Violence? [Archive]

Forward Union

5th February 2006, 11:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:28 AM
Do you think Violence is an acceptable tool of the Revolution?

If so, in what context? What could violence do to further the Revolution?

I don't think you can overthrow a government peacefully, :lol:

You try to take over state apparatus and dismantle it, they'll respond with force, and at that point you have the choice of sitting down and getting your head caved in, or fighting back with everyone else. At which point it would escalate.

On a personal level, for those applicable, what kind of violence would you yourself be willing to partake in for the cause?

In a state of Class War/Revolution, I'd go as far as killing, but only when necessary. At least, I think killing would be morally acceptable, I've never been in such a situation, so I can't say that I would. But I certainly Think i might.

Goatse

5th February 2006, 11:05

I mean as in senseless violence. Smashing cars and throwing bricks and windows. That will just get regular workers pissed at the movement.

RNK

5th February 2006, 14:09

Next question, what would the prerequisites have to be of you doing a violent act? If a Revolution did "spring" up in your area, would you fight zealously, or be somewhat cautious? Lastly, would you go out of your way to start violence, or travel to join it elsewhere?

Hegemonicretribution

5th February 2006, 14:20

Ernest, violence as a tool should only be exercised when there is justification for doing so. This comes along with class consciousness, that is when the proletariat is awakened then the mandate lies with them, and not the state or various bourgois institutions. It is not us being violent, however if the state or the suer rich try to prevent this massive majority from achieving its ultimately peaceful goals, then the proletariat is justified in self defence, of the individual and the movement.

Think of everything as reversed, we are like the police apprehending a violent criminla, but really we are the proletariat ridding ourselves of our oppressors.

La ComÃ©die Noire

5th February 2006, 15:47

Do you think Violence is an acceptable tool of the Revolution?

If so, in what context? What could violence do to further the Revolution?

On a personal level, for those applicable, what kind of violence would you yourself be willing to partake in for the cause?

Yes I do think violence is an acceptable tool for reveloution. In the context that I will be killing soldiers to protect people and gather arms. Well It depends If I could say capture ten soldiers and use there knowledge to further our cause and maybe even turn a couple of them over than I would'nt partake in violence, but I am willing to commit violence.

Ernest, violence as a tool should only be exercised when there is justification for doing so.

How about Burgeois Oppresion as Justification. <_<

RNK

5th February 2006, 15:48

What I mean is...

What is a justification of violence? I am not speaking of violent protests, mobs, civil unrest, vandalism, or any of that. I am talking about armed conflict. Larger than simple criminal, ignorant violence.

The root of what I am saying, I think, is that a person such as Che Guevara believed that violence was not only an option, but a necessary one, in the conflict between socialism and capitalism. Although he spent much of his life as an activist, a speaker, he also spent much of it as a fighter, on the ground, in the dirt, in Cuba, Bolivia, Africa, et al. He was not a very peaceful man. Don't mistake that comment. I am not saying he is a war monger. Rather, that he was willing to fight, and willing to kill, and saw justification in doing so, for the Revolution.

The question is, would you be? And again, I don't mean a violent protest, or trashing cars, or beating people up. I mean war.

Goatse

5th February 2006, 16:34

Yes.

Although I'd be pretty crap.

Hegemonicretribution

5th February 2006, 17:13

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2006, 04:06 PM

Ernest, violence as a tool should only be exercised when there is justification for doing so.

How about Burgeois Oppresion as Justification. <_<
Did you actually read any of my post? Or skim over it to find one objectional statement taken entirely out of context? <_< You succeded in correcting me by saying something I had already said in my post.

Anyway..Ernest: Once class consciousness has been achieved there is no need for war, and if there is then it is in this circumstance that it is entirely justified. If it wasn't then that would suggest that oppression of the masses by a small elite is justified. Which clearly it is not.

When you take in mind that it is not oppression of the few by the many that is being offered as an alternative, but rather the end of oppression itself, then how could you see this as not justified?

Yes, if the situation developed whereby it was a movement of the proletariat by the whole, and the prevention of this movement was initiated by a ruling elite, I would go to war. I'd just be grateful I am on my side.

Forward Union

5th February 2006, 17:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:28 PM
What is a justification of violence?
What justifies violence? well, I don't think that's really the right question to ask. In revolution, the state will oppress, it will kill, Rape, torture and imprison, people, indeed it does these things now. The question is, what the hell could possibly justify not taking violent action? The other options are to give up, waste your time, or loose.

The root of what I am saying, I think, is that a person such as Che Guevara believed that violence was not only an option, but a necessary one, in the conflict between socialism and capitalism.

Che Guevara believed violence should be a last resort "After all diplomatic options have been exhausted"

The question is, would you be? And again, I don't mean a violent protest, or trashing cars, or beating people up. I mean war.

I wouldn't be a "Che Guevara" or a Guerrilla along those lines, I utterly detest Che, and his politics. But yes I would use violence.

La ComÃ©die Noire

5th February 2006, 17:40

Did you actually read any of my post? Or skim over it to find one objectional statement taken entirely out of context? dry.gif You succeded in correcting me by saying something I had already said in my post.

Opps. :o

I am dearly sorry I was just passing through, In the future I will be sure to read all the way through before making a critque.

Again,
Sorry

Hegemonicretribution

5th February 2006, 17:43

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2006, 05:59 PM

Did you actually read any of my post? Or skim over it to find one objectional statement taken entirely out of context? dry.gif You succeded in correcting me by saying something I had already said in my post.

Opps. :o

I am dearly sorry I was just passing through, In the future I will be sure to read all the way through before making a critque.

Again,
Sorry
I appologise as well, I get frustrated sometimes that is all. I know I am generally obscure, and easy to misunderstand, but it is never intentional.

Additives Free I think has more concisely put down my sentiments. cheers :)

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 18:26

I personally wouldn't fight in it because I dont want to risk dying because of someone else.

Tormented by Treachery

5th February 2006, 18:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:45 PM
I personally wouldn't fight in it because I dont want to risk dying because of someone else.
That's turning your back on your comrades, my friend. If there are 100,000 members of the proletariat fighting for your class' rights and to free you from oppression, you wouldn't join arms with your brothers and fight? You wouldn't take a bullet so that your comrades may get freedom? I'm sorry, but I find that cowardly.

The Revolution is not about one person. This is about every human being, so who would you be dying for? Yourself. Yourself and your family and your comrades. All of which are worth dying for, by the way.

As for what justifies violence -- I think this question is ill-placed. The real question should be, "At what point do we become violent?" That is simple: as soon as we have the strength. If this is what HegemonicRetribution is referring to as "class consciousness" (for I am not well versed in leftism) then I agree with that. If we were to start fighting exactly now, we would undoubtedly be crushed instantly. But it is already justified. War for workers' freedom was justified hundreds of years ago, and with every day comes more reason to rebel.

Violence is not the first option to be attempted, but to quote (loosely) what AF said in a separate thread, "nonviolent options were exhausted centuries ago." I agree. The movement should and will remain nonviolent until there is open oppression, when the armies are marching down the streets and arresting people based on political affiliation. I change that -- when this happens in first world nations, because it is already happening around the world in third world countries. When the peaceful revolution reaches a point where the government is openly supressing the people for political reasons, and when they resort to violence openly, that, comrade, is when the revolution will occur. And it will have been justified all along.

