Delusional 'Communists'

[D_Bokk]

Islam, a religion, has become more threatening to the US than communism; homosexuals pose a greater threat to America; for crying out loud, Janet Jackson's right nipple is a bigger threat than we are. What's going on? The main issue here is communists who are willing to concede their ideology in order to appease the masses inside the West.

For one, these communists are "riding the fence" on many issues. Many people refuse to take sides on the Israel-Palestine conflict, they spew a bunch of crap about 'inter-imperialism' or 'bourgeois conflict' as if it actually means something. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much of a bourgeois conflict this is - the working class will die and continue to die until the conflict ends.

The most obvious example of this is the Holocaust. The very same people who label the Israel-Palestine situation a 'bourgeois conflict' would naturally be forced to say the same for WWII. These "communists" would rather have Hitler in power still than to join forces with the allies. The same goes for the Civil War in Spain. Naturally in these cases, the greater evil must be destroyed by any means - even if it means supporting a bourgeois party. Of course we would prefer to support a working class resistance group, but there is none.

Secondly, the Western communists have a odd relationship with the working class in the West. For reason I cannot possibly understand, they feel that the working class in the West deserves more and their lives are more important. They'll adamantly defend the proletariat in places like the US, irregardless of how bourgeoisified they've become. Many fail to recognize that the proletariat in the West are enemies to the international proletariat. Every four years, they will elect politicians who will exploit, oppress and murder proletarians around the world; they will support their troops irregardless of the morality of the conflict; they will ignore the suffering of the third world; they will support imperialism.

Then a small militant group will unintentionally kill 3,000 "proletarians" in the United States and receives massive criticism from the so-called left. Eleven times more people die every day from starvation, a problem easily rectified, and how many times do these "communists" ever mention that? They don't - they're concerned more about America and other Western countries than they are of the poor and oppressed. In a word, they're racists.

These Western "communists" are nothing more than petty-bourgeois liberals. They're more concerned about the lives of their fellow Americans (Britons, French, ect.) than they are about the class struggle. You cannot be neutral and you cannot be nationally eccentric.

And Anarchists, what the hell is wrong with you?

As an anarchist, you should support 'Propaganda by the Deed' and not run around trying to convince people that capitalism is bad - show them! Not with your hippy-ass drum circles for world peace. When people do use 'Propaganda by the Deed' so-called Anarchists jump on their ass because they're killing "innocents." To that, I will quote a real Anarchist:

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev

Revolution isn't a bunch of people prancing around in an enchanted forest of magic - it's the utter destruction of this capitalist system. If you're a pacifist, you might as well go out and vote for the green party and quit wasting people's time posting on a Revolutionaryleft forum, even though your ilk dominates it's ranks.

The bottom line is: stop trying to appeal to the masses. We're communists, we don't need to appeal to the masses. Our ideology itself should appeal to the masses without a bunch of petty-bourgeois liberals pitying every single remotely militant action. All we need to do is reveal to the public the true basis behind communism, we don't need to reject Stalin, Lenin, Mao or appeal to the public opinion. If a member of the working class learns of communism, and rejects it - they become a enemy to their own class. Fuck them, move on. And I would argue this is the case for most of the 'working class' inside the West. And yet, many of you still cling to the hope of a revolution in these countries. You're delusional.

If there is hope, it lies in the third world...

[Labor Shall Rule]

Cry me a river.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by RedDali
Cry me a river.
This is what I am talking about. People like you are the reason why communism has become a mere hobby.

[Cryotank Screams]

First let me start of by saying that I find your poorly constructed rant to be simply stupid, however I will dress some lines that stuck out to me.


These "communists" would rather have Hitler in power still than to join forces with the allies.

No, we would side with the Red Army, and Stalin.


Of course we would prefer to support a working class resistance group, but there is none.

Search through google, or wiki and I guarantee you that you will find dozens of revolutionary groups internationally fighting for the revolution.


Every four years, they will elect politicians who will exploit, oppress and murder proletarians around the world; they will support their troops irregardless of the morality of the conflict; they will ignore the suffering of the third world; they will support imperialism.

I highly doubt the US comrades here vote in the US elections, nor do I think they support the troops, or ignore the poverty and struggle of people in other countries it is just we here in the West do not have enough resources, influence, or power to do anything about it as of yet; I mean I can guarantee you every comrade here is a civilian so how are we suppose to help people half way around the world when we are already struggling against oppression and the capitalists right at our very door steps!


These Western "communists" are nothing more than petty-bourgeois liberals. They're more concerned about the lives of their fellow Americans (Britons, French, ect.) than they are about the class struggle.

So fighting for the revolution in our respective areas first, makes us petty-bourgeois? Your an idiot, that is like saying the russian Communists during the October revolution were all petty-bourgeois because they were fighting for a russian revolution, instead of concerning themselves with people in a far away land.

