The United States Marines

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The prupose is to counteract all the negative publicity our military has been getting in the press. I thought this was well-written and informative.

Perhaps some of you here will reconsider your views regarding our military.


Many know our story; few really get it


MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT SAN DIEGO, Calif.(July 15, 2005) -- Who are we, and what do we do?

The answer's simple, right?

We're the Marines, and we win battles.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. While winning battles is our MO, it's not who we are or what we do - with exception to those in combat zones.

A couple months ago, I was talking to a high school friend back in Texas, and she asked what I was up to. I told her I'm a Marine.

"So you're in the Army?" she asked. "What do you do? I don't really understand."

That's when it hit me: A lot of people don't know what we actually do on a daily basis, and some don't even know that the services are different. My press chief donated blood last Thursday, and during some small talk, the medical assistant mentioned that her brother is a Marine. He asked her what her brother does, and she had no idea. He was an officer or something.

So check it out.

I'm going to tell you who we are. We are Marines, not soldiers. The Army is made of soldiers, but the Marine Corps is made of Marines. People in the Navy are sailors, and the Air Force personnel are called airmen.

More often than not, if you call a Marine a soldier, he will be offended, and he might retort accordingly. This is because in boot camp, our drill instructors engrain into our bald heads the fact that we are Marines, not soldiers. It's a pride issue. Marines regard the Marine Corps higher than the other services. We gruel through the longest, most difficult basic training of all our country's armed forces to earn that title, and to be called anything less won't do.

Personally, if someone calls me a soldier, I don't take offense, because I know they don't know any better. Sometimes I'll explain the difference, but sometimes I let it slide. They mean no harm. Even my dad still calls me a soldier sometimes.

Now comes the "What do you do?" question. The answer is simple but somewhat hard to explain. The general assumption is that service members just march around all day with guns. After all, Marines are riflemen first. We shoot stuff and blow stuff up. We win battles.

While that is true to an extent, a military base is like it's own little utopia - a self sufficient little city with police, firemen, a newspaper and even a mayor. The mayor of course is the commanding general. Marines, and all service members, actually have jobs they perform to make their little cities run smoothly. We have lawyers, administrative clerks, construction workers, cooks and even artists. When I go out with my friend Cpl. Yuri Schneider, people find it hard to believe that his job in the Marine Corps is drawing pictures.

What do I do? I am a storyteller - with my words and with my pictures. My mission is to tell the Marine Corps' story to the masses. I work for this newspaper, and I'm a professional journalist and photographer. Marines have more skills than just trooping around in the dirt with rifles. Don't get me wrong, I can get down and dirty when it's called for. The silver crossed rifles on my chest means I can shoot an enemy from 500 yards away, without hesitation. But I'm in garrison, not a war zone.

That leads me to address a very wrong general misconception the public often has about us. Some folks think service members are dumb rejects who had no other choice or skills - the forsaken who couldn't quite make it to college. Call me a soldier before you label me this way. Marines are smart men and women who selflessly serve to preserve America's freedom. We have big hearts and big minds. My job training alone puts me a few credits shy of an associate's degree, and many Marines are in the same boat. I know enlisted Marines with master's degrees.

Now that I've given you the inside scoop on us, I hope these assumptions vanish. If you have questions, please ask. We will gladly answer. We want you to know who we are and what we are about. And tell your friends. We are here to serve you in more capacities than just on the battlefield.


Source (http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/ba9ad962264b143f85256f540065360c/865f6984ed1977f38525703f00567a3e?OpenDocument)

[amanondeathrow]

More often than not, if you call a Marine a soldier, he will be offended, and he might retort accordingly. This is because in boot camp, our drill instructors engrain into our bald heads the fact that we are Marines, not soldiers. It's a pride issue. Marines regard the Marine Corps higher than the other services. We gruel through the longest, most difficult basic training of all our country's armed forces to earn that title, and to be called anything less won't do.
The Marines didn't seem so concerned when low Afghani soldiers were labeled "terrorists".

Why the hell should we care about their fucking pride when they make a living by oppressing others?

I am not sure what this "story teller" is trying to reveal to us in this propaganda piece. Few people are not aware of how military bases function or the harsh training they go through.

If you want to try and change anyone's opinion on the military, try finding some real evidence and not Marine generated propaganda.

