violence

[dusk]

I wonder how people here think about using violence?

I see it as a necessary evil.
Because overthrowing some regime doesn't work with throwing
cottonballs at them.

And what will trigger a violent reaction with you?
You know, how deep in your ass they gotta go
before you kick their asses.

And are there any people with combat experience here?
Or had militairy training?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Violence i think is too be used in self defence OR for the purpose of defending others only. I give some examples.

1. If someone tells me "fuck you communist", why use violence? it's more fun just to throw some arguments, have a laugh and leave.

2. If someone attacks me i fight back till he is not able to fight any more than i leave him with his shame and will NOT kick him when hes already down.

3. if two people fight because they both want to, let them kill each other....

4. if a strong person attacks a weaker person or more than one attack someone, interference is nescessary, till the person is helped and than if needed a little first aid.

5. If a system is oppresive its my duty to either change it or destroy it. Whatever means nescessary to achieve this are justified, though it should hurt the exploiters only!!! and it should be combined with good propaganda because a "leftist terrorist action" without any use and just for the purpose of destruction isn't helping the revolution.

6. If there is mental pressure put on me (mobbing, peer pressure, etc.) haha like i care

7. if theres mental pressure on someone else that can't handle it, i first talk to the other people, if that doesn't work it MIGHT get a little physical.


I don't have any form of military training, i do though have a few year experience in various forms of karate for my self defence.

[dannie]

i'm an angry guy, but not a violent one, i rarely get into fights, I guess I'm a fighter when it comes to cliché's, when someone's making trouble with one of my friends, they can be damn sure about me (and some other guys i know) helping him out, or when some dude is being disrespectfull to any of my female friends, i hate the chauvinistic attitude that many guys seem to like, and no, being drunk is not an excuse, it's a reason to get kicked at.

i don't think i'm going to be in a situatiion where a will have to defend a revolution violently, tough if i am, i'm from the principle, of they throw a rock at me, i throw one back, if they hit me with a stick, i'll hit back, if they use guns, i'll throw a grenade

[dusk]

i don't think i'm going to be in a situatiion where a will have to defend a revolution violently, tough if i am, i'm from the principle, of they throw a rock at me, i throw one back, if they hit me with a stick, i'll hit back, if they use guns, i'll throw a grenade
Yeah, now your talking.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:05 PM
i don't think i'm going to be in a situatiion where a will have to defend a revolution violently,

So your not going into left wing politics then? Shame. Too many people here are like "Yea lets sit at home, or even go and sell papers. We'll leave the harsh and violent reality of the state and capitalism for the Anarchists to deal with, Im gonna get me a new I-pod, and put RATM on it."

Violence is necessary in Revolution. Don't plan for anything less, it's a waste of mental effort.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:31 PM
if they hit me with a stick, i'll hit back,
Good idea, let's wait for them to attack us first. Flawless.

[dusk]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 30 2006, 05:09 PM


So your not going into left wing politics then? Shame. Too many people here are like "Yea lets sit at home, or even go and sell papers. We'll leave the harsh and violent reality of the state and capitalism for the Anarchists to deal with, Im gonna get me a new I-pod, and put RATM on it."

Violence is necessary in Revolution. Don't plan for anything less, it's a waste of mental effort.


You did'nt heard me say that Violence in a revolution is unnecessary.

And it's true a lot of people are "like yea lets sit at home".....
I'm not one of them.

[loveme4whoiam]

In normal life, I'm not a violent person unless truly provoked. I've fought to defend my friends, myself (once or twice) and once when I was wasted and some guy punched his girlfriend in a club. Although I would have torn the bastard limb from limb even without the alcohol, there are some things that you just do not do.

I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments about violence, but I'll summarise. Random violence = bad for us all. Directed, focused, timely violence = necessary evil in order to achieve what we want.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:23 PM
Violence in a revolution is unnecessary.
Your wrong.

[Eleutherios]

You took that out of context. He said "You did'nt heard me say that Violence in a revolution is unnecessary." I think that means he thinks it's necessary. In fact, in the original post, he says "I see it as a necessary evil. Because overthrowing some regime doesn't work with throwing cottonballs at them."

