Against Violent Revolution

[patrickbeverley]

Gandhi:

Violent means will give violent freedom. That would be a menace to the world and to India herself.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.

Martin Luther King:

Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.

Marxist doctrine dictates that violent revolution is necessary to overthrow an oppressor. But nonviolent protest offers an alternative route to justice, one in which those fighting for justice do so without hurting those perpetrating injustice. Often there is a great cost, as oppressors frequently resort to violence against the nonviolent oppressed. But nonviolent resistance ultimately succeeds where violent resistance fails, as violent resistance only intensifies mutual hatred, while nonviolent resistance promotes an ideal of brotherhood and fairness.
Please do not confuse nonviolence with nonresistance. Nonviolent protesters resist by refusing to co-operate with unjust systems and by refusing to comply with unjust orders, and it works. Nonviolence got the British out of India. Nonviolence passed the 1963 Civil Rights Act. It continues to be the most powerful and effective way to overcome an oppressive system.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 11:19 PM
Gandhi:

Violent means will give violent freedom.
Or violent dictatorship. Only successful violent revolution in creating less authority rather than more or the same level of authoritarianism was the American revolution.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:22 AM
Only successful violent revolution in creating less authority rather than more or the same level of authoritarianism was the American revolution.
The American Revolution is an exception to Gandhi's rule about violent means. They waged war, they won, they implemented democracy, or something approaching democracy. However, I think it was the exception, not the rule.

[Freedom Works]

The only 2 justifiable wars in American history are the Revolution and the War Between the States. Both were defensive wars. One suceeded and led to more freedom, the other failed, and started down the path of big government.

[black magick hustla]

Ghandi just replaced the british ruling class with another indian one. Same classes, same system.

He did literally nothing.

[Ownthink]

Oh God, not another one of these.

Yes, Violent Revolution is necessary.

"Revolution - The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another."

You think the Imperialist governments are gonna surrender without a fight? Nope. Violence, while unfortunate, is necessary.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:07 PM


"Revolution - The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another."


I don't want to replace a government with another.

[Rojo]

I think a peacful revolution is preferable to a violent one. Violence creates more animosity between the two sides usually causing more problems than it solves.

However having that said if there is no other way then yes violent revolution is necessary. A peaceful revolution against an American backed dictatorship would be twisted into something evil by the American propagandists and would most likely accomplish nothing.

[Black Dagger]

But nonviolent protest offers an alternative route to justice,

No, it offers a route to reformism at best and slaughter of the non-violent 'revolutionaries' at worst. That's history, non-violence has never acheived the triumph of the working class over the capitalist class- that is what communism is about, it's not about 'switching' domestic rulers i.e. in India, it's not about attempting to legislate equality i.e. the civil rights bill, it's about abolishing capitalism and the bourgeois state. Such a huge feat has never been achieved by non-violent means, precisely because class war is the biggest threat to the ruling class imaginable. Non-violent marches and sit-ins etc. do not threaten the ruling class, so their response is measured, and a few reforms are offered to silence the dissent. But their response to a direct attack on their position as owners and controllers of the means of production will be very different (as shown by history)- the capitalist class will do whatever they can to hold on to their power and wealth- and this includes dispensing with democracy and instituting military-police-state tactics to supress dissent.
The capitalist class faced with a revolution of the working class is like a cornered animal, it will do anything in its power to survive. And as such we must be ready to do whatever we must in order to ensure our survival and the abolition of capitalism.



one in which those fighting for justice do so without hurting those perpetrating injustice.

Class war is a war of self-defence. If those opposing a revolution wish to submit without violence- and leave- than they should not be met with violence, but anyone who attempts to subvert or actively oppose a revolution need to met with whatever force is necessary.



But nonviolent resistance ultimately succeeds where violent resistance fails, as violent resistance only intensifies mutual hatred, while nonviolent resistance promotes an ideal of brotherhood and fairness.

Violent resistance succeeds where nonviolent resistance fails, that is it actually makes a revolution! It smashes capitalism, it smashes the state, it crushes any pro-capitalist counter-revolutionary force- non violenct resistance can do none of these things- not one. This is not to say that violent means are always the most effective or should be our first course of action, but its naive to think that nonviolence can achieve the dramatic social change that communists desire- if violence proves to be necessary (and history has shown that it will)- then we must be prepared to use violence to obtain our freedom, and to resist those who would kill and enslave us.

Moreover, class war is not about 'brotherhood' or 'fairness'- i don't give a fuck about the capitalist class or anyone who supports counter-revolution, i.e. the continued opression of working people. I don't want to be 'brothers' (or 'sisters') with fascists or people who accumulate wealth by sucking it out those who create it.



Nonviolent protesters resist by refusing to co-operate with unjust systems and by refusing to comply with unjust orders

Unfortunately 'refusing' not to 'co-operate' with capitalist hegemony does nothing to actually change capitalist control of the means of production- nothing at all.



, and it works.

Give me one example where capitalism and the bourgeois state have been overthrown by non-violent means and socialism or the makings of, being established.



Nonviolence got the British out of India.

