Pacifism

[danny android]

I have changed to the way of pacifism. I now concider myself a pacifist anarchist. They way to revolution is in the hearts of men not in guns and bloodshed. Violience is not necesarry for revolution as long as humans still have a concience. you will not get any where preaching for the heads of the bourgeosie to roll, nobody wants more death, nobody wants more distruction. We must change our minds before we can change the world. Just like when you hate any other group if you hate the bourgeosie you are only adding to the hate of the world, what makes you any better than those that hate based on race. What is revolution but the path to peace? And how will peace be accomplished through violience? Ghandi once said "an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind", one violent act leads to 2 violent acts leads to 3 violent acts leads to chaos. I have found this to be more true than any idea in history. Please join me in turning away from preaching for violent revolution and move forward on the path of peace.

[Creature]

I myself agree completely with what you have just said.

I was formerly a pacifist, not an Pacifist Anarchist, because back then I wasn't an Anarchist, but now the only violence I advocate is self defense.

[bcbm]

hey way to revolution is in the hearts of men(sic) not in guns and bloodshed.

False dichotomy. These are not mutually exclusive.


Violience is not necesarry for revolution as long as humans still have a concience.

7,000 years of history would certainly suggest otherwise.


you will not get any where preaching for the heads of the bourgeosie to roll, nobody wants more death, nobody wants more distruction.

Obviously nobody really wants those things, but they are inevitable when one challenges power and privilege.


We must change our minds before we can change the world.

My mind is fine.


Just like when you hate any other group if you hate the bourgeosie you are only adding to the hate of the world, what makes you any better than those that hate based on race.

Race is an incidental characteristic, class is not.


What is revolution but the path to peace? And how will peace be accomplished through violience?

By removing those who cause violence: the ruling classes and their systems of injustice.


Ghandi once said "an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind", one violent act leads to 2 violent acts leads to 3 violent acts leads to chaos.

A little chaos is perhaps just what we need. And the fact remains that this society is already quite violent. Choosing to defend one's self is not.


Please join me in turning away from preaching for violent revolution and move forward on the path of peace.

No thanks. Kick out the jams, motherfucker!

[ComradeOm]

How many times a week does this point crop up?

We will only have change when the workers sieze power. History and common sense suggests that this will require force. Unless you really believe that the capitalists will hand over the reigns of power when we "change our minds".

[TheComrade]

Revolution doesn't need violence - danny android, you have my full support. I am not a pacifist- I believe that you must defend yourself by force if it comes to that - but I think violence triggers an animal like resistance in people, something which is unbreakable.

black banner black gun - do you have to be so crude?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sigh. Another pacifist idiot. You're probably young, so I can't blame you.

However, you might get off your moral high horse the instant a cop's baton is broken over your skull.

I just hope it doesn't come to that.

[The Grey Blur]

I admire your bravery and idealism. I especially liked this point:


you will not get any where preaching for the heads of the bourgeosie to roll, nobody wants more death, nobody wants more distruction.
This is all too true, the working class in countries such as America or Britain are only scared off by overly-violent rhetoric. (whether this is a symptom of a beurgeois sense of security seeping into the proletarian I know not, I only know for certain my statemnet is true)

I agree with most of what your saying but what about resistance movements from opressed peoples who simply want freedom/ equal rights? Do you also consider these unneccessary?

[TheComrade]

Hmm actually NoXion when I was a baby I lived in Belfast - I remember bombs, shootings, the army in the back garden... so please stop patronising me.

[Intifada]

The nature of resistance is defined by the nature of oppression.

To all the pacifists, tell me, is capitalism an ideology which has treated the working class with respect and peace?

If the answer to the above question is no, then how can you remove violence as a means of emancipating the workers of the world?

[bolshevik butcher]

I think to be straigh for only violence or pacifism is foolish. it all depends on the situation. I dont see how if the working clas sis not armed a reovlution can be acrried out to the end though. As a pacafist anarchist how do you intened on seizing power?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:57 PM
Hmm actually NoXion when I was a baby I lived in Belfast - I remember bombs, shootings, the army in the back garden... so please stop patronising me.
And do you think the British will leave NI if you ask them nicely?

