Provoking Revolution

[novemba]

Dear Comrades

I've recently had a few debates with anarchopunkchris who, needless to say, knows his shit, and I just wanted to raise a few points that we were talking about.

First off:

I now know that revolution can't be brought on by a vanguard (at least in the first world) because they will be alienated and villianized by the people, because the people are not educated.

Secondly:

When the people are ready and are in the majority the revolution will be brought about by a mass uprising of all people.

Finally:

My major question with this is, what do you think we could do to speedy up that process? Don't you think we could provoke revolution somehow? What do you think about militant uprisings to radicalize the people?

Some might say we can't speedy it up, but people are/will continue to get "fucked up the ass", if you will, every day...so...the faster the better!

What do you think?

[Organic Revolution]

I now know that revolution can't be brought on by a vanguard (at least in the first world) because they will be alienated and villianized by the people, because the people are not educated.

why should they not be vilinized? they are people telling other people who to die for.. ring a bell?

[novemba]

point taken.

on with the debate.

[KC]

My major question with this is, what do you think we could do to speedy up that process?

Nothing. The process can't be sped up. When people think this is possible, the result is usually an ineffective socialist state, a dictatorship, or a failed revolution/counterrevolution. The process can't be "sped up." As you have said in the second statement, people will revolt when they are ready to do it. They will be ready to revolt when the material conditions exist. We cannot make these material conditions exist, as it has to do with the evolution of capital. The only way to "speed up" the process would be to somehow find some way to get capitalism to evolve quicker. Good luck.



Don't you think we could provoke revolution somehow?

No.



What do you think about militant uprisings to radicalize the people?

Militant uprisings as in a small group of people revolting against the state, with the hope that they will win over the majority? What does that accomplish? A great example of this is Cuba. While it is a much better situation than a capitalist country, it isn't a step in the right direction. It's not much of a step at all. Chances are these militant uprisings would either:

1. Alienate the people from whoever is in the uprising, or
2. Help a country develop to a more advanced form of capitalism.

[bunk]

Yes, if you have a direct action you want to occur, do it. Within some limits. This way you will show another world is possible but not alienate anyone too much

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:00 AM
what do you think we could do to speedy up that process?
A revolution is the conclusion of class antagonisms. All you can do is highlight those antagonisms.


Don't you think we could provoke revolution somehow?

Insurrectionary anarchists and Situationists attempt to do this. Insurrectionary anarchists are more confrontational in their challenging and provocation of the state.

Situationists provoke revolution by "unnerving" reality. Creating situations, which essentially jolt people’s senses of what reality is, means people have to face contradictions in society. It forces people to face the illusions they have in their lives.

But, fundamentally, all these things are just different ways to highlight class antagonisms. It's the same as a trot party selling a newspaper but incredibly more confrontational and dare I say...fun :o


What do you think about militant uprisings to radicalize the people?

Can you fight a guerrilla war, which is what it will become, in first world police states in the west?


people are/will continue to get "fucked up the ass", if you will, every day...so...the faster the better!

This is why creating forms of direct action, including confrontational actions are important in day-to-day struggles. They highlight class antagonisms and create actual struggle against the tools of the state which oppress us and the system which exploits us.

[novemba]

TAT I agree with everything you said.

Shit...am I becoming an Anarchist? :lol:

[novemba]

the result is usually an ineffective socialist state, a dictatorship, or a failed revolution/counterrevolution

We don't know what the final result of the Cuban Revolution is yet...once Fidel dies we'll see if it really worked or not, but as of now, you're right, it is an inefective socialist state with a dictatorship.


All you can do is highlight those antagonisms.


So basically our main jobs as revolutionaries is to educate the people? Sounds good to me but in what ways do you think we could do this? Whatever ways we need to do it more.


Usually Insurrectionary anarchists are more confrontational in their challenging and provocation of the state.

Like fighting Riot Police, etc? I really don't see the problem with starting an underground network of revolutionaries to carry out small militant missions to deal damage to the state.


It's not much of a step at all. Chances are these militant uprisings would either:

1. Alienate the people from whoever is in the uprising, or
2. Help a country develop to a more advanced form of capitalism.

The first question I ask you is would this harm anything? The worst thing I see coming from it is them failing, but that would still radicalize people. I agree with you that it might alienate you from the people, but it could also put the people behind you if carried out correctly. Two examples I have are Cuba and Algeria. In Cuba the people were already against the dictatorship so I can see how that worked out, but in Algiers the FLN attacked french hotspots/hangouts etc using 'terrorist' tactics. There would be civilian death, but no Algerians would be hurt, only european settlers. The occupying forces tried to convey these attacks as 'terrorist attacks' and tried to convince people that the FLN was killing innocent Algerians, but the FLN waged a great counter-media 'PR' (if you will) campaign. Why can't we do something like that? Only target tools of the state with no civilian deaths? Sorta like the ETA...I don't see what would be counter-revolutionary about thiis...

[KC]

The first question I ask you is would this harm anything?

If you try to provoke a revolution when people aren't ready for it, and you do it in the name of communism, then you are turning people away from communism.



The worst thing I see coming from it is them failing, but that would still radicalize people. I agree with you that it might alienate you from the people, but it could also put the people behind you if carried out correctly.

But this doesn't help communism. This helps reform capitalism.



Two examples I have are Cuba and Algeria. In Cuba the people were already against the dictatorship so I can see how that worked out,

Cuba isn't really helpful to communism (nor is it harmful, though).



but in Algiers the FLN attacked french hotspots/hangouts etc using 'terrorist' tactics. There would be civilian death, but no Algerians would be hurt, only european settlers. The occupying forces tried to convey these attacks as 'terrorist attacks' and tried to convince people that the FLN was killing innocent Algerians, but the FLN waged a great counter-media 'PR' (if you will) campaign. Why can't we do something like that? Only target tools of the state with no civilian deaths? Sorta like the ETA...I don't see what would be counter-revolutionary about thiis...

Because when people are fed up with the state, this tactic is useful. When people are fed up with the state, attacking symbols and tools of the state is a good tactic. The communist revolution will happen when people are fed up with the system, not the state. Revolting against a state creates a new state. We don't want states.