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 19:10

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+Feb 5 2006, 01:01 PM--> (Tormented by Treachery @ Feb 5 2006, 01:01 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 06:45 PM
I personally wouldn't fight in it because I dont want to risk dying because of someone else.
That's turning your back on your comrades, my friend. If there are 100,000 members of the proletariat fighting for your class' rights and to free you from oppression, you wouldn't join arms with your brothers and fight? You wouldn't take a bullet so that your comrades may get freedom? I'm sorry, but I find that cowardly.

The Revolution is not about one person. This is about every human being, so who would you be dying for? Yourself. Yourself and your family and your comrades. All of which are worth dying for, by the way.

As for what justifies violence -- I think this question is ill-placed. The real question should be, "At what point do we become violent?" That is simple: as soon as we have the strength. If this is what HegemonicRetribution is referring to as "class consciousness" (for I am not well versed in leftism) then I agree with that. If we were to start fighting exactly now, we would undoubtedly be crushed instantly. But it is already justified. War for workers' freedom was justified hundreds of years ago, and with every day comes more reason to rebel.

Violence is not the first option to be attempted, but to quote (loosely) what AF said in a separate thread, "nonviolent options were exhausted centuries ago." I agree. The movement should and will remain nonviolent until there is open oppression, when the armies are marching down the streets and arresting people based on political affiliation. I change that -- when this happens in first world nations, because it is already happening around the world in third world countries. When the peaceful revolution reaches a point where the government is openly supressing the people for political reasons, and when they resort to violence openly, that, comrade, is when the revolution will occur. And it will have been justified all along. [/b]
Maybe that is being cowardly but thats just the way I am. Thats also why I dont get into many fights either. Its because I dont want to risk getting my ass kicked. I dont want to take a bullet because of anyone. If I'm going to die its going to be because of ME.

Tormented by Treachery

5th February 2006, 19:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:29 PM
Maybe that is being cowardly but thats just the way I am. Thats also why I dont get into many fights either. Its because I dont want to risk getting my ass kicked. I dont want to take a bullet because of anyone. If I'm going to die its going to be because of ME.
You missed the main point of the post -- revolution is about you and I, brother, and all of the other people on the planet. To say that the movement is for someone else, that's wrong, it is for utter democracy and equality for all. So by taking a bullet, you are doing it for yourself.

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 19:42

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+Feb 5 2006, 01:59 PM--> (Tormented by Treachery @ Feb 5 2006, 01:59 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 07:29 PM
Maybe that is being cowardly but thats just the way I am. Thats also why I dont get into many fights either. Its because I dont want to risk getting my ass kicked. I dont want to take a bullet because of anyone. If I'm going to die its going to be because of ME.
You missed the main point of the post -- revolution is about you and I, brother, and all of the other people on the planet. To say that the movement is for someone else, that's wrong, it is for utter democracy and equality for all. So by taking a bullet, you are doing it for yourself. [/b]
I dont really get what you said in that post just now. The only thing I can say is if I'm going to take a bullet then I'll be the one putting to my head and pulling the fucking trigger.

Offtopic, that would seem pretty fine right now.

RNK

5th February 2006, 21:52

Like Che said, a Revolutionary "...fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." If you are unwilling to do so, then you are no Revolutionary.

To the others, I say, let the non-Revolutionary baby have his bottle. :D

Back on topic...

Who here would, if they were capable, get in a car, on a boat, in a plane, go to a place under Imperial oppression, and fight against it? If the Imperial west launched a war against a Socialist entity, say, Cuba, or Venezuala, Bolivia, Socialists in Columbia, etc, who would want to go and help? Alternatively, who would rather wave a simple sign in protest 3,000 kilometers away? Who would be willing, realistically, to pick up a gun and risk their lives for the cause?

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 22:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:11 PM
Like Che said, a Revolutionary "...fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." If you are unwilling to do so, then you are no Revolutionary.

To the others, I say, let the non-Revolutionary baby have his bottle. :D

Back on topic...

Who here would, if they were capable, get in a car, on a boat, in a plane, go to a place under Imperial oppression, and fight against it? If the Imperial west launched a war against a Socialist entity, say, Cuba, or Venezuala, Bolivia, Socialists in Columbia, etc, who would want to go and help? Alternatively, who would rather wave a simple sign in protest 3,000 kilometers away? Who would be willing, realistically, to pick up a gun and risk their lives for the cause?
Oh yeah you're real cool aren't ya? Maybe some of us don't have the courage that others do. Maybe some of us couldn't gather up enough to go out and risk our fucking lives.

cbm989

5th February 2006, 22:27

Rasmussen....you dont get the point of the cause. if you dont have the guts to stick up for what you believe in then whats the point in supporting the cause. especially when theres nothing to back it up? i know im here to better the human race, and i will do anythign to accomplish that. the revolution is the key to bettering human society. and you can bet your ass id takea bullet for a comrade, because they have the same dream as i do.

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 22:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:46 PM
Rasmussen....you dont get the point of the cause. if you dont have the guts to stick up for what you believe in then whats the point in supporting the cause. especially when theres nothing to back it up? i know im here to better the human race, and i will do anythign to accomplish that. the revolution is the key to bettering human society. and you can bet your ass id takea bullet for a comrade, because they have the same dream as i do.
No maybe I dont have the fucking spine to stick up for what I believe in because I know I would die and I want TO DIE ON MY TERMS. Can you fucking understand that? Yes I want freedom for all and freedom from oppression but I aint going to risk myself.

RNK

5th February 2006, 22:39

If, for whatever reasons, because of whatever circumstances, you came home from school or work one day and found your family at gunpoint, and they said they'd let you live, but would kill your dad or mom or whomever... and you have the option to fight, and risk your life, trying to save them... would you?

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 22:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:58 PM
If, for whatever reasons, because of whatever circumstances, you came home from school or work one day and found your family at gunpoint, and they said they'd let you live, but would kill your dad or mom or whomever... and you have the option to fight, and risk your life, trying to save them... would you?
Um lets see if I had a gun then yes but if not then I guess we would be out of luck, wouldnt we?

<_<

RNK

5th February 2006, 22:53

So, if you had a gun in your hand, and they had a gun, you would fight to protect them?

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 22:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:12 PM
So, if you had a gun in your hand, and they had a gun, you would fight to protect them?
Yeah but I suppose if I had armor on as well just to make it safer for me =/. I'm kind of a puss in the way of fighting.

RNK

5th February 2006, 23:14

That's fine. But you do realize a lot of people here may find that insulting?

C_Rasmussen

5th February 2006, 23:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:33 PM
That's fine. But you do realize a lot of people here may find that insulting?
Find what insulting?

Tormented by Treachery

6th February 2006, 00:45

The fact that I'd die for your cause but you would not for mine, though the causes are one and the same. That you would cower in the face of violence and submit to authority, that you would reduce yourself to nothing better than a pawn, meanwhile claiming to support the cause that we have. That you would allow fascism and oppression to continue on while pretending to be a revolutionary. That you would abandon us in the time of crisis, comrade. That I would take a bullet for you but you would grovel at the feet of thugs to spare your own life.