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Mar 30 2006, 05:14 PM--> (Additives Free @ Mar 30 2006, 05:14 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 03:31 PM
if they hit me with a stick, i'll hit back,
Good idea, let's wait for them to attack us first. Flawless. [/b]
We already did wait for the first strike. See people around the world starving to death while others build their 5th house? thats a damn punch in the face to me. :angry:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:53 PM
We already did wait for the first strike. See people around the world starving to death while others build their 5th house? thats a damn punch in the face to me. :angry:
Or a more literal example, state repression.

[dannie]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Mar 30 2006, 06:09 PM--> (Additives Free @ Mar 30 2006, 06:09 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 05:05 PM
i don't think i'm going to be in a situatiion where a will have to defend a revolution violently,

So your not going into left wing politics then? Shame. Too many people here are like "Yea lets sit at home, or even go and sell papers. We'll leave the harsh and violent reality of the state and capitalism for the Anarchists to deal with, Im gonna get me a new I-pod, and put RATM on it."

Violence is necessary in Revolution. Don't plan for anything less, it's a waste of mental effort. [/b]
go ahead and twist my words, no i'm not going out, throwing molotov coktails at the local police office, that's just being plain stupid,

violence is a way, but not the only way to do politics.
You know shit about me and how I act upon my believes so don't fucking be the one to judge. I was 14 when i was arrested the first time for expressing my beliefs, for being disobedient. I'm no armchair anarchist, but I do believe there is a way of expressing your believes according to the situation you find yourselve in.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 08:44 PM
no i'm not going out, throwing molotov coktails at the local police office, that's just being plain stupid,

Yea, because so many people have suggested doing that havent they...


violence is a way, but not the only way to do politics.

Depends if you want to fail or not.


You know shit about me and how I act upon my believes so don't fucking be the one to judge.

Did I judge you? I don't think I did. I replied to a statemnt you made in which you clearly expressed that you would not be in a situation that would requre violence. That rules out 99% of long term millitant working class action.


I was 14 when i was arrested the first time for expressing my beliefs, for being disobedient. I'm no armchair anarchist, but I do believe there is a way of expressing your believes according to the situation you find yourselve in.

So if you are politically active, why did you say your not going to be in a situation typical of almost any practical action? one can only assume you mean to say your not going to take any action. Don't get all worked up about it.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Mar 30 2006, 06:09 PM--> (Additives Free @ Mar 30 2006, 06:09 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 05:05 PM
i don't think i'm going to be in a situatiion where a will have to defend a revolution violently,

So your not going into left wing politics then? [/b]
My goodness. I can't quite believe you typed that.

You can argue for violence if you must, but you cannot really be obtuse enough to think that "left wing" means violent. Last time I checked, someone was left wing (note I say left wing not communist) if they believed in social justice and had the interests of the working class at the centre of their political ideas. It is possible to fulfil those criteria without advocating violence. How dare you try to alter the meaning of the term left wing to exclude the non-violent movement?

I have already stated my views on violence on this site, but I will state them again. I believe violence to not only be morally wrong, but a poor political tactic, in that a ruling group put in power by violence must continue to use violence to stay in power, and thus will almost always bring misery to the nation it rules. You may say I am wrong, but how dare you say I am not left wing? For all my belief in total equality, I am not left wing? For all my political activism, I am not left wing? For all that I am committed to justice for the workers and economic freedom for all, I am not left wing?

Ridiculous. This kind of childish mud-slinging brings shame upon us all.

[TC]

A lot of arguements about violence in an activist/revolutionary context really try to reconcile two things:

1. The reality that revolution, change in class power, requires either organized violence or the credible threat of organized violence.

2. The reality that we're all far to comfortable with our working class and middle class lives to risk them in armed actions.


The way people try to do this is by, in some way, rationalizing that while violence is nessessary in the end, it is currently either impractical or unhelpful, the 'movement' 'public conciousness' 'material conditions' or some such thing must be more advanced.


This is the furthest from the truth however. Leftists seem to think, or want to think, that public support is a prerequisite for a successful armed campaign, but in fact, the opposite is true, a successful armed campaign is a prerequisite for public support.

