Marx - The Insurrectionist

[The Feral Underclass]

I've just finished reading a Marx biography by a man called Francis Wheen. It was quite interesting. Some things that were talked about brought up some interesting quotes, which would indicate that he advocated confrontational attitudes. The very same confrontational attitudes that contemporary "marxists" condemn anarchists for:

In a letter dated 27th July 1866 he writes to Engels:


If the railings had been used — and it almost came to that — for offence and defence against the police, and some score of the latter killed, the military would have had to ‘step in’, instead of merely parading. And then things would have got quite jolly. This much is certain: that these stiff-necked John Bulls, whose sconces appear made to measure for the constables’ bludgeons will accomplish nothing without a really bloody clash with those in power

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...rs/66_07_27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/letters/66_07_27.htm)

In an article to the Neue Oder-Zeitung, of which I cannot find a link, he criticises the fact that the demonstrators do not resist the police with violence:


Hence the counter demonstration was confined, in the main, to hissing, jeering and whistling at the police wagons, to isolated and feeble attempts at liberating the arrested, but above all to passive resistance in phlegmatically standing their ground.

Why is it that Marxists are so quick to condemn confrontation when Marx openly advocated it? Is it because Marx was wrong or because of other reasons?

[Lamanov]

Don't take my word on it - but is it possible that marxists support mass insurection against the individual and group isolated action (practicized by many anarchist groups)?

Maybe that's the point, although I have to admit I'm not sure.

[The Feral Underclass]

[Insurrectionary] Anarchists attempt to turn demonstrations into acts of resistance against the tools of the state. Much like what is said in the quotes from Marx.

[More Fire for the People]

I do not disagree with anarchists on "black bloc" tactic, I whole-heartedly support it. The difference between a "red bloc" and a "black bloc" is purely ideological and I don't see why they could not cooperative on the issue of police.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2005, 04:32 PM
I've just finished reading a Marx biography by a man called Francis Wheen. It was quite interesting. Some things that were talked about brought up some interesting quotes, which would indicate that he advocated confrontational attitudes. The very same confrontational attitudes that contemporary "marxists" condemn anarchists for:
Get it through your head. Tactics are situation-specific. They depend on place, time, relationship of forces.

Whether or not Marx thought a particular tactic was a good idea in 19th-century England, whether or not he was right....says nothing at all about whether it is a good idea in any particular situation today.

What is so truly moronic about the approach to tactics of many anarchists and other ultralefts, is that they argue for tactics based on total generalities.

Militancy is good. Confronting the cops is good. Etc.

Not only is this totally divorced from any particular situation, it's divorced from any particular tactic!

If these arguments were valid for, say, breaking a window or fighting cops using blunt objects....then they would be valid for even more militant tactics, say burning down buildings and shooting cops.

How do confrontationists decide to go this far and no farther?

[Hiero]

Why is it that Marxists are so quick to condemn confrontation when Marx openly advocated it? Is it because Marx was wrong or because of other reasons?

Openly? You give two vague quotes and state that Marx openly supported this method of protest.

So something like .02% of Marx's work talks about violent methods of protests. This does not mean that he believes like modern Anachist do, that anything great can acheive from this. As nothing ever has, not once has the black bloc methods transferred to the regular people to become violent and revolt.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you study his letters and articles he wrote over his life, the same tone is used throughout.

[The Feral Underclass]

Also regardless of what the percentage of his work covers this issue, from these two quotes it is clear that Marx supported insurrection. Do you think he changed his opinion later on? Did he write these letters/articles in a fit of madness?

[Monty Cantsin]

he supported both reformist and revolutionary methods in pragmatic terms not one over the other regaurdless of situation.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think it's a question of the situation. Violence ahs it's time and place. But I dont think in modern day britain small gorups of anarchists attacking small groups of police achieves anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 4 2005, 12:26 PM
I think it's a question of the situation. Violence ahs it's time and place. But I dont think in modern day britain small gorups of anarchists attacking small groups of police achieves anything.
You don't really understand this basis of insurrectionaryism do you? If you do can you please explain to me what it is?