C_Rasmussen

6th February 2006, 00:48

Originally posted by Tormented by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:04 PM
The fact that I'd die for your cause but you would not for mine, though the causes are one and the same. That you would cower in the face of violence and submit to authority, that you would reduce yourself to nothing better than a pawn, meanwhile claiming to support the cause that we have. That you would allow fascism and oppression to continue on while pretending to be a revolutionary. That you would abandon us in the time of crisis, comrade. That I would take a bullet for you but you would grovel at the feet of thugs to spare your own life.
Thats pretty much it because I dont want to risk getting my ass served to me or shot or w/e. I'm just too fucking scared. I am a coward and I can honestly admit that. I'm up for this revolution and freeing others but not violently. Like I said this is somewhat of a reason why I dont get into too many fights.

RNK

6th February 2006, 01:37

I am terrified of fights, too. I'm terrified of getting hurt. But I'll still lay my life down for the cause.

Tormented, don't be too critical of him. Not everyone has the will to fight. And we can't expect them to. That is what makes us Revolutionaries... that we will selflessly fight for others who can or will not, for their freedom just as much as our own.

Hehehe.

Tormented by Treachery

6th February 2006, 02:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:56 AM
Tormented, don't be too critical of him. Not everyone has the will to fight. And we can't expect them to. That is what makes us Revolutionaries... that we will selflessly fight for others who can or will not, for their freedom just as much as our own.
If you say this in seriousness, I'm not, I still think him a revolutionary, just a weak-willed one. It does not change my view of giving my life for his freedom (as well as my own), the fact that it is not reciprocal.

The Feral Underclass

6th February 2006, 08:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:30 PM
I mean as in senseless violence. Smashing cars and throwing bricks and windows. That will just get regular workers pissed at the movement.
Why is smashing a car or a window senseless? Usually it makes allot of sense to the people who are smashing them. During the 1968 Paris uprising, many car owners smashed up their cars as a demonstration against consumer society.

leftist resistance

6th February 2006, 09:53

Why is smashing a car or a window senseless?

It is if the car or window that's being smashed is owned by someone who would have supported the cause.Better to smash corporates.Smashing cars and windows are useless;revolting agaisnt oppression isn't

loveme4whoiam

6th February 2006, 11:32

Indeed; random acts of vandalism and destruction are, in fatc, counter-revolutionary, because they anger those who would support us. Take the French riots that occurred recently. I had absolutely no idea why they were doing so (I later learned on this board the reasons - racial discrimination etc), because the media was given the chance to focus on the random violence that was dealt out to all and sundry. Had they had a mass gathering to show their outrage at racial discrimination instead of blowing up cars, the media would have been forced to report on the reasons for the protest, rather than the act itself.

Anyway, to back to the hypothetical queston Ernest asked earlier - would you ship off to Latin America or wherever and fight against imperialism? This ties into another thread about the possible (not in the strict sense) invasion of Cuba by the US. If, for some insane reason, it was made clear that the US were going to launch a full-scale military assault on Cuba, would you ship out and fight besides our Cuban brothers?

Honestly, I'm not sure if I could answer that. In principle, absolutely, I'm already on the boat. In practice, I would have to give it some serious thought, simply because I don't want to be a martyr. Don't get me wrong, I'll wade into any kind of fight, assuming there is any real chance of winning. This si why I support violent action as it has been outlined by the majority of the posters so far - when that action is approved of and supported by the masses, and when overt military oppression becomes evident.

Glasgow

6th February 2006, 13:11

Violance should always be the last resort if there are other avenues these should be explored relentlessley then explored again. Only in a situation were democracy is not a option and your comunity is under attack should violance even be considered and even then there is no excuse for cowardly attacks.

Forward Union

6th February 2006, 17:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:36 PM
Violance should always be the last resort
It is...and we'll have to resort to it.

Who here would, if they were capable, get in a car, on a boat, in a plane, go to a place under Imperial oppression, and fight against it?

Everyone is under imperial oppression. I live in the UK, all the people I know, the people I work with, the people I attend Anarchist meetings with, the people I study at A-level with, they're all in the oppressed working class. And yes, I do fight against imperialism, maybe not as much as I could, but that's circumstantial. I will certainly get more and more involved.

If the Imperial west launched a war against a Socialist entity, say, Cuba, or Venezuala, Bolivia, Socialists in Columbia, etc, who would want to go and help?

No I'd sit back and watch, hopefully the two shits will wipe each other out.

Alternatively, who would rather wave a simple sign in protest 3,000 kilometers away? Who would be willing, realistically, to pick up a gun and risk their lives for the cause?

No offence, but this Che-esque notion you have of all the conflict being far away in third world nations, is somewhat a fantasy. The class conflict is hear and around me. I would rather take part in the class conflict here.

Hegemonicretribution

6th February 2006, 19:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:02 AM
I am terrified of fights, too. I'm terrified of getting hurt. But I'll still lay my life down for the cause.
I am not accusing anyone, or suggesting anything by this, but lets see who does what when the time comes. (Ernest, I quoted you because I wanted to show which sub-toic I am reffering to, not suggesting this applies to you :) )

What I mean by this is that in such a situation the people that are most sure of themselves now might crumble, and the heroes may be from the most unlikely source. C_Rasmussen may turn out to be the one fighting to the death when they have nothing else to lose, and we might cower away, see how you cope in these situations first.

Often the people most who profess to be most confident in a chrisis aren't, I have seen this in several first aid emergencies before. Also those you expect to fall to pieces may be the one that keeps it all together. Just like in the school playground, or in a streetfight, it isn't how you talk yourself up (or down) it is how you perform, all else is mere speculation.

RNK

6th February 2006, 22:49

Good words.

Additives, what kind of action do you take?

FULL METAL JACKET

6th February 2006, 23:15

Violence is mandatory in a revolution. Look what Malcolm X said:

Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution - what was it based on? The landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you - you don't know what a revolution is. Becuase when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out the way.

The Russian Revolution - what was it based on? Land; the landless against the landlord. How did they bring about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed. And you're afraid to bleed. I said, you're afraid to bleed. - Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grassroots.

^ The truth right there.

RNK

7th February 2006, 02:21

Also; the reason I am less willing to fight in my own homeland (Canada) is simple. Canadians are relatively well-off. Canada is not overtly imperialistic. Though we're allied with the US (grudgingly), we are afforded universal healthcare, lots of social programs, low-cost schooling, etc. There is no major, huge crisis here. Granted, Canada needs to change; but in my opinion, the very existance of other places is at risk. I can feel safe knowing my Canada will not change (for the worse) anytime soon, but I worry that the death of a single man in Cuba could send millions into oppression. In my opinion, more attention needs to be paid towards the ones who need our help the most. They are the front line. The movement needs to cull, not expand. The foothold of Socialism on this planet is threatened and I think it is important that that foothold is where the attention is at, not starting mostly insignificant new movements all over the place.

Forward Union

7th February 2006, 11:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:46 AM
Also; the reason I am less willing to fight in my own homeland (Canada) is simple. Canadians are relatively well-off.

Materially.

Canada is not overtly imperialistic. Though we're allied with the US (grudgingly), we are afforded universal healthcare, lots of social programs, low-cost schooling, etc.

So? as an Anarchist/Communist maybe less so for a socialist, our goal should be to take the power away from the ruling class, and live collectively as equals, to destroy the state and capitalist free market. Canada is still divided into two classes, the Ruling class who controls the wealth, and the working class who is divided and exploited by the ruling class. Canada is home to thousands of corporations and a ruling class. There's plenty to do.