[Paradox]

I pretty much agree with Lazar and TAT on this one. And seeing that you constantly bring up militant actions, the revolution you are advocating is one of a violent nature. In a "first world" nation, for example the United States, I don't see this being effective. And even in a "Third World" nation, what does it lead to? Cuba? That's been discussed.

There must be overwhelming mass support and participation from the working people themselves. This is not to say violence won't occur. As it has been said many times, violence is inevitable. But violence in and of itself will not liberate us. It is something we will use in self-defense to protect our movement from reactionary attacks. So yes, people should be prepared to defend themselves. But guerrilla warfare? I don't see that as being of much use.


Like fighting Riot Police, etc? I really don't see the problem with starting an underground network of revolutionaries to carry out small militant missions to deal damage to the state.

I doubt the usefulness of such tactics as of now, and feel it is not wise to discuss in detail such topics in an open forum such as this.

Our main weapon should be the truth. To defend ourselves? Load your rifle.

[Paradox]

Zackaria, have you read The Art of War? Do so if you haven't. It's good for strategizing; mental battles. ;)

[novemba]

Zackaria, have you read The Art of War? Do so if you haven't. It's good for strategizing; mental battles.

Sun Tzu? Yeah I have...


And even in a "Third World" nation, what does it lead to? Cuba?

Cuba's fucked up cause of Castro's abuse of power correct? Don't you think things would have been different if they absolved power to the people immeadiatly?


you constantly bring up militant actions

I'm a pissed of 16 year old kid that wants to place his anger somewhere that it won't be wasted. Life fucking sucks...the only thing I got is my hopes of making the world better or else I have nothing else. I've abandoned god, I've ruined countless relationships with people, including my parents, everything I do is related to politics somehow I really just want to go back to being ignorant and eating my Big Macs and wearing my Nikes and wanting nice things...but knowing what I know now it would torment me and I can't let the happen, so what am I left with? Without my politics I'm all alone, might as well fucking kill myself, and I'd rather do that in a way were my life isn't really 'wasted' ie do something that would probably get me killed but do damage to everything I stand against...not to mention the fact that I have a short temper which doesn't help shit...I'm just so pissed, I can't enjoy the nice things in life anymore because everythings so fucked up.......there really isn't much to live for anymore without the hope of it getting better.........FUCK

FUCK FUCK FUCK

[bombeverything]

I'm a pissed of 16 year old kid that wants to place his anger somewhere that it won't be wasted. Life fucking sucks...the only thing I got is my hopes of making the world better or else I have nothing else. I've abandoned god, I've ruined countless relationships with people, including my parents, everything I do is related to politics somehow I really just want to go back to being ignorant and eating my Big Macs and wearing my Nikes and wanting nice things...but knowing what I know now it would torment me and I can't let the happen, so what am I left with? Without my politics I'm all alone, might as well fucking kill myself, and I'd rather do that in a way were my life isn't really 'wasted' ie do something that would probably get me killed but do damage to everything I stand against...not to mention the fact that I have a short temper which doesn't help shit...I'm just so pissed, I can't enjoy the nice things in life anymore because everythings so fucked up.......there really isn't much to live for anymore without the hope of it getting better.........FUCK

FUCK FUCK FUCK

Whoa! This is a bit heavy. Are you ok? Yes, we have to act to fight the system. Isn't this what most of us are trying to do? However rushing to get yourself killed before thinking things through rationally isn't the solution either.


Don't you think things would have been different if they absolved power to the people immeadiatly?

What do you mean by "they"? By the way I am not being 'critical', I am merely wondering.

:)

[RASH chris]

Zackaria- Thanks for the compliment in the first post.


What do you mean by "they"? By the way I am not being 'critical', I am merely wondering.

I believe he is reffering to Castro, Guevara and the rest of the leaders of the Cuban revolution.


Zackaria, my main issue with armed uprising is this. If such actions (urban guerrillaism, traditional guerrilla warfare) could be successful, then why haven't they been in the past? History shows us that armed insurrection in the first world rarely works out. Here are the examples for why I believe this:

Irish Republican Army-It's been around for a very very long time, and now it is totally factionalized, falling apart, and it still hasn't managed to accomplish its goals. And we haven't seen an armed mass uprising in Ireland since what, the early 1900s?

Symbionese Liberation Army-Died in a shootout with the police. They didn't inspire any revolution, they didn't even have the support of the people they claimed to be a vanguard of.

Weather Underground-This group probably is the only one who were reasonably succesful, as I would say that their tactics did contribute to the end of the Vietnam war. However, towards the end of their existence, the entire organization was falling apart, communication was non-existent, and they clearly failed to provoke a revolution.

RAF/Baader-Meinhoff-Took on lots of actions. Were probably the most militant urban guerrilla group. But they again, did not incite a mass uprising, and they eventually fell apart when they realised they had no mass support.

Black Panther Party-This is key, this was an armed group, but weren't urban guerrillas. They engaged in a platform of organising the community and demonstrating alternatives to capitalism and the state, but maintained that militancy was necessary by leftists, and they weren't afraid to walk into the county courthouse with guns. They were armed, but only used thier arms in self-defense, and as such did encounter a great amount of support. Yet they were destroyed due to police infilitration, and they still failed to get the support of the average white worker.

No first world armed group has been successful, but a number have tried. If they haven't worked out in the past, why would they work out now? I also fail to see any evidence that any of the above groups radicalized any legitimate number of people, with the exception of the BPP, but even they couldn't radicalize enough. But you're not talking about something as legitimate as the BPP, you're talking about the FARC here in the US, and I just don't see that as being realistic. I wish it was, if it was I'd be out in the hills with a rifle right now.

There are ways to take resistence to a higher level, it doesn't have to involve guns or bombs.

[novemba]

Whoa! This is a bit heavy. Are you ok?

Chyea mang, I&#39;m aight. JUST FUCKIN PISSED....sorry it&#39;s true...I wanna go blow some shit up hahah j/p <_< :o :lol:


I believe he is reffering to Castro, Guevara and the rest of the leaders of the Cuban revolution.

Yup.