[PRC-UTE]

Why does every langer with a gun think they're the most elite ever? :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

This is all subjective bullshit, why did you even post this? Armed forces are tools of the state, we oppose the state, so should we start liking the marines now? ;)

[WUOrevolt]

The marines are great, just ask those raped by them in Iraqi prisons.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Don't know why you posted that, most people know exactly what they do and the difference between marine corps, navy, etc.


So you're in the Army?" she asked. "What do you do? I don't really understand

In a sense Marines kill. The best damn killers in the United States of America, that's it. These guys are the ones doing all the dirty work in wars, they are killing machines. That's it.

[pedro san pedro]

i assume that your've posted this here to highlight how wrong the left is when it refers to soldiers as 'stupid' or 'grunts' or 'midless drones of the state' etc?

kinda bad timing when you consider the current press regarding the UK soldiers beating of Iraqi teens, eh?

[ricardsju]

pride ? they have a pride of being the wost elite army in the western world ?
when elite armys from small social democratic countrys beat the big free democratic country's elite army they find that something to have pride about ?
have they seen their score from "wargames" ?

[ComradeOm]

And the message of this piece is... that marines don't like to be called soldiers? This drivel just drips with macho pride about how tough the marines are and how much better they are than anyone else. These aren't just idiots with guns - they're trained warriors with a host of useful skills. :rolleyes:

But, lest we forget, their first and foremost duty is to kill - observe the perverse pride that the author takes in being able "shoot an enemy from 500 yards away, without hesitation". That's what marines do.

[Tungsten]

WUOrevolt

The marines are great, just ask those raped by them in Iraqi prisons.
How would you know if the Marines were great or not? Have you ever slept with one? I doubt it.

[SittingBull47]

that's kind of funny. I just got a call today from a marine recruiter and he asked me if I knew what they "were all about". I said "stop. I know. I'm not going to Iraq." and he hung up.

[Tupac-Amaru]

U.S.M.C = Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

So, do you really think, that there are no people, on this planet, evil enough, that they deserve killing?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2006, 05:17 PM
So, do you really think, that there are no people, on this planet, evil enough, that they deserve killing?

I think that sentence could have used a few more commas! :lol:

Anyway, "good" and "evil" aren't "real world" things. They are Religious rubbish.

However, if you really wanted a list of "evil people" who "deserve killing", then the Marines would be near the top.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2006, 01:17 PM
So, do you really think, that there are no people, on this planet, evil enough, that they deserve killing?
As Armchair said, evil is subjective and moralistic. Something communists try to distance themselves from.

Considering the history of Marine Core's actions (My Lai), I would not let any of the memebers near a weapon.

[dopediana]

i heard navy seals are tougher than marines anyway. is that true?


i've handed out anti-recruitment fliers on campus many a time and on a few occasions i've had former servicemembers, even a marine once agreeing with the information in the leaflets and acknowledging that recruiters and military personnel lied to them, concerning the information within.

[Free Palestine]

So, do you really think, that there are no people, on this planet, evil enough, that they deserve killing?

Yeah, like the Marines and the IDF.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:30 AM
i heard navy seals are tougher than marines anyway. is that true?


i've handed out anti-recruitment fliers on campus many a time and on a few occasions i've had former servicemembers, even a marine once agreeing with the information in the leaflets and acknowledging that recruiters and military personnel lied to them, concerning the information within.
My cousin just got out of the marines, said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

Tougher who knows or cares. If you want tough check out the Viet Cong or the Iraqi resistance or anyone that has the courage to fight against an oppressor or an invader even though they are outgunned.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Anyway, "good" and "evil" aren't "real world" things. They are Religious rubbish.


Are you saying that Hitler wasn't evil and Gandhi wasn't good?

[KC]

Are you saying that Hitler wasn't evil and Gandhi wasn't good?

Yes. What we would say, though, is that Hitler was a Nazi and Gandhi was a bourgeois reformist, neither of which we agree with.

[Tungsten]

nate

As Armchair said, evil is subjective and moralistic. Something communists try to distance themselves from.
You and Armchair certainly don't have morals, at least not ones with any real-world value.

But wait until I mention bombing civilians and watch Armchair's language as it suddenly becomes filled with moral judgements.