Actually, the British left India, but nice try, and the violent resistance to British imperialism in the country helped this process a long. The whole benevolent Britain grants India independance (and partition!) is an imperialist PR exercise- the fact is Britain was no longer making money enough money in India- and the 'colony' was unsustainable. It's naive to argue that it was the 'non-violence' that got them to leave, because in reality British imperialism could have (obviously) seen that phase out- why? Because non-violence in no way threatens ruling class hegemony. You're giving them complete control of the situation, hoping that they're 'see the light' and 'play nice', and what? Abolish themselves?



Nonviolence passed the 1963 Civil Rights Act.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with assent of militant black-nationalist movements within the US, or rising international criticism (UN)- public relations disasters. And what did this Act achieve any? Paper rights? Paper equality? Black people have 'civil rights' but still suffer like all working class people in the US- under capitalist exploitation. Communism is not about 'gaining' 'civil rights' it's about taking the 'rights' we want! We want control over our own lives, our workplaces, we don't want to live in wage slavery, we don't want our state or police to opress us, we want a stateless classless society, we want communim!



It continues to be the most powerful and effective way to overcome an oppressive system.

False. It is a technique that has worked some-times, in achieving conservative reform. Non-violence has never achieved a radical transformation of society.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:38 AM
Ghandi just replaced the british ruling class with another indian one. Same classes, same system.

He did literally nothing.
Utterly untrue.

Because of Gandhi, Indian people now vote for their own government.

Because of Gandhi, India is no longer ruled from abroad by a power that considers its citizens "second-class".

Because of Gandhi, members of the ruling "brahmin" caste met with "untouchables" for the very first time to discuss Civil Rights.

Is that "literally nothing"?

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 30 2005, 09:05 AM
Give me one example where capitalism and the bourgeois state have been overthrown by non-violent means and socialism or the makings of, being established.
I can't. But I can give you numerous examples of places where "capitalism and the bourgeois state" have had to concede to the forces of justice and implement a fairer society because their opposition used nonviolent means. In Britain, strikes and demonstrations abolished the poll tax, implemented the minimum wage, got votes for women ...

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:07 AM
"Revolution - The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another."
"Election - where one government replaces another by democratic means"

[bcbm]

But nonviolent resistance ultimately succeeds where violent resistance fails, as violent resistance only intensifies mutual hatred, while nonviolent resistance promotes an ideal of brotherhood and fairness.

This is false. By your own examples, Indian and American society should be full of brotherhood and fairness, due to the nonviolent [sic] nature of the Indian and Civil Rights struggles. In both cases, there is quite a bit of animosity towards other groups: Muslims in India (look up the history of communal riots) and Blacks in the US. Actually, most non-whites in the US.


Nonviolence got the British out of India.

No it didn't.


Nonviolence passed the 1963 Civil Rights Act.

No it didn't.


The American Revolution is an exception to Gandhi's rule about violent means. They waged war, they won, they implemented democracy, or something approaching democracy.

Calling that war a revolution is insulting. The war was waged over where their tax dollars were sent and once the Americans one, they changed very little. The new government was basically things that had already been implemented in the colonies before they got rebellous. The same people in power in the colonies before the revolution were more or less in power afterwards. And anyway, we all know how this turned out...


The only 2 justifiable wars in American history are the Revolution and the War Between the States. Both were defensive wars. One suceeded and led to more freedom, the other failed, and started down the path of big government.

I fail to see how a war fought essentially on the principle of keeping slaves was justifiable.


Because of Gandhi, Indian people now vote for their own government.

Because of Gandhi, India is no longer ruled from abroad by a power that considers its citizens "second-class".

Because of Gandhi, members of the ruling "brahmin" caste met with "untouchables" for the very first time to discuss Civil Rights.

Stop hero worshipping Gandhi. None of those things could've occured without the work of many, many people and violent means were certainly used by Indians struggling for freedom. Bhagat Singh?


In Britain, strikes and demonstrations abolished the poll tax

What? You don't remember the Poll Tax riots?


"Election - where one government replaces another by democratic means"

You've got to be kidding me.

[Black Dagger]

I can't.

Then why are you here? Why are we even having this discussion? As a communist my primary goals are abolition of capitalism and the bourgeois state, are you saying that non-violent means cannot achieve these ends? If so, what is their value to us as communists?



But I can give you numerous examples of places where "capitalism and the bourgeois state" have had to concede to the forces of justice and implement a fairer society because their opposition used nonviolent means.

Here's the problem, i don't want a 'fairer society' i want a stateless classless society, if you non-violence can't actually deliver anything meaningful, ie. the abolition of capitalism, it should not be the governing philosophy of any communist.
Don't you want the abolition of capitalism and the state? If so, surely you must concede that violent means are the only realistic means we have in acheiving this goal?

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 30 2005, 01:32 PM

Nonviolence got the British out of India.

No it didn't.


Nonviolence passed the 1963 Civil Rights Act.

No it didn't.
Explain please.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 30 2005, 01:40 PM
i don't want a 'fairer society'
Then why are you here?

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 30 2005, 01:40 PM
Don't you want the abolition of capitalism and the state?
Yes, but not if it leads to dictatorship and a police state, which you must concede violent revolution frequently does.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:08 PM
"Election - where one government replaces another by democratic means"
Which is exactly what we do NOT want: we want a stateless, classless society WITHOUT a government that tells you what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
Do you really think the government would even let us participate in elections if we say we are against the forming of a government? Nobody can be that stupid, can they? So non-violence is worthless to us as a way of achieving our goals of complete freedom, and (an armed) revolution is the only way. Sometimes, you just need guns. Think of what would've happened if there hadn't been any Cuban armed forces when the US invaded the Bay of Pigs? Although I doubt you would pity that..