If such actions (urban guerrillaism, traditional guerrilla warfare) could be successful, then why haven&#39;t they been in the past?

The groups made mistakes. I&#39;m just trying to figure out why militant groups are already assumed doomed to fail just because of groups in the past. If we should learn anything from them it&#39;s what not to do...I don&#39;t know how many times I&#39;ve heard people say they wish the BPP was still around. Explain to me, theoretically why this groups are doomed for failure? What keeps them from success? Why do you think they fail to inspire the people?

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:08 AM

Zackaria, have you read The Art of War? Do so if you haven&#39;t. It&#39;s good for strategizing; mental battles.

Sun Tzu? Yeah I have...


And even in a "Third World" nation, what does it lead to? Cuba?

Cuba&#39;s fucked up cause of Castro&#39;s abuse of power correct? Don&#39;t you think things would have been different if they absolved power to the people immeadiatly?


you constantly bring up militant actions

I&#39;m a pissed of 16 year old kid that wants to place his anger somewhere that it won&#39;t be wasted. Life fucking sucks...the only thing I got is my hopes of making the world better or else I have nothing else. I&#39;ve abandoned god, I&#39;ve ruined countless relationships with people, including my parents, everything I do is related to politics somehow I really just want to go back to being ignorant and eating my Big Macs and wearing my Nikes and wanting nice things...but knowing what I know now it would torment me and I can&#39;t let the happen, so what am I left with? Without my politics I&#39;m all alone, might as well fucking kill myself, and I&#39;d rather do that in a way were my life isn&#39;t really &#39;wasted&#39; ie do something that would probably get me killed but do damage to everything I stand against...not to mention the fact that I have a short temper which doesn&#39;t help shit...I&#39;m just so pissed, I can&#39;t enjoy the nice things in life anymore because everythings so fucked up.......there really isn&#39;t much to live for anymore without the hope of it getting better.........FUCK

FUCK FUCK FUCK
Well, reread it. :lol:

As far as Cuba, I can&#39;t say whether things would be different or not. Seeing that the revolution was in a pretty much agricultural nation, as was Russia during its revolution, Communism wasn&#39;t going to be the outcome. Though I&#39;m still unsure as to the system in Cuba, I&#39;m not one of these all-for-it Cuba supporters. Nor am I one of those totally-against-it Cuba detractors.

As far as being pissed off... yeah, I totally understand. I&#39;m really pissed off too. But we can&#39;t let that cloud our judgment. We need plan everything out, weigh the consequences and benefits given the current conditions. Seeing the anti-Communist sentiments (thanks to ignorance and propaganda), starting armed conflict now would be suicide, but more importantly, it would be counter-productive to our movement; reinforce these anti-Communist sentiments. We gotta strategize.

I&#39;m just as eager to make something happen now, reading books on guerrilla warfare, but that&#39;s unrealistic where we&#39;re at now. Win the mental battle first. We need support. When we have that, and plenty of it, we can do something truly radical. Right now, it&#39;s about countering propaganda and exposing the flaws and corrupt, exploitative nature of capitalism.

[RASH chris]

You agree that a revolution has to be a mass uprising of the general people.

Urban guerrilla groups are the opposite. They are small groups of extremely radical people who make isolated attacks against the state and capital. They fail to inspire people in the first world because workers in the first world do not have a heightend sense of class consciousness. In the first world capitalism provides a reasonably good life for many people (at the expense of the third world workers). However, it does provide a very shitty life for a lot of other people. The BPP was managing to show those who were negatively effected by capitalism at home that there are alternatives, that is why they were successful. But they did not reach many white workers because many of the white workers did not live in the ghetto, and are part of what Lenin called "the labor aristocracy". Many white workers feel content with capitalism, they might not see it as the best, but they don&#39;t see a reason why they should risk their lives to change it.

It&#39;s important to understand that revolutions are not fought for ideals. They are fought for bread.

[novemba]

Some questions...

What do you think about starting some kind of organization as a means to educate people? Expose what&#39;s wrong with this system, bring them into the light if you will?

If that works and you have a large enough support base, what would you think of arming the people? I&#39;m not talking about a guerrilla group I&#39;m talking about giving them guns and provoking them to rise up. Good idea/ bad idea?

Also, was Che wrong?


Originally posted by Che from Guerrilla Warfare

(2) It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Zackaria+Sep 14 2005, 05:41 PM--> (Zackaria @ Sep 14 2005, 05:41 PM) Some questions...

What do you think about starting some kind of organization as a means to educate people? Expose what&#39;s wrong with this system, bring them into the light if you will?

If that works and you have a large enough support base, what would you think of arming the people? I&#39;m not talking about a guerrilla group I&#39;m talking about giving them guns and provoking them to rise up. Good idea/ bad idea?

Also, was Che wrong?


Che from Guerrilla Warfare

(2) It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them.
[/b]
Che&#39;s quote? Well, unless there is a considerable amount of distrust and anger amongst the people in regards to the state, I don&#39;t see how success could be reached. There was hatred for Batista in Cuba, so the rebels&#39; actions inspired them to join the struggle.

Education organization? Sure.

Arming the people? Similar to the Black Panthers? I don&#39;t really see a problem with that. Of course, they will use such weapons in self-defense. But you&#39;d have to be pretty careful.

[Paradox]

More on Che&#39;s quote:

That&#39;s a violent revolution he&#39;s referring to. Such a revolution would not succeed in a "first world" nation. It&#39;s obviously worked in the "Third World," but in nations such as this one (usa), violence would be something used in self-defense. Again, I don&#39;t see guerrilla tactics proving useful to any great extent in such nations. We must have the overwhelming support of the people. When we have that, the enemies&#39; "advanced weaponry" will be useless against us.

[Donnie]

Like fighting Riot Police, etc? I really don&#39;t see the problem with starting an underground network of revolutionaries to carry out small militant missions to deal damage to the state.
You mean like the Angry Brigade? The Angry Brigade didn&#39;t work too well because they got demonized by the papers.

The best way to get the people conscious is in our current struggles. I.e. at the workplace, on the streets; that’s where the real struggle is and that’s where we need to target. Selling party papers does nothing; fighting bailiffs and building up actual community resistance does.