Anglo-American westerners (not the French, Germans or Italians) have this notion that their governments are all powerful, that change is impossible and therefore it is futile to support change. In the United States, the number one reason why people vote for a candidate for office is not because they agree with his or her policies, but rather because they believe them to be 'electable.' Power commands public support, not the other way around. People don't support political organizations that might represent their real interests if they don't think they have a chance of making a political impact, they feel it would be 'throwing their vote away.'

No armed group or revolutionary movement has ever had majority or even sizable minority support from day one, unless it was proceeded by an earlier group or its operating in a society with an extremely weak, compromized or non-existant government. Fidel Castro was in the mountains with a group no larger than the Symbonese Liberation Army at the begining.


The entire point of violent action is not to do something as grand as 'overthrowing the government', its to embarras the government, to make it look weak, to demonstrate its vulnerabilities to the public. All governments rule with a tiny bit of force and a ton of fear, and when people see that the amount of fear that they can instill is disproportionately large when compared to the amount of practical force (and by that i mean, human intellegence and ability to control the streets, not high-tech aircraft only useful for fighting other states).

Standard maoist guerilla warfare used in dozens of countries exploits the fact that no state has enough cops and soldiers to defend all politically meaningful targets, and the more of those it attempts to protect, the less well defended they are. If a city has 10,000 cops, that might seem like overwhelming odds but its still vulnerable to even a small group...if it patrols a maximum of 2500 streets with two cops (assuming that only half of them can be on the streets at any time), a group of 10 armed revolutionaries can easily expect to win any engagement with any one of those patrols...if they start picking off groups of two officers, then the state will have no choice but to arriange its force in larger groups, but if it groups them in groups of 10, then a force of 10,000 cops can only patrol 500 streets, leaving the revolutionaries to operate in the undefended areas unmolested, reducing the visibility of the state and therefore reducing the degree that people are afraid of it. In 3rd world countries Maoists use that principle to free up the country side first so that the state is limited to smaller and smaller areas of control, as they've done in Nepal.

Every successful act of violence against the state thats politically meaningful (which is to say, anyone looking at it knows why it was carried out it wasn't just a random act) disillusions people in the state power, makes them question its ability to defend itself...which in turn makes people much more likely to think that revolutionary violence isn't so unreasonable, the success of it makes tem tink that its acceptable to support.


, no i'm not going out, throwing molotov coktails at the local police office, that's just being plain stupid,

Is it? Well it would be if you did it by yourself but not if you did it with a few dozen people. French students have forced the government to try to negotiate with them basically because they showed that a bunch of kids can throw molotov cocktails and stones at the police and they can't stop them. If activists protesting *serious* things like war and imperialism, in America and Canada and Australia and the United Kingdom, where as willing to pick up a molotov cocktail as French students protesting a youth labor law, they might have more political consequence rather than being totally irrelevent and easy to ignore. Rioters are much harder to ignore, especially if they're organized and well directed rather than simply a mob.

[BlackStar]

This may sound infantile, but I really enjoy watching two kids duke it out. What I dont enjoy is watching some kid get piled by another gang cuz hes waering sumthing they dont like. Fights are the the most basic form of entertainment and this dates back God nkows how man millions of years

If were talking about revolution then force is absolutely necessary, not liek we can all walk into parliament ( im canadian) and ask all the political leaders to get out. Actually, not liek we could just walk in at all. So yes i agree that violence is necessary, if some politicians want to die cuz they dont want to leave , then so be it.

Sacrifice the few to save the many.

[YSR]

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)No armed group or revolutionary movement has ever had majority or even sizable minority support from day one, unless it was proceeded by an earlier group or its operating in a society with an extremely weak, compromized or non-existant government.[/b]

Is it? Well it would be if you did it by yourself but not if you did it with a few dozen people. French students have forced the government to try to negotiate with them basically because they showed that a bunch of kids can throw molotov cocktails and stones at the police and they can't stop them.

Can anyone else notice the glaring contradiction between these two statements?

Statement A: Violent groups have never just appeared that have had massive public support.
Statement B: The French students have engaged in acts of violence with the police. [The French students have massive public support.]