There is no major, huge crisis here.

Other than Capitalism.

Granted, Canada needs to change; but in my opinion, the very existance of other places is at risk. I can feel safe knowing my Canada will not change (for the worse) anytime soon, but I worry that the death of a single man in Cuba could send millions into oppression.

What? Cuba is already oppressed. We want equality, freedom and autonomy. We want to destroy all ruling classes, Fidel, nice guy as he may be (I mean, he did apologise for the execution of homosexuals) is still a member of a ruling class. But i understadn your desire to help comrades around the world, just remember, the best sign of support for Libertarian communists struggling against Fidel, is to struggle against your opressors.

In my opinion, more attention needs to be paid towards the ones who need our help the most. They are the front line.

We're all on the front line.

Forward Union

7th February 2006, 11:34

Well, as you seem interested in International support, I've been involved in EZLN solidarity. Importing Zapatista coffee, sending them medical supplies, we're going to play EZLN films at the local uni and stuff to see if we can raise money.

Internally? too much to list :P some of the more reacent stuff, well, I've been involved in quite a lot, most recently, I've been involved in Prisoner solidarity, Have taken part in an amazing Reclaim the streets demo, where we attempted to take over corporate, in the middle of a massive shopping center; and claim it public...

Which you can read about here (http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7333)

I went up to scotland to protest the G8 summit, been to london to help out at the Anarchist Federation stand, at the Anarchist Bookfair. Took part in a rally before the Arms fair demonstration in London to try and get more people to turn up......I also work for the 'Reading International Solidarity Center' or "RISC" for short. And last year, joined the Anarchist Federation, so now am involved in work with them. Then of course there's your Stickering, Flyposting, stencilling etc...generally distributing propaganda.

This year we're planning on doing loads more, like taking over abandoned houses, holding and anti-monarchist gigs, etc.

Tormented by Treachery

7th February 2006, 18:38

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 7 2006, 11:59 AM
Well, as you seem interested in International support, I've been involved in EZLN solidarity. Importing Zapatista coffee, sending them medical supplies, we're going to play EZLN films at the local uni and stuff to see if we can raise money.

Internally? too much to list :P some of the more reacent stuff, well, I've been involved in quite a lot, most recently, I've been involved in Prisoner solidarity, Have taken part in an amazing Reclaim the streets demo, where we attempted to take over corporate, in the middle of a massive shopping center; and claim it public...

Which you can read about here (http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7333)

I went up to scotland to protest the G8 summit, been to london to help out at the Anarchist Federation stand, at the Anarchist Bookfair. Took part in a rally before the Arms fair demonstration in London to try and get more people to turn up......I also work for the 'Reading International Solidarity Center' or "RISC" for short. And last year, joined the Anarchist Federation, so now am involved in work with them. Then of course there's your Stickering, Flyposting, stencilling etc...generally distributing propaganda.

This year we're planning on doing loads more, like taking over abandoned houses, holding and anti-monarchist gigs, etc.
Pwned. :D

I agree with what AF previously said: any nation with a capitalist or fascist government (read: all nations) are places where action is needed. Revolution is not isolated.

Ol' Dirty

7th February 2006, 20:34

I see no problem with killing in a umanitarian fashion if it svoids more sufering, such as that caused by oppresion.

RNK

8th February 2006, 02:03

My focus is more aimed towards a very active, somewhat extremist level. I wasn't trying to pointedly question you about what you have done.

I still stand by my belief that on level of not only importance, but plausibility, I feel I am needed on the front lines in places like South America, Africa and abroad, as opposed to the "home front". Granted, the Revolution needs to take place everywhere, but the situation and atmosphere I feel I am best suited to is located not here in Canada, or the stable Capitalist countries, but elsewhere.

I hold no feelings of underestimation when it comes to Capitalism and Imperialism. I do not feel that simply waving banners, marching and protesting will do enough. Infact, I think, except in rare cases, it does very little. The current system of capitalism and "democracy" and "republic" dictates that essentially, the average person has no choice in life except, as someone has said, to choose who will oppress them. It is the lawmakers, the rich, the rulers, who make the decisions, and they are not easily swayed by the voices of the masses. This system is dug deep in western society, and, in my opinion, will only be dislodged through extreme violence -- not because that is what I want, but because that is how they have made it. It is imperialistic monopoly.

That said, I do not believe a violent uprising could come to fruition with any success. The state of life I pointed out that westerners have is far different from those that peoples in other areas of the world share. In South America, Africa, Asia, they literally have little to lose. They have little choice but uprising. But in the west, things are relatively okay. The average citizen, the average worker, is too busy working hard to maintain his life to think about trying to drastically change it. Too afraid to lose what little they have, they worry about today, not tomorrow. Which, again, is another system of control. They are given just enough to keep them happy and fixated on what they have, fixated on trying to hold onto it, rather than risk losing it for the dream of something greater.

Thus, I feel my services would do more good in another place. Granted, I could try and start a violent revolution here. I would attain little popular support, and die, and be at the whim of western media. But elsewhere, I atleast have a chance to attain success, great success, and help stabilize the effort where, as I said, I feel it is needed most. Then, when it is stable, perhaps it will be time to bring it home.

RNK

8th February 2006, 02:05

As for killing another human being; I too believe it should be a last resort, but I also believe that the last resort is upon us. All avenues, all options have been exhausted by the impeccable strength of greed and corruption and power-mongering. I would hate to kill, but I would, because my enemy has made the decision to kill me.

FULL METAL JACKET

8th February 2006, 02:10

Originally posted by FULL METAL [email protected] 6 2006, 06:40 PM
Violence is mandatory in a revolution. Look what Malcolm X said:

Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution - what was it based on? The landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you - you don't know what a revolution is. Becuase when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out the way.

The Russian Revolution - what was it based on? Land; the landless against the landlord. How did they bring about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed. And you're afraid to bleed. I said, you're afraid to bleed. - Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks, Message to the Grassroots.

^ The truth right there.
^ read that!

RNK

8th February 2006, 02:19

What about the so-called Velvet and Orange revolutions?

Forward Union

8th February 2006, 15:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 02:44 AM
What about the so-called Velvet and Orange revolutions?
They're a joke... just a term to make bourgeois elections sound more exciting.

Dien Bien

8th February 2006, 21:00

Violence MUST only be used as a last resort. I'm no coward, I would fight for the cause, but if I see a better, peaceful way I'm going to take it. It is wrong to say that non-violent means have long since been exhausted in general. For some peoples and nations, it is sadly true. The Cubans, for instance, had no real alternative to armed rebellion, so violence was right for them. Its the same in Nepal and the Philippines. For some people, violence is the only tool they have at their disposal, and so they must use it, it is their last resort.

In countries like Canada, the United States, or most European nations, violent revolution really isn't an option. The majority of people in these places are not willing to kill or be killed in an attempt to change the system because they know that there are alternatives.

But even those struggles in Nepal and the Philippines which are currently underway warrant a second look. There are innocent people being killed and taken hostage. The aims of the rebels are truly noble and deserving of our support, but their actions bring great harm to the civilian population. Their bombs kill women and children as often as they do government forces. Its the same story in Iraq right now. The insurgents' cause is a righteous one, but the way in which they conduct themselves is less than admirable.