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2005, 05:05 AM
Also regardless of what the percentage of his work covers this issue, from these two quotes it is clear that Marx supported insurrection.
Doy! Obviously.

For his next trick, TAT will demonstrate that water is wet, and that the sky appears blue.


You don't really understand this basis of insurrectionaryism do you?

Who could? I understand the basis of insurrections. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/13.htm) One problem with ultraleft confrontationists is that they don't understand it.

But why anyone would put an ism after "insurrection" or (sic) "insurrectionary", makes no sense. Please explain.

[TheReadMenace]

Who cares about spelling or small word misuse? As long as the point is gotten across, then you shouldn't I care.

I colud maek a whleo psto lke tihs btu as lng as yuo gte teh ponit tahts lal taht mttars.

spelling and word misuse - small pohtaytohz

Pointing our spelling errors really does nothing to advance an argument. It's almost like a cop-out, saying, 'Well, I have nothing more to put into this argument, but you spelled this wrong.'

Come on, mate; you don't have to be like that.

Andrew

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 4 2005, 01:09 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 4 2005, 01:09 AM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2005, 04:32 PM
I've just finished reading a Marx biography by a man called Francis Wheen. It was quite interesting. Some things that were talked about brought up some interesting quotes, which would indicate that he advocated confrontational attitudes. The very same confrontational attitudes that contemporary "marxists" condemn anarchists for:
Get it through your head. Tactics are situation-specific. They depend on place, time, relationship of forces.

Whether or not Marx thought a particular tactic was a good idea in 19th-century England, whether or not he was right....says nothing at all about whether it is a good idea in any particular situation today.

What is so truly moronic about the approach to tactics of many anarchists and other ultralefts, is that they argue for tactics based on total generalities.

Militancy is good. Confronting the cops is good. Etc.

Not only is this totally divorced from any particular situation, it's divorced from any particular tactic!

If these arguments were valid for, say, breaking a window or fighting cops using blunt objects....then they would be valid for even more militant tactics, say burning down buildings and shooting cops.

How do confrontationists decide to go this far and no farther? [/b]
No shit it's situation-specific.

But that's exectly why "confronting cops is good".

And that's exactly why "buning down buildings, and shooting cops" is out of the question. One must have a larger base of support than most anarchist blocs have, in order for terrorism to be a succesful tactic.

Confronting cops however, opens the door to a larger base of action than marching and chanting.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redcanada+Sep 10 2005, 05:45 PM--> (redcanada @ Sep 10 2005, 05:45 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 01:09 AM

Get it through your head. Tactics are situation-specific. They depend on place, time, relationship of forces.

Whether or not Marx thought a particular tactic was a good idea in 19th-century England, whether or not he was right....says nothing at all about whether it is a good idea in any particular situation today.

What is so truly moronic about the approach to tactics of many anarchists and other ultralefts, is that they argue for tactics based on total generalities.

Militancy is good. Confronting the cops is good. Etc.

Not only is this totally divorced from any particular situation, it's divorced from any particular tactic!

If these arguments were valid for, say, breaking a window or fighting cops using blunt objects....then they would be valid for even more militant tactics, say burning down buildings and shooting cops.

How do confrontationists decide to go this far and no farther?
No shit it's situation-specific.

But that's exectly why "confronting cops is good".

And that's exactly why "buning down buildings, and shooting cops" is out of the question. One must have a larger base of support than most anarchist blocs have, in order for terrorism to be a succesful tactic. [/b]
Why in your view do you need a larger base of support for shooting cops? Why don't you need a larger base of support before fighting them with less-lethal weapons? What examination of the situation have you done before deciding that confronting cops is good in this situation? My point was that there's no consistent reasoning about these things by confrontationists, and you haven't given any either.

And in fact you don't "open up a larger base of action"; the numbers willing to participate in physical confrontations are typically much smaller than the numbers willing to participate in "marching and chanting."


TheReadMenace wrote: " As long as the point is gotten across, then you shouldn't I care."