[[email protected]]

[QUOTE]It's a pride issue. Marines regard the Marine Corps higher than the other services. We gruel through the longest, most difficult basic training of all our country's armed forces to earn that title, and to be called anything less won't do.


WHY WOULD ANYONE BE PROUD OF GOING THROUGH HARSH TRAINING,
FOR AN IMPERIALIST CAUSE....
WHY DOES A HUMAN FEEL THE NEED TO OVERPOWER AND OPRESS ANOTHER...
I THINK THE ONLY SOLDIERS THAT SHOULD BE PROUD ARE THOSE
WHO FIGHT FOR A HUMAIN AND SOCIAL CAUSE....NOT IMPERIALISTIC!!!

[violencia.Proletariat]

You and Armchair certainly don't have morals, at least not ones with any real-world value.

Is that a bad thing? I like to have real substance behind my thoughts.


But wait until I mention bombing civilians and watch Armchair's language as it suddenly becomes filled with moral judgements.

And I would say its "bad" because the imperialist class is bombing fellow proletarians while gaining economic oppertunities in that country. Without effective resistance, the revolution is prologned in our country.

Not because its morally "bad". Because there is no judge of whats "good" or "bad".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Are you saying that Hitler wasn't evil....[/b]

Well....


Originally posted by dictionary.com+--> (dictionary.com)Evil....

1.Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.[/b]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil

I suspect you're using a combination of these two definitions?

In which case, you could say Hitler committed "evil" actions - definition 2 - but this would depend on the individuals opinion of what it means to cause "ruin, injury, or pain".

A neo-Nazi would say "ruin, injury, or pain" is caused by the Jews - and the Slavs, Communists, Homosexuals, Women, and so on. He would make a moral judgement as to what constitutes "ruin, injury, or pain" and would likely conclude that "Hitler did good" by getting rid of the people who did these things.

His moral judgement - belief - likely couldn't be disputed rationally because it is an "emotion" and this emotion would totally ruin any premise for your statement.

Granted, the current consensus between civilised people is that Hitler was a "nasty bastard" - and based on what I know about Hitlers actions my "moral judgement" considers that consensus "valid".

However, from a rational perspective all we can say is that Hitler did X - and Y, Z and so on - and then leave it to the individual to conclude whether this was "good" or "evil".

Also from a Communist standpoint, we could say Hitler did A which damaged working class power which makes Hitler a class enemy - just like every other bourgeois politician.

However the "judgement" you would pass on action A would depend on what class you were from. Big Industrialists in the 30's loved Hitler, militant workers hated him.

That's about as far as a rational materialist analysis could go before one fell into a "moralistic swamp".

Universal statements about "good" or "evil" are always subject to interpretation based on someones politics and most importantly class position.

Churchill disliked Hitler because he threatened the British Empire, not because he was killing Jews or Communists - there's actually some evidence that all the Western politicians knew about what was happening to the Jews in the 30's.

They obviously didn't consider gassing Jews "evil", rather what was really "evil" to them was challenging their place as Empires.


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
....and Gandhi wasn't good?

There's loads of definitions for good....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=good

....and really what I said above is valid for this example.


Originally posted by Lazar
Yes. What we would say, though, is that Hitler was a Nazi and Gandhi was a bourgeois reformist, neither of which we agree with.

Fuck me.

I've just written fucking loads trying to explain this and Lazar does it perfectly. Basically Hitler and Ghandi from a working class Communist perspective were class enemies and enemies are opposed.

Materialism, not moralism. :D


Originally posted by Tungsten
You and Armchair certainly don't have morals....

Coming from you, that's a compliment! :P


[email protected]
But wait until I mention bombing civilians and watch Armchair's language as it suddenly becomes filled with moral judgements.

Actually we had a long debate as to whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit under a technical definition of genocide.

I did not introduce "morals" into that debate, instead I tried as best I could to keep the debate within the limits of debating a specific action and whether that action fit under a specific definition.

You on the other hand, were the one you continuously blabbed on about "context" and so on and did very little debating with regards whether it fit under a technical definition. Indeed I remember your main line of argument was that the populaces of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "legitimate targets", which has nothing to do with whether the bombings constituted an act of genocide or not.


nate
And I would say its "bad" because the imperialist class is bombing fellow proletarians while gaining economic oppertunities in that country. Without effective resistance, the revolution is prologned in our country.