I ask all of you on here, can you really imagine the sort of situation and violence as we see in Nepal and elsewhere in your home country? Would you really support that? Some have said that they would go out and fight, but would they really? Could they really take another human's life? Could they put the barrel of a gun to someone and pull the trigger? Could they slice someone's throat or sink a blade into another person's flesh? Would they really be willing to risk their own necks? Especially when it is possible for their goals to be achieved by non-violent means, when everyone could have lived and the system still have been overthrown?

Revolution does not necessarily have to be violent. Anything that changes can be said to have undergone a revolution. I think one of the problems we face is that many people are thinking of the revolution as a momentous event, like a war or a great coup, and not as a ongoing, living process. Society is ever evolving. In rough terms, the world evolved from feudalism to capitalism to capitalism with greater state involvement to a moderate socialism is some countries - mostly with minimal bloodshed. The transition to socialism and communism is as natural and inevitable as the evolution of man himself.

As I said, in some cases violence is required, but not always... not always.

FULL METAL JACKET

8th February 2006, 22:52

Violence MUST only be used as a last resort.

Violence is the only resort in a revolution. You can't have a revolution without violence.

The Cubans, for instance, had no real alternative to armed rebellion, so violence was right for them. Its the same in Nepal and the Philippines. For some people, violence is the only tool they have at their disposal, and so they must use it, it is their last resort.

You can't take out a government peacefully. From Russia, to France, Algeria, too many to name. For every country thats done it so called "peacefully" there is atleast 5 countries that has done it violently.

In countries like Canada, the United States, or most European nations, violent revolution really isn't an option. The majority of people in these places are not willing to kill or be killed in an attempt to change the system because they know that there are alternatives.

What exactly are the alternatives?

But even those struggles in Nepal and the Philippines which are currently underway warrant a second look. There are innocent people being killed and taken hostage. The aims of the rebels are truly noble and deserving of our support, but their actions bring great harm to the civilian population. Their bombs kill women and children as often as they do government forces.

It's horrible when any innocent people or civilians get killed. But please name any war or revolution in the history of this earth that hasn't seen civilians get killed.

Especially when it is possible for their goals to be achieved by non-violent means, when everyone could have lived and the system still have been overthrown?

Again you have to clarify on being non-violent. Please explain how a government can be overthrown in a non-violent way.

loveme4whoiam

8th February 2006, 23:09

I think Dien Bien was talking about action precipitate to a full-blown fighting-in-the-streets revolution. In countries where there are viable alternatives to blowing up a police station to make a political point, then they should be pursued first. However, once these alternatives are lost (governments cracking down on independent media, etc) then of course violence becomes the correct option because there are no other options.

I agree with you FMJ, in the end every country's revolution will end up being violent, there is no other way to do it. But while we still have other avenues we can use to gain support, we should use them to their fullest, and put off random firebombings for when we can afford the bad publicity.

RNK

8th February 2006, 23:41

What about specifically in a Western country like Canada, the US, or Europe? It seems so unlikely that the sort of popular mass movements and uprisings could take place here. Like I said, life here is relatively good compared to the squallor, dictatorialism and corruption that made life an absolutely unbearable hell in places like Vietnam, Cuba, Nepal, etc. I do not have doubts that most in the West want good change and equality and all of that jazz, but I do doubt their strength of will and percerverance in attaining it through anything other than incredibly slow mouse-wheel reform. (Of course I am against this merry-go-round thing called "reform"; it is no more than the illusion of choice)

But, realistically speaking, to put aside one's hopes and dreams... can any sort of large scale uprising happen in the West? And I don't mean things like the LA riots or the ethnic riots in France.. I mean nation-wide, government-abolishing uprising.

RNK

8th February 2006, 23:42

And as for blowing up police stations... how many thousands of them are there in the US?

Dien Bien

9th February 2006, 17:45

Full Metal Jacket, violence is not the only resort in a revolution, because there are various types of revolution, including, though you may not like to acknowledge it, peaceful or passive revolution. Armed struggle and bloodshed is not necessarily needed to bring about great change. Ever hear of a guy named Ghandi?

"For every country thats done it so called "peacefully" there is atleast 5 countries that has done it violently." In saying this, you fully acknowledge that it can be done peacefully - good job!

Governments and social and economic systems can be changed gradually, from within. Its happening as we speak. The capitalist system is decaying, it is failing by greater and greater margins to meet the needs of the people, socialists (even if only moderate) are gaining ground in many nations, and all of this without violence. Depite all that is said about the democratic system, it can still, at least here in Canada, be used to our advantage.

Tell me, comrade, after your glorious coup, how exactly do you expect to manage things? After you've destroyed everything, how do you plan to get things done and keep a handle on the situation? Ever think that the existing mechanisms and apparatus could be manipulated by us, to work in our favour?

I admit that violence has its place, to varying degrees depending upon the situation, but, to be honest, some people on here come across as just a little bloodthirsty sometimes... and that WILL NOT WIN YOU ANY SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC!

loveme4whoiam

9th February 2006, 19:52

I admit that violence has its place, to varying degrees depending upon the situation, but, to be honest, some people on here come across as just a little bloodthirsty sometimes... and that WILL NOT WIN YOU ANY SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC!

Indeed! Having read some of the posts by some members of this board I find myself reacting in the same way as I would to a fascist. That is the extent of extremism that some people believe in, and if I, a fairly learned individual and a damned concrete Communist, find this off-putting then what does that say of the reaction of the average worker when he hears such things?

The common person doesn't care about politics. That, more than any government or corporate opposition, is the biggest problem for the revolution to overcome. Ernest question whether true mass-supported revolutions can happen in Western countries; the only way that these will ever be able to happen (and I believe they can and will) is if we make them care. The average person who simply wants half-decent quality of life with the occassional luxury does not care that he or she is being exploited - they may grumble that it isn't fair, but they are so ingrained to the system that they see that there is no way to change this, so why bother? He or she does not care that billions of people live in utter squalor; they might be sad, and contribute £10 to Red Nose Day or whatever, but the long and short of it is that they are unable to see a way to change the system because they are too busy surviving within that system.

It is the job of revolutionaries in these Western countries to awaken the common person to the notion that there is a better way of living than this! Communism must become more than the ideology of students! And for this to happen, the more extreme beliefs of some members need to be curbed. How would it look if Communists became associated with something on a par to the funeral protests of Fred Phelps' congregation of religious bastards? The Church has more than enough supporters to be able to weather such radicalism and dismiss it as such - we don't.

This is the reason I do not support violent action in Western countries now. Communism as a whole simply cannot remain sidelined as a radical school of thought, as it plays straight into the state-driven propaganda against us. The proletariat must know that this is a legitimate system before they can start to believe in the system; if violent action is taken in our name when other avenues are open, we might as well give up trying to gain the support of the very people we need.

Wow, what a rant :blink: .

Forward Union

9th February 2006, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:06 AM
can any sort of large scale uprising happen in the West?
Yes. It can.

FULL METAL JACKET

9th February 2006, 21:16

"For every country thats done it so called "peacefully" there is atleast 5 countries that has done it violently." In saying this, you fully acknowledge that it can be done peacefully - good job!

