Peace

[Entrails Konfetti]

Now that we are in the midst of war, I would like to share what kind of peace we should be fighting for.

Too many people are demanding peace on the terms that government should withdraw troops, fair free trade between nations, and the right to self determination. Thus re-conferming the legitamacy of the state machine, and the chains will still be tight.

We have learned historically the the right to self-determination cannot happen under imperialism. It could happen under the REAL rule of the prolitariat, and self determination will be superflous.

The working-class should rally around themselves on the international scale, and demoralize the troops to the point that they strike. The will and strength of the prolitariat must be established, and realized.

Only when the working-class takes the power in its hand will there ever be peace. War on Imperialist Expansion will cease to exist.

[Cyanide Suicide]

It seems like a good idea but how could it ever work?

So you're saying the working class should rally and put down the military, and then the military is just gonna go on strike? I doubt that seeing how stubburn they are. It'd be great if the working-class could take the power, but with the law and military, I can only see that happening if there was a full-scale riot all over the world.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:52 PM
It seems like a good idea but how could it ever work?

So you're saying the working class should rally and put down the military, and then the military is just gonna go on strike? I doubt that seeing how stubburn they are. It'd be great if the working-class could take the power, but with the law and military, I can only see that happening if there was a full-scale riot all over the world.
Well, to be blatant I think what I proposed should be our aim and principles.

There is a problem here today; in the beginning of the 20th century when the first World war broke out, the working-class thought "Atleast we still have the second international", though that dissolved, the Spartakusbund in Germany took its place in that country. The Spartakusbund was errected during the time of war. However, our problem is that before this war today is that there hasn't been anything like the Internationals, and we must build something like it.

If a large section working-class would go on political strikes, the Federal Government would send in troops to bring it down. Anti-War sentiment could grow on a large scale, and when the troops overseas and here see that its their family, friends and class opposing this war, they could put up a resistence, reclaim US provinces, and join the masses.

About the laws, they must be ignored. All bourgoeis laws are only legitamite as far as a piece of paper with a stamp, though they claim " Its consent of the governed". What choice do with have when voting for representives: choose between the lesser of two evils who want the same thing.

Another problem today in the Unites States is that too many people think they can change this situtation by voting in a government from the Democrat Party.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I have thought up two conclusions as to why there aren't many politicial strikes in the west:

1. The thought that if we elect someone else things will change radically.

2. The situtation with oil, the dependence upon it.

Why hasn't there been many advances into finding an alternative ?

Sure there are hybrid cars but it seems to be more of a statement of guilt, they are dependent on oil too, though they use less, they arent affordable to most people.
I get that feeling that were waiting for something that can be more efficient, more accesable and cheaper that can take the place oil in the very same cars that use oil.

But, does it take new types of automobiles on a better power source to be gradually introuduced?

Is it possible?

[DisIllusion]

1. The thought that if we elect someone else things will change radically.

Yeah, that's what we're taught in school when we learn about the government; "We have the power over our leaders through the ballot box!" This is a very dangerous way of thinking. Currently in the United States, the majority of people are anti-Bush. During the elections of '04, they were pretty much willing to vote any substitute in, on the premises that "they were not Bush". A fascist or other power-hungry dictator could easily be voted in this way, just by showing that they will be different .


But, does it take new types of automobiles on a better power source to be gradually introuduced?

I don't get what you're saying here, could you go more in-depth?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:23 PM
I don't get what you're saying here, could you go more in-depth?
I may have jumped off the point here; so far there hasn't been anything that can totally replace gasoline in combustion engines. Though, there are talks that new types of automobiles on a better fuel source can be introduced, though this will have to be gradual.

Theres been talk of cars that can run soley on nuclear enegry, but powering stations in place of gas stations will be very expensive to implement, and to perfect. The same goes for nuclear cars themselves.

If such things were perfected and proved safe by tommorow, I'm assuming it would take a century to introduce fully.

But our dependence on oil will only gradually diminish.

Could someone answer me this; Are we using oil more rapidly then we have the time to find alternatives?

[DisIllusion]

Could someone answer me this; Are we using oil more rapidly then we have the time to find alternatives?


Definitely. And the government is just sticking it's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away rather than look for alternatives. All that the government has done so far is attack oil-rich nations and try not to piss off OPEC. Last time America was arrogant enough to piss off OPEC, we had mile long lines at the gas stations.

Peak Oil (http://www.peakoil.org/)

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/76/350px-Energy_crisis_-_oild_sold_out.jpg

[redstar2000]

Two posts that deal with the "peak oil" myth...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291996304 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44489&view=findpost&p=1291996304)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291996776 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44489&view=findpost&p=1291996776)

I find it rather astonishing how many people have "bought into" this nonsense.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Entrails Konfetti]

Redstar2k are you saying there doesn't need to be an alternative?

That peak oil pollutes outrageously more when it is being processed than other oil.

[redstar2000]

There are "alternatives" in existence right at this moment...and more are certain to be developed in this century.

My objection is to the "sky is falling" rhetoric of the "peak oil" lobby. It serves as a distraction from the real enemy...capitalism itself.

One might legitimately label it hysterical reformism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DisIllusion]

There are "alternatives" in existence right at this moment...and more are certain to be developed in this century.

What alternatives? Sure, every once in a while, I'll hear about a car that runs on vegetable oil or something, but I don't really see that being integrated into daily life around us.


It serves as a distraction from the real enemy...capitalism itself.

Doesn't Peak Oil sort of embody what capitalism is about? Burning off as much as you can without thinking about the enviromental problems it could cause, invading countries over greed, and making everybody almost totally dependent on it?