Is it not more efficient to fight oppression in your own country first? I mean yea I give support to all my comrades across the globe, however I am more concerned whats happening right before my eyes, and where I live than in some far of country, where I can do absolutely nothing besides sit here and ***** about how bad it is.

[The Rover]

QUOTE
These "communists" would rather have Hitler in power still than to join forces with the allies.



No, we would side with the Red Army, and Stalin.

I thought that would be obvious too.



Secondly, the Western communists have a odd relationship with the working class in the West. For reason I cannot possibly understand, they feel that the working class in the West deserves more and their lives are more important. They'll adamantly defend the proletariat in places like the US, irregardless of how bourgeoisified they've become. Many fail to recognize that the proletariat in the West are enemies to the international proletariat. Every four years, they will elect politicians who will exploit, oppress and murder proletarians around the world; they will support their troops irregardless of the morality of the conflict; they will ignore the suffering of the third world; they will support imperialism.


This one is, unfortunately, true. But it can be changed. They simply have to overcome their ignorance.



If you're a pacifist, you might as well go out and vote for the green party and quit wasting people's time posting on a Revolutionaryleft forum, even though your ilk dominates it's ranks.


One can fight without using violence. There have been peaceful revolutions. just because none have been leftist does not mean the same strategies could be used in one. One does not have to kill to be a revolutionary.




If there is hope, it lies in the third world...


I would love to agree with you, but without a strong socialist bloc behind them, any third world revolutions would be lost quickly.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+--> (Scarlet Hammer)No, we would side with the Red Army, and Stalin.[/b]
Read over some posts by your fellow "comrades" and tell me that again. And I think you're confused, the people here will denounce Stalin as much as possible - and you'll probably be restricted sooner or later for being a Stalinist. Enjoy your stay.


Search through google, or wiki and I guarantee you that you will find dozens of revolutionary groups internationally fighting for the revolution.
Ah yes, that revolutionary group with 3 members - always helpful in fighting the genocidal Israelis...

I highly doubt the US comrades here vote in the US elections, nor do I think they support the troops, or ignore the poverty and struggle of people in other countries it is just we here in the West do not have enough resources, influence, or power to do anything about it as of yet; I mean I can guarantee you every comrade here is a civilian so how are we suppose to help people half way around the world when we are already struggling against oppression and the capitalists right at our very door steps!

I highly doubt I was talking about the US "comrades" here. I was speaking of the traitorous working class they love and worship.

So fighting for the revolution in our respective areas first, makes us petty-bourgeois? Your an idiot, that is like saying the russian Communists during the October revolution were all petty-bourgeois because they were fighting for a russian revolution, instead of concerning themselves with people in a far away land.

Is it not more efficient to fight oppression in your own country first? I mean yea I give support to all my comrades across the globe, however I am more concerned whats happening right before my eyes, and where I live than in some far of country, where I can do absolutely nothing besides sit here and ***** about how bad it is.
Yes, it does. Communists are also internationalists, not National Socialists. The reason you should be more concerned with the rest of the world is because the rest of the world actually has a chance to have a revolution. You would be naive to think that the USA will have a revolution. Supporting third world countries breaking away from imperialism is helping your "own country" because so long as your country lives off the exploited labor of the third world - they will never being revolutionaries.

The Rover
This one is, unfortunately, true. But it can be changed. They simply have to overcome their ignorance.
This will happen when and only when imperialism is destroyed.

One can fight without using violence. There have been peaceful revolutions. just because none have been leftist does not mean the same strategies could be used in one. One does not have to kill to be a revolutionary.
I find it highly unlikely that the bourgeois will he hand over all of their wealth without a fight no matter how the communists go about their revolution.

I would love to agree with you, but without a strong socialist bloc behind them, any third world revolutions would be lost quickly.
It appears as thought Chavez is creating that bloc.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by D Bokk+--> (D Bokk)As an anarchist, you should support 'Propaganda by the Deed' and not run around trying to convince people that capitalism is bad - show them! [/b]

Are you taking the piss?

Propaganda by the deed went out of 'fashion' at the turn of the 20th century... you know why? Coz it didn't fuckin' work!

As a revolutionary strategy what did it achieve?

Nothing!

As the cliche goes, you can't blow up a social relationship.

How on earth does blowing shit up convince anyone that capitalism is bad?

Propaganda by the deed alienated working class people more than anything.

Why? Because when your 'action' is blowing shit up and killing civilains it's not very hard for the state and media to tar and feather you in the public arena, anarchists in the late 19th century early 20th century were regarded by many people in the USA and europe in the same way that 'Islamists' are regarded now, as bloody-thirsty terrorists who want to 'destroy' civilisation.

