Is violence the answer?

[FidelCastro]

Personally I never think it is the answer. Even though it is almost always used in Communist societies to gain power, I think we live in an age where there are other options avaliable to us. Some of the most succsessful advocates for equality were non violent such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. ditto for the opposite such as Malcolm X and Che Guevara. I am not saying what Che and X did was wrong because I was not there when it happened so I can never understand it 100% but then again what do I know, I have been getting PM for being a Marxist (I thought this was a left fourm) so I get the feeling that this is quite a different place that what I thought it was.

[Xvall]

I'm totally cool with using violence to achieve my goals. Is there some moralistic reason I should do otherwise? Why do I care if my opposition is alive or not?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:48 PM
Personally I never think it is the answer. Even though it is almost always used in Communist societies to gain power, I think we live in an age where there are other options avaliable to us. Some of the most succsessful advocates for equality were non violent such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. ditto for the opposite such as Malcolm X and Che Guevara. I am not saying what Che and X did was wrong because I was not there when it happened so I can never understand it 100% but then again what do I know, I have been getting PM for being a Marxist (I thought this was a left fourm) so I get the feeling that this is quite a different place that what I thought it was.
Gandhi didn't support striking workers and tried to negotiate "peace" between labor and capital. He also compromised with the British empire and allowed them to partitial India which lead to countless deaths and conflicts between Hindi and Muslems. Nonviolence dosn't always mean peace.

Violence shoudn't be a principal, it is a tool we need though. To paraphrase Malcom X, if the KKK, is burning a cross on your front lawn, are you really going to try and go out and peacefully negotiate with them?

If you had a strike and told your boss that it was going to be peacefull, how sucsessful do you think it would be? What happens when he brings scabs up and openly has them cross the picket line? Well then you just lost because of your principal.

I believe in violence because I have had the violence of the state used against me while I was in a "peacefull protest". They won't hesitate to use it and so we should be ready to defend ourselves.

[kurt]

The nature of resistance should be characterized by the nature of oppression. Capitalism is violent.

[ReD_ReBeL]

pretty broad question it depends what it is the answer for, if it is in self defence it is ok, and against a very repression government like tht one of Saddam Hussein or Stalin, but not in the case of being beaten up and revenging with shooting thm or whtever , and not against a government like the labour Party of the UK-although thy did wrong, thy r not restricting peoples freedoms and there is no real chronic poverty in the UK

[ComTom]

I think that we need to try our best to stay as peaceful as possible. If we turn violent in a mostly peaceful internal situation we are further demonzied by the capitalist press. What we need to do is too try our best to acheive peaceful revolution before we turn to violent revolution.
Or as John F. Kennedy has said,
" Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make a violent one inevitable."

[FidelCastro]

Everyone has made excellent points in this discussion, I have gathered that violence when nessecsary is the only way to go. I promote peace but I have a violent side too but mainly when it comes to neo-nazi's. I have zero-tolerance for them. I have no problem with conservitaves, capitalists, religious figures ect... But neo-nazi's is where i draw the line. They support a useless cause and disrespect everything they come into contact with.

If the world was put into a war agianst an alien race, the world would be united as a whole which would be a good thing I think although bad for the alien race.

[violencia.Proletariat]

if you dont support violence why the hell is your user name fidel castro?

whats with all these pacifists showing up lately?

[FidelCastro]

Fidel and Che weren't all about violence, Che was a doctor and tried very to find a cure for asthma.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:13 PM
Fidel and Che weren't all about violence, Che was a doctor and tried very to find a cure for asthma.
ROFL
Yes, because him, a Battlefield Medic in the Revolution tried to "find a cure for Asthma", he MUST be a pacifist!

:lol:

Che and Fidel were very much for Violence. Hence the fact that they used it to achieve their objectives, and hey, for the most part, it worked!


whats with all these pacifists showing up lately?
I agree. It's like we have an influx of pacifist liberals, stalinists, and racists.

Kind of weird. Maybe someone at Stormfront, Soviet Empire, and Liberals 4 Reform opened the flood gates? :lol:

[ComTom]

I wouldn't call people who advocate peace, "pacifist" I call them humanists. These people are people who would start a protest first then they would start rioting. They are peaceful, loving, and caring individuals who represent the people's beliefs, all revolutions start out peaceful and then they turn violent if the state does not provide the people's needs such as:

American Revolution- First started with protests against taxation without representation, when the protests failed and got more violent, England started sending troops and violence finally broke out, thus turning into a violent revolution.