[bcbm]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Oct 30 2005, 06:42 AM--> (patrickbeverley @ Oct 30 2005, 06:42 AM)
black banner black [email protected] 30 2005, 01:32 PM

Nonviolence got the British out of India.

No it didn't.


Nonviolence passed the 1963 Civil Rights Act.

No it didn't.
Explain please. [/b]
Why the British left India has been explained once in this thread already, by Black Dagger:

"Actually, the British left India, but nice try, and the violent resistance to British imperialism in the country helped this process a long. The whole benevolent Britain grants India independance (and partition!) is an imperialist PR exercise- the fact is Britain was no longer making money enough money in India- and the 'colony' was unsustainable. It's naive to argue that it was the 'non-violence' that got them to leave, because in reality British imperialism could have (obviously) seen that phase out- why? Because non-violence in no way threatens ruling class hegemony."

As for the Civil Rights Act, there was plenty of violence prior to that, though not in an organized fashion. It was the threat of massive violence that forced the government into action, and gave leaders like King their prestige. They liked King, because they didn't want to have to deal with someone like Malcolm X.

[BuyOurEverything]

Because of Gandhi, members of the ruling "brahmin" caste met with "untouchables" for the very first time to discuss Civil Rights.

And got nowhere. Also, Gandhi, supported Hitler. Furthermore, getting the British out of India was not much of a task, they were already trying to get out. Gandhi's real goal was to unite the Hindus and Muslims, in which he was a self admitted failure. There's plenty more none to flattering shit on Gandhi if you actually do research.

As for MLK, the only reason the Civil Rights Bill passed, was because of the massive race riots. King and been putting along with his non violent movement for quite some time before riots erupted and forced the government to pass the bill.

Also, say what you want about the Russian and Cuban revolutions but both were violent and both dramatically improved the conditions of the majority of people in those countries. 99 percent of all revolutions are violent. There are special cases where non violence is an appropriate means, it is by no means a universal option.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by RedFaction+Oct 30 2005, 01:51 PM--> (RedFaction @ Oct 30 2005, 01:51 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 12:08 PM
"Election - where one government replaces another by democratic means"
Which is exactly what we do NOT want: we want a stateless, classless society WITHOUT a government that tells you what to do, when to do it and how to do it. [/b]
What you describe is an anarchistic society. You make it sound good, but it would not work in real life - because without government and laws, immoral actions have no consequence. How many people actually want to live in a society which does not even try to stop rape, destruction and murder? I would like to see more social freedom, and I don't want a police state, but a lawless society is an impractical and useless idea.


Sometimes, you just need guns. Think of what would've happened if there hadn't been any Cuban armed forces when the US invaded the Bay of Pigs? Although I doubt you would pity that.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said nations shouldn't defend themselves. I just believe that nonviolence is a more powerful force for social change than violence.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:09 PM
Also, Gandhi, supported Hitler.
Prove it.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Oct 31 2005, 12:11 AM--> (patrickbeverley @ Oct 31 2005, 12:11 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:51 PM

[email protected] 30 2005, 12:08 PM
"Election - where one government replaces another by democratic means"
Which is exactly what we do NOT want: we want a stateless, classless society WITHOUT a government that tells you what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
What you describe is an anarchistic society. [/b]
well yes... he is an anarchist after all :)


You make it sound good, but it would not work in real life - because without government and laws, immoral actions have no consequence. How many people actually want to live in a society which does not even try to stop rape, destruction and murder? I would like to see more social freedom, and I don't want a police state, but a lawless society is an impractical and useless idea.


firstly, nowhere did BD mention the absence of 'laws' - in fact, if you actually knew what an anarchistic society is rather than going off what you've been fed through mass media and mainstream thought you'd realise that anarchism is not about lawlessness, or chaos, or whatever.

[BuyOurEverything]

Prove it.

OK. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

Go down to the 'On the West' section, look at quotes 4, 5, and 6.

Also, I would appreciate it if you replied to my other points.

[patrickbeverley]

Actually, it's far from clear whether Gandhi actually did support Hitler. Quote 5 in the section you referred me to sounds anti-Semitic in the extreme, but in fact in context what Gandhi meant seems to have been more a suggestion that German Jews follow his own tactic of nonviolent resistance - although I think in this case he may have been talking crap for once.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 30 2005, 03:19 PM
firstly, nowhere did BD mention the absence of 'laws' - in fact, if you actually knew what an anarchistic society is rather than going off what you've been fed through mass media and mainstream thought you'd realise that anarchism is not about lawlessness, or chaos, or whatever.
Know of somewhere I can find out what anarchism actually is?