It isn't. Insurrectionism apparently means something different than insurrection, and I have no idea what.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 11 2005, 02:42 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 11 2005, 02:42 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:45 PM

[email protected] 4 2005, 01:09 AM

Get it through your head. Tactics are situation-specific. They depend on place, time, relationship of forces.

Whether or not Marx thought a particular tactic was a good idea in 19th-century England, whether or not he was right....says nothing at all about whether it is a good idea in any particular situation today.

What is so truly moronic about the approach to tactics of many anarchists and other ultralefts, is that they argue for tactics based on total generalities.

Militancy is good. Confronting the cops is good. Etc.

Not only is this totally divorced from any particular situation, it's divorced from any particular tactic!

If these arguments were valid for, say, breaking a window or fighting cops using blunt objects....then they would be valid for even more militant tactics, say burning down buildings and shooting cops.

How do confrontationists decide to go this far and no farther?
No shit it's situation-specific.

But that's exectly why "confronting cops is good".

And that's exactly why "buning down buildings, and shooting cops" is out of the question. One must have a larger base of support than most anarchist blocs have, in order for terrorism to be a succesful tactic.
Why in your view do you need a larger base of support for shooting cops? Why don't you need a larger base of support before fighting them with less-lethal weapons? What examination of the situation have you done before deciding that confronting cops is good in this situation? My point was that there's no consistent reasoning about these things by confrontationists, and you haven't given any either.

And in fact you don't "open up a larger base of action"; the numbers willing to participate in physical confrontations are typically much smaller than the numbers willing to participate in "marching and chanting."


TheReadMenace wrote: " As long as the point is gotten across, then you shouldn't I care."

It isn't. Insurrectionism apparently means something different than insurrection, and I have no idea what. [/b]
Why do we need a larger base of support for shooting cops to be tactical?

For the very same reason that the police down beak into all our houses and blow our brains out for coming to this site.

The truth is that there isn't a large base of support for revolution, however there is a large base of support for direct action, as long as it doesn't end in death. Disallowing the police from stoping your demonstration, and actually managing to counteract the authorities, gives people an example of what can be done if they just try.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:11 PM
Why do we need a larger base of support for shooting cops to be tactical?

For the very same reason that the police down beak into all our houses and blow our brains out for coming to this site.

And in your view, what reason is that?

C'mon people, I shouldn't have to ask the question 5 times.



The truth is that there isn't a large base of support for revolution, however there is a large base of support for direct action, as long as it doesn't end in death.

No, there isn't. Black Bloc-style actions are also highly unpopular, with the general population including most working people. It's just not as overwhelmingly, tidal-wave unpopular as armed actions would be.


Disallowing the police from stoping your demonstration,

The most effective way to do that, under the conditions in most advanced capitalist countries today, is to have a legal demonstration. This ain't rocket science, people have legal demonstrations all the time.

It's political, not physical factors, which prevent the cops from stopping all demonstrations...or, for that matter, "beak into all our houses and blow our brains."


and actually managing to counteract the authorities,

You mean, if you win the street fight? Usually you don't. And when you do, it's in part thanks to the cops' reluctance to use all the force available to them....so even then, political as well as physical factors are involved.


gives people an example of what can be done if they just try.

That it's possible to beat the cops in a street fight? Armed struggle would be an even more powerful example, if this argument was actually valid.

[TheReadMenace]

TheReadMenace wrote: " As long as the point is gotten across, then you shouldn't I care."

It isn't. Insurrectionism apparently means something different than insurrection, and I have no idea what.


Not trying to be an ass, mate, but look at the context. He's talking about insurrection, and just happens to make up a word, 'insurrectionaryism.' All right, so it's not a word. But who cares? The fact that it contains 'insurrection' should be a dead give-away, regardless of whatever is following the prefix.

There's no need to be fastidious. If a kid came on here asking about 'socialistism,' I would be like, 'What the fuck are you talking about? That's not a word?' I would assume s/he means 'socialism,' because that is contained as a prefix. Yeah, point out how it should really be used, but don't act like you don't know what s/he is talking about.

Andrew

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think you're missing his point. I believe he's asking how a tactic can be an "ism."