French Revolution- The General Assembly tried to deal with the king and make a peaceful state, but the king advocated foreign invasion and uprisings, thus starting a violent French revolution.

1917 Russian Revolution- The revolution first started with workers on strike, but turned very violent when troops were sent in the streets to disperse the revolution, thus creating a violent tide.

History has easily taught us, the common man is not prone to violence unless violence is neccesary to protect their interests. If a radical group of people start using violence in a time such as United States of America, the group would not receive the support of man, because man receives basic freedoms and is not in a very desperate economic situation even if capitalism is violent to its people at that time.

[FidelCastro]

i'm not a pot smoking hippy who wears tie-dye t-shirt condering i intend on doing my major and possibly getting a phd is war history (specifically Rommel and I know he is a Nazi but he didn't like Hitler and tried to kill him and he is a great general). I just think that turning to violence from the very begining is wrong. I am in no way a hippy, I just think that senceless killing (Faulan Gong killing in China) is stupid.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:13 PM
Fidel and Che weren't all about violence, Che was a doctor and tried very to find a cure for asthma.
they were both willing, both saw the need for and USED violence. you admire them, so are you prepared to do the same?

[ComTom]

PEACE NEEDS TO COME BEFORE VIOLENCE! Now, if you advocate violent revolution and you live in a capitalist country, I demand you go out in the street and start shooting cops now!, no?, your not gonna? Well let me tell you why, EVERYBODY WILL THINK YOUR CRAZY. VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A FIRST PEACEFUL REVOLUTION. Human nature adapts through change and tries their best to live up to the certain climate. IF the climate becomes painfully deadly and inhumane, they will rise up, but they will first form in the street peacefully. WITHOUT A FIRST ATTEMPTED PEACEFUL REVOLUTION ( protesting, sit ins, etc. ), THERE CAN NEVER BE A VIOLENT REVOLUTION.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:55 PM
PEACE NEEDS TO COME BEFORE VIOLENCE! Now, if you advocate violent revolution and you live in a capitalist country, I demand you go out in the street and start shooting cops now!, no?, your not gonna? Well let me tell you why, EVERYBODY WILL THINK YOUR CRAZY. VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A FIRST PEACEFUL REVOLUTION. Human nature adapts through change and tries their best to live up to the certain climate. IF the climate becomes painfully deadly and inhumane, they will rise up, but they will first form in the street peacefully. WITHOUT A FIRST ATTEMPTED PEACEFUL REVOLUTION ( protesting, sit ins, etc. ), THERE CAN NEVER BE A VIOLENT REVOLUTION.

Human nature

since this is a part of your arguement, im not even going to respond. come back when you have something real.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:55 PM
PEACE NEEDS TO COME BEFORE VIOLENCE! Now, if you advocate violent revolution and you live in a capitalist country, I demand you go out in the street and start shooting cops now!, no?, your not gonna? Well let me tell you why, EVERYBODY WILL THINK YOUR CRAZY. VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A FIRST PEACEFUL REVOLUTION. Human nature adapts through change and tries their best to live up to the certain climate. IF the climate becomes painfully deadly and inhumane, they will rise up, but they will first form in the street peacefully. WITHOUT A FIRST ATTEMPTED PEACEFUL REVOLUTION ( protesting, sit ins, etc. ), THERE CAN NEVER BE A VIOLENT REVOLUTION.
Well, yeah, if you went out on the street and startet going postal on everybody, you'd be called a terrorist. Not a guerilla nor a freedom fighter. Peaceful protests will lead to the capitalists getting scared and eventually becoming violent if we gain a lot of power and support. If and when they strike the first blow, we can gain more supporters and make our own ranks all the more steadfast against the corrupt, militant capitalists.

[Delirium]

There is idiocy in both violence and pacifism. You must look at the circumstances and determine which is more appropriate and effective. To take a dogmatic stance on either is ridiculous.