[RASH chris]

What do you think about starting some kind of organization as a means to educate people? Expose what&#39;s wrong with this system, bring them into the light if you will?

Lots of those exist. That is the goal of every political party and union in every country. Look at the list of political organisations. I&#39;m in the Direct Action Tendency, which contains mostly anarchists. And focuses mostly on action, but is always i nthe process of developing theory, and is reaching out to other groups, like NEFAC, IWW, and WSA.


If that works and you have a large enough support base, what would you think of arming the people? I&#39;m not talking about a guerrilla group I&#39;m talking about giving them guns and provoking them to rise up. Good idea/ bad idea?

Reasonable, though it sounds somewhat Blanquist to me. But either way, that is a very distant goal.

I&#39;ve read that article by Che. It&#39;s allright, but I think as was said above me, that there was already general discontent with the Batista regime, the communists were able to use that to their advantage.

But Che&#39;s quote does not justify armed insurrection in this country, because I would say that none of the conditions necessary for armed insurrection exist. My opinion might have been different in the 60s/70s. But even if I did support armed actions at that time, in retrospect (as history has shown) I still would have been incorrect.

[slim]

I feel that a good tactic to use in the revolution is symbolism.

A symbolic march on the capital (or in the USA&#39;s case, the state capital) would achieve several objectives:

1. The movement would not be construed as underground terrorists by the media so the people will not feel alienated or put off as much.

2. The outright defiance of the state could anger forces loyal to them and could affect their judgement as leaders. i.e. draw them into a premature engagement and alienate them from the people; or even make them flee in the face of the glorious righteousness of the revolutionary forces.

3. Bring the battle to the enemy. This gains ground, puts the enemy immediately on the defensive, good image and most importantly it provides a strategic opportunity to take the capital.

These are just some of the gains I&#39;m sure. The righteousness of the revolution will win the minds of the people and make all those who oppose us not only enemies of the state but enemies of the people and their interests.

Do chara,

Slim. HRA. Sil Anmachadhra.

[RASH chris]

Slim, we do that all the time. Probably twice a year there is a large convergence on Washington DC. I&#39;ve seen/participated in shutting down the entire city.

[slim]

Im talking about DURING the revolution when a revolutionary ARMY marches onto the capital.

[OleMarxco]

Of course it&#39;s not necessary - but it&#39;s HIGHLY SUGGESTED if you don&#39;t want that cop with a club to knock your fuckin&#39; head off ;)

As for&#39;at, why so shocked, Zackaria, of bein&#39; an Anarchist - or close to? It&#39;s not like there&#39;s sumthin&#39; wrong with it, in fact, alot of good trait&#39;s follow...such as ability to see where law&#39;s lawless. What, did you think state-lessness were bad? What kind of Commie are you, a "only if I&#39;m the party of control"-Communist? :P

[novemba]

Lots of those exist. That is the goal of every political party and union in every country

I just don&#39;t feel any of them are progressive enough...or maybe I&#39;m just impatient...

A lot of working class people are sick of this revolutionary speak cause theyre sick of all talk and no action, and I&#39;m sorta agreeing with them because I hear people talk about doing things but not doing anything about it...sometimes talk isn&#39;t good enough and action needs to be takin in order to show the people that you&#39;re serious...I think that&#39;s why the RCP has a growing base because they pass the illusion that theyre actually waging revolution...quite honestly we need to hype the peoples genuine, grassroot revolution as much as the RCP hypes theirs....

[RASH chris]

Dude, the RCP is not actually growing, they&#39;re just as marginal as every other left group in the US. They just act like they&#39;re big and close to revolution. In reality, they&#39;re a joke and probably contain, like every other leftist group, a few thousand members at most.

The workers don&#39;t want action. If they did then they&#39;d be taking it. They&#39;d be on stike, they&#39;d be occupying their workplaces. The workers aren&#39;t sick, they&#39;re not fed up. That&#39;s the problem, we&#39;ve got to point out the flaws, demonstrate the alternative, build the alternatives, defend them, and destroy what remains of the old system. But we haven&#39;t even accomplished the first thing on that list yet. Thats why we need to get active in these organisations and we need to reach out and we need to not only show the problems, but offer the solutions.

Not progressive enough? What are you looking for in a party? I get the feeling that what you&#39;re looking for is a group that is a week away from heading into the mountains with rifles. That group does not exist, and it won&#39;t exist for quite some time. So what we&#39;ve got to do is create an environment where that group can exist.

[novemba]

Not progressive enough? What are you looking for in a party?

I&#39;ll describe exactly what I&#39;m looking for. I would like a group who is comprised completely of lower/middle class working people. I would like a group who has demonstrators at every major protest in the United States. I would like a group who sends me videos and brouchures to distribute to the people in order to show them the flaws and the oppressive system we&#39;re living in. I would like a organization that isn&#39;t just a political party, but also supports cultural things like musicians and artists. I don&#39;t want a organization with a central commitee of old fat rich white dudes sitting around in an office all day, in fact I don&#39;t want a central commitee at all. I want a organization in which every contributes and makes decisions as a single organ. I want an organization where not everything has to be official, and if I want to make my own flyers for distribution I can. I don&#39;t an organization that calls membership a laminated card in my wallet. I want an organization thats grassroots, thats with the people, that&#39;s by the people, that is the people...

[RASH chris]

Many groups fit that discription. I know mine does.


I would like a group who is comprised completely of lower/middle class working people.

I haven&#39;t seen anybody show up to protests in a BMW from my group.


I would like a group who has demonstrators at every major protest in the United States.

I met my party at a protest. Our photo page is filled with protest pictures.


I would like a group who sends me videos and brouchures to distribute to the people in order to show them the flaws and the oppressive system we&#39;re living in.

My party sent be text in the mail with my membership card which we ran off and began distributing.


I would like a organization that isn&#39;t just a political party, but also supports cultural things like musicians and artists.

The New York local endorsed many progressive art demos and concerts.


I don&#39;t want a organization with a central commitee of old fat rich white dudes sitting around in an office all day, in fact I don&#39;t want a central commitee at all. I want a organization in which every contributes and makes decisions as a single organ.