[Rage]

I am a Pacifist in a way. IMO 98% of wars did not need to be fought.

The other 2 are ones that I would be the first one to sign up in.

/,,/
Rock on!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 1 2005, 05:20 AM
Please join me in turning away from preaching for violent revolution and move forward on the path of peace.
Well no one here should be "preaching violent revolution", we should be debating with eacholther how to achieve a revolution and when we get there, the circumstances will probably be more imortant to how violent or nonviolent it is.

Saying I'm going to advocate peacful revolution as opposed to violent revolution is like saying I'm going to advocate peaceful strikes rather than preaching violent strikes. Unfortunately worker's don't get to decide how our enemies react to our strikes or revolution and so we must be prepared for the posibility of defend ourselves from attacks.

Nonviolence has a bloody history because it ususlly involves making compromises with our enemies which ends up badly for us. Gandhi was nonviolent and allowed the partitioning of India which caused countless deaths at the time of the partitioning and now India and Pakistan are in a perpetual nuclear standoff.

On the other hand I am against both nonviolence and violence as principlas. If someone is "preaching" violent revolution meaning we should just get a band of fighter together and tussle with the cops, I am against it not because I have an love of pigs, but because it is a futile act that dosn't help organize the working class to take power into its own hands. But if there was a revolution happening or about to happen and workers needed people to fight the cops who were planning on breaking through the barricades and imprisoniing and brutalizing revolutionary workers, then nonviolence would be equally as futile and illadvised.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:39 AM
Sigh. Another pacifist idiot. You're probably young, so I can't blame you.

However, you might get off your moral high horse the instant a cop's baton is broken over your skull.

I just hope it doesn't come to that.
Couldn't have said it better, NoXion. And it's a good thing you said it before me, because mine probably would have had tons of flamage.

[bcbm]

Revolution doesn't need violence - danny android, you have my full support. I am not a pacifist- I believe that you must defend yourself by force if it comes to that - but I think violence triggers an animal like resistance in people, something which is unbreakable.

Revolution is self-defense.


black banner black gun - do you have to be so crude?

What was crude? The one sentence where I quoted the MC5? Yeah, I guess that is a legitimate grievance and good enough reason to discard the rest of what I said. <_<


This is all too true, the working class in countries such as America or Britain are only scared off by overly-violent rhetoric. (whether this is a symptom of a beurgeois sense of security seeping into the proletarian I know not, I only know for certain my statemnet is true)

Violent rhetoric, yes. Violent actions? I don&#39;t think so. American and British proletarians, particularly in unions, have shown themselves to be more than willing to resort to violence in defense of their interests. Preaching to shoot cops and cut off politician&#39;s heads probably won&#39;t appeal to them, but if they&#39;re down with radical ideas I doubt they&#39;d have a problem bashing a pig in the head with a brick.


On the other hand I am against both nonviolence and violence as principlas.

Agreed.


we should just get a band of fighter together and tussle with the cops, I am against it not because I have an love of pigs, but because it is a futile act that dosn&#39;t help organize the working class to take power into its own hands.

I disagree, to some extent. We need to organize the working class, yes, but I also think it is important to engage in actions that show our strength and break outside the roles we are alloted in the system. Its an empowering experience, and I think is important in building a larger revolutionary context.

[Ownthink]

Oh, and PS to all the "Pacifists": Si vis pacem Parabellum.

Translation: "If you want peace, prepare for war."

[fpeppett]

I understand the feelings of pacifists and yes pacifism is clearly the ideal state of mind for most. But pacifism isn&#39;t reality, in know way could pacifism ever be used today or in fact ever, it is simply a dream. Humans still have the traits we began with, greed, self-interest, survival instinct and all the others, these are within us, pacifism contradicts them.

We have to fight for with fire, eye for an eye, because the capatalists pigs arn&#39;t gonna stop for nothing.

[TheComrade]

And do you think the British will leave NI if you ask them nicely?