[ComTom]

( To Nate )

Keep dreaming my freind, and maybe one day all of a sudden a magical prescence will float among the world. Maybe all of a sudden the man will become blood thirsty dogs, and start to massacre the borgeoisis randomly, without first protesting and etc. That didn't even happen in Russia my freind, people first started protesting in 1905, and at the beginning of the 1917 the peaceful revolution finally failed. I am against Social Democracy, I am against acheiving democracy through a borgeoisis institution. But I find it most neccesary to be peaceful at first. Now will you awnser this question, Do you agree with first using a peaceful revolution to succede, even Marx said that a non-violent revolution would be nice if possible, or do you think that you should immediatly take your gun out into the street and starting a "revolution"?

[Xvall]

i'm not a pot smoking hippy who wears tie-dye t-shirt condering i intend on doing my major and possibly getting a phd is war history

Are you implying that I will not fulfill my major or get a PHD?

[ReD_ReBeL]

im not a pacifist nor am i and never intend to be a cold blooded killer, whtever the circumstance or however desperate your movement(liberation) is,Violence towards everyday innocent civillians is NEVER acceptable and if u think different, u my comrade are a terrorist. all the greats Che, Castro, Nelson Mandela, Subcomandante Marcos<all of thm never once targeted an innocent place and look where its got thm, alot further thn FARC,IRA,Al-Queda. People tend to be on the side of the opressed but not if the opressed is ready to sacrifice a civillian for his cause

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:27 PM
im not a pacifist nor am i and never intend to be a cold blooded killer, whtever the circumstance or however desperate your movement(liberation) is,Violence towards everyday innocent civillians is NEVER acceptable and if u think different, u my comrade are a terrorist. all the greats Che, Castro, Nelson Mandela, Subcomandante Marcos<all of thm never once targeted an innocent place and look where its got thm, alot further thn FARC,IRA,Al-Queda. People tend to be on the side of the opressed but not if the opressed is ready to sacrifice a civillian for his cause
are you trying to compare farc to al queda :lol:

farc and the ezln are equal in what they have accomplished, they both hold territory except the ezln has the bourgeois liberals on their side. the farc however, is stronger militarily and could defend itself when its liberated areas are attacked by the state, the ezln probably wouldnt have as much luck.

[ReD_ReBeL]

lol no im not really comparing FARC and Al-Queda im just stating as &#39;wht i read&#39;, that both organisations have some point in there career has massacred civillians. And the EZLN are not really an armed force in theory but in practice thy r if ya get wht i mean, they carry guns but have only ever used thm once and tht was against the military in 1994. and i would say EZLN has accomplished more becoz thy dont go out and fight really, thy stay and help the chiapas build homes, roads, crops , education, health care and probably a whole load more. just becoz thy rnt out there shooting people up doesnt mean there not out there helping there people.

[ComTom]

But you see FARC isn&#39;t just fighting a war, there doing this stuff too. They are building communities behind the liberated zones just as Fidel Castro or Mao Tse Dong did in the liberated areas of their countries. They are living peacefully and communely in a great fashion. But you don&#39;t hear about the events behind the liberated zones ever, you just hear that their terrorists. I do not support FARC just because of the terroristic acts they have done recently. If Communist freedom fight organizations ever resort to terrorism, their no longer " Freedom Fighters" there just useless terrorists.

[anomaly]

If not by violence, how do you propose we attain communism? Do you really think the bourgeoisie will just hand over power via some election or peaceful movement? What you seem to not understand is that the bourgeoisie most often has the services of the nationasl army at their disposal. They will put down any &#39;peace&#39; movement immediately. Elections have been fixed in the past. Socialist governments have been overthrown. Peace historically has failed. Besides, the proletariat have numbers, and thus the means to make war. There is no reason to oppose them rising up againt the old hierarchy that I can see.

[KGB5097]

Before violence can be given as an answer, I must first know something: What is the question?

If you mean "Is voilence the only way to destory capitalism?" than the answer is no. There is an infinate number of ways in which capitalism can collapse, voilence on our part is only one of them.....

Get more specific: Is voilence the answer to what? This is something that needs to be looked at case by case.....