Every single member has a vote on every single issue. Any member is free to raise an issue to be put to vote.


want an organization where not everything has to be official, and if I want to make my own flyers for distribution I can.

Every local is totally free to do what they want so long as it doesn&#39;t go against the principles of unity.


I don&#39;t an organization that calls membership a laminated card in my wallet. I want an organization thats grassroots, thats with the people, that&#39;s by the people, that is the people...

Well we&#39;ve got &#39;em. I think that&#39;s what everybody wants, its just a matter of which group you think is capable of building that. And I think mine is, mainly because we have a lot of affiliations with other groups, especially the IWW, and if there will ever be a revolution in this country, I am firmly convinced the IWW will be at the forefront of it.

Oh, and the point of this wasn&#39;t necessarily to plug my party (though they are obviously my frist choise) but to more generally point out that these organisations do exist, and that they do meet these desires. I&#39;m sure that plenty more groups which meet these desires exist.

[novemba]

I&#39;m sure that plenty more groups which meet these desires exist.

I&#39;m having a hard time finding them cause how they look on their flyers and how they actually are is usually two completely different things.


my group

Care to share? Are you talkin about DAT? If so, what&#39;s the deal with their ties to the SP-USA? Aren&#39;t the SP-USA reformists?

[RASH chris]

The DAT is a collection of mostly anarchists (I think I am the only one who might not be an anarchist, but I don&#39;t really do ism&#39;s that well) who are class struggle minded, and action minded, who are part of the socialist party. But, outside of name, we have little to do with the party and the rest of the party often accuses us of all kinds of wierd things (reverse-trotskyist-entryism tactics).


I&#39;m having a hard time finding them cause how they look on their flyers and how they actually are is usually two completely different things.

I think its important to never join a party or organisation w/o meeting its members and spending some time with them.

[novemba]

I think its important to never join a party or organisation w/o meeting its members and spending some time with them.

See you soon. :lol:

[Red Powers]

Keep in mind that Che was assassinated in the jungles of Bolivia attempting to "spark" a revolution there. The conditions weren&#39;t right, his forces were isolated and they were sitting ducks for the the CIA and its allies. Adventurism is the name given to this kind of premature action.

[slim]

But note that this was after he had sparked revolution in other countries first. It is highly unlikely that the first world countries expect their own people to rise against them.

That is why it cannot fail. That is why it is inevitable.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hey all,
here&#39;s my thoughts on the topic:
Who will the revolution be composed of? The working class? Well who is that?
When we figure this out then we can move to the next question:
If the working class will compose the revolution, how can you hurry this when it requires a whole class action?

In other words, the best (and possibly only) way to speed up a revolution is to educate the people.
- Re-define capitalism, communism, and anarchism.
- Explain the problems, and benefits of each.
- Explain how this effects everyone in their daily lives, and subsequently their childrens.
- Let them decide what they wish to do.

Everyone is a rational person to some extent. They are just ignorant/endoctrinated/uneducated/apathetic/comfortable with their material things.
You can talk to them like you would anyone else, be patient, calm, and controlled, and LISTEN to what they have to say and address their statements.

This is the best way (in my humble opinion) to speed up a revolution, and is our duty as revolutionaries.

-- August

[poster_child]

The only way a revolution can happen is if the middle class becomes discontented. They become sick of doing the dirty work of the elite, and revolt. How to speed up the process:
Make this happen. It has to get worse before it gets better.

[saint max]

I think it&#39;s ironic that leftists refer to their organizations as &#39;parties&#39; and SP-USA fronts are called "Direct Action Tendency." If there is representation, it&#39;s not direct action, and if it&#39;s a symbolic deed it probably has a symbolic effect.

Angry 16 yr old, don&#39;t swallow the bullshit. The World is a horror show of alienation and boredom and oppression. And The Left is just the other side of the coin to civil society. Your rage is yours, and is totaly valid--liberate it.

cheers,
-max

[More Fire for the People]

The immediate objective of the class-conscious vanguard of the international working-class movement, i.e., the Communist parties, groups and trends, is to be able to lead the broad masses (who are still, for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention-ridden) to their new position, or, rather, to be able to lead, not only their own party but also these masses in their advance and transition to the new position.

This statement by Lenin generally sums up what the true task of a vanguard party of the working masses is to do. The vanguard party is to empower all of the masses to reach the new position of power, not simply the elite of the workers. The vanguard party is necessary for the revolution as the dictatorship of the proletariat can only be reached through the empowered masses that are normally “inert, dormant, and convention-ridden.”


Second—win over and bring under the leadership of the Communist Party, the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat, not only the entire proletariat, or its vast majority, but all who labour and are exploited by capital; educate, organise, train and discipline them in the actual course of a supremely bold and ruthlessly firm struggle against the exploiters; wrest this vast majority of the population in all the capitalist countries from dependence on the bourgeoisie;...

The role of the vanguard is to empower the masses, it does so by a process to “educate, organize, train, and discipline” the whole of the exploited classes against the exploiters, whether they be peasant, worker, or serf. Without these values, a revolution is impossible as it becomes fractured, distorted, and criminalized.


Only the Communist Party, if it is really the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if it really comprises all the finest representatives of that class, if it consists of fully conscious and staunch Communists who have been educated and steeled by the experience of a persistent revolutionary struggle, and if it has succeeded in linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its class and, through it, with the whole mass of the exploited, and in completely winning the confidence of this class and this mass—only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in a final, most ruthless and decisive struggle against all the forces of capitalism

That is a corrupt quasi-bourgeoisie must not rule the vanguard party in order to function but it must be deeply connected to the masses but its leadership must be that of those who are adamant about socialism and have enough self-discipline to commit to the revolution.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most determined and revolutionary form of the proletariat’s class struggle against the bourgeoisie. This struggle can be successful only when the most revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat has the backing of the overwhelming majority of the proletariat.

This quote by Lenin answers your postulate about the masses needed for an uprising. The Leninists do not reject a mass revolution but believe for a mass revolution to be successful it must be unified under the leadership of the Communist Party.