You are clearly disillusioned about the power of language. The IRA hasn&#39;t achieved anything has it? Mo Mowlam used negotiation and peaceful discussion - she did allot more than any bomb.


Humans still have the traits we began with, greed, self-interest, survival instinct and all the others, these are within us, pacifism contradicts them.

Communism contradicts them too then.



To all the pacifists, tell me, is capitalism an ideology which has treated the working class with respect and peace?

If the answer to the above question is no, then how can you remove violence as a means of emancipating the workers of the world?

SO just because capitalists use violence means we have to use it back - you are no better than them.

People hate violence - no one will follow a warmonger who claims they will liberate them. War leads only to suffering and torment - how many of those who believe in violence have actually experienced it?

I have

[bolshevik butcher]

What happens if we are progressing towards socialism and we&#39;re under attack form the ruling class armies?

Do we just stand and get shot? This is why the working class needs to be armed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:54 PM

And do you think the British will leave NI if you ask them nicely?

You are clearly disillusioned about the power of language. The IRA hasn&#39;t achieved anything has it? Mo Mowlam used negotiation and peaceful discussion - she did allot more than any bomb.
All that&#39;s happened in Northern Ireland is that now loyalist youths can terrorise opponents seemingly at will. They wouldn&#39;t be so hot to trot if there was a risk of a spray of bullets heading their direction.

The aristocracy did not give up their power peacefully. The Tsars did not go quietly into the night. What makes you think the bourgeouisie will be any different?

[drain.you]

You&#39;ll make us lose the revolution, damn you&#33; lol.
We&#39;ll be against the army and like &#39;if only we had one more man we could win&#39;. Dammit. lol.

On a more serious note, I think most leftists have a stage of pacifism, we read about MLK and Ghandi and think, yeah, thats a great way to do things.
Unfortunately its not the reality, them people were very lucky to last as long as they did. MLK may have been peaceful but that doesnt stop a bullet or like already said, perhaps you will think differently when you realise our enemies aren&#39;t going to listen to us talking nicely.
I say fight, I say revolution. Even if its bloody as hell, when we win, it will be worth it.

[danny android]

perhaps you will think differently when you realise our enemies aren&#39;t going to listen to us talking nicely.

There is a difference in what I am advocating for and "talking nicely" you can be very harsh and still be non-violent. General strikes, sit-ins and boycotts for example are non-violent means of getting what you want that can be very hard on the rulling class


What happens if we are progressing towards socialism and we&#39;re under attack form the ruling class armies?

Do we just stand and get shot?

The common misconception here is that the rulling class can and will just kill all of the people rebelling against the rulling class. But if all of the working class is against the bourgeosie, then what are they to do? Kill all of us? If they kill all of the proletrait then who do they have to rule? What is a rulling class that cannot rule. Even if the bourgeosie reacted vioently at all, would no one in the upper class be against this? Does no one with power have a conciouns? If anyone took violent action against the people then someone in the upper class would surely be against it. This would cause a division in the rulling class and would further weeken them.


Humans still have the traits we began with, greed, self-interest, survival instinct and all the others, these are within us, pacifism contradicts them.

As has been stated earlier, if these are trully human nature and inherited traits then communism and anarchism are impossible. However, it is my personal belief that people develop this through there environment, violience is a learned behavior. Modern society is seemingly obsessed with violience and therefore people in the society will learn to be violent. There must be a cultural revolution before any actual revolution can be succesful. We must discredit violience as a means of getting what you want.


QUOTE
Violience is not necesarry for revolution as long as humans still have a concience.



7,000 years of history would certainly suggest otherwise.

And a violent revolution will lead you where? Another 7,000 years of increased violence.


QUOTE
Just like when you hate any other group if you hate the bourgeosie you are only adding to the hate of the world, what makes you any better than those that hate based on race.



Race is an incidental characteristic, class is not.

Do you hate those who inherit power?


We will only have change when the workers sieze power. History and common sense suggests that this will require force.

