There Is No Revolution, Only Terrorism

[Angelo-Von-Drez]

As a piece of artwork I did a beatnik film (to the tune of Caravan) about revolution. It was called "A Short Film about Revolution", ironically enough. The film comes to a climax in it's postmodern sense and states at the end, that today in our modern capitalist society (restricted to the western world) Terrorism has taken the place of revolution.

I'm sure that if the guys who flew that plane into the twin towers (9/11) didn't take their anger out on people but instead the capitalist modern world by attacking a francise without anybody in it, it would've been seen as a political revolution. Unfortunately, our good friend, Georgey Porgey Bush (or whoever's behind him) decided that he must demonise them.

Why has something as wonderful as political revolution and anarchy turned into the lust for harming others. Why not attack the government and the built up environment. (Possibly a couple of people who get in the way along the way *cough* George Bush, John Howard, Tony Blaire *cough*. Wankers.

Lisa Simpson once said about Romance
“Romance is dead - it was acquired in a hostile takeover by Hallmark and Disney, homogenized, and sold off piece by piece."

The same goes for Revolution, so I say...
"Revolution is dead - it was acquired in a hostile takeover by suedo 'anarchists' and their anti-humanitarian beliefs subverted, and burnt at the stake for us all to see and be affraid of"

[bcbm]

How the fuck did you make the jump from religious fundamentalists ramming jets into buildings and killing thousands of people to anarchism? Revolution is a messy business, it always has been and when one class overthrows another, people are going to die. Sorry, but that is how the cookie crumbles.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 9 2006, 01:02 PM
How the fuck did you make the jump from religious fundamentalists ramming jets into buildings and killing thousands of people to anarchism? Revolution is a messy business, it always has been and when one class overthrows another, people are going to die. Sorry, but that is how the cookie crumbles.
Well that's easy. Violence is bad... m'kay? Only bad people use violence and Santa doesn't bring presents to bad people.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 9 2006, 08:35 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 9 2006, 08:35 AM)
black banner black [email protected] 9 2006, 01:02 PM
How the fuck did you make the jump from religious fundamentalists ramming jets into buildings and killing thousands of people to anarchism? Revolution is a messy business, it always has been and when one class overthrows another, people are going to die. Sorry, but that is how the cookie crumbles.
Well that's easy. Violence is bad... m'kay? Only bad people use violence and Santa doesn't bring presents to bad people. [/b]
Santa can eat the business end of my P-11 9mm.

[Janus]

A revolution is an all-encompassing movement whereas terrorism is simply a small tactic. There are revolutions going on and yes sometimes "terrorism" is used. What drives fundamentalists to kill others is not the same drive that drives us to oppose capitalism so I'm not sure what your point is.

[apathy maybe]

I know someone who calls all acts of violence terrorism. I say, but that takes away from the meaning of the word. The word cannot be used if that is the definition. That's the point he says.


What is terrorism? Is it violence? Political violence? Political violence used against an innocent/non-combatent to incit fear? Again but to encourge an action by an audience they would not otherwise take?

Revolution is terrorism. But it is not as bad as the terrorism we face all around us everyday. The homeless person begging, the children fighting, the wars and the police brutality.


Besides, the small acts of terrorism, the attacking the fast food place, the cop shop, the barricades, they all add up. And it is something we can all do now.

[Angelo-Von-Drez]

I had a formalised debate once and we defined Terrorism from the Macquarie Dictionary as "Political Violence against a Nation or State Government"

From this, we pinpointed the other people's arguments and eventually defined "war" as terrorism.

Terrorism is whatever you make it.

I'm simply saying that Revolution and fighting against the government has been demonised and is now shone in such a bad light that I doubt anything as big as something like the French Revolution will ever happen again.

[Rollo]

.... Lies.

[KC]

That's a horrible definition of terrorism. By that logic, throwing shit at cops at a protest is terrorism.

[Rollo]

Terrorism is a tactic to scare the governing political party into submission. Most of the current terror attacks are omfgsplosioning themselves to get the US out of Iraq.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Angelo-Von-[email protected] 11 2006, 12:07 AM
I'm simply saying that Revolution and fighting against the government has been demonised and is now shone in such a bad light that I doubt anything as big as something like the French Revolution will ever happen again.
Nonsense. History has shown us one thing, repeatedly: when people get angry enough with their leaders, THEY KILL THEM. There are plenty of recent examples of this happening, we just need to figure out how to monopolize on them.

[ComradeE]

Terrorism is just a way of a small group to influnce the majority by using fear...Killing indiscrimitly no matter Who you are .it is completly differnet from a revulation, a revolution is an act of mass Shift that change's socity Completly done by the majority of peaple.
The peple who carried out 9-11 and other attacks like on londen were influnced by economic inequility and brutal imperlism but they did it in the name of RADICEL ISLAM wich a reactery and backword ideal not for socil equility.

[Angelo-Von-Drez]

My definition of Terrorism comes straight from the Dictionary and if we are under that definition, then war is terrorism.

But this isn't the point.

All I'm merely saying is that with the Western World, who are so very attracted to a capitalist society, it'll be very hard to have a revolution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as commy as you'll get. I want to create revolution too, but before one must act they must think.

[ComradeOm]

We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution.

Guess who? ;)

[Angelo-Von-Drez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:51 PM
We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution.

Guess who? ;)
Terror is a nessecity in revolution yes, but today's society is so afraid of it, thanks to george porgey, that they don't want change.

Our apathetic world is pathetic.


Guess who?

I have no idea...

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 11 2006, 01:41 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 11 2006, 01:41 PM)
Angelo-Von-[email protected] 11 2006, 12:07 AM
I'm simply saying that Revolution and fighting against the government has been demonised and is now shone in such a bad light that I doubt anything as big as something like the French Revolution will ever happen again.
Nonsense. History has shown us one thing, repeatedly: when people get angry enough with their leaders, THEY KILL THEM. There are plenty of recent examples of this happening, we just need to figure out how to monopolize on them. [/b]
Angelo, you also ignore the fact that revolution has always been demonised by the ruling class. For obvious reasons.

[rebelworker]

Ther is a good pampehlet out there called "you cant blow up a social relationship" that criticises terrorism as a revolutionary tactic.

As the title states. you cant destroy class relations and political domination by blowing soemthing up. Only a mass movement is revolutionary, anything less is eliteism(unless ofcourse you live under a total dictatorship, which is nowear neer the case in most of the world).

[Andy Bowden]

Guess who?

Was it Iron Feliks?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 11 2006, 07:18 PM
Was it Iron Feliks?
Yep. Now that was one cool Bolshevik.

[rouchambeau]

I'm sure that if the guys who flew that plane into the twin towers (9/11) didn't take their anger out on people but instead the capitalist modern world by attacking a francise without anybody in it, it would've been seen as a political revolution.

They killed a bunch of -as Ward Churchil put it- little Eichmans and police. Why not pacify those people?

Of course, it is terribly unfortunate that innocent workers were murdered as well.

[Rawthentic]

So, is it being suggested that terror be used as a tactic against innocent people during revolution? Maybe I have a different definition of the word, but I see it as a way to incite fear in people, I dont think that communists want to go back to that time when small elitist groups of Leninists or Maoists tried to incite revolution and instead became nothing other than a small band of idiots killing or bombing as a way to start revolution. I think that its hard to discuss this because we all have different ideas of what terrorism is.