[rioters bloc]

wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Pacifism) is always a good start, or just google anarchism. at the bottom and on the side of that wikipedia page youll find links to other sites/articles about anarchism. if youre interested in marxism, click that, or pacifism etc. theres some individualist anarchism stuff which is really not cool - same as the 'anarchocapitalism' crap.

edit: and this (http://flag.blackened.net/index.shtml)

[violencia.Proletariat]

so you support a peaceful revolution by idolizing someone who organized indians to join the fight in ww1? (gandhi)


and here is a good intro to anarchism

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...whatis_toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:09 PM
Also, say what you want about the Russian and Cuban revolutions but both were violent and both dramatically improved the conditions of the majority of people in those countries.
Perhaps initially, but in Russia it was only a few short years after the revolution that Stalin took power and killed 20 million Russians, decimating his army so badly that another 20 million died in World War 2.

Cuba is a better example of the efficacy of violent revolution, but the Cuban revolution did install a dictator - hardly an ideal outcome.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Oct 29 2005, 11:25 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Oct 29 2005, 11:25 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 12:22 AM
Only successful violent revolution in creating less authority rather than more or the same level of authoritarianism was the American revolution.
The American Revolution is an exception to Gandhi's rule about violent means. They waged war, they won, they implemented democracy, or something approaching democracy. However, I think it was the exception, not the rule. [/b]
That was my point, sorry if I caused confusion.

[CrazyModerate]

ACtually the pro revolutionaries are right. Blacks are worse off now than under Apartheid, Indians worse off than when they were under British rule, and Afiran Americans worse off than before the civil rights movement. If those things had been violent, completely different results.

THat was sarcasm.

All of those things would have gone worse if they were done violently.

[ComradeOm]

I fail to see how any communist could possibly defend the idea of reform from within the system. Do you really believe that the capitalists will really surrender their power and wealth? Or do you hope that once the workers improve their situation enough that taking power will not be necessary? We’re not talking about toppling a government or dictator, this is a matter of replacing an entire economic and social system with one that will actually offer freedom to the masses. Not the illusion of freedom that capitalism offers but total freedom that can only go with the abolition of the state.

[bcbm]

Blacks are worse off now than under Apartheid

Which was fought with violence and actually South African blacks are in essentially the same situation now because of the neoliberalization of South Africa.


Indians worse off than when they were under British rule

Which was fought with violence, and the pull out had nothing to do with the resistance anyway.


Afiran Americans worse off than before the civil rights movement.

Which, once again, was violent and had the threat of massive violence and revolution.


All of those things would have gone worse if they were done violently.

All of them included violence. And I think South Africa and the US would be far better off if the racist conditions they'd fostered had resulted in a revolution, which was very possible given the ideology of many of the more vocal participants. In any case, you're missing the point. First, none of the listed examples were completely nonviolent. Second, nobody is suggesting they should've been done through violence, merely that the capitalists are not going to simply lay over and die because we have numbers, they're going to shoot at us and to suggest we shouldn't shoot back is stupid.

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Oct 29 2005, 11:25 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Oct 29 2005, 11:25 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 12:22 AM
Only successful violent revolution in creating less authority rather than more or the same level of authoritarianism was the American revolution.
The American Revolution is an exception to Gandhi's rule about violent means. They waged war, they won, they implemented democracy, or something approaching democracy. However, I think it was the exception, not the rule. [/b]
No no, there cannot be exceptions. When a law allows exceptions, it is no longer a law or a rule, but a idealistic guideline. What of Cuba? Cuba's revolution was successful through violence. The only real violent part after the revolution was the trials of the opposition. Nonviolence cannot fully achieve justice. Violence can get closer. Wheather it be mental or physical.

[Gnosis]

Violence is never necessary.
And I say this because nothing is ever necessary. Necessity is a matter of personal opinion, but outside of the opinions of those who claim something is either necessary or not, there is no reality in necessity.

War is not a revolutonary act. Killing a man is not a revolutionary act. Government is not a revolutionary body.
People have been killing and enslaving eachother all throughout recorded human history, war and government are the greatest tradition we still hold on to.

Though the death of a mass of men brings a change to the physical body of the society, it does not go beyond the superficial into the realm of the deeper human consciousness. It changes nothing about the ways we think and feel about each other. Whatever trust may have existed is shattered, whatever mistrust existed is hightened, love is delayed yet again and the "revolution" has changed nothing but the looks on the faces of the children who have witnessed the death of their fathers and mothers.
"Revolution" fought is political only and waged for the benefit of the elite who claim to be the leaders of the movement and who expect to hold office when the old office is "destroyed".
Nothing is ever destroyed, the nature of the universe is transformation. If one movement fails to transform the world, the world is unchanged and the same oppression which flurished before the war will once again find its place on the backs of the working class and their children.

To change the world, one must look beyond the physical bodies of those he is trying to transform. It is in the intellectual and emotional realms where the real change will always take place if it takes place.
One must teach people to see beyond what they have been taught to believe is possible. One must show them that a better way exists and that they can do it and live a happier life than before.

Independance from the government. Respectful non-cooperation. Self-sufficiancy.
These goels should be reached as the government, regaurdless of whether we act against it, will not last forever and we wouldn't want to be dependent on it even as it is failing us.
Also, I urge a new interest in philosophy, the arts, spirituality, and the meaning of life. I urge a new culture, one independent of government and media and TV and "popular opinion" to emerge and take the place of the old.
A culture of equality ammoungst all people. That means men, women, and children being treated with the utmost respect as one is recognised as having just as much reality as the other. Also respect for animals, plants, and objects is urged as the majority of people have forgotten their roots in the organic and beautiful mother earth.