I agree with your first statement wholeheartedly. However, yes perhaps common sense would tell us that violence is the way to revolution. But what determine&#39;s common sense? Culture? And if the culture then who controls the culture? The bourgeosie. The rulling class has allowed violience to be a huge factor in society because if that is all people know and they fight using violience then who&#39;s to come against them for using violience in retaliation. Furthermore, the reason the rulling class wants you to react violently is because violent revolution historicly have accomplished nothing. What did the russian revolution create but a new despotism? What did mao establish besides a police state (which is now turning to capitlaism). The overriding theme in any historical revolution is violience and in all of the casses in which violience have been used people sacrificed freedom.


Unless you really believe that the capitalists will hand over the reigns of power when we "change our minds

What I am advocating for is the distruction of power as an idea. If no one has power over us in our minds then where can they have power over us.

[violencia.Proletariat]

There is a difference in what I am advocating for and "talking nicely" you can be very harsh and still be non-violent. General strikes, sit-ins and boycotts for example are non-violent means of getting what you want that can be very hard on the rulling class

general strikes is the only useful tool we will need out of that group. while the actual strike is non violent general strikes usually turn out to have violence. pigs will be everywhere and they will be fought. especially when they start busting heads.


The common misconception here is that the rulling class can and will just kill all of the people rebelling against the rulling class. But if all of the working class is against the bourgeosie, then what are they to do? Kill all of us?

yes they will violently take down as many as possible, history shows that to be true (facism).


Even if the bourgeosie reacted vioently at all, would no one in the upper class be against this?

no one serious about putting downt he rebellion.


Does no one with power have a conciouns?

they ARE IN POWER. so obviously they dont give a shit about us. you are being very naive


This would cause a division in the rulling class and would further weeken them.

no it wont because whne the bourgeoisie power is threatened they dont contemplate pacifism, they send in the cops and the national guard.


We must discredit violience as a means of getting what you want.

its necessary for what we want. but when its not necessary it shouldnt be used.


And a violent revolution will lead you where?

to a world without bourgeoisie and violent counter revolutionaries


Do you hate those who inherit power?

if they decide to keep it, then yes


If no one has power over us in our minds then where can they have power over us.

what a load of bullshit. you may hate the bourgeoisie in your head but they control your wage, and you need a wage to live.

i also find it hilarious that you quote gandhi who was a reactionary who wanted people to volunteer for ww1.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 1 2005, 08:06 PM
Revolution is self-defense.
Love it.

The only war I believe in is class war.

[poster_child]

QUOTE
Revolution doesn&#39;t need violence - danny android, you have my full support. I am not a pacifist- I believe that you must defend yourself by force if it comes to that - but I think violence triggers an animal like resistance in people, something which is unbreakable.



Revolution is self-defense.


I wouldn&#39;t consider myself a pacifict, but I am VERY skeptical when it comes to waging a war. I support revolutions. They are necessary and they are self-defence, making them okay (unless they are something like the possible revolution in the southern US during the civil war). I do agree, most wars that were fought were unneeded. I think that very few wars are justified, and/or if you are in imediate danger.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 1 2005, 06:17 PM
There is a difference in what I am advocating for and "talking nicely" you can be very harsh and still be non-violent. General strikes, sit-ins and boycotts for example are non-violent means of getting what you want that can be very hard on the rulling class
Do you think when you have your sit-ins, boycotts and general strikes, the ruling class will just say "Gee, I guess they don&#39;t like us," and then leave, turning over the means of production? I doubt it. They&#39;ll probably make a few concessions and if people still don&#39;t budge, you can enjoy a massive crack down.


The common misconception here is that the rulling class can and will just kill all of the people rebelling against the rulling class. But if all of the working class is against the bourgeosie, then what are they to do? Kill all of us? If they kill all of the proletrait then who do they have to rule? What is a rulling class that cannot rule. Even if the bourgeosie reacted vioently at all, would no one in the upper class be against this? Does no one with power have a conciouns? If anyone took violent action against the people then someone in the upper class would surely be against it. This would cause a division in the rulling class and would further weeken them.