Indeed.

That is a "materialist judgement" on bombings.

[STI]

"There's gotta be somebody that needs some killing."

-Major BW Payne

[Loknar]

Funny that you guys will rely on the military infastructure to join you when the revolution goes down.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:06 PM
Funny that you guys will rely on the military infastructure to join you when the revolution goes down.

Not me....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292016999 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45982&view=findpost&p=1292016999)

[Loknar]

Oh ok, so some average regular joes will take on professional troops.

The leaders of the communist revolution will indeed use the military infrastructure. How will you known how to fly jets or run tanks? Do you think you can just hijack them or something?

If you don’t have a modern army your revolution will die. Unlike Iraq and Vietnam, they were overseas places. This is America and the central government will use all its might to squash you. Because of this you will have to stay in the forests in rural areas and never make any real gains. in other words, the best that will happen is you will become FARSA troops but you will never create a communist paradise.

Plus, even in the forests you will have to worry about special forces and red neck hunters who can sneak up on you as close as 3 feet with out being heard…No your revolution will go down the can.

Plus people like me will form professional militias against you.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)Oh ok, so some average regular joes will take on professional troops.[/b]

Well the "average regular joes" did pretty well in Spain didn't they? ....indeed I think most military historians agree that without German and Italian, Franco's Army would have lost.

I actually rather doubt that the Army will be called by the ruling class - but I wouldn't discount it.

Generally the Army is not well equipped for "Urban fighting" and the Air Force and Navy would really be useless in this type of situation. Plus you'd have the problem that the Armed Forces aren't "taught" to butcher the populace of their own country - only the populaces of other countries.

What I expect to happen, is that the Police will be "unleashed" - they are perfectly happy to oppress the general population, they do it for a living!

After all, the cities are the Polices "territory" and I can't think of an example "off hand" where the Army has been used to suppress workers movements - there probably are some.

Generally though, the Police are called in - in Paris in 68' the Police were used by the French Government, during the Miners Strike in the 80's mounted Policemen were the ones crushing heads and so on.

Basically, the Army's "job" is to is to "loot and plunder" foreign lands, where as the Polices "job" is to serve the State - till the very end.


Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)The leaders of the communist revolution will indeed use the military infrastructure. How will you known how to fly jets or run tanks?[/b]

Firstly, there will be no "leaders" of a proletarian revolution.

Secondly, why would we want to "fly jets" or "run tanks"?


Originally posted by Loknar
This is America and the central government will use all its might to squash you.

Well I don't live in America, but you overestimate your Governments "power".

The last figures I heard placed the American working class at about 75% of the population and the "Middle Class" at 24%.

I suspect around 65-70% of the working class will be either "pro-revolution" or "revolutionaries" and around 5-10% of the "Middle Class" will switch sides.

That's a lot of people - 220 million plus! :o

I don't think the Government will have all that much "squashing" power in the face of that many people, do you?


[email protected]
Because of this you will have to stay in the forests in rural areas and never make any real gains.

A proletarian revolution will avoid rural shitholes like the plague!


Loknar
Plus people like me will form professional militias against you.

I hope you're not "writing a cheque with the mouth that the ass can't cash", otherwise I'll be really disappointed.

Anyway, you and I will likely be dead by the time revolution comes to America.

[Tungsten]

Armchair Socialism

Well the "average regular joes" did pretty well in Spain didn't they? ....indeed I think most military historians agree that without German and Italian, Franco's Army would have lost.
It's 2006, not 1936. Take a look at how well the average joes did in Iraq.

Generally the Army is not well equipped for "Urban fighting" and the Air Force and Navy would really be useless in this type of situation. Plus you'd have the problem that the Armed Forces aren't "taught" to butcher the populace of their own country
Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Firstly, there will be no "leaders" of a proletarian revolution.
Which is why you'll be slaughtered. Heirarchies in the military aren't there because some people want to feel superior to others, but because tasks need delegating and forces need coordinating in order to be effective. The inefectiveness of a disorganised mob against an organised army has been well documented for over 2000 years.