TragicClown
Standard maoist guerilla warfare used in dozens of countries exploits the fact that no state has enough cops and soldiers to defend all politically meaningful targets, and the more of those it attempts to protect, the less well defended they are. If a city has 10,000 cops, that might seem like overwhelming odds but its still vulnerable to even a small group...if it patrols a maximum of 2500 streets with two cops (assuming that only half of them can be on the streets at any time), a group of 10 armed revolutionaries can easily expect to win any engagement with any one of those patrols...

See, this sounds so perfect in theory. Just SHOW people what the problem with the state is and they'll figure it out. But unless you have a sympathetic populace, all you're going to convince them to do is vote for some reactionary nutjob come election time, who will put MORE police on the streets. Maoism may be just peachy in third-world countries but IT DOESN'T WORK EVERYWHERE. That's the problem with dogmatic action theory, it's not practical.

In the first-world, people tend (this is based only off of my experience. Maybe the third-world operates the same way. I have no idea.) to identify themselves with the state. Even in the United States, a country with a strong tradition of individualism and anti-statism, as soon as the next war comes around, people are waving the flag like there's no tomorrow. It's inconsistant, true. But check the annals of American public opinion: They didn't like the Weather Underground. Period. There are many reasons for this, many of them no doubt having to do with state and media missrepresentation.

But this goes to show the giant flaw with small cell-style revolutionaries. If no one understands them, they do nothing but DESTROY revolutionary conciousness. WAY more important than small-scale violence is large-scale information. With that, large-scale violence, or "revolution" can occur.

Maybe, TragicClown, your tactics will work somewhere. You've shown some historical examples. Great! That's cool. But suggesting that the ONLY way to acheive revolution is through this tactics smacks of dogmatism and overgeneralization. I think you are confusing theory with practice.

EDIT: I'm shitty at using the code. My apologies.

[TC]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+Apr 8 2006, 05:43 PM--> (Young Stupid Radical @ Apr 8 2006, 05:43 PM)
TragicClown
No armed group or revolutionary movement has ever had majority or even sizable minority support from day one, unless it was proceeded by an earlier group or its operating in a society with an extremely weak, compromized or non-existant government.

Is it? Well it would be if you did it by yourself but not if you did it with a few dozen people. French students have forced the government to try to negotiate with them basically because they showed that a bunch of kids can throw molotov cocktails and stones at the police and they can't stop them.

Can anyone else notice the glaring contradiction between these two statements?

Statement A: Violent groups have never just appeared that have had massive public support.
Statement B: The French students have engaged in acts of violence with the police. [The French students have massive public support.]




[/b]
These statements aren't contradictory you're not reading them correctly.


The first statement pertained to armed revolutionary groups.

The second statement pertained to violent protesters.


Theres a big difference. Unarmed violence for the purposes of theatre in order to affect government policy (as in the French students example) is different then revolutionary lethal armed violence in order to destroy the government. The French students do not threaten the state's existant they simply attempt to coerce the state into backing off on a non-vital interest. Its not a life and death struggle where people are forced to choose sides with the state or put themselves in the line of fire.



See, this sounds so perfect in theory. Just SHOW people what the problem with the state is and they'll figure it out. But unless you have a sympathetic populace, all you're going to convince them to do is vote for some reactionary nutjob come election time, who will put MORE police on the streets. Maoism may be just peachy in third-world countries but IT DOESN'T WORK EVERYWHERE. That's the problem with dogmatic action theory, it's not practical.

Maoist guerrilla tactics work because they're effective strategy for waging asymetrical warfare, it works as well when used by rightist American backed contra's against Communist governments in Latin America as it does when used by Communists against American backed rightist dictators in Asia. Actual application of coercive force is apolitical.

Who people vote for irrelevent, because anyone they vote for will be the leader of a state, and any state's number one priority is its own survival, so they all respond to armed opposition in the same way, in order to maximize their chances for survival. To the extent that a state increases its level of repression, it can only do so among the portion of the population it controls, which obviously puts armed revolutionarys outside of that catagory, and the more it represses people simply the more they resent it and sympathesies with the opposition.


In the first-world, people tend (this is based only off of my experience. Maybe the third-world operates the same way. I have no idea.) to identify themselves with the state. Even in the United States, a country with a strong tradition of individualism and anti-statism, as soon as the next war comes around, people are waving the flag like there's no tomorrow. It's inconsistant, true. But check the annals of American public opinion: They didn't like the Weather Underground. Period. There are many reasons for this, many of them no doubt having to do with state and media missrepresentation.