I said so called because it hasn't been done. Read between the lines

Depite all that is said about the democratic system, it can still, at least here in Canada, be used to our advantage.

Well this isn't Canada, where am from I mean. Socialism along with communism is a dirty word here in America and it will continue to be a dirty word,

Tell me, comrade, after your glorious coup, how exactly do you expect to manage things? After you've destroyed everything, how do you plan to get things done and keep a handle on the situation? Ever think that the existing mechanisms and apparatus could be manipulated by us, to work in our favour?

:lol: what am I the general? Who said am going to start a revolution. I dont even dream of starting a revolution. All I was pointing out is violence is necessary in a revolution.

I admit that violence has its place, to varying degrees depending upon the situation, but, to be honest, some people on here come across as just a little bloodthirsty sometimes... and that WILL NOT WIN YOU ANY SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC!

Blood thirsty? What are you talking about? The question was is violence a tool of a revolution my answer is yes because I can name so many revolutions that were violent. Does that make me bloodthirsty? Am just proving it to you by naming past revolutions thats all.

OkaCrisis

9th February 2006, 23:46

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 7 2006, 07:43 AM

There is no major, huge crisis here.

Other than Capitalism.
...

In my opinion, more attention needs to be paid towards the ones who need our help the most. They are the front line.

We're all on the front line.
You're my hero.

This is a great thread. I believe that violent Revolution is the only way we'll ever achieve any real semblance of Communism.

Class consciousness and the empowerment of marginalized groups (who often make up the majority of the population), and especially raising the awareness of middle-class proletarians, is the only way we'll get to that stage though.

Mass amounts of the population today are not prepared to die for "Communism".

Except for the ones who would die for Communism (note the absence of "quotes"), of course.

And when the Revolution comes, it will be global. It will make no difference where you're from, all People will be fighting under one of two flags: For or Against.

Dien Bien

10th February 2006, 15:43

Full Metal Jacket, I apologize. You're right - the question was whether or not violence is a tool of revolution, and yes, it can be. But my point is that it is not the only tool, violence is not always the only way. And where alternative paths exist, they must be explored first, before violence.

I know that socialism and communism are viewed in a completely negative way in the US, less so than here in Canada - and that helps to prove my point: every country is different. We in Canada can still hope to advance the socialist cause by open, democratic means, whereas it would be near impossible for those of you in the US to do so because, as you said, socialism is such a dirty word, considered perhaps the greatest evil of this world.

And I realize that you are not the general or the leader of the revolution, but you must still consider the consequences of simply sweeping the entire establishment away. We may not be the leaders of the movement, but does that mean we stop thinking about these things? And as part of the communist revolution, don't we all have a say?

And I stand by my comment concerning the seemingly bloodthirsty attitude of some people. Some here seem to me to be a little overzealous about violence; some appear a bit too eager to take up arms and start planting bombs. Some, including yourself, Full Metal Jacket, seem convinced that violence is the only way.

FULL METAL JACKET

10th February 2006, 16:27

Dien Bien,

Well some people are bloodthirsty because they are fed up basically. Alot of people here work and can see the obvious exploitation every day.

Sorry If I ignored your Ghandi post. But yeah your right it has been done peacefully. But it's just too slow. You have to ask people to be patient in a non-violent revolution. Most of the time that doesn't work.

Perhaps and I do say perhaps one of the reasons Ghandi and the Indian revolution went peaceful was because religion played a big part of the revolution. Am not sure if religion will play a big part in a communist revolution.

I think a better example of a peaceful revolution is the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. I don't know much about it. But what I do know is the people overthrew the communist government through peaceful marches. Religion didn't have anything to do with that revolution. But hey, you never know. When the time is right you have to explore all the ways it could be done.

RNK

11th February 2006, 23:51

I would have to disagree.

I do not think a Revolution in Canada is much more possible than one in the US.

Canada is more socialist, yes.. but it is still controlled, at the very top, by big corporations, the wealthy, and the 'you-know-who'.

We are given more social freedoms but the underlying chains are still there, just hidden well, out of sight. But you still see them.

How do you launch a Revolution in a country with nearly 300,000,000 people, with hundreds of thousands of police stations, army bases and government facilities, millions of armed government security and army soldiers? You would need atleast as many people willing to fight to the death for it -- are there millions of them in the US? In Canada? Europe?

In my opinion, focus needs to be maintained on securing "the foothold". Yes, class struggle is world-wide; yes, capitalism threatens everyone on the planet; but this movement does not have the strength for a worldwide campaign, nor the unity. There are millions of Leftists out there, but they are split, divided, alienated, inable to put aside differences; each has their own vision of how the Revolution should go about and what the end result will be (see: Sino-Soviet Split). We could be a movement of immense and unimaginable strength, but because of those disagreements, we are scattered voices in a terrible loud wind.

fickle_indeed

12th February 2006, 06:11

I would fight for the cause. I'd fight untill i could fight no more. Never would i harm an ignorant civillian, but i would fight whoever got in the way of freedom. With our current world leaders there is no other choice. No peaceful choice. You have got to fight in this world to get what we need.

fickle_indeed

12th February 2006, 06:12

Ernesto, you are right, we need to unite. :P

Commie Rat

12th February 2006, 08:30

A coup is just a change in the bourgise ruling party.

Any march that presents a significant social agenda is bound to get violent

(po po)

A full scale revolution is the only way to achive our goal, and the right will not cave in without a fight

Stand and be counted.

Seong

12th February 2006, 12:38

*Stands*

But is anyone actually doing anything now other than talking about doing stuff? And how do you find out when it all has to be so hush hush?

Iroquois Xavier

13th February 2006, 13:21

Belief is the most powerful weapon in any revolution. :che: uniting the peolple for one common goal is worth a thousand bullets. :hammer: then use violence :lol:

Forward Union

16th February 2006, 11:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:05 PM
But is anyone actually doing anything now other than talking about doing stuff?
Yes.

Are you?

Seong

17th February 2006, 16:10

:blink:
It wasn't a challenge. Just a request for information (that won't compromise anyone).

I am actually, with the help of others.
www.globalteen.net (http://www.globalteen.net)
It's a small contribution that I'm hoping to build upon.

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

17th February 2006, 18:01

Maybe he was just requesting information either, ey? ;)
Anyway, most members here are pretty active "in real life", so "Yes, absolutely" to your question. Every now and then some new members accuses us of not being active, and just hanging around on the net instead of actually doing something. So after a while you get pretty frustrated when someone asks the same question yet again... ;)

Forward Union

17th February 2006, 20:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:37 PM
It's a small contribution that I'm hoping to build upon.
Fair enough. If you want to get involved in the movement, offline. Just PM me and I will do what I can to help you get in touch with friends or groups locally. Or sort somethign else out.

FULL METAL JACKET

17th February 2006, 21:44

Originally posted by Additives Free+Feb 8 2006, 10:55 AM--> (Additives Free @ Feb 8 2006, 10:55 AM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 02:44 AM
What about the so-called Velvet and Orange revolutions?
They're a joke... just a term to make bourgeois elections sound more exciting. [/b]
We are not talking about elections. We are talking about violence in revolutions. The velvet revolution did not use any violence to overthrow the government.

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

18th February 2006, 12:38

And where are they now?