The ruling class will use enough force to break people&#39;s will. They don&#39;t need to kill everyone, only enough to discourage others. What you&#39;re asking is for billions of people to be willing to give their lives, one after the other, in order to achieve our goals. I&#39;d rather just ice a couple bourgeois pigs and be done with the affair.


Modern society is seemingly obsessed with violience and therefore people in the society will learn to be violent. There must be a cultural revolution before any actual revolution can be succesful. We must discredit violience as a means of getting what you want.

Humans beings have always been violent. It has nothing to do with modern society.


And a violent revolution will lead you where? Another 7,000 years of increased violence.

Maybe, maybe not. But I&#39;d rather have a gun in my hand then against my head.



Do you hate those who inherit power?

If they continue to use and abuse that power and the billions living below them, then they are my enemy. They can choose a side, and if they choose to side with the ruling class, tough.


The rulling class has allowed violience to be a huge factor in society because if that is all people know and they fight using violience then who&#39;s to come against them for using violience in retaliation.

Are you kidding? The ruling class would like nothing more than a bunch of "revolutionaries" who don&#39;t fight back. And trust me, the state has never had a problem killing nonviolent people when it needs to.


Furthermore, the reason the rulling class wants you to react violently is because violent revolution historicly have accomplished nothing.

Pacifism has accomplished even less, so I would suggest not following through on this line of thinking.


The overriding theme in any historical revolution is violience and in all of the casses in which violience have been used people sacrificed freedom.

Go ask all the former colonies that revolted violently if they would prefer to become colonies again. Then try to tell me nothing has been accomplished.


What I am advocating for is the distruction of power as an idea. If no one has power over us in our minds then where can they have power over us.

If someone can shoot me for disobeying them, they have power over me. It doesn&#39;t matter how hard I try and think they don&#39;t.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:25 AM

QUOTE
Revolution doesn&#39;t need violence - danny android, you have my full support. I am not a pacifist- I believe that you must defend yourself by force if it comes to that - but I think violence triggers an animal like resistance in people, something which is unbreakable.



Revolution is self-defense.


I wouldn&#39;t consider myself a pacifict, but I am VERY skeptical when it comes to waging a war. I support revolutions. They are necessary and they are self-defence, making them okay (unless they are something like the possible revolution in the southern US during the civil war). I do agree, most wars that were fought were unneeded. I think that very few wars are justified, and/or if you are in imediate danger.
Justabout all wars in the twentieth century were a direct result of capitalism. Often they were about the national beugoirse of different countries sekeing to aquire resources or become the most powerful beugoirse.

[TheComrade]

If someone can shoot me for disobeying them, they have power over me. It doesn&#39;t matter how hard I try and think they don&#39;t.

And you become a martyr inspiring others to follow your cause. Please try and think beyond what the immediate effects of an action are.

If you start being violent to a nation - or anyone - they have an excuse to use their power against you - any military action is justified. Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Aung San Suu Kyi (Burma) were/are so amazing because they don&#39;t use violence - those that oppose them have no excuse to get rid of them - that is where their power lies/lay.

I will say again - violence achieves nothing, it simply fuels a greater resistance.

Edit - Just something to support this - "Aung San Suu Kyi has often said that detention has made her even more resolute to dedicate the rest of her life to represent the average Burmese citizen."

[bcbm]

And you become a martyr inspiring others to follow your cause. Please try and think beyond what the immediate effects of an action are.

I&#39;m sorry, but I don&#39;t want to be dead, I want to be free and I will use any means neccesary to achieve that freedom. If someone is pointing a gun at me, I&#39;m going to do everything in my power to shoot them first, not take a bullet for "the cause." Anything worth dying for is worth living for. Or perhaps, it is better to live on my feet than die on my knees?


If you start being violent to a nation - or anyone - they have an excuse to use their power against you - any military action is justified.

"They" are the most violent organization on the planet. I&#39;d say I&#39;m the one who should have an excuse for using violence against them, not the other way around. You&#39;re excusing their violence. If you could save a million lives by shooting a beareaucrat in the head, would you?


Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King . . . were/are so amazing because they don&#39;t use violence - those that oppose them have no excuse to get rid of them - that is where their power lies/lay.

And they didn&#39;t accomplish shit by themselves, they needed others (who were violent or at least presented the threat of massive violence) to gain anything.


I will say again - violence achieves nothing, it simply fuels a greater resistance.

Please prove violence has never achieved anything. Furthermore, please prove that pacifism has achieved more than violence.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Dec 1 2005, 05:43 AM--> (black banner black gun &#064; Dec 1 2005, 05:43 AM)
Violience is not necesarry for revolution as long as humans still have a concience.

7,000 years of history would certainly suggest otherwise.[/b]
However, how much closer to peace are we then we were 7,000 years ago?


Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 1 2005, 05:43 AM


We must change our minds before we can change the world.

My mind is fine.
I believe he ment that we did not all think in the way of a revolution of sorts, so he was speaking in a way of the how the general public should change.



Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 1 2005, 05:43 AM


Ghandi once said "an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind", one violent act leads to 2 violent acts leads to 3 violent acts leads to chaos.

A little chaos is perhaps just what we need. And the fact remains that this society is already quite violent. Choosing to defend one&#39;s self is not.

Society is alright quite violent, correct. However, they are violent the wrong way. Rape, murder, drugs and crime are all still epidemics so the violence is shifted in a bad way.


[email protected] 1 2005, 03:39 PM
However, you might get off your moral high horse the instant a cop&#39;s baton is broken over your skull.
Or maybe he will just one day realize that pacfist actions won&#39;t get very far.

Even though we would like to have a non-violence resolution to all of our problems, it will not happen.


There is a difference in what I am advocating for and "talking nicely" you can be very harsh and still be non-violent. General strikes, sit-ins and boycotts for example are non-violent means of getting what you want that can be very hard on the rulling class

Ahem, Rosa Parks and the Bus Boycott?

Also, to those who are familiar with Malcom X there was an occurnce where an african-american was beaten by the police and Malcom had members of the Nation of Islam stand outside the Police Station in protest, demanded medical care then marched to the hospital and made sure that this was to be taken care of the correct way. Needless to say, it was. There is another example of where non-violence has done a greater good. (Document in Autobiography/Movie),

[Ownthink]

For all you pacifists out there who think that violence accomplishes nothing:

IT GETS RID OF PEOPLE LIKE THESE SICK FUCKS:

http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Bareknucklep...SIVE_10122.html (http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Bareknucklepoliticscom_EXCLUSIVE_10122.html)

WARNING, SICK VIDEO.

[Intifada]

(TheComrade)

SO just because capitalists use violence means we have to use it back - you are no better than them.


I do not advocate outright violence, and never have done.

Absolute pacifism, however, will get us nowhere when we are faced with a system which will fight in anyway it can (history has shown us this) to stop itself from being replaced by an alternative which can emancipate the working class.

If we are not prepared to fight for freedom, by any means necessary, then we will get nowhere.

Malcolm X, as so often, said it best:

It doesn&#39;t mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don&#39;t call it violence when it&#39;s self-defense, I call it intelligence.

Remember, the Capitalists will not hesitate to crush a workers&#39; revolution by any means necessary.

We must be prepared for a violent revolution.


People hate violence - no one will follow a warmonger who claims they will liberate them.

If the masses truly want liberation from Capitalist exploitation, they will be prepared to use violence if need be. Moreover, true revolutions are fuelled by the masses, not one "warmonger".

Anyway, what is wrong with class war?


War leads only to suffering and torment - how many of those who believe in violence have actually experienced it?


Suffering and torment is what brings about the need to resist.

You have to be realistic. If we campaign peacefully for change - and by change we mean abolishing the existing state in favour for one controlled by the workers - we will never get anywhere, and if you think we can, then you are simply being naive at best, and deluded at worst.

It has never worked before, and this is because not enough pressure is being put on the ruling class.

If you directly experience the exploitative effects of Capitalism, you will be prepared to use all the means available to you to put an end to it.