My major question with this is, what do you think we could do to speedy up that process?
In preperation for the revolution we must,
1. Establish a Communist Party worthy of its name operating under the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
2. Prepare the masses for a revolution so that when the material conditions for a revolution do occur the masses are not caught off guard.
3. Organize as much as possible against the state before material conditions arise for a revolution.


Don&#39;t you think we could provoke revolution somehow?
In short, no a revolution cannot be provoked until the economic situation for revolution has arised (such as in South America, parts of Africa, and parts of Europe) and the Communist Party is prepared for revolution (or otherwise the revolution goes to squat without guidance).


What do you think about militant uprisings to radicalize the people?
Yes&#33; In a sense, even when material conditions are not quite ready for revolution the empowering of the masses creates a situation where a revolution is possible.

[RASH chris]

I think it&#39;s ironic that leftists refer to their organizations as &#39;parties&#39; and SP-USA fronts are called "Direct Action Tendency." If there is representation, it&#39;s not direct action, and if it&#39;s a symbolic deed it probably has a symbolic effect.

What the fuck are you talking about? What else would you call leftist organizations which seek to sieze political power other than party?

SP-USA "front" what does that mean? I&#39;m a member of the Direct Action Tendency, what does representation have to do with direct action? Do you know what direct action is? Do you know anything about the Direct Action Tendency?

If you have a problem or want to debate something then actually debate it, state facts, make an arguement. Otherwise you&#39;re just taking up space on the board.

[TheReadMenace]

They will be ready to revolt when the material conditions exist. We cannot make these material conditions exist, as it has to do with the evolution of capital. The only way to "speed up" the process would be to somehow find some way to get capitalism to evolve quicker. Good luck.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but isn&#39;t that a bit fatalist?

Personally, I think that the whole world is ripe for revolution. The material conditions do exist, fuck the evolution of capital, the chance is ours for the taking.

BUT....

Not everyone is aware of the existence of these conditions.

In my opinion, the vanguard can&#39;t just go out and start a war. They have to educate the masses, like Diego said, and spur the people to realise their own potential, and the potential of working towards a better world.


I&#39;m a pissed of 16 year old kid that wants to place his anger somewhere that it won&#39;t be wasted...

Man, I totally know how you feel. Sometimes, I can&#39;t control it, and I end up breaking windows or sabotaging workplaces or doing something else along those lines. It isn&#39;t a bad thing, and it releases a bit of tension, but it doesn&#39;t completely serve its purpose. Throwing bricks through windows with notes, or doing grafitti, or anything like that, reaches only a few people with open minds, but often pisses everyone else off.

It is about patience. I know it sucks, and I know this world right now sucks. I&#39;ve often felt that there isn&#39;t anything to do but lay down and die and just get it over with. It sucks, man. It&#39;s hard to enjoy things when you know that someone is dying and you can&#39;t do a single fucking thing about it right now. And what&#39;s worse, once you&#39;ve tasted the fruit of Eden, you can never go back. Knowledge bears its price, my friend.

But persevere&#33; We will win this one some day, I can promise you that.

Andrew

[CaptianAnarchy]

Swords
arm everyone with a blade first then move up to guns

[Decolonize The Left]

In preperation for the revolution we must,
1. Establish a Communist Party worthy of its name operating under the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
2. Prepare the masses for a revolution so that when the material conditions for a revolution do occur the masses are not caught off guard.
3. Organize as much as possible against the state before material conditions arise for a revolution.

This is good but the 1st point is weak. Why establish a party which will have control over others? That will only breed greed, corruption, and inequality. We&#39;ve seen what happens when this occurs, the revolution falls into turmoil and dies. Marxism-Leninism is only a form of organization where some people can take power over others and is inherently weak.

We can only educate ourselves and those around us to the ideas of the Left and hope to create a sort of domino effect where more and more will realize the sad situation of capitalism.

-- August

[Gnosis]

We do not need to fight, there need not be war, this revolution needs more to be non-violent than any other revolution in history.
The answer to why that is so is evident in all areas of political, religeous, and social reality.
If we were to start a fight now, we would be helping the government kill off some opposition while at the same time learn how to better kill off, or prevent, opposition in the future.
What we need to do is individualize, not form organizations.
We need to each do our own part in the revolution independently of each other but alligned in the fact that we are all working toward the same goel.
And that goel is a change in the environment of the external mind.
That goel is the fall of the system, whatever that means to the individual.

If you feel like you need to kill people, do so quietly.
Work your art in silence, do not tell anyone what you are doing, keep it for yourself, do not show the world what you are doing.
If ever asked of your motivation, do not give the government more propaganda to use against the revolutionaries by saying you are one of them.
Killing is not a revolutionary act.
I do not like the idea of killing in the name of revolution for it seems to me a contradiction.
I also do not like the idea of overpopulation, and I recognize a severe need for a reduction in the volume of the masses of society.
And so I have come to this conclusion: I will not kill, but I will not stop others from killing if killing be their will.
I will not tell others to kill, but I will not disapprove of those who kill.
I will not lead an army, but I will recognize the positive ways in which the reduction of the numbers of people in society will benefit my own evolutionary efforts.

I only ask those who wish to kill to do so quietly, and if they must organize to do so on a small scale, because I feel like their efforts will be worth while if only they don&#39;t make themselves out to be anything more than a clean up crew making way for the new age.
I feel the "revolutionaries" of the past made only one mistake, and that is they told everyone they had a reason for killing, and that reason was revolution, and that is why people so fear revolution now.
The government will not hesitate when it comes to distorting the face of the revolution and making it out to be more frightening than it should be.

Any effort to minimise suffering and fear will be greatly appreciated by thse whose job it is teach the new way of the human consciousness.

Those who feel as though they are destined for battle and wish to kill bodies should do so, but leave the minds of the people they leave alive to those who feel they are here not to kill them but to teach them.

There is not a need for killers who teach or teachers who kill, but there are killers, and there are teachers, and it is my belief that they are both working toward the same goel (transformation of society), but should remain seperate from each other as they are not the same organization.

The killers can help make the teachers look better if they would not claim to be one of them.

And the better the teachers look, the more people will listen to what they have to say.

