political violence

[Organic Revolution]

Is political violence a neccesity to bring about revolutionary change, or is there another way?

Is the anarchist idea of Propaganda By The Deed an out-dated idea?

is it a neccesity to train for revolution and defend your community?


i would love to see some interesting answers to this.

[apathy maybe]

Is political violence a neccesity to bring about revolutionary change, or is there another way?Maybe, it is probable however, that the ruling classes will not give up their power without a fight. If you do not want violence, you have to make sure the vast majority of people are on your side.


Is the anarchist idea of Propaganda By The Deed an out-dated idea?Depends on what you mean. Different people have a different conception of what they mean by propaganda of the deed. If you mean using violence to try and force the state to crack down and thus show to the people the inherent nature of the state, the yes. If you mean assassinating political leaders in a bid to eliminate the ruling class, then maybe. If you mean terrorism against civilians or 'innocents', then definitely (Are there innocents in the ruling class?)


is it a neccesity to train for revolution and defend your community?
Yes you have to defend your community. But train for revolution? It really depends.

[PaulMarsh]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 30 2006, 07:36 AM

is it a neccesity to train for revolution and defend your community?
Yes you have to defend your community. But train for revolution? It really depends.
Put it this way - there are quite a few police officers and soldiers out there training to be able to fight your community, so I think the basic answer to your question has to be yes!

[Postteen]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 30 2006, 09:36 AM

Is political violence a neccesity to bring about revolutionary change, or is there another way?Maybe, it is probable however, that the ruling classes will not give up their power without a fight. If you do not want violence, you have to make sure the vast majority of people are on your side.


Is the anarchist idea of Propaganda By The Deed an out-dated idea?Depends on what you mean. Different people have a different conception of what they mean by propaganda of the deed. If you mean using violence to try and force the state to crack down and thus show to the people the inherent nature of the state, the yes. If you mean assassinating political leaders in a bid to eliminate the ruling class, then maybe. If you mean terrorism against civilians or 'innocents', then definitely (Are there innocents in the ruling class?)


is it a neccesity to train for revolution and defend your community?
Yes you have to defend your community. But train for revolution? It really depends.
My thoughts exactly.Violence is neccesary to bring the disired changes.But it has to be supported by the majority of the people.Violence is accepted in order to make the crowd undertstand and then the crowd will use it to smash the government.It's only a matter of time for the people to relise some things.

[CheGregory]

A Revolution requires blood, blood of the people and blood of the upper-class.

When the people will shed blood for their country, and shed the blood of their countrymen, their dedication is comparable to steel.

No capitalist will give up his power and money without a fight, and it is the masses that must bring the fight to his doorstep.

[Morag]

Though i don't think political violence is outdated, I think the level or even use of it needs to be determined based on the material conditions at the time of revolution. I disagree strongly with the idea of propaganda by the deed, but then, I'm not an anarchist. In the end, no amount of violence will successfully bring about a revolution if the workers aren't in agreement with you. (This has nothing to do with my disagreement with prop. by the deed, btw).

So, education and solidarity first. Violence later.

[An archist]

^
Yup, there's no need to launch a bombing campaign against the government out of the blue, you need a real revolutionary tension before you cvan start real attacks on the government.
Look at the RAF, what did they achieve?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Organic Revolution @ Aug 30 [email protected] 05:36 AM
Is political violence a neccesity to bring about revolutionary change, or is there another way?

Yes, it's necessary, but in the context of class struggle...


Is the anarchist idea of Propaganda By The Deed an out-dated idea?

The working class are the only section of society that have the power to bring down capitalism. Acts of individual political violence are not going to achieve fundamental change of class society.

Well, direct action is "propaganda by deed" and I think it’s an important form of political protest. I don't however, think that Alex Berkman and Leon Czolgosz style acts of political violence in times of reaction (such as the time we live in now) are beneficial or useful in anyway.

In a pre-revolutionary society the destruction of the state will benefit from individual acts of violence (such as Leon Czolgosz style things) but they will only be useful during times of class upheaval when the working class are gaining class consciousness.


is it a neccesity to train for revolution and defend your community?

Perhaps, but not right now. At the moment what is necessary is building a viable mass class struggle anarchist organisation.

The anarchist movement is very small at the moment and because we are living in times of reaction what is necessary is for the anarchist movement build our propaganda base and get involved in struggle.

Training for revolution is extremely premature.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by PaulMarsh+Aug 30 2006, 09:54 AM--> (PaulMarsh @ Aug 30 2006, 09:54 AM)
apathy [email protected] 30 2006, 07:36 AM

is it a neccesity to train for revolution and defend your community?
Yes you have to defend your community. But train for revolution? It really depends.
Put it this way - there are quite a few police officers and soldiers out there training to be able to fight your community, so I think the basic answer to your question has to be yes! [/b]
CWF training camps...Now that would be a sight for saw eyes :P

[TC]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 30 2006, 04:36 AM
Is political violence a neccesity to bring about revolutionary change, or is there another way?


is it a neccesity to train for revolution and defend your community?


i would love to see some interesting answers to this.

Is political violence a neccesity to bring about revolutionary change, or is there another way?

All changes of ruling class involve violence, either actual or the threat of violence, because the state itself is the means by which the ruling class maintain their control of property through violence.

Its possible to take government authority through peaceful means (elections) but to have state power, such a government either needs to build its own, indepedent army (citizens militias) and/or survive a coup by the state against the government, with the use of its own forces, so even in taking the government peacefully taking the state requires violence (this being the pattern that the Bolivarian revolution followed and Allende failed to pull off in Chile).


Is the anarchist idea of Propaganda By The Deed an out-dated idea?


Direct action in the proper sense, is never outdated as it achieves a specific political aim.

Propaganda of the deed using elements of direct action and violence, are useful in the same way that symbolic protests are useful, they can affect specific state policy to bulid more desirable conditions, but they are not useful in 'sparking a revolution' or in actually overthrowing the state, simply compelling it to change its actions.

I don't think the fact of the known limitations of violent 'propaganda of the deed' or direct action by individuals means that these are not worthwhile tactics, and dismissing them because they wont cause a revolution is rather self-serving since nothing the left can do at the current time will cause a revolution (in the first world) and they can be effective tactics for acheiving smaller but vaulable goals.