[TheComrade]

Intifada - ok I understand what you are saying and I agree partially. I said either on this thread or on another that I wouldn&#39;t call myself a pacifist - I believe that you should defend yourself, by force if it is the last resort, when faced with someone who is harming you.

I do not believe however that you can bring about radical change through violence - though, of course, I do not think you should go about trying to change things when you are unarmed. If you do resort to violence then I believe you have failed, you have failed to uphold peaceful values and disciplined morality.

I do not think that violence can change the way people think - therefore to truly establish a peaceful, fair and classless society violence isn&#39;t the answer. War can, if done right, put a Communist government in power (eg Russian Revolution) but the result it an endless wave of violence needed to sustain that governance.

For example, if you have a debate with someone and their say, ignorance, beings to frustrate you (I&#39;m sure many of you feel like that when you debate with me&#33;) getting up and punching them, kicking them or breaking their arm doesn&#39;t change their views - it just makes them focus on something else.

I guess you could argue that violence coupled with mental torture is a way to brainwash people (the last parts of 1984 explore this) but do we want to brainwash people? Why should we have to brainwash such a brilliant and beautiful idea as Communism into people? - But that is the only path violence leads to.

I know I might sound confused - deluded as some of you say - but I am trying to establish what I believe, what I really think, so please...be patient&#33;

[DisIllusion]

It would be nice and idealistic to have a peaceful revolution, either for the proletariat or for the freedom of the world, but sadly, this is not possible in our world. There will always be the closed-minded people who will never change, and usually, these closed-minded people hold high positions in government.

Sometimes people won&#39;t listen to anything but guns and bloodshed.

[Intifada]

I do not believe however that you can bring about radical change through violence

Cuba?

Before the revolution, Cuba was simply a playground for rich Americans.

Although one can debate about Fidel Castro&#39;s record as leader, one cannot deny that he has brought about radical changes that have benefited Cubans in general.

Do you think Batista would have rolled over had the 26th of July Movement politely requested he end the way in which he ruled Cuba for the rich few?


I do not think you should go about trying to change things when you are unarmed.

Indeed.

We must be prepared for violence.


If you do resort to violence then I believe you have failed, you have failed to uphold peaceful values and disciplined morality.


Communists, and revolutionary leftists as a whole, have only the aim of abolishing Capitalism, through an organised working class. Peaceful values and disciplined morality do not have to be thrown out of the window, during a revolutionary situation, but one must not lose sight of the fact that the Capitalists will be prepared to fight in any manner which they deem fit to save their system.

We must be prepared to use violence in the face of violence, otherwise we will quite simply be crushed.

I doubt there will ever be a true socialist revolution which is not met with violence, do you?


I do not think that violence can change the way people think

Nobody has argued otherwise.

A revolutionary situation can only truly be created if the way in which the masses think has already changed.

Violence will only be a part of the overthrowing of the Capitalist system.


to truly establish a peaceful, fair and classless society violence isn&#39;t the answer

To create such a society, the Capitalist system must be abolished. This can only really be achieved through violent revolution, if peaceful demands are initially ignored.


I guess you could argue that violence coupled with mental torture is a way to brainwash people (the last parts of 1984 explore this) but do we want to brainwash people?

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick here.

The way in which the masses think can only be changed by the masses themselves. We cannot force them to change their views through violence, and never have we advocated doing so.

The proletariat are the revolutionary class, and are the only people who can change the system, which in turn can only happen when they become conscious of their position in the class struggle.

Violence only comes into the equation when changing the system, and when quelling counter-revolution.

[our_mutual_friend]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:01 PM
Sometimes people won&#39;t listen to anything but guns and bloodshed.
Let&#39;s assume for a moment that Iraq was a revolution. So America and the UK go in there with black hawks etc and eventually &#39;take over&#39;. In this revolution scenario people have been killed. And these aren&#39;t just those that have been instigating the unlawful killings and mis-trials. These are civillians. So it can be seen that deaths of innocent people are inevitable.