We must transform the world, bring ourselves out of this darkness, bring ourselves into the appropriate light, and stay there until it is again time to change.

No one is to blame for the mess we are in. Blame is not important, let us all take responsability for all life, not just our own but all life.
Let us sow the seeds of compassion, love, trust, honesty, peace, and bliss so that we may never again feel worthless of frightened of our brothers and sisters.

We are more than mere children of God. We ARE God. Its about time we started acting like it.
I urge people to realise the divinity in all things, including theirselves.
Be honest and thrive or deny your true nature, deny the nature of the universe and parish any way.
We will all die, and our children will die. Death is inevitable, but that does not mean it is miserable. Hell is not some place one is sentenced to, hell is an emotional state which exists only during life. And the only person I will ever have to answer to is myself.
This is important. It is important to realise what brought us into this mess.
What brought us here was a string of lies formulated with the idea that some are better than others in the eyes of God and those who are not good enough will be punished.
This is not true. All are one, all are God, all are equal and share existence equally. There is no punishment outside the punishment we give to our selves and our siblings.
If we would stop lying to each other, stop lying to ourselves, and stop denying the divinity which exists as all things not merely in all things, then we could begin to live a more rewarding experience.
We must teach our children this.
It is important to allow the elderly to cling to whatever they want to, even if it is a lie. It is up to them whether they change or not, we cannot force them.
But the children, they depend on us for guidance as they have yet to experience anything.
If there is any one we should focus on, it is the children. We must allow them to grow, do not hold back their creativity and wonder, nurture their divine nature, give them honesty and trust, peace and love. Teach them the value of philosophy rather than the value of the dollar and their new toys.
Children will take on any shape we mold them into, but it is when they become teenagers that our work as parents is tested.
Their first big test in life is puberty. If they are well equipt with an honest philosophy and a loving family, they will stay loyal to that family and they will not betray their self.
But if taught to betray their self by a family which smothers or holds back what should have been allowed to grow, then of course they will get caught up in more negetive, self indulgent, or masochistic tendancies.
I know I did.
But those of us who have not already commited suicide and those of us who have not settled for the lies and betrayal of our parent's culture have moved on and are okay, possible better off because of our activities during our teenage years.
But that does not mean that sort of upbringing is necessary or should not be altered.
Revolution begins in the community. The community begins in the home. A home is made when a child is born and its parents raise it and feed it not only food but life itself.
I want to help people realize their potential as individual human beings, not merely as a mass of workers owned and operated by a system which claims to benefit the whole while truely only benefiting itself.
I want those who run the system to be included, not alienated. I want them to see their own divinity. I want them to realize their will is the will of God.
But it is important for every one to realize that all will is the will of God, not merely the human will, or the will of one man, but also the will of the tree, the will of the fox, and the will of the child. And all are one under God.
"God" is an energy which is everything ever made manifest or ever to be made manifest.
And something is manifest when it can be seen, touched, and exists in relation to everything else.
And everything else which exists in relation to light.
Energy is matter in relation to the speed of light. For energy and matter are constantly moving, they would not exist if they did not. Even ice moves, but very slowly and that is what makes it so dense.
People need to know things like that.
I propose a new school of thought dedicated to the honest and unbiased exploration of all divinity equally and fairly.
The teachers are also students, and the students are also teachers.
It is understood that we are all in this together and without even one of us the entire atmosphere would change.
Which means we depend on eachother for meaning as we truely mean what we do only in relation to eachother.
I would not be the same person without you here existing in relation to me, giving me meaning, alllowing me purpose, helping me achive realisation, trusting in my ability to be and be honest.

I believe I will some day open a school similar to one I have described.

Any suggestions?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:16 PM
What you describe is an anarchistic society.
What I describe is the end goal society of any communist (mind you, I do not count stalinists as being communists). Yes, of course you could call it an anarchist society: anarchists and communists want the same thing; only their ways of achieving it differ. Try reading a book sometime.


without government and laws, immoral actions have no consequence.
What? No consequence? So if someone where to rape your daughter, you would just say "well, seeing as there is no government, i guess there's nothing I can do about it."? No, of course not, you would get together with the whole society and discuss amongst yourselves what would be an appropriate punishment. Communism in practice.

a lawless society is an impractical and useless idea.
No, it's the only reasonable way of living. Try "looking at the bigger picture here": At first, there was no government. So, logically, at some point, someone must've stood up and said: "From now on, I'll be the leader and you all just do as I say".
Where's the sense in that? Has anyone ever asked you how you feel about it? Have you ever agreed to somebody telling you what you are allowed to do and what not? I gravely doubt so. And neither have I. The greatest difference between you and me is, I actually want to do something about it and NOT just go ahead and say "Well, that's life, isn't it?"

rioters bloc:

well yes... he is an anarchist after all :)
Not exactly, I consider myself a communist (or anarcho-communist if you prefer), but as I explained earlier in this post, there isn't all that much difference :)