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:54 PM
Not trying to be an ass,
And yet......


mate, but look at the context. He's talking about insurrection,

No, clearly not. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with actual insurrections...except the Lenin article I linked.

[TheReadMenace]

I know what you're asking; I'm just asking you not to necessarily tear it down because of its incorrect usage.

Yeah, he made up a word and used it wrong. So what? I know that insurrectionaryism isn't a word, and that there isn't a way for the tactic of insurrection to have 'ism' attached. But I still understood what he was saying.

And there isn't a way to justify how 'ism' can be attached to a tactic. But he was asking you if you understood 'insurrectionaryism' - or, as you corrected, the 'basics of insurrection.' But within the context of that sentence and the conversation around which that sentence was formed, you obviously had some time of idea as to what he was talking about. So just assume that that's what he was talking about, and continue the discussion.

Andrew

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:30 PM
But I still understood what he was saying.
Then please, explain it to me. And how it's relevant to the rest of this thread....assuming it is.

[TheReadMenace]

Come on, man. You hit it on the head.

You said you understand the basics of insurrection, or something of that sort. From what I read in his post, that's what he was referring to, only he mistakenly called it 'insurrectionaryism.'

And it doesn't have any relevance to the thread. I apologise if I said it does earlier, and I think I did, but I was wrong. The thread switched topics, and turned to what situations are okay for insurrection, or are necessary, or something like that - resisting police officers, et cetera - and that's where this 'insurrectionaryism' came in.

But fuck it, all right? Get the fucking thread back on topic, and let's (yes, let's, including me) stop *****ing about what words are used correctly. I, for one, was actually learning from the thread, until it got off-topic.

Andrew

[Luís Henrique]

You said you understand the basics of insurrection, or something of that sort. From what I read in his post, that's what he was referring to, only he mistakenly called it 'insurrectionaryism.'

"Insurrection" is an attempt to topple a government. Apparently "insurrectionaryism" is a different thing, because the discussion is about confronting cops within street demonstrations, not about toppling governmentes.


The thread switched topics, and turned to what situations are okay for insurrection, or are necessary, or something like that - resisting police officers, et cetera - and that's where this 'insurrectionaryism' came in.

Seems that "insurrectionarism" looks a lot like Teil Aktions, just a lot less daring.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

I didn't make a mistake in my use of the word insurrectionaryism.

Insurrectionary anarchism is a form of anarchism that advocates insurrections as a catalyst for propelling revolution. These moments can be as small as a banner drop or as big as setting off a bomb in an embassy or business Centre, like Angry Brigade in the 80’s, early 90’s.

The idea is that oppressed and exploited people should not try and gain "power" through legal means which are defined by the ruling class and is a game played by their rules, but should confront capitalism on a “battle field”, to use military speak, such as workplaces, communities, schools etc. Instead of picketing, lobbying, demonstrating or voting; people should confront and attack these institutions and those which cause their oppression in an attempt to destroy them and create situations which cause tension.

Wolfi Landstreicher , one of the more famous insurrectionary anarchists puts it like this “…anarchists must attack, for waiting is defeat; what is needed is open mutiny and the spreading of subversion among the exploited and excluded.” The idea is that the time is right now, not tomorrow or at the end of a parliamentary campaign.

When I say insurrectionaryism I am referring specifically to the philosophy of insurrectionary anarchism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

a/k/a indvidual terrorism.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2005, 11:45 PM
Why is it that Marxists are so quick to condemn confrontation when Marx openly advocated it? Is it because Marx was wrong or because of other reasons?
Are they? I know no marxists who are against militant confrontation in general.