Seong

18th February 2006, 13:35

Sorry guys it wasn't meant that way at all. Point taken though - I've seen those types on the boards. I really want to be actively involved in whatever way I can. Just not too sure to go about it!

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

19th February 2006, 01:11

Stop apologising, there's no need for that. We're all learning, and discussion is healthy ;)

piet11111

19th February 2006, 18:06

i am more then willing to fight for communism but only in places where it makes sense to do so.
i for one wont bother defending cuba venezuala or any other country.
the only place where a revolution makes sense is in western europe (most likely place for the revolution to start) or north america (still has a long way to go)

violence is necessary because the capitalists wont hesitate to use it against us when the time comes.
the only objections i have is torture and violence directed against children & the unarmed.
but i wont mind participating in executions of poeple we are certain of comiting crimes against the proletariat.

my actions to advance our cause mostly consist of weapons training and working on a to-do list.
also learning about street fighting the legal restriction on usage of police and army (know your enemy) and im busy aquiring money to buy weapons and other equipment.
when the time comes for the benelux to overthrow the capitalists you would do well to contact me.

Ol' Dirty

19th February 2006, 21:21

The problem with violence now would be us facing the U.S. Millitary. They'd kill us very easily.

piet11111

19th February 2006, 22:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:48 PM
The problem with violence now would be us facing the U.S. Millitary. They'd kill us very easily.
well i would not worry to much about the military since the avarage soldier realises better then anyone why the current american government has to go.
also they are hugely dependant on their tanks and helicopters if a communist revolution where to take place those would have to be destroyed or secured as a priority.
the soldiers are very likely to rebel against their officers (like in russia) or at the very least have serious problems fighting american citizens.

the national guard is more of an issue since some redneck states would probably love to shoot anyone regardless of being american or not.

any revolutionary's duty incase of revolution is preventing the army can mobilise this means attacking army bases and destroying anything that can not be used by ourselfes.
and spread the weapons amongst everyone that wants one even if you think someone to young to fight.
age can simply not be an issue when its an all or nothing situation.

Ol' Dirty

19th February 2006, 23:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:48 PM
The problem with violence now would be us facing the U.S. Millitary. They'd kill us very easily.

well i would not worry to much about the military since the avarage soldier realises better then anyone why the current american government has to go.

No, they have been indoctrinated more than anyone with the belief that the government is right no matter what.

also they are hugely dependant on their tanks and helicopters if a communist revolution where to take place those would have to be destroyed or secured as a priority.

Even that would be difficult.

Unfortunately, America has the greatest infantry infantry in the world. Only Guerrilla tactics seem to be affective against them.

the soldiers are very likely to rebel against their officers (like in russia) or at the very least have serious problems fighting american citizens.

Very unlikely.

loveme4whoiam

19th February 2006, 23:50

Indeed, going toe-to-toe with the world's most advanced military is not a prospect I'd entertain with any degree of optimism. Guerrilla tactics are simply the only way to go (by the way, has there been any book on urban guerrilla warfare written?).

any revolutionary's duty incase of revolution is preventing the army [from] mobilise this means attacking army bases and destroying anything that can not be used by ourselfes.
This is also a prospect that holds little likelihood of success for me. Just going by the military bases I've visited (mainly RAF), a mob of revolutionaries would stand little chance, especially if the Army was aware of a threat. It'd be easy to get in, but those bases are HUGE, you'd simply get swallowed up and surrounded before you could get anywhere to do any real damage.

I'm all for prevention of mobilisation, but when it's unfeasible you've got to look at other alternatives.

Seong

20th February 2006, 12:05

Before we can even consider military tactics, we may need a bigger army. As my sig may suggest I really believe that the war we should concentrate on fighting is the propaganda war. If you're creative use whatever media you can to reach the masses and expose them to an 'alternative' education. I personally believe that the best way to do this is through film. It's the most accessible and widely distributed medium. Plus all the technological advancements mean that almost anyone with a good idea, and granted a bit of cash, can make a high quality film from home. We clearly can't win on a battlefield - yet. We need to fight rightist propaganda with our own - this is a fight we could actually win. :hammer:

Donnie

20th February 2006, 13:24

Do you think Violence is an acceptable tool of the Revolution?

If so, in what context? What could violence do to further the Revolution?

On a personal level, for those applicable, what kind of violence would you yourself be willing to partake in for the cause?

Violence is a necessery part of the class struggle both during the social revolution and in our day to day lives. Remember there is a constant class war in capitalist society.

The violence of the working class is nothing compared to what our class enemies do to stay upon their ivory thrones.

AK47

26th February 2006, 20:35

Ahh, the long debated topic; Violence. As it should be. The tactics to be used for revolution, and the moral and social implications should always be kept front most in our minds. One end is the uncontrolled riot that burns cars, shops, houses, and anything in the way of a mob out of control. this is not revolutionary, just stupid. On the other end is sabotage to various tools (wrenching the works) of this corporate run global empire. There is a line there each of us has to decide for our selves where to draw. The social revolution needs to be just that. Not one based on violent action, but able to defend itself, and its ground gained when and where necessary. Every one of us needs to read Che's book Guerilla Warfare. It has some out of date suggestions, but outlines the general ideas of guerilla organizations and their structures of command and control. Another book that might lend some insight as to the general style of warfare needed in social revolution is called "Warfare the lethal custom" I cannot remember the author, but he lays down the evolution of warfare from prehistory to modern times.

In the long run it is good that we are having this long "conversation " in the use of violence. It shows character to keep pining and lamenting the use of violence. It is not something anyone should go into happily. It should bother the hell out of anyone that the opponents of a just and equitable society cannot be budged with anything less than the business end of a 12 gage shot gun (Metiforicly speaking). We need to keep it in our heads. Power does corrupt.

loveme4whoiam

26th February 2006, 23:45

Power does corrupt.
The power that grows from the barrel of a gun especially so.

piet11111

27th February 2006, 14:01

what about the possibility of using a pickup truck with a mortar to use as a fast attack vehicle ?
the mortar itself can be aquired with a little bit of effort and a fistfull of money on the black market.

in america it would be much more dangerous to attack army/national guard bases but in western europe things are easier.
heck a bunch of guys managed to steal hundreds of handguns from a base in the netherlands they somehow even managed to drive their mini van on the base :lol: .

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

27th February 2006, 15:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:13 AM

Power does corrupt.
The power that grows from the barrel of a gun especially so.
Which is why we don't need anyone in power.

@piet11111 : Ben je een nederlander? Hier (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=62) vind je het Nederlandstalige subforum van RevLeft. Ik weet niet of je dat al wist, dus zeg ik het nog maar even ;)

Forward Union

27th February 2006, 15:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:29 PM
what about the possibility of using a pickup truck with a mortar to use as a fast attack vehicle ?
the mortar itself can be aquired with a little bit of effort and a fistfull of money on the black market.

In a time of revolution. Production would halt. Therefor no shells are produced, no food, not for the military anyway. They will collapse if the proletariat are class conscious, no matter how many tanks they have. Sheer mass of the population cannot be subdued by military force. It will escalate it. But in history, there always comes a time when the military are confronted with the people, and that's the point of no return. It wont be like, two military forces clashing in war, it will be soldiers firing on people, Women, children and men, and that's not overly fun for the soldiers.

Reminds me of a poem...