The more people listen to what the right teachers have to say, the better off the social change will eventually bring the world to be.

If the killers and the teachers remain seperate entities with no ties between them except for the cause (the social/political/religious environment of today) of their actions and the understanding that they are working toward the same goel and therefore need not oppose eachother, then the existing government will have a harder time defeating the movement then it has ever had before in history.

The government does not expect a quiet killing machine which makes way for, but is not affiliated with, a much louder, much more mental teaching tool using its mind to bring change in consciousness as the killers bring change in the physical make up of society.

Killers stick to killing.
Teachers stick to teaching.

If anyone asks you motivation, tell them you killed because you felt like it, no other reason is necessary, no other reason will suffice.

If your will be the realization and in effect the spreading of peace and love, and someone asks you your motivation, tell them you do so because you feel like it, no other reason is necessary, no other reason will suffice.

Pure will, selflessness, action without any reason other than the performance itself.

We need not call it revolution, but it needs to be revolutionary.
In fact, calling it a revolution is not right at all.
Not only will the majority of people shy away from such an idea, but killing and teaching peace are not anything new.
Calling this a revolution is false.
No one will follow this revolution as they have "seen it all before".
The word revolution is a joke, it will not be taken seriously.
There are other more respectable words one may use which are synonymus with revolution.
Evolution, transformation, change, metamorphosis, shift, just to name the few I can think of right now without looking it up.

I looked up synonyms for the word "revolution" on Dictionary.com and this is what I found:

Main Entry: revolution
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: major change
Synonyms: anarchy, bloodshed, cabal, coup, coup d&#39;etat, crime, debacle, destruction, disorder, foment, guerrilla activity, innovation, insubordination, insurgency, metamorphosis, mutiny, outbreak, overthrow, overturn, plot, radical change, rebellion, reformation, reformation, reversal, revolt, rising, row, shake-up, shift, strife, strike, subversion, transformation, tumult, turbulence, turmoil, turnover, underground activity, unrest, upheaval, upheaval, uprising, uprising, uproar, upset, violence

You see? Even the dictionary has a negetive view of "revolution".
But this transformation does not need to be negetive, it does not need to be violent.
It can be as smooth or as turbulent as we allow it to be.
I choose not to be violence.
I choose to be peace.

I feel as though if I become peace, if I can bring peace and love, trust and joy into my consciousness and keep them there, I can accurately teach others how to do the same, i can give them my peace as the more I give the more I recieve.
And the more I recieve, the more I have to give.

If a large ammount of people took on similar roles, and at the same time, a large ammount of people took on the roles of liquidators of the present society and all that term allows, then we might be able to make some real progress when it comes to radically changing the state of the human consciousness and the state of the human society and environment.

But I must again warn against the peacemakers and consciousness changers integrating with the killers and liquidators.

Though they are the same and they are working toward the same goel, they must not be allowed to be viewed as being part of the same political organization.

The end of the liquidation period must be allowed to arrive.
The killers must some day die, their race never to be born again unless for some reason people are faced with a similar challenge.
Though their work may be honorable, they must never be honored.
The killers must die and be forgotten as they did not live in the name of peace and they do not symolize the kind of person which should be allowed to flourish within society.
Killing others is not something we should promote as it is not what we wish to allow to survive in the coming age.
People will be taught the importance of taking responsability for the size of the human population and not allowing it to become out of control like it is today.
There will be no regime to impress upon these people what is right and what is wrong.
There will be no large government of today.
There will be elders, wise men, respected members of smaller societies whom the others listen to because they understand the importance of doing so.
There will be seers and healers and philosophers and visionaries and they will be recognized and listened to, but not followed or glorified.
And they will not want to rule, but they will exist, for that is their nature.
And the world will be returned to the earthly state it existed as before the europeans went insane and attempted to destroy it.
We will live in similar ways as the native americans, but without the war and with different technology.
Tribes of people, living for themselves and he sake of their small "family".
Each tribe will have its way of going about the living process, each tribe will have its own rituals and opinions, and those rituals and opinions will be characterized by those people which make up the tribe and the resulting ideology of the experiences they have encountered as individuals.

We will always remember the darkness, but we should not allow it to overshadow the light.
But too much light can blind ones eyes and so I propose a sort of healthy balance between the two be made a reality.

How can we attain a balance between light and darkness?
Is it by remember the darkness but focusing on th light?
I ask you this question as I am unsure.

[More Fire for the People]

Marxism-Leninism is only a form of organization where some people can take power over others and is inherently weak.
:rolleyes:

Do you even know how a vanguard party operating under Marxism-Leninism, operates? The guiding principle of method in a communist-workers party is democratic centralism. That is all discussions are democratic in nature and that all decisions are made by the masses. Once decisions have been made they are carried out by the elected, recallable, and responsbile leaders of the vanguard party.

Without this process, all actions become random and unorganized and there is no effeciency, and without efficiency there is no success of the revolution. Every succesful socialist revolution works so: Lenin and Russia, Mao and China, Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam, Cuba and Fidel, Chavez and Venezuela, ... the list could go on quite a bit more if we to gloss over the errors of other socialsit leaders.

[Decolonize The Left]

That is all discussions are democratic in nature and that all decisions are made by the masses. Once decisions have been made they are carried out by the elected, recallable, and responsbile leaders of the vanguard party.

Indeed, but this still does not deny the fact that you are giving a group of people control over others, and this is inherently destructive. What is to say those people won&#39;t take advantage of their power? The people will recall them? What if they don&#39;t know it&#39;s happening? What if it&#39;s too late?
It is better to stick to the term "equality" all the way through than make exceptions where they are not needed.

Gnosis: Good to hear from you again, it&#39;s been a while since I last posted (I;m back at college and busy).
Anyway, on to the topic:
Firstly, I&#39;d like to say I entertained the idea of killers/teachers as distinctive forms of revolutionary method, but I find this way will require large amounts of time to undergo full transformation, time which we might not have.