Another quote:
"The police have opened up a really splendid field for our people: the ever-present and uninterrupted struggle with the police themselves. This is being carried on everywhere and always, with great success and, the best thing about it, with great humour. The police are defeated--and made to look foolish into the bargain. And I consider this struggle the most useful in the circumstances. Above all it keeps the contempt for the enemy alive among our lads. Worse troops could not be sent into the field against us than the German police; even where they have the upper hand they suffer a moral defeat, and confidence in victory is growing among our lads every day. This struggle will bring it about that as soon as the pressure is at last relaxed (and that will happen on the day the dance in Russia begins) we shall no longer count our numbers in hundreds of thousands but in millions. There is a lot of rotten stuff among the so-called leaders but I have unqualified confidence in our masses, and what they lack in revolutionary tradition they are gaining more and more from this little war with the police. And you can say what you like, but we have never seen a proletariat yet which has learnt to act collectively and to march together in so short a time. For this reason, evert though nothing appears on the surface, we can, I think, calmly await the moment when the call to arms is given. You will see how they muster!"
Friedrich Engels to J.P. Becker
London, 14 February 1884




I would also recommend Marx' "The King of Prussia and Socia Reform" where he clearly advocates anti-politics. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/08/07.htm

[Djehuti]

I have drawn closer and closer to insurrectionism lately, I think Riff-Raff (http://www.riff-raff.se/en/), Gilles Dauvé, the http://www.prole.info/ site and other insurrectionist communists have had that impact on me. I do not however concider myself an anarchist; some anarchist works interests me, but I find Marx and other marxists (Bordiga, Dauvé, Aufheben, the situationists, etc) much more useful and relevant than most of the anarchist writings I have come across.

By the way, check out the anti-politics forums:
http://anti-politics.net/forum/

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 11:14 AM
I didn't make a mistake in my use of the word insurrectionaryism.

Insurrectionary anarchism is a form of anarchism that advocates insurrections as a catalyst for propelling revolution. These moments can be as small as a banner drop or as big as setting off a bomb in an embassy or business Centre, like Angry Brigade in the 80’s, early 90’s.
I'd say you made a mistake in your use of the word insurrection, though. October 1917 was an insurrection. A banner drop is not. Which one do "insurrectionaryists" support......apparently the one that isn't an insurrection.


Insurrectionary anarchism is a form of anarchism that advocates insurrections as a catalyst for propelling revolution

The good ol' spark theory...quite ancient and not exactly with a great track record of success.


The idea is that oppressed and exploited people should not try and gain "power" through legal means which are defined by the ruling class and is a game played by their rules,

Well, Marx definitely didn't agree with you there. I don't think he categorically ruled out any tactic...definitely not running in elections.


but should confront capitalism on a “battle field”, to use military speak, such as workplaces, communities, schools etc. Instead of picketing, lobbying, demonstrating or voting; people should confront and attack these institutions and those which cause their oppression

Under what conditions?


in an attempt to destroy them

Get real. Black Bloc people, even bomb-setters, etc., are not seriously trying to destroy any institutions. They do not remotely have the power to do so. That takes mass action.


and create situations which cause tension.

Which accomplishes....what?


Wolfi Landstreicher , one of the more famous insurrectionary anarchists puts it like this “…anarchists must attack, for waiting is defeat; what is needed is open mutiny and the spreading of subversion among the exploited and excluded.” The idea is that the time is right now, not tomorrow or at the end of a parliamentary campaign.

And what is so right about this time, particularly? Or would you say that tactics are not situation-specific?

Care to comment on my first post in this thread, and explain how "insurrectionaryists" decide to go so far and not further?

[The Feral Underclass]

I've explained what Insurrectionary anarchism is. I'm not interested in your criticism of it, Severian. If you disagree with that analysis, so be it. It's no loss to me. You haven't convinced me.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 06:21 PM
I'm not interested in your criticism of it, Severian.
You started this thread to ask: "Why is it that Marxists are so quick to condemn confrontation when Marx openly advocated it?" but then you show no interest in seriously discussing any of the more serious responses. Par for the course, I guess.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:07 PM
a/k/a indvidual terrorism.
Is there something wrong with you? Are you incapable of reading? How did you conclude this from what I wrote?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:17 PM
I'd say you made a mistake in your use of the word insurrection, though. October 1917 was an insurrection. A banner drop is not. Which one do "insurrectionaryists" support......apparently the one that isn't an insurrection.
Yes 1917 was an insurrection and yes I would support something of that nature.