[Revolution67]

I think the term revolution is often misunderstood with armed aggression against the ruling class. Though, there have been armed revolutions, but that does not rule out the relevance of peaceful &#39;unarmed&#39; struggles. The first step towards liberation of the masses from the hold of the ruling class, should have non-violent character and every effort should be adhere to it. It is only when all the peaceful options have run out and the ruling class tries to crush it using force, armed revolution should be picked up, because then the situation would be ripe to foment an armed aggression.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

The last three peaceful revolutions that I know of have been pro-western ones in former Soviet satellites. (georgia, ukraine, krygzstan [ignore the spelling])

As someone who has never been in war, I can&#39;t speak on this subject very much. Right now I think that it comes down to this: Violence is a last, last, LAST, resort. Sadism/overkill is never moral. Violence should only be used on people who are being violent towards you.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:57 PM
Violence is a last, last, LAST, resort. Sadism/overkill is never moral. Violence should only be used on people who are being violent towards you.
Sadism as in torture or perhaps total war?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Funny how a person who starts a "violence is not the answer" thread has a tank in the back of his avatar

[Don't Change Your Name]

Oh, and concerning my views on this issue, I think that violence will be necessary.

Of course it "sounds good" to have a "peaceful revolution", but it also sounds good for you-know-who to allow fascism to be taken its dust off and be taken out of the military warehouse and towards the government&#39;s office to take charge and kill the "hippies" without them being able to defend themselves since they want a "peaceful revolution". And in that case, violence might be needed.

[C_Rasmussen]

Yes I see violence as being necessary for me at least. It say.......gets the point across better if you haul off and deck someone. They&#39;ll look back on the situation and see that maybe its not a good idea to provoke the person in question next time.

[FidelCastro]

I only have that pic because I think it is badass

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 6 2005, 05:49 AM
Oh, and concerning my views on this issue, I think that violence will be necessary.

Of course it "sounds good" to have a "peaceful revolution", but it also sounds good for you-know-who to allow fascism to be taken its dust off and be taken out of the military warehouse and towards the government&#39;s office to take charge and kill the "hippies" without them being able to defend themselves since they want a "peaceful revolution". And in that case, violence might be needed.
A peaceful revolution dosen&#39;t necessarily mean an unarmed revolution...

You can have an armed revolution without a shot being fired.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

" Sadism as in torture or perhaps total war"
Torture. Total war shouldn&#39;t be used in excess of course, but it is now essential in warfare.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 12:13 PM
" Sadism as in torture or perhaps total war"
Torture. Total war shouldn&#39;t be used in excess of course, but it is now essential in warfare.
True, total warfare does seem to be necessary in modern warfare. It started out with "honorable warfare", then "guerilla warfare" and now the line has been blurred so badly it&#39;s hard to tell between "insurgency" and terrorism.

As for torture, I believe that it shouldn&#39;t be used except in extreme circumstances. Definitely not for "fun" like they did at Abu Gharib.

[ComTom]

I think that it is possible to overthrow a state by means of peaceful revolution. Lets say all the state&#39;s workers go on strike and just don&#39;t show up to work. Capitalism will crash because it will be without laborers to help them produce goods. With the fall of capitalism the state will grow weak, they could resort to violence against workers, or step aside and crumble slowly. I think that this could happen, I think that we could overthrow the state peacefully.

For its the state&#39;s own option whether a revolution will turn violent or not.

[which doctor]

Sometimes before you can obtain a society of peace and love, you must first endure one of war and hatred.

[Xvall]

Sadism/overkill is never moral.

What are you talking about? Morals? What the fuck are those? Regulations set fourth by god?

[ComTom]

I think what matters is the right thing to do, you don&#39;t have to say "morals" to express that. Peaceful revolution should be attempted first before we use violence to overthrow state. Peaceful revolution is possible, but its not our descison to make it violent or not, its the STATE that decides the following.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

"What are you talking about? Morals? What the fuck are those? Regulations set fourth by god?"

Well, I was referring to my own ethics. Chill out. I never said you had to follow them.

[violencia.Proletariat]

But I find it most neccesary to be peaceful at first.

this has been tried many times in history, it doesnt work.
nor am i going to lie to myself trying to be "morally correct" by trying to be peaceful first. i know what i want, and im not going to "respect" the exploiter, they have asked for violent action and they will recieve.