You're theory doesn't match historical reality. The Weather Underground were highly popular with American costal youth, which is to say, with people in the areas that they operated in. Youth was disaffected with the political mainstream and the more the protesters and underground defied it the more open they were in opposition. Millions of young people marched under Communist vietnamese flags supporting the government's enemies. The Weather Underground evaded the police and FBI because they had thousands of supporters willing to offer them safe houses wherever they went, they had their faces displayed on wanted posters and newspapers but people wouldn't turn them in. And when the war was over and they turned themselves into the police, despite being famous terrorists, the entire Weather Underground leadership was able to walk, not one of them did prison time relating to their terrorist activity despite bombing such high profile targets as the Capitol building and dozens of military and police targets. Can you imagine John Walker Lindh (the 'American Taliban) or Zacarias Moussaoui, rank and file 'terrorists' who didn't even commit any violent actions, being let off on technicalities? People like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers admitted directing a nearly decade long bombing campaign hitting dozens of high profile government targets in support of a foriegn power in war time (which is obviously treason and terrorism by any legal definition) and remain totally unappologetic, but the political culture, that they helped to create, was such that they were let off. You can bet that it would never have happened if Americans felt about the Weather Underground the way they feel about Al Qaeda. The same is true of ex-IRA Sinn Fein.



But this goes to show the giant flaw with small cell-style revolutionaries. If no one understands them, they do nothing but DESTROY revolutionary conciousness. WAY more important than small-scale violence is large-scale information. With that, large-scale violence, or "revolution" can occur.



I hate to point out but large-scale violence doesn't just come from no where, it doesn't just come from people having 'information.' I consider myself fairly well informed, but no amount of information is going to lead me to put my life in danger. Large scale violence is the result of small scale violence expanding. There has never been a large scale violent revolution not preceeded by smaller acts of organized violence. People understand action, they understand power, they understand when a state appears powerful and when a state appears weak, they understand inately that they're being exploited...they do not understand Anarchist or Marxist literature on a useful scale, and they're not receptive to it anyways, and even if they are, its not helpful in getting people to act.



Maybe, TragicClown, your tactics will work somewhere. You've shown some historical examples. Great! That's cool. But suggesting that the ONLY way to acheive revolution is through this tactics smacks of dogmatism and overgeneralization. I think you are confusing theory with practice.



No i think you're confusing theory with practice. What you're talking about is theory removed from material realities. You aren't looking at history and how people actually behave, you're just dogmatically insisting on an abstract paradigm with no basis in fact, that you've not offered any support for, that i think has more to do with wishful thinking as a justification for sitting on your butt while continueing to pretend to be a 'revolutionary' (which is something that *none* of us are).

[YSR]

Originally posted by TragicClown
Maoist guerrilla tactics work because they're effective strategy for waging asymetrical warfare, it works as well when used by rightist American backed contra's against Communist governments in Latin America as it does when used by Communists against American backed rightist dictators in Asia. Actual application of coercive force is apolitical.

I hate to sound like that obnoxious capitalist who keeps saying "see, communism ALWAYS fail," but I have to point this out: "Maoist" guerrilla techniques are A form of resistance, not THE ONLY form. You've cited two examples of successful guerrilla-style warfare. I'm sure I can point out many more. The American Revolution against the British, for instance. However, you continue to completely miss my point with your obsessive devotion to small-scale violence. Answer the question here: Is Maoist-style (I keep using the word "style" because I'm not familiar enough with Maoist thought to call it Maoism. My apologies) combat the ONLY way to successfully topple the government and bring about a left-wing revolution?


You're theory doesn't match historical reality. The Weather Underground were highly popular with American costal youth, which is to say, with people in the areas that they operated in...

I'm not sure what this whole thing really means. I will admit my relative ignorance on the complete history of the WU, but wikipedia appears to tell me that essentially they started in 69, went underground in 70, and bombed shit until 75. Good. I'm glad that they blew up some buildings that belonged to the government. The bastards deserved it. But couldn't their time have been better spent elsewhere? Couldn't these people, who obviously believed strongly in their cause, have been organizing a shitload of people? I mean, bombing the Pentagon is one thing, but showing up with a few hundred thousand people with guns is an entirely different. The former is protest, accomplishes little other than to scare a few bureaucrats and confuse the masses, who are fed propaganda from the media. The latter is armed revolution, which succeeds in what we believe in.