I suspect around 65-70% of the working class will be either "pro-revolution" or "revolutionaries"
If past revolutions are anything to go by, it'd be more like about 5%- if that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that 70% of the population supports communism or is likely to in the future? What the hell do you need a revolution for if that's the case, you could just hold an election to win. You just want blood, don't you?

A proletarian revolution will avoid rural shitholes like the plague!
-Revolutions always start in the countryside.
-Even if the revolution doesn't take an interest in rural shitholes, it won't prevent rural shitholes from taking an interest in the revolution.

[Tungsten]

Armchair Socialism.

Actually we had a long debate as to whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit under a technical definition of genocide.

I did not introduce "morals" into that debate, instead I tried as best I could to keep the debate within the limits of debating a specific action and whether that action fit under a specific definition.
Which avoided the issue of whether it was the correct course of action or not and replaced it with the mostly irrelevent issue of "did the action fit such and such a definition". Is there some reason you're not comfortable with discussing morality?

You on the other hand, were the one you continuously blabbed on about "context" and so on and did very little debating with regards whether it fit under a technical definition.
Context is all important. Evidently not to you though, judging from your responses in the other topic.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tungsten+--> (Tungsten)Take a look at how well the average joes did in Iraq.[/b]

Indeed....


Originally posted by BBC News+--> (BBC News)Attacks by insurgents on Iraq's oil industry cost the country $6.25bn (£3.6bn) in lost revenue during 2005, according to the Iraqi oil ministry.

A total of 186 attacks were carried out on oil sites last year, claiming the lives of 47 engineers and 91 police and security guards, a spokesman said.[/b]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4729178.stm


Originally posted by Tungsten
Which is why you'll be slaughtered. Heirarchies in the military aren't there because some people want to feel superior to others, but because tasks need delegating and forces need coordinating in order to be effective. The inefectiveness of a disorganised mob against an organised army has been well documented for over 2000 years.

Yes, we all remember how the "Storming of the Bastille" was a heavily organised mission conducted by a highly trained force.

There is a huge difference between a revolution and a war.


Originally posted by Tungsten
If past revolutions are anything to go by, it'd be more like about 5%- if that.

What history have you been reading?

Name one revolution where only 5% of the population supported that revolution.


Originally posted by Tungsten
What the hell do you need a revolution for if that's the case, you could just hold an election to win.

No one has ever "voted out" an entire social order.


Originally posted by Tungsten
You just want blood, don't you?

Just yours. :lol:

I actually remember reading about some French Slaves in one of the Colonies in 1789. After "freeing themselves" they carried around a pike with the head of a white child stuck on top - I think your mug on a similar pike would be a very amusing site! :o


Originally posted by Tungsten
Revolutions always start in the countryside.

Bourgeois revolutions sometimes do, proletarian revolutions don't.

Think Germany 1918 only bigger!


[email protected]
....and replaced it with the mostly irrelevent issue of "did the action fit such and such a definition".

Well that - the definition - was what we were discussing.


Tungsten
Is there some reason you're not comfortable with discussing morality?

I'm not "uncomfortable" discussing it, I just find it pointless.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Those were, "religious nuts". When millions of people in every state and city rise up, you cant just go around slaughtering those people.


Which is why you'll be slaughtered. Heirarchies in the military aren't there because some people want to feel superior to others, but because tasks need delegating and forces need coordinating in order to be effective. The inefectiveness of a disorganised mob against an organised army has been well documented for over 2000 years.

Organization does not require hierarchy. Democratically elected militia leaders will do just fine. But we will not be fighting the army on any large scale so why does this shit even matter?


If past revolutions are anything to go by, it'd be more like about 5%

In terms of leftist inssurections in Europe, the populations in the cities during uprisings was not 5% but majorities of the populations.


What the hell do you need a revolution for if that's the case, you could just hold an election to win. You just want blood, don't you?

Why would we hold elections in your bogus bourgeois shams called elections? We must uprise in order to smash every existing state power and body in order to rid the influence of bourgeois rule and counter revolution.


Revolutions always start in the countryside.

Paris Commune of 1871, 1968?
Kwangju, South Korea 1980
Barcelona, Spain 1936-39

Yes these all started in the countryside :lol:

PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONS START WHERE PROLETARIANS ARE. Proletarians reside in URBAN AREAS for the most part.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by nate+Feb 19 2006, 06:41 PM--> (nate @ Feb 19 2006, 06:41 PM) PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONS START WHERE PROLETARIANS ARE. Proletarians reside in URBAN AREAS for the most part. [/b]

I wouldn't bother pointing that out to Tungsten if I was you nate. After all, that is a materialist explanation and....


