without them.

I disagree, well a,mybe victory initself is possible, but what about soical progression beyond an agrian economy, that will not be possible without them?
Of course social progression is not possible without the proletariat! Guerilla warfare is merely a means to an end not an end in itself. As far as overthrowing the old system goes, peasants are capable of doing that and guerilla warfare is possible, But when it comes to changing the system and leading the country forward all the sections of the working class, especially the proletariat are important.
Comrade, i was merely talking about deposing the existing government, how it is possible to struggle against the present order, a form of revolution. As i said before to carry the system forward both are needed although the proletariat more so when it comes to progression.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think that while peasnats can play an important part in revolutions the industrial protaletariat must be involved.

[viva le revolution]

Of course it must be involved that is the most desirable scenario. However more often than not the proletariat joins in later when the system is on the verge of defeat. because the state's authority is concentrated in cities. I am all fo both guerilla and popular revolution. however as it stands today, i would say that guerrilla war is more suitable in third world countries.
In such a sceanario, the proletariat will join in during the later stages of the conflict. It isn't only Maoists who led guerilla movements and partook in them. The guerrilla war is suited only to agrarian economies, and serves the purpose of raising awareness and isolating the government forces into urban pockets. However it is upto the proletariat to deal the final blow. That is the most desirable option.

[bolshevik butcher]

Depends where in the third world for a start, in the industrialised areas of the third world, eg latin aemrica the industrialised protaletariat leads the mass movement.

[viva le revolution]

Yes that depends, but even in latin america many vast agrarian regions are present. towards the asia and africa side, guerilla wars are more effective.

[bolshevik butcher]

When was the last gime thre was a succesfl socialist group in africa. Ok it is na option but i think it needs to be ocombined with popular revolt as well.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 10:07 PM
When was the last gime thre was a succesfl socialist group in africa. Ok it is na option but i think it needs to be ocombined with popular revolt as well.
Africa has never had a successful socialist group, but we're not going to give up on them are we? :che: :hammer:
However given the situation, guerilla groups have been much more successful than popular revolt.
I agree with the assertion of combined revolution by proletarian and peasant. See my above posts comrade.

[Commie Rat]

Go the ACTU, mass strike action is the best we can do ATM, damn senate majority
I really do hope Barnaby Joyce crosses the floor on the IR and the Sale of Telstra

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 12 2005, 10:27 AM
I really do hope Barnaby Joyce crosses the floor on the IR and the Sale of Telstra

Relying on the Nationals is a sign that things are not going that well.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Relying on the Nationals is a sign that things are not going that well.

Exactly, every second rate labor party beurecrat is sucking up to "comrade" Joyce, hell the student union is afraid of holding a rally against VSU in fear of alienating their new found savior.

We need to face the fact that Barnaby Joyce and the rest of the National pary are NOT friends of the left, he is willing to sell out on Voluntary Student Unionism legislation if he can get a bit of funding for regional universities, and inevitably he will have to come into line with the coalition party room or risk losing his position and political career.

Fuck soon these cats will be sucking up to Steven Fieling from the christian-fascist family first party who has mouthed disagrements with the IR reforms because they detract from "family time".

Seriously, the broad labor leadership seems opposed to any sort of realistic opposition to these changes, there has so far been no talk of strike action, just more of these moronic picnics like that held by Unions NSW last week, thats REALLY socking it to Howard, dumbasses.

I hope the action on October 25 being organised by the ACTU will amount to something or Howard will basically have a blank check to destroy our unions and working conditions...even more so than he already has