It is precisely this tactic that lead to the development of the steretypical 'bomb-throwing anarchist', anarchy and anarchists as purveyors of chaos, death and destruction in the popular mind.

Propaganda by the deed gave the state strong grounds to violently suppress not only the anarchist movement, but political dissent in general, resulting in the banning of many organisations, papers, and the imprisonment and murder of scores of revolutionaries.

Propaganda by the deed also functions on the false premise that isolated acts of violence can 'spark' a revolution.

'No individual can create a rebellion, it comes out of the conditions'.

Political violence may contribute to the development of revolutionary conditions, but then again it may do the complete opposite. The fact is this sort of violence, particularly when it's violence directed at civilains tends to alienate more people than it 'radicalises'. Perhaps if we lived in a time where class consciousness was rising or strong, such violence would be more appropiate, but when you live in reactionary times this sort of thing will only serve to marginalise the movement and anarchist ideas.

You're a fool if you think blowing up the cafes of the bourgeoisie is a 'consciousness raising' exercise.


Originally posted by D [email protected]

To that, I will quote a real Anarchist:

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev

Again i ask, are you kidding?

Nechayev was a crackpot nihilist, not a 'real' anarchist, whatever that is supposed to mean.



D Bokk
The bottom line is: stop trying to appeal to the masses. We're communists, we don't need to appeal to the masses.

Just saw this bit...

I guess now i understand why you support propaganda by the deed :mellow:

[Cryotank Screams]

Read over some posts by your fellow "comrades" and tell me that again. And I think you're confused, the people here will denounce Stalin as much as possible - and you'll probably be restricted sooner or later for being a Stalinist. Enjoy your stay.

Regardless of how some people here feel about Stalin, I would think or rather I would hope that they would support the Red Army over fascists and capitalists considering that through Stalin and the Red Army, a revolution happened through most of europe and even in germany!

I also know that not everyone here is anti-Stalin, and that there is some members here whom view him as a genuine and great leader, even though he did mistakes as ALL leaders do.

Yet, I know and have read the warning of Stalinism in relation to membership here at revleft, and I would hope that I would not be restricted over some sectarian bullshit.


Ah yes, that revolutionary group with 3 members - always helpful in fighting the genocidal Israelis...

There is a dozen groups that have a large member base, however I don't see why we should be focusing our struggle against the "genocidal israelis," and not the middle east as a whole, because from what I have witnessed there is no good side in that conflict.

I highly doubt I was talking about the US "comrades" here. I was speaking of the traitorous working class they love and worship.

So whom are we to support? The oppressive government? The capitalists themselves? What is so wrong with supporting and fighting for a working-class revolution?

Granted the majority of them have been fooled by propaganda, they however think very much like Communists, and I know for a fact the vast majority of americans know and believe the system/government is wrong, they just don't know that there is a better system out there, and one that caters to the people, and not the wealthy aristocrats playing government.


Communists are also internationalists, not National Socialists

Not all Communists are firm cut and dry Internationalists, and I would think twice in comparing us whom believe in "Socialism in one country," to national Socialists, because you would just show that you know nothing of national Socialism, because there is no Socialism in nazism.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+--> (Black Dagger)Propaganda by the deed went out of 'fashion' at the turn of the 20th century... you know why? Coz it didn't fuckin' work![/b]
You know what else went out of fashion? Communism.

Propaganda by the deed alienated working class people more than anything.

Why? Because when your 'action' is blowing shit up and killing civilains it's not very hard for the state and media to tar and feather you in the public arena, anarchists in the late 19th century early 20th century were regarded by many people in the USA and europe in the same way that 'Islamists' are regarded now, as bloody-thirsty terrorists who want to 'destroy' civilisation.
Propaganda by the deed is targeting: government, military, politicians and businessmen. Some civilians may die, yes, but civilians will die in any conflict... especially in a revolution.

Tell me, if the anarchists didn't use Propaganda by the deed in the early 20th century - would they be in the history books? Would anyone have heard anything about them during the time they were alive?

It is precisely this tactic that lead to the development of the steretypical 'bomb-throwing anarchist', anarchy and anarchists as purveyors of chaos, death and destruction in the popular mind.

Propaganda by the deed gave the state strong grounds to violently suppress not only the anarchist movement, but political dissent in general, resulting in the banning of many organisations, papers, and the imprisonment and murder of scores of revolutionaries.
How many revolutions happened when the government was politically tolerant? Nearly every case we see, the government is always suppressing the revolutionaries when the revolution occurs. It works more in our favor than it doesn't.

Ever heard of martyrdom?

Propaganda by the deed also functions on the false premise that isolated acts of violence can 'spark' a revolution.

'No individual can create a rebellion, it comes out of the conditions'.