1917 the peaceful revolution finally failed.

what a suprise :rolleyes:


Do you agree with first using a peaceful revolution to succede, even Marx said that a non-violent revolution would be nice if possible

i agree, but its not possible. so no i dont believe in trying to be peaceful first beacuse its a waste of time.

but that doesnt mean i advocate violence at every instance, only where its effective or necessary. but i wont "have a peaceful" because its "the right thing to do". because history has shown its the WRONG thing to do.


or do you think that you should immediatly take your gun out into the street and starting a "revolution"?

bullshit arguement. of course not. if you want a revolution to happen no one would do that now. IF it would work, then yes id advocate that. but if you think you can overthrow and supress the bourgeoisie peacefully i think you should "keep dreaming"

[Delirium]

Originally posted by DisIllusion+Dec 7 2005, 01:43 AM--> (DisIllusion @ Dec 7 2005, 01:43 AM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 12:13 PM
" Sadism as in torture or perhaps total war"
Torture. Total war shouldn&#39;t be used in excess of course, but it is now essential in warfare.
True, total warfare does seem to be necessary in modern warfare. It started out with "honorable warfare", then "guerilla warfare" and now the line has been blurred so badly it&#39;s hard to tell between "insurgency" and terrorism.

As for torture, I believe that it shouldn&#39;t be used except in extreme circumstances. Definitely not for "fun" like they did at Abu Gharib. [/b]
I have no problem differentiating between terrorism and an insurgency.

As for torture it think it should be illegal, but if somone in authority decides that they must do it, they should state it and if it is justified it would be excused in that particular case. If authority decides to hide the fact they have tortured somone they should be prosecuted.

[Axel1917]

I suppose it depends. It should be used in revolution (since when does a ruling class go down without a fight?) or in self-defense, for the most part.

[I&#39;d Rather Be Drinking]

Is violence the answer? In a word, no. That&#39;s not because we won&#39;t be violent, take revenge, even be cruel. It&#39;s just not the answer. It&#39;s like saying "Is talking to your co-workers the answer?" A revolution will include both talking to your co-workers and violence (and a lot of other things), but neither of these are what define communist revolution. It is defined by subverting capitalism. For example, look at the army. If it was a case of violence being the answer, all we would have to do is attack the army with our own guns. This is ridiculous. We&#39;d be slaughtered. Luckily there is a class contradiction within the army, that will be pushed when there are strong movements around. Mutiny is the way to destroy the army. This doesn&#39;t mean that we won&#39;t have to fight the hardcore sections of the army still loyal to capital, but to the extent that there is "an answer" it is not violence, it is subversion.

For proletarian revolution. Against capitalist politicians like Ghandi, MLK, Malcolm and Che.

[The Feral Underclass]

The question "Is violence the answer" is not the right one. Neither is "Is violence morally justified?"

Violence shouldn&#39;t be looked at in right or wrong ways, it should be looked at in whether or not it is necessary. To fully rule out violence in every situation is ridiculous.

&#39;Pacifism is a Pathology&#39; is a really good book on the issue and highlights how reactionary pacifism is.

[Martyr]

It is said by sun tzu that the best military stratigist is one who never does battle. If picking up a weapon and killing somebody because you can&#39;t achieve your goals in a more revolutionary way then that just shows that usually picking up the gun wil lalways be the solution. I never liked the use of violence to achieve peace or for that matter whatever your views are.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2005, 09:16 AM
The question "Is violence the answer" is not the right one. Neither is "Is violence morally justified?"

Violence shouldn&#39;t be looked at in right or wrong ways, it should be looked at in whether or not it is necessary. To fully rule out violence in every situation is ridiculous.

&#39;Pacifism is a Pathology&#39; is a really good book on the issue and highlights how reactionary pacifism is.
I agree with all TAT said here. Violence should be viewed as an option, because sometimes it is necessary.

Severian (Or Was it NoXion? The member who hates Pacifism :lol: ) kicks ass on this topic&#33; :lol:

[anomaly]

Yes, I say violence is neccesary, not because I am in favor of using it, but because it must be used, if one simply uses a process of elmination.

For, truly, what other methods have we? There are essentially two &#39;alternatives&#39; to violence: democratic means, peaceful mass movements.

Democracy has been attempted by socialists in the past. And let us see what became of them. I will cite a couple of examples. One: Nicaragua in the 80s. In the 1980s, the Sandinistas, a social democratic, popularly elected regime, was overthrown, in part thanks to the doing of our friends in Washington. Mr. Reagan felt it neccesary for the unpopular Contras to take power in Nicaragua. Two: the most famous and well-known example is that of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1972. Allende was the first official &#39;Socialist&#39; to be elected in the western hemisphere, and, once he was elected, things seemed to be looking up. But the CIA had far different ideas. They simply felt Socialism a threat too dangerous to take peacefully, and so aided in a savage, bloody coup of Allende&#39;s government. From these examples, it should be clear that democracy, as we know, is powerless in the face of the looming threat of the US military.