"General, your tank is very powerful, It can smash down trees and run down people, but it has one defect.
It needs driver

General, your bomber is very powerful, is can out fly storms and obliterate far away lands, but it has one defect.
It needs a pilot

General, your infantry are very powerful, they can follow orders and they can kill
but they have one defect.
They can think"

piet11111

27th February 2006, 17:08

who said we need to wait for the revolution before starting to stockpile materials ?

Donnie

28th February 2006, 16:35

As Alexander Berkman said the fighting in the social revolution will be the "rolling up of the sleeve's".

The defending and forwarding of the social revolution will be the most hardest and most strainfull on human society.

Niall

2nd March 2006, 13:27

violence as long as it is properly directed is perfectly acceptable

piet11111

2nd March 2006, 13:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:55 PM
violence as long as it is properly directed is perfectly acceptable
that is too general to be of use.

could you define what you think are proper targets for violence ?

Niall

2nd March 2006, 13:59

Originally posted by piet11111+Mar 2 2006, 02:12 PM--> (piet11111 @ Mar 2 2006, 02:12 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 01:55 PM
violence as long as it is properly directed is perfectly acceptable
that is too general to be of use.

could you define what you think are proper targets for violence ? [/b]
as was said earlier, beating people for no good reason will not help the revolution gain popularity with the people. Legitimate targets are big capitalist businesses, military/police buildings, including soldiers bars etc, government buildings and officials

loveme4whoiam

2nd March 2006, 14:03

I totally agree Niall, targets of violence should be those things that represent an actual risk to the revolution - how does smashing up a McDonalds help the revolution? Yeah, its fun, but it's hardly going to topple the government. Council and government buildings, police and private security installations should all be taken over by revolutionaries. I'd also say things like credit card companies and Post Offices (I suppose) would be valid targets, since they hold a great deal of information that is used to oppress people. Administrative buildings, that kind of thing.

Niall

2nd March 2006, 14:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:31 PM
I totally agree Niall, targets of violence should be those things that represent an actual risk to the revolution - how does smashing up a McDonalds help the revolution? Yeah, its fun, but it's hardly going to topple the government. Council and government buildings, police and private security installations should all be taken over by revolutionaries. I'd also say things like credit card companies and Post Offices (I suppose) would be valid targets, since they hold a great deal of information that is used to oppress people. Administrative buildings, that kind of thing.
kinda like in fight club

loveme4whoiam

2nd March 2006, 14:11

Precisely :D A great film which, while being a bit misleading about anarchism, still has some ideas in it. And it makes sense to wipe out such records - think of the support we would have if we were to suddenly erase an entire country's credit history!

AK47

3rd March 2006, 19:49

posted twice?

AK47

3rd March 2006, 20:01

Originally posted by AK47+Mar 3 2006, 04:17 PM--> (AK47 @ Mar 3 2006, 04:17 PM) [quote]Additives [email protected] 27 2006, 12:15 PM
[
In a time of revolution. Production would halt. Therefor no shells are produced, no food, not for the military anyway. They will collapse if the proletariat are class conscious, no matter how many tanks they have. Sheer mass of the population cannot be subdued by military force. It will escalate it. But in history, there always comes a time when the military are confronted with the people, and that's the point of no return. It wont be like, two military forces clashing in war, it will be soldiers firing on people, Women, children and men, and that's not overly fun for the soldiers.

[/b]
In a time of revolution it is the revolutionary who has to take over the production if his/her ordinance. One would need to create ones own industry controlled by the revolutionary organization. This can not happen at first, at first a stockpile will have to be dispersed into several hiding places dispersed around a militarized area. yea, you need to organize. You need to take risks. You need to sacrifice and struggle if you belive in something. Otherwise you are just a wining littie spoiled brat who will only stand in the way.

Oh and if you think production of shells will stop in this country, you are fooling your self. There will always be an abondance of ammo for the military. The military industrial complex is very large. Getting it to the revolutionary army will be a matter of hit and run. raids and hits on convoys.This will need planning and oh yea ORGINISATION. I am not all that gung ho over the idea of violent revolution, but if it comes to that, then at least let's do it right.

Niall

5th March 2006, 10:42

on the subject of mortar bombs, theyve been used to varying degrees of effect in ireland. there are too many things that can go wrong with them

Forward Union

5th March 2006, 18:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:29 PM
Oh and if you think production of shells will stop in this country, you are fooling your self. There will always be an abondance of ammo for the military. The military industrial complex is very large. Getting it to the revolutionary army will be a matter of hit and run. raids and hits on convoys.This will need planning and oh yea ORGINISATION. I am not all that gung ho over the idea of violent revolution, but if it comes to that, then at least let's do it right.
There are attacks and sabotages on military bases all the time...

But The military isn't very good at fighting inwardly. Fighter planes, Tanks, Infantry etc are hardly going to be deployed against British factories or rioters in the streets of London.

Whats the police for?

piet11111

5th March 2006, 19:14

true but in case of the revolution the police would be no match for us.
especially those among us that have assualt rifle's and perhaps machineguns and other fancy stuff (legal and illegal).

the army would be send in to stop us but if we act fast we should be able to take out everyone that has the authority to order troops to occupy the city's.
if we succeed with that we have a chance to encounter groups of soldiers that decided to do things on their own accord.
but due to the nature of the army (and us taking out the majority of poeple able to send the troops into the city's) i would expect the majority of the army to stay on their base or dissolve to go to their family (or help our cause).

its always the foreign troops that concern me the most.
perhaps at first the political leaders want to keep their troops close to secure their own nations but that might last a few days.

if we managed to secure the strategic weapons we have a good chance of political talks to prevent an imminent attack.
if we dont we will get a really tough fight but if we manage to take it to the attacking nations soil we might force a truce.

Niall

5th March 2006, 19:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:42 PM
true but in case of the revolution the police would be no match for us.
especially those among us that have assualt rifle's and perhaps machineguns and other fancy stuff (legal and illegal).

the army would be send in to stop us but if we act fast we should be able to take out everyone that has the authority to order troops to occupy the city's.
if we succeed with that we have a chance to encounter groups of soldiers that decided to do things on their own accord.
but due to the nature of the army (and us taking out the majority of poeple able to send the troops into the city's) i would expect the majority of the army to stay on their base or dissolve to go to their family (or help our cause).

its always the foreign troops that concern me the most.
perhaps at first the political leaders want to keep their troops close to secure their own nations but that might last a few days.

if we managed to secure the strategic weapons we have a good chance of political talks to prevent an imminent attack.
if we dont we will get a really tough fight but if we manage to take it to the attacking nations soil we might force a truce.
youve put a lot of thought into this

loveme4whoiam

5th March 2006, 20:03

youve put a lot of thought into this
Hehe, theoretical plans of attack are fun :)

I agree with piet, we will have the advantage of first movement (assuming certain conditions beforehand of course). A swift "cut off the head, the body folds" operation against heads of state and their deputies would give us the initiative. I think piet is right about foreign armies, although I don't know enough about international political leaders to predict how they'd react.

Knocking over the American leadership process would be my number one priority, as their military is (as far as I am aware) the only one that could swiftly invade a European country as counter-revolutionaries.

But like I said, all theoretical of course. That's my disclaimer in case the Government suddenly break down my door :lol:

Forward Union

5th March 2006, 21:13