Obviously, I acknowledge that it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the members of the WU could have done such a thing, but it's the general concept. Large-scale armed revolution will only come about through extensive organization. Cells of freedom fighters are not exactly notorious for this kind of thing.


I hate to point out but large-scale violence doesn't just come from no where, it doesn't just come from people having 'information.'

I stand by my statement, which you appear to have misinterpreted. Lack of "information" for the population at large and too much pointless philosophizing coupled with misunderstood applications of violence are why leftism has failed in my country. Radical leftists are dismissed as "dangerous" on one hand or "elitist" on the other. We have much to do to combat this image. Then violence and philosophizing will make perfect sense, when coupled with a healthy understanding of why we are doing these things.

Note that I am not saying violence is not acceptable now on a smaller scale. It is, but just like on a large scale, only if the conditions are proper for it. The condition that must be satisfied is a healthy understanding of why the violence is being committed by the people for whom the violence is directed to help.


No i think you're confusing theory with practice. What you're talking about is theory removed from material realities. You aren't looking at history and how people actually behave, you're just dogmatically insisting on an abstract paradigm with no basis in fact, that you've not offered any support for, that i think has more to do with wishful thinking as a justification for sitting on your butt while continueing to pretend to be a 'revolutionary' (which is something that *none* of us are).

Blah, blah, blah. I'm sorry comrade, you are no doubt wiser than me in many ways (not the least in Maoism, in which you seem particularly fluent) but I don't particularly care if you don't think I'm revolutionary. You're not going to make me agree with you by painting me with the brush of reformism. I've illustrated why I think you're not right here and why I think you're speaking out of dogma. If that kind of argument worked on me, I'd be a flag-waving capitalist ten times 'till Tuesday after all the insults I've recieved from the right-wing.

Furthermore, this little bit: "you're just dogmatically insisting on an abstract paradigm with no basis in fact" just means "you're making something up" which I simply can't understand. I'm not "dogmatically" supporting anything. Quite the opposite, I'm NOT supporting your type of violence, which I see as ineffective. Show me my dogma.

EDIT: I used the wrong pronoun and realized how much it irritated I.
(haha, look a joke!) But seriously, I did.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

I wonder how people here think about using violence?

Violence is a necessary occurrence in a revolution, is an effective tool, both physical and psychologically, because both can instill fear into the government, and or oppressor, and also illustrate the true power of the people, and how the government should fear the people, not people fearing the government, and I dare say violence ie, a force behind the revolutionary theory is the most powerful tool the revolutionary can weld, aside from theory.


I see it as a necessary evil.

There is nothing evil about violence.


And what will trigger a violent reaction with you?

Many things, lol.


And are there any people with combat experience here?

Not besides fencing, and traditional archery.

[piet11111]

combat experience ? in what sense ?

im too smart to be send to war (as in able to weasel out of getting drafted)
but i have fired guns and rifle's and have been in several fights (last one did not end well :( )

and i know how to use the urban combat environment to my advantage if the need is there.
but most importantly im a good shooter and i know how and where to get weapons.

[TC]

I hate to sound like that obnoxious capitalist who keeps saying "see, communism ALWAYS fail,"

Although you do sound like that...


but I have to point this out: "Maoist" guerrilla techniques are A form of resistance, not THE ONLY form.

Its one of the only forms that works effectively when used by a small group against a vastly larger and more powerful group. Obviously if you start wiht a big group, you don't need to use the same tactics!


You've cited two examples of successful guerrilla-style warfare. I'm sure I can point out many more. The American Revolution against the British, for instance.

The so-called American "revolution" (much more properly called 'American War of Independence') was not a guerrilla war, it was a war between the British colonial government in north America and the French Empire against the British government in London. The American independence fighters had a government behind them, and the significant engagements they faught were symetrical battles between conventional forces in fields, often with the support of the French navy.