Now, mass movements haven&#39;t proven quite so disasterous in history, and a few, in fact, have been successful, namely, those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. But, one will notice that in each of these, there were in the background major threats of violence. And so it seems peaceful mass movements can be successful if and only if they are properly combined with highly violent threats from elsewhere.

But, in reality, violence is sometimes necceary. When elections fail, and mass movements simply prove ineffective, shall we simply get on our knees and obey? No, for there is always another option, there is always the threat of violence, and its eventual use. If and when the masses decide to &#39;break their chains&#39;, our side will have the advantage of numbers, and when this happens, with the threat of violence on our side, we will be unstoppable. And when this time comes, the threats can stop, and the actual use of violence shall become quite practical.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 03:47 PM
A peaceful revolution dosen&#39;t necessarily mean an unarmed revolution...

You can have an armed revolution without a shot being fired.
What&#39;s the difference then?
If you have guns, why? What is the point of having a "peaceful" revolution if it is done with guns? Wouldn&#39;t the guns be used to make the enemy "surrender"?

[Krank]

"Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted."

Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:00 PM
"Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted."

Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare.
I&#39;m sure if he was alive in the United States in 2005 he might have a different opinion.

[I&#39;d Rather Be Drinking]

It&#39;s important not to equate guerrilla warfare and revolutionary violence. Most guerrilla groups are capitalist rackets.

[I&#39;d Rather Be Drinking]

...and another thing. Whoever said that guns don&#39;t necessarily mean violence is exactly right. I read somewhere that more people were killed in the filming of Sergei Eisenstein&#39;s portrayal of the storming of the Winter palace (in the movie "October") than were killed in the real-life storming.

[Guerrilla22]

It depends on the situation. Violence should always be the last resort. If it is possible to solve a dilenma by peaceful means, then it must, however some situations call for the use of violence due to a lack of any other way of resolving the situation.

[Djehuti]

Why should violence only be used as a last resort? If violence is the most effective way to tackle a certain problem, then why should we shrink from it?
(Of cource violence should not be used "mindlessly.)

We are the righteous, don&#39;t forget that.

[hamperleft]

we don&#39;t need violence to solve all our problems, I agree, in some situations it is needed, and will undoubtably be needed, but at the moment, the capitalist brassards seem to be doing a pretty good job of tearing themselves and each other to pieces, all we need to do is wait.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:56 PM
we don&#39;t need violence to solve all our problems, I agree, in some situations it is needed, and will undoubtably be needed, but at the moment, the capitalist brassards seem to be doing a pretty good job of tearing themselves and each other to pieces, all we need to do is wait.
what do you mean they are "tearing themselves to peaces"? obviously they compete with eachother in their markets, but they wont "commit suicide". over looking the entire situation, yes one individual could "wait", but the proletariat can not "wait". capitalists are not going to give up.

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:34 PM
not against a government like the labour Party of the UK-although thy did wrong, thy r not restricting peoples freedoms and there is no real chronic poverty in the UK.


Not restricting people&#39;s freedoms? I assume this is some sort of attempt at irony or sarcasm. They are passing ever more restrictive laws, aimed at silencing even the most peaceful of protests, by the day. For instance, there is the new law (Serious and Organised Crime Act) prohibiting any unauthorised protest aroung Parliament.

There are the new Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO&#39;s) brought in, allegedly, to combat youth crime, now being used against protesters.

Anti harassment laws, allegedly brought in to protect people against stalkers, are now being used against legitimate and peaceful protest groups.

And your assertion, unsupported by any facts, that there is no chronic poverty in the UK is simply untrue. I see more homeless people now than ever before. If memory serves, statistics show that, under Tony Blair&#39;s leadership, the gap between the richest and poorest has actually got wider than it was under Margaret Thatcher.

If I&#39;m wrong, then fine, but from your post I can only assume you have either very little knowledge of the UK, or have never actually been here.

[hamperleft]

obviously they compete with each other in their markets, but they wont "commit suicide" your right, they defiantly will not commit suicide on their own, but what i am talking about is the consumers losing faith, take the enron scandle, hundreds lost jobs and money, people looked at that and said how can this be working, gradually, and with more instances like this occurring, capitalism will weaken itself, and its reputation will dissolve with the very fuel it needs to survive, the consumer.