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:27 PM
What? No consequence? So if someone where to rape your daughter, you would just say "well, seeing as there is no government, i guess there's nothing I can do about it."? No, of course not, you would get together with the whole society and discuss amongst yourselves what would be an appropriate punishment.
That's how lynching got started.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Oct 31 2005, 04:39 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Oct 31 2005, 04:39 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 03:27 PM
What? No consequence? So if someone where to rape your daughter, you would just say "well, seeing as there is no government, i guess there's nothing I can do about it."? No, of course not, you would get together with the whole society and discuss amongst yourselves what would be an appropriate punishment.
That's how lynching got started. [/b]
That has to be a logical fallacy.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Oct 31 2005, 06:39 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Oct 31 2005, 06:39 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 03:27 PM
What? No consequence? So if someone where to rape your daughter, you would just say "well, seeing as there is no government, i guess there's nothing I can do about it."? No, of course not, you would get together with the whole society and discuss amongst yourselves what would be an appropriate punishment.
That's how lynching got started. [/b]
hmmm, so why is making a person a full time judge, which can be influenced by class, race, etc, on all cases, and randomly selecting people from the community (NOTE THE COMMUNITY) to decides someones fate any less worse? i would say its worse because the people dont even have the final say. as long as trials are fair which would be outlined in a communities constitution, there should be no fear of lynching.

[bombeverything]

Because of Gandhi, Indian people now vote for their own government.

Because of Gandhi, India is no longer ruled from abroad by a power that considers its citizens "second-class".

Because of Gandhi, members of the ruling "brahmin" caste met with "untouchables" for the very first time to discuss Civil Rights.

Is that "literally nothing"?

There is still a rigid class system in India. All he did was help replace one oppressive structure with another. This is reformism. We call for the destruction of capitalism and the state. In this case, a revolution is necessary.


Then why are you here?

Because the forum is called Revolutionaryleft.com. Why are you here? We are revolutionaries, not reformers.


What you describe is an anarchistic society. You make it sound good, but it would not work in real life - because without government and laws, immoral actions have no consequence. How many people actually want to live in a society which does not even try to stop rape, destruction and murder? I would like to see more social freedom, and I don't want a police state, but a lawless society is an impractical and useless idea.

Yes, many of us are anarchists, myself included. Think about this. Why do you assume that we need a government to "protect us" from things such as murder? You should be aware that all governments ever do is promote and carry out such crimes, through the use of "legitimate" violence. The state does not protect our rights, it takes them away. Its only purpose is to protect the interests of the ruling class.

Also I suggest you read up on anarchist theory. Anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. This is because these actions involve the denial of the liberty of others. Authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity, and this is why we promote its destruction.

Anarchism is not chaos, as you have probably been taught. In contrast, it is very ordered. Anarchists oppose external law. For example, we argue that the coercive nature of the courts should be replaced with social systems of mediation and arbitration that can resolve disputes in a voluntary manner. This method has been tried in practice and it worked. Anyway read about it.


That's how lynching got started.

No it isn't.

[Tungsten]

black banner black gun


Which was fought with violence and actually South African blacks are in essentially the same situation now because of the neoliberalization of South Africa.

You lie. There is no such liberalization there, nor is any actual or planned return to apartheid taking place.

[Axel1917]

Ghandi was a reactionary hypocrite that treated the idea of soldiers breaking their oaths by refusing to fire and such. See the thread at http://discussion.newyouth.com/showthread....ighlight=Ghandi (http://discussion.newyouth.com/showthread.php?threadid=698&highlight=Ghandi)

Also, as Trotsky stated, no devil as of yet has ever willingly cut off its own claws. Do you honestly think that the Bourgeoisie are just going to let the Proletariat take over without a fight? They are already waging a merciless propaganda war against us. They have been doing that for many years. When capitalism in Russia was overthrown, over 20 foreign capitalist armies invaded the early USSR. It is naive and utopian to think that a revolution will always be peaceful, particularly when history proves the opposite.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:08 AM
black banner black gun


Which was fought with violence and actually South African blacks are in essentially the same situation now because of the neoliberalization of South Africa.

You lie. There is no such liberalization there, nor is any actual or planned return to apartheid taking place.
I didn't say there was a planned return to apartheid. There is neoliberalization; there is a large problem with privatized water supples, among a number of other privatization and other issues, and the country has submitted to "structural readjustment."

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Oct 31 2005, 10:50 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Oct 31 2005, 10:50 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 03:27 PM
What? No consequence? So if someone where to rape your daughter, you would just say "well, seeing as there is no government, i guess there's nothing I can do about it."? No, of course not, you would get together with the whole society and discuss amongst yourselves what would be an appropriate punishment.
That's how lynching got started. [/b]
Which is why we can't bear to have immature, selfish, egocentric people.

I'll have you know however most people that got lynched where sentenced to death by a judge. (And the country that lynches most people nowadays is.. the US)

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:38 AM

rioters bloc:

well yes... he is an anarchist after all :)
Not exactly, I consider myself a communist (or anarcho-communist if you prefer), but as I explained earlier in this post, there isn't all that much difference :)
haha oh shit, for some reason when i read his response to your post i thought it was made by black dagger :P

[Black Dagger]

I thought it was too? Maybe we&#39;re right? <_<

[rioters bloc]

well, we are always right, so i&#39;d say yes. yes we are.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cuba is a better example of the efficacy of violent revolution, but the Cuban revolution did install a dictator - hardly an ideal outcome.