Answer the question here: Is Maoist-style (I keep using the word "style" because I'm not familiar enough with Maoist thought to call it Maoism. My apologies) combat the ONLY way to successfully topple the government and bring about a left-wing revolution?

Its probably the only effective means of a small group of poorly armed people toppling a stable, consolidated government. Very large vanguard parties can certaintly topple weak unstable governments, since those governments don't have the ability to instill fear into their populace to begin with, breaking that ability is not needed. Small groups of heavily armed people (from within the military) can topple governments with any popular or military backing through a coup detat.

There are variants of Maoist guerilla tactics that use a political and/or para-military front within the cities while using classic maoist tactics in the country side (such as what was done in the Cuban revolution and is being done today in Nepal) but they still make use of the same basic strategy its just somewhat different than what Mao himself did.



I'm not sure what this whole thing really means. I will admit my relative ignorance on the complete history of the WU, but wikipedia appears to tell me that essentially they started in 69, went underground in 70, and bombed shit until 75. Good. I'm glad that they blew up some buildings that belonged to the government. The bastards deserved it. But couldn't their time have been better spent elsewhere? Couldn't these people, who obviously believed strongly in their cause, have been organizing a shitload of people?

Uh, they did organize a shitload of people. The Weather Underground was the leadership of the Students for a Democratic Society, a radical communist anti-war group that had more than a hundred thousand members and organized


I mean, bombing the Pentagon is one thing, but showing up with a few hundred thousand people with guns is an entirely different.

It would be logistically impossible to organize a few hundred thousand people with guns under a stable government. How do you advertise to recruit people on such a scale without the government finding out and arresting you? How would you get hundreds of thousands of guns, millions of rounds of ammunition, without the anyone finding out, even if you had someway to fund that? No government would be that stupid.

The only way to recruit, organize, and arm an army capable of overthrowing a government is if that governments control over an area has already been severely compromised. Either that can be done by revolutionaries through small scale violence or they can exploit its occurance by an outside force (as the Bolshevic's exploited it in the Russian Empire compromized by capitalist revolution and German invasion).


I stand by my statement, which you appear to have misinterpreted. Lack of "information" for the population at large and too much pointless philosophizing coupled with misunderstood applications of violence are why leftism has failed in my country. Radical leftists are dismissed as "dangerous" on one hand or "elitist" on the other. We have much to do to combat this image. Then violence and philosophizing will make perfect sense, when coupled with a healthy understanding of why we are doing these things.

Huh? That made so little sense.



Note that I am not saying violence is not acceptable now on a smaller scale. It is, but just like on a large scale, only if the conditions are proper for it. The condition that must be satisfied is a healthy understanding of why the violence is being committed by the people for whom the violence is directed to help.

That condition already exists and already exists in all societies. When people attack security forces and military everyone understands the motivation, the motivation is to weaken the government and prevent it from enforcing its policies on people. People aren't so stupid that they can't see that.

The only time when people don't understand political violence is when the targets make no sense, like Shia Mosques in Iraq.


Blah, blah, blah. I'm sorry comrade, you are no doubt wiser than me in many ways
Clearly.


You're not going to make me agree with you by painting me with the brush of reformism.

I didn't say you were beign 'reformist', i said you were being dogmatic and using wishful thinking. I'm calling as i see it for the sake of getting this straight in this thread not because i want to make you agree with me.


I'm not "dogmatically" supporting anything.

No, you're dogmatically opposing something. Notice i never said you were "dogmatically supporting" anything.

[Commie Rat]

There is a guy in OI, that belives that we need both violent and non-violent people in the revolution, cant remeber his name but he has a good point.

We need people willing to fight when the cops start firing tear gas at us.
We need people no willing to fight to look after those who will (eg doctors ect)
We need people willing to fight for our rights in actions
We need people will to fight for our rights in words

[Mika :: FUERUDEI No Chi]

If they have hurt others with there own hateful violance, use violance full force. If they hurt others with there words, use words full force, if they have not done much.....give em a light kick for the fun of it >>

[Orange Juche]

Violence in revolution is neccessary, if we wish to destroy class structure. Nonviolence is a good strategical tactic to be used in the right situations, but not as an ideology. We cannot realistically expect the ruling class to simply concede to our wishes if we use nonviolence... they will never, ever, willingly let go of their power.