[email protected] 17 2006, 04:50 PM
Materialism is the product of a weak mind incapable of dealing with the "intangibles".

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292022487 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46214&view=findpost&p=1292022487)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

The modern U.S. Millitary (1900-present) has not had one non-"preemptive" or defensive war without intentions of controling another nations recources, Capitalist Liar- he hem - pardon me - Capitalist Laywer.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:16 PM



Armchair Socialism

Well the "average regular joes" did pretty well in Spain didn't they? ....indeed I think most military historians agree that without German and Italian, Franco's Army would have lost.


It's 2006, not 1936. Take a look at how well the average joes did in Iraq.

Actually, they're doing pretty well, considering the morale effects they have have had both home and abroad.


Firstly, there will be no "leaders" of a proletarian revolution.


Which is why you'll be slaughtered. Heirarchies in the military aren't there because some people want to feel superior to others, but because tasks need delegating and forces need coordinating in order to be effective. The inefectiveness of a disorganised mob against an organised army has been well documented for over 2000 years.

You have made the same mistake most sensationalists do. You mix the terms heirarchical leadership and natural leadership. It is possible in any millitary force (especially one using guerrilla tactics, which would most likely be used in a proletarian revolution) to have the best soldier as a leader to keep order among his squad/fire team. Besides, seeing how decentrilized the modern battlefield has become, each man (woman?) would have more independance; thusly the leadership of an aremed force be the same.


I suspect around 65-70% of the working class will be either "pro-revolution" or "revolutionaries"

Unfortunately, that is far too optimistic...


If past revolutions are anything to go by, it'd be more like about 5%- if that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that 70% nad they wonof the population supports communism or is likely to in the future?

But that's pessimistic. It would probably only be approximately 1/3 of hte population, but it only takes 2-5 percent of the poulatio to get comething started. Besides, hte origional American Revolution only started off with 33% of the poulation in their favor.


What the hell do you need a revolution for if that's the case, you could just hold an election to win. You just want blood, don't you?

Actually, we want as little blod ass possible. But capitalism, and those who condone and use it, kill millions of people daily.


A proletarian revolution will avoid rural shitholes like the plague!


-Revolutions always start in the countryside.

The Second Iraqi War.


-Even if the revolution doesn't take an interest in rural shitholes, it won't prevent rural shitholes from taking an interest in the revolution.

Thanks. :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by FluxOne13
Unfortunately, that is far too optimistic.

Not really.

As far as I know, nearly all of the French bourgeois supported the French Revolution and the Third Estate - even a few members of the aristocracy pledged support.

So, I suspect 65-70% of the proletariat supporting (and participating in) a proletarian revolution is likely an essential requirement.

[Phalanx]

Kind of off topic, but how do you cappies expect the military to get ammunition or spare parts if the majority of the population took those resources away? The military hasn't even controlled Iraq, with a population of 23 million. How can they control an angry oppressed class of 220 million?

I don't think 5% of the population would join us, I think over 75%. Look at the facts. The gap between rich and poor is increasing annually, and the poor won't stand being stomped on for long. You cappies can be so ignorant at times. Reading capitalist propoganda like the Economist only feeds you lies.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 25 2006, 10:25 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 25 2006, 10:25 PM)

[/b]

FluxOne13
Unfortunately, that is far too optimistic.


Not really.

As far as I know, nearly all of the French bourgeois supported the French Revolution and the Third Estate - even a few members of the aristocracy pledged support.

Yes, but then the tyranny of the aristocracy was far less blatant. Now, the oligarchs have learned from their mistakes, and are more serpentin in their affairs.

Although I respect your views, I still disagree. Just think of how heavily indoctrinated the people of the U.S. have been. Think of how difficult it would be to abolish the largest capitalist nation on Earth. Then all of the different groups and their composition; 1/3 enlightened proleterian, 1/3 capitalist proletarian and semi-proleterian, and 1/3 police, millitary and bergoise. I'm not saying that revolution would be imposible, just that it's going to be difficult.