A banner drop over a building or a bridge is an arrestable offence and therefore challenges the state. Although it isn't as grand as taking up arms and charging parliament it is an act of confrontation



but should confront capitalism on a “battle field”, to use military speak, such as workplaces, communities, schools etc. Instead of picketing, lobbying, demonstrating or voting; people should confront and attack these institutions and those which cause their oppression

Under what conditions?

Now! In day-to-day life.



in an attempt to destroy them

Get real. Black Bloc people, even bomb-setters, etc., are not seriously trying to destroy any institutions. They do not remotely have the power to do so. That takes mass action.

I don't see how these points are different. Yes it takes mass action, but that doesn't negate the action in and of itself. Of course the idea is to have mass people using these kinds of tactics.



and create situations which cause tension.

Which accomplishes....what?

It accomplishes confrontation, challenge and inspires confidence in change. It also highlights contradictions within society and shows that there is a way to change society.



Wolfi Landstreicher , one of the more famous insurrectionary anarchists puts it like this “…anarchists must attack, for waiting is defeat; what is needed is open mutiny and the spreading of subversion among the exploited and excluded.” The idea is that the time is right now, not tomorrow or at the end of a parliamentary campaign.

And what is so right about this time, particularly? Or would you say that tactics are not situation-specific?

Oppression, alienation and exploitation exist right now. As most Marxists would have us wait in order for their political parties to consolidate their control over the working class, I would argue, as world insurrectionaryists, that the power we have is our power and we should use it now.

Why would you have working class people wait?


Care to comment on my first post in this thread, and explain how "insurrectionaryists" decide to go so far and not further?

Starting a "guerrilla campaign" in a westernised country is futile right now.

NB. This last assertion could appear as if I have contradicted the question "why would you have working class people wait." The general argument is that the time isn't right, now for those kinds of activities. To clarify, I think that's wrong. So in conclusion I do in fact agree that tactics are situation specific.

[The Feral Underclass]

Severian, I have responded to your post.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17 2005, 03:33 PM
Why would you have working class people wait?
I wouldn't. I would use, and encourage others to use, tactics geared to the time and place.

I explained my views on how these can be chosen in my post of Jul 11 2005, 02:01 AM in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37768)

The general argument is that the time isn't right, now for those kinds of activities. To clarify, I think that's wrong. So in conclusion I do in fact agree that tactics are situation specific.

Well good. So we've actually moved the discussion along a bit there, clarifying points of agreement and disagreement.

I'm not clear, though, what it is specifically about the conditions of today that make you think certain tactics are appropriate and others inappropriate. What criteria you use to evaluate conditions and choose appropriate tactics, in other words.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes 1917 was an insurrection and yes I would support something of that nature.

A banner drop over a building or a bridge is an arrestable offence and therefore challenges the state. Although it isn't as grand as taking up arms and charging parliament it is an act of confrontation

1917 was an insurrection. Since it succeeded, the State was destroyed, and became harmless. Had it failed, thousands of people would have been killed, imprisoned, tortured, etc.

An "arrestable offence" does not destroy the State, which remains perfectly able to search, arrest, kill or demoralise those "offenders". The State may be challenged, but such challenge will only result in it reacting, more or less deadly, against its challengers.

If you are to "confront" a big, violent, and well armed thug, don't slap him on his hand. Shoot him directly in the forehead.


I don't see how these points are different. Yes it takes mass action, but that doesn't negate the action in and of itself. Of course the idea is to have mass people using these kinds of tactics.

If we can muster mass people to use this tactics, we should uprise and destroy the State. But the discussion is whether we would bring the masses to uprise by the use of "confrontational tactics" by smaller groups. To which I would answer, "not quite probably".


It accomplishes confrontation, challenge and inspires confidence in change. It also highlights contradictions within society and shows that there is a way to change society.

If the State fail to counterstrike swiftly and mightly, perhaps yes. But most probably the State will react with precise and overwhelming violence, thus discrediting the possiblity of change and demoralising the "confronters" as adventurers.

Luís Henrique