Dictators are elected now?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Nov 2 2005, 04:25 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Nov 2 2005, 04:25 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 12:38 AM

rioters bloc:

well yes... he is an anarchist after all :)
Not exactly, I consider myself a communist (or anarcho-communist if you prefer), but as I explained earlier in this post, there isn&#39;t all that much difference :)
haha oh shit, for some reason when i read his response to your post i thought it was made by black dagger :P [/b]
:huh: I guess I&#39;ll take that as a compliment.. (?)
:P

[KC]

Cuba is a better example of the efficacy of violent revolution, but the Cuban revolution did install a dictator - hardly an ideal outcome.

Fidel is not a dictator.


Dictators are elected now?

Hitler was.

[Freedom Works]

Hitler was.
Well, it was a plurality.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:50 PM
That&#39;s how lynching got started.
No it isn&#39;t. Lynching was the result of the legacy of slavery. Slavery that could not have existed without the state protecting & enforcing it. Once slavery finally ended, the state then turned a blind eye towards lynching until the civil rights movement & cold war forced it to pretend to abolish lynching by monopolizing lynching.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why was this thread locked?


Violence is never necessary.

Our favourite loony is back. What about self-defence? Is someone not entitled to use deadly force in the defence of their own life?


And I say this because nothing is ever necessary. Necessity is a matter of personal opinion, but outside of the opinions of those who claim something is either necessary or not, there is no reality in necessity.Bullshit. Human beings (and most other living things) need food, water and rest. That seems like a pretty real necessity to me.


Independance from the government. Respectful non-cooperation. Self-sufficiancy.
These goels should be reached as the government, regaurdless of whether we act against it, will not last forever and we wouldn't want to be dependent on it even as it is failing us.
Also, I urge a new interest in philosophy, the arts, spirituality, and the meaning of life. I urge a new culture, one independent of government and media and TV and "popular opinion" to emerge and take the place of the old.Lifestylism doesn't work.


We are more than mere children of God. We ARE God. No, we are homo sapiens, a particularly singular class of mammalian animal. Unless of course, you actually have some proof of divinity, of humans or otherwise.


We will all die, and our children will die. Death is inevitable, but that does not mean it is miserable. Yes it is. At the very least it is the termination of experience, with no chance for further experiences. I would like to see you try to explain to someone whose loved one has died that death is not miserable.

Death is a major challenge to human existance, a challenge that we must do our best to overcome.


All are one, all are God, all are equal and share existence equally.I challenge you to substantiate this rather grand claim.


Even ice moves, but very slowly and that is what makes it so dense.Ice is NOT dense. Why do you think it floats on water? Density has no relation to speed, except at relativistic velocities.

My suggestion to you, is to put down those wishy-washy new age writings you seem to devour, go back to proper education and learn some fucking physics before you presume to lecture others.


The teachers are also students, and the students are also teachers.The student/teacher dichotomy exists for a reason. Can you guess what that reason is?


Any suggestions?Scrap the idea and get a real education.

[Led Zeppelin]

Why was this thread locked

I locked it because I thought it was a thread necromancy by cornwall666, since he made dozens of those throughout the forum.

Apologies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Looking at the posting date before that, you are right. But maybe next time you could make a posts stating why you locked a thread :P

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Marxist doctrine dictates that violent revolution is necessary to overthrow an oppressor.[/quote]
Not quite. Marxism dictates that it is imperative to overthrow an oppressor by any means necessary. We don't want violence. It would be lovely if we could just walk up to the president or prime minister, kindly ask "may the working class have control of the state please?" and get the answer "why certainly, you're welcome to, let me just get my stuff and leave."

But that is never going to happen. We do not want violent revolution, but we expect violent revolution. We expect that when revolutionaries walk up in front of government buildings to demand that the ruling class surrender power, the government will order the police and army to shoot us. And then we will have to shoot back.

Capitalism will not go away without a fight. It's as simple as that. So we must be prepared to fight.


Gandhi
Getting the British ruling class out of India (what Gandhi did) is considerably easier than getting the British ruling class out of Britain (what we want to do).


Martin Luther King
A few civil rights reforms are nowhere near the kind of systemic change that is required in the transition from capitalism to socialism.

By the way, both Gandhi and King ended up assassinated.

[Joby]

Then why are you here? Why are we even having this discussion? As a communist my primary goals are abolition of capitalism and the bourgeois state, are you saying that non-violent means cannot achieve these ends? If so, what is their value to us as communists?

Violent revolution has, ahem, NEVER, In The History of Mankind, Lead to anything even Close to Socialism.

Every "socialist revolution" has resulted in Massive State control (ie Less Freedom), not to mention a huge famine.


Here's the problem, i don't want a 'fairer society' i want a stateless classless society, if you non-violence can't actually deliver anything meaningful, ie. the abolition of capitalism, it should not be the governing philosophy of any communist.
Don't you want the abolition of capitalism and the state? If so, surely you must concede that violent means are the only realistic means we have in acheiving this goal?

When has violent means led to anything that could, even remotely, be called "stateless classless society?"

Also, violent revolution has never led to abolition of capitalism. Instead, the ruling strate following these Violent revolution has ALWAYS lowered liberty for the majority, while essentially restoring capitalism for Their benefit.

You act as if socialist revolutions have been succesful, when, indeed, they've been anything but.

[Comrade Rage]

Violent revolution has, ahem, NEVER, In The History of Mankind, Lead to anything even Close to Socialism.