How can we attain a balance between light and darkness?
Is it by remember the darkness but focusing on th light?
I ask you this question as I am unsure.
Allow me a bit of development:
The darkness was the foundation of light. Without darkness there can be no light, for if all is light, what is all? Therefore they cannot exist without the other. Hence they both must be present at all times. Darkness need not be active to be present, it merely needs to contrast the light in the time.
How can we obtain balance? Just as the day is balanced, so our lives shall remember the darkness as the beginning of light (dawn emerges from the dark of night), and the light shall be the time for activity (just as it is today). From the light we shall live, produce, interact, be alive and well. From the dark we shall rest from the activities of the day, the dark is always present even if it is not used. The night will always remain, but it does not bring violence unless you go out and act it in such a fashion. In other words, the darkness will always be present and ready, but will not need to be used, as the light will suffice for all.

Does this help?

Cheers,
August

[More Fire for the People]

Indeed, but this still does not deny the fact that you are giving a group of people control over others, and this is inherently destructive.
*laughs* If leadership was inherently destructive wouldn&#39;t we still be living on the savana as apes? Leaders brought forth migration to caves, invented tools, and hunted for food that improved our intellect.


What is to say those people won&#39;t take advantage of their power?
Two key concepts,
1. Workmen&#39;s wages for all leaders;
2. Direct election and recallibility;


The people will recall them? What if they don&#39;t know it&#39;s happening? What if it&#39;s too late?
An independent congress of media workers would run television news, radio news, and newspapers. Censorship would not be possible for the workers and their media organs, thus all workers would be informed about events in the nation and world.

The question is, if there are bad leaders, who won&#39;t recall them? who won&#39;t know what&#39;s happening?

[novemba]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 4 2005, 05:05 PM
Workmen&#39;s wages for all leaders
Power is money.

[Gnosis]

So there need not be a balancing because the balance always exists whether we attempt to manipulate it or not.
The balance exists because there is no imbalance...
I like that.

Light is darkness. Darkness is light.

A matter of opinion?

[Rawthentic]

hey people, im 15 and live in californias central coast. i want to know if there are any communist or socialist organizations that i can join. please reply somebody. thanks comrades

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:58 AM
hey people, im 15 and live in californias central coast. i want to know if there are any communist or socialist organizations that i can join. please reply somebody. thanks comrades
There is a big ass list right here:http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31615


But take my advice, cause I&#39;ve been there. Don&#39;t just go and join any group, do a lot of reading first. Read essential theory pieces from every point of view. I mean, maoist, trotskyist, anarchist, social democrat, DeLeonist, council communist, do lots of reading before you join an organization.

After all that reading an discussing decide what you believe, and it will be very easy to pick a group. Otherwise you will likely end up in a group which you will eventually come to disagree with.

[Gnosis]

Reading as many books as possible on every subject you find relevence in is advisable also from my point of view.
In addition to reading, I suggest keeping a notebook of your own thoughts, theories, experiences, and dreams so that you have a written record of yourself to refer to when attempting to monitor your own growth process.
Also, I suggest meditating using any means which suits you best.
That could mean sitting alone in the dark in the closest form to silence, staring at a wall, a red-lit room, looking at a candle, watiching the stars at night, playing with and meditating on the meanings of Tarot cards, or (my favorite) staring at a black dot about the size of a quarter drawn on a piece of blank, white paper.
These and other mental exercises are a way of focusing your mind, directing your energy, or becoming more able to see the symbolic, spiritual nature of all which is your reality.
The tarot cards may seem a bit "new age", but I assure you, if you choose the right pack, you will not be dissatisfied unless you truely do not care for the whole business of the tarot.
My deck is the deck of Thoth, of Egyptian tarot. It was formulated by Aleister Cowley and illustrated by Lady Frieda Harris.
The book of Thoth is incredibly inspirational and deals with much more than the cards themselves.
It deals with the entire structure of the universe and its representation as the quabalistic Tree of Life.
I just got the book two days ago, already I have read the entire thing.
I have had the deck itself for about a year.
It is suffice to say that the deck is nothing without the book and vice versa.

I suggest knowing who you consider yourself to be, knowing fully what it means for your will to be purely balanced, knowing what you consider your role in life to be before joining any group and subscirbing to ideals which may not be best suited for you.
Any exercise which helps you discover your true purpose in life will ultimately help you find your true calling, and your true alliances.
You and those who are your true alliances are already a classification all your own, if you have yet to come together and form your whole, then you&#39;ve still got lessons to learn before it may be time for you to be one.
Be patient, you will find your place, your group will form, let it happen on its own, if it is to be then it surely will.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

RAF/Baader-Meinhoff-Took on lots of actions. Were probably the most militant urban guerrilla group. But they again, did not incite a mass uprising, and they eventually fell apart when they realised they had no mass support.

See: "Guns, Death, Terror" edited by Jack Sargeant. In it, he talks about a survey taken in West Germany during the hieght of the RAF&#39;s activities in which 1 in 5 Germans under age 30 said they were sympathetic to RAF; and 1 in 10 Northern Germans said they would harbor RAF members if asked.

He also talks about growing demonstrations in support of RAF members captured and put on trial.

[Jesus Christ!]

This is what confuses me about leftists. We talk a big game and speak of how socitety could be beter after a revolution and all this. But when it comes to action or the possibility of a real revolution all we can come up with is that we can&#39;t speed up the process? we need to sit around and wait for it to magically appear? than what&#39;s the point of being revolutionary leftists? If our job is to sti around and wait for a revolution to just start, what are we to due until then? Sit around and talk to each other on a message board? become reformists? try to help the capitalist explotation along so people grow against it sooner? please someone tell me.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:30 AM
My major question with this is, what do you think we could do to speedy up that process? Don&#39;t you think we could provoke revolution somehow? What do you think about militant uprisings to radicalize the people?

Some might say we can&#39;t speedy it up, but people are/will continue to get "fucked up the ass", if you will, every day...so...the faster the better&#33;

What do you think?
Well, you could allways try to set up an anarchist/communist commune and make it work. People will see that and some will say: hey that&#39;s nice, I want to be a part of that too.

Of course, it&#39;s a lot harder then that: you have to find a good place, and you will obviously be harassed by the authorities, but it might work. (see Christiania)

EDIT: I think I&#39;ve answered your question too, Jesus Christ&#33;, you can try to form small communities with like-minded people.