But have the people in Iraq just given up and accepted this &#39;revolution&#39;? Suicide bombings from Sunni and Shi&#39;ite groups? Hostage taking? Is this acceptance of guns and bloodshed? Is this people listening to what has been placed before them and meekly accepting it??

Admittedly a proper revolution would be what the people in, say, Iraq would want, but wouldn&#39;t there be a similar reaction. Wouldn&#39;t people fight back too? And only all out genocide of opposition would work. And would you really want to be responsible for what could be such a large amount of death?

[TheComrade]

Violence only comes into the equation when changing the system. (and the rest of that post)

I accept that - we should be prepared to fight. But violence against those who do not agree with Communism/Socialism/Anarchism after a revolution is a bad idea - it fuels resistance.

To finally sum up so far - I agree that violence is required for defence. I believe it should be used as a final, last resort but it still then leads to fueling the (ignorant) belifs of those who disagree with Communism etc.

[Intifada]

But violence against those who do not agree with Communism/Socialism/Anarchism after a revolution is a bad idea - it fuels resistance.


So how do you propose to quell violent counter-revolutionaries, not just the mere Capitalist, but also the Fascists?

[Ownthink]

But violence against those who do not agree with Communism/Socialism/Anarchism after a revolution is a bad idea - it fuels resistance.
Actually, I would think not killing or stopping the Fascists would "fuel resistance".

[our_mutual_friend]

In that case the only way to stop resistance is to (as I said before) remove ALL opposition, either by death, journey to another planet (&#33;) etc.
To kill resistance would leave sympathisers elsewhere, and, as far as I see it, an endless killing cycle would occur.
I doubt that it would be possible for killing to ever stop. Once you wipe out one type of resistance another will spring up, or another would become more obvious to you and then that would have to be wiped out.
Where would you stop?

[bolshevik butcher]

Well, we must remove the armed resistance of the ruling class. Yes. physical barriers to working class power do have to be removed. If the vast majoraty of the population wants control of the work places then surley democracy states that they should have it?

The ruling class will put up stiff resistance and that may come down to them using arms. We have to be prepaiired to struggle all the way and fight back. Otherwise another chile will emerge. And that would all be down to our irresponsability.

[TheComrade]

So how do you propose to quell violent counter-revolutionaries, not just the mere Capitalist, but also the Fascists?

An interesting question - and one almost impossible to answer.

Law - I guess - is one option. To close counter-revolutionaries down we must break apart their arguments and prove them to be non-sensical and obsurd. You cannot ever remove an opinon - people will always disagree with any idea - but with the majority in favour of Communism, counter revolutionaries are bound to fail. Propaganda and intelligent discussion - followed up with law and order.

[Intifada]

That, I have no problem with applying to peaceful opponents, but how can we deal with the violent counter-revolutionaries without resorting to violent self-defence of a popular revolution?

Coups can happen.

[TheComrade]

Yeah - I guess your right. I suppose if someone is violent you must use force back. When it comes down to it you can&#39;t speak when someone is shooting at you so violence must countered with an ordered use of force. Once they are disarmed however, they should be subject to peaceful laws - I disagree with capital punishment, period.

[viva le revolution]

Pacifism is an idealists&#39; paradise. However it is not possible. It may have worked for martin luthur king but aung sang and Gandhi are a different matter altogether.
1. Aung sang has bargaining power, how? she has the support of most western governments. She is fighting for bourgeois democracy, she is not engaged in class struggle nor is calling for the abolishment of capitalism.

2. Gandhi never brought about any real change. He was a poster boy for the british. The indian independance movement is full of communist agitation, strikes gone bloody, demonstrations turn into massacres, navy mutinies, army revolts etc. etc. coupled with nationwide communal violence during the latter years of british rule. India and pakistan&#39;s independance struggle was one of the most bloodiest ever.

Pacifism is nothing but a dream. read Trotsky&#39;s &#39;Pacifism as the servant of imperialism&#39;.

[LÍNKS]

I must agree that pacifism isn&#39;t always possible, but still war got to be avoided as much as possible.