Every "socialist revolution" has resulted in Massive State control (ie Less Freedom), not to mention a huge famine.
Why did you capitalize all of those words?

Anyway--define massive state control. We believe in the working class taking power which is an authoritarian concept, but the only people who end up on the wrong side of us are politicians, business owners, etc. The majority of the populace is actually liberated.

[Joby]

No no, there cannot be exceptions. When a law allows exceptions, it is no longer a law or a rule, but a idealistic guideline. What of Cuba? Cuba's revolution was successful through violence.

And now they've had one (1) leader for 50 years.

The revolution has given Cubans no political freedoms or ability to alter the system as they see fit.

[Joby]

Also, as Trotsky stated, no devil as of yet has ever willingly cut off its own claws. Do you honestly think that the Bourgeoisie are just going to let the Proletariat take over without a fight? They are already waging a merciless propaganda war against us. They have been doing that for many years. When capitalism in Russia was overthrown, over 20 foreign capitalist armies invaded the early USSR. It is naive and utopian to think that a revolution will always be peaceful, particularly when history proves the opposite.

As I'll state, a majority of people who have political freedom have never overthrown, via voting, the system they lived in. The reason being, most countries with political freedoms are succesful capitalist ones. If they did, then the ruling classes would be forced to oppress them, quite possibly causing civil unrest.

It's entirely utopian and naive to think that people would be willing to get off the couch, and overthrow the system. Unless they're starving, it ain't gonna happen. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to think that the Russian, Chinese, Korean, or Cuban revolutions were succesfull in creating a socialist state.

[Joby]

No it isn't. Lynching was the result of the legacy of slavery. Slavery that could not have existed without the state protecting & enforcing it. Once slavery finally ended, the state then turned a blind eye towards lynching until the civil rights movement & cold war forced it to pretend to abolish lynching by monopolizing lynching.

But he, Bleeding_Gums_Malesta, I believe, wrote that when someone does something society views as wrong, society out to get together and punish him. Which, I suppose, is an anarchist view.

No apparatus built which attempts to try everyone equally, nor rule of law, nor groups which will both ensure justice for the wronged--and protection for the innocent. Just "He stared at my wife! Get 'em!"

By the way, many people, including some communists and Wobblies have been "lynched," it's not just a black thing.

[RNK]

As I'll state, a majority of people who have political freedom have never overthrown the system they lived in. If they did, then the ruling classes would be forced to oppress them, quite possibly causing civil unrest.

That is because the only people who have political freedom are the ruling class, and any attempt otherwise has led to oppression. In countless instances for the past 100 years, democracy has been overthrown by the world's ruling class in violent conflicts, many of which have led to extraordinarily violent civil unrest.


It's entirely utopian and naive to think that people would be willing to get off the couch, and overthrow the system. Unless they're starving, it ain't gonna happen.

It just so happens that the majority of the world's population is starving, including large portions of the populations of western, capitalist countries.


Furthermore, it's ridiculous to think that the Russian, Chinese, Korean, or Cuban revolutions were succesfull in creating a socialist state.

They were successful in laying the groundwork, in providing for a plethora of information to scientifically analyse. Rome was not built in a day, son; it took the modern democratic republic nearly 2000 years, from its first experiments to the bourgeois industrial revolution, before it became the relatively stable, sustainable system that exploits us today. Communists today, fortunately, have the benefit of all the technological and scientific tools of analyzation and calculation available to us. Freedom is inevitable, atleast insofar as if we do not attain it (and soon), humanity will most likely not survive for much longer.

[Joby]

Which is why we can't bear to have immature, selfish, egocentric people.

I'll have you know however most people that got lynched where sentenced to death by a judge. (And the country that lynches most people nowadays is.. the US)

That doesn't mean we should go from our justice system, or a revised and more equal version of it....To mob rule.

[Joby]

That is because the only people who have political freedom are the ruling class, and any attempt otherwise has led to oppression. In countless instances for the past 100 years, democracy has been overthrown by the world's ruling class in violent conflicts, many of which have led to extraordinarily violent civil unrest.

And very few times has the Non-student left been able to do anything to stop them....ie they suck.

Today, however, violent revolution, or, might I say, attempts on it, would do nothing but lead most workers to hate you, lead to increased (and justfiable in most eyes) oppression by the state, and the total blackening of the Leftist movement by the elite.



It just so happens that the majority of the world's population is starving, including large portions of the populations of western, capitalist countries


And violent, "socialist," revolution has been succesfull in getting less people to starve...when?



They were successful in laying the groundwork, in providing for a plethora of information to scientifically analyse. Rome was not built in a day, son; it took the modern democratic republic nearly 2000 years, from its first experiments to the bourgeois industrial revolution, before it became the relatively stable, sustainable system that exploits us today. Communists today, fortunately, have the benefit of all the technological and scientific tools of analyzation and calculation available to us. Freedom is inevitable, atleast insofar as if we do not attain it (and soon), humanity will most likely not survive for much longer.


And history tells us that violent, socialist, revolution has failed. Miserably.

It has Never lead to more freedom, quite on the contrary, it has resulted in an elite running things for their own benefit.

Which is, coincidentally, not at all different than how we have it. Except that there, you're shot for speaking out.