Political violence may contribute to the development of revolutionary conditions, but then again it may do the complete opposite. The fact is this sort of violence, particularly when it's violence directed at civilains tends to alienate more people than it 'radicalises'. Perhaps if we lived in a time where class consciousness was rising or strong, such violence would be more appropiate, but when you live in reactionary times this sort of thing will only serve to marginalise the movement and anarchist ideas.

You're a fool if you think blowing up the cafes of the bourgeoisie is a 'consciousness raising' exercise.
I'm not talking about revolution in America, I'm talking about revolution abroad. If America was bogged down by a bunch of 'bomb-throwing anarchists' then the people in the third world may actually be able to lead a successful revolution without American intervention.

Again i ask, are you kidding?

Nechayev was a crackpot nihilist, not a 'real' anarchist, whatever that is supposed to mean.
He was a revolutionary.

Just saw this bit...

I guess now i understand why you support propaganda by the deed
Keep reading.

Scarlet Hammer
Regardless of how some people here feel about Stalin, I would think or rather I would hope that they would support the Red Army over fascists and capitalists considering that through Stalin and the Red Army, a revolution happened through most of europe and even in germany!
Nope, several people here despise all bourgeois conflicts, including WWII. They usually say Stalin was, by the time WWII began, a bourgeois anyway.

There is a dozen groups that have a large member base, however I don't see why we should be focusing our struggle against the "genocidal israelis," and not the middle east as a whole, because from what I have witnessed there is no good side in that conflict.
Name one.

The genocidal Israelis are the reason that the Middle East is so messed up. They created the rabidly anti-communist Hamas; they've diverted attention away from the class struggle; they've been all around assholes.

So whom are we to support? The oppressive government? The capitalists themselves? What is so wrong with supporting and fighting for a working-class revolution?

Granted the majority of them have been fooled by propaganda, they however think very much like Communists, and I know for a fact the vast majority of americans know and believe the system/government is wrong, they just don't know that there is a better system out there, and one that caters to the people, and not the wealthy aristocrats playing government.
The third world and their struggle to end the imperialist aggression. You, of all people here, should agree that the West is bourgeoisified and so long as imperialism exists the working class in the West will be conservative.

All I'm saying is that right now Propaganda of the Deed is the only tool we have at our disposal.

Not all Communists are firm cut and dry Internationalists, and I would think twice in comparing us whom believe in "Socialism in one country," to national Socialists, because you would just show that you know nothing of national Socialism, because there is no Socialism in nazism.
They better be, communism is a worldwide movement whether you like it or not.

"Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains."
-Karl Marx

[Cryotank Screams]

You know what else went out of fashion? Communism.

Why then do you call yourself a Anarchist-Communist?


Propaganda by the deed is targeting: government, military, politicians and businessmen. Some civilians may die, yes, but civilians will die in any conflict... especially in a revolution.

I agree with Black Dagger excessive violence for the sake of rebellion will only alienate the working class from the revolution. If any violence is to be done, it should be thought, and the people should be mobilized and focused on the revolution as in the people's war of china, then the violence was well thought out, and productive; not a couple of punks throwing crude bombs at McDonalds.


Tell me, if the anarchists didn't use Propaganda by the deed in the early 20th century - would they be in the history books? Would anyone have heard anything about them during the time they were alive?

Hitler is in the history books too, so should we also try to implement the "Endlösung der Judenfrage," and believe that some people are "Lebensunwertes Leben”?&#33; <_<


Ever heard of martyrdom?

Ever hear of stupidity?


They usually say Stalin was, by the time WWII began, a bourgeois anyway.

Stalin was not a bourgeois or any other counter-revolutionary term you could throw at him.


Name one.

The Communist League.

http://www.communistleague.org/


The genocidal Israelis are the reason that the Middle East is so messed up. They created the rabidly anti-communist Hamas; they&#39;ve diverted attention away from the class struggle; they&#39;ve been all around assholes.

Yea, you know those jews and their diabolic plan of having their own country, and living there in peace, :rolleyes: .

There is no struggle besides the struggle against islamic fascists, theological tyranny and idiocy, and terrorists, which is whom the israelis are fighting, why? Because muslims can&#39;t play nice with others.

However the israelis are also counter-revolutionary and in league with US and other oppressive institutions, so thus I will not say they are the good side, but they are the lesser of two evils.


All I&#39;m saying is that right now Propaganda of the Deed is the only tool we have at our disposal.

Wow, blowing shit up, and killing people; brilliant&#33;

[Avtomatov]

Stalin was not a bourgeois or any other counter-revolutionary term you could throw at him.

I dont think D_Bokk was saying that, he was saying other people say that.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 23 2006, 08:41 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 23 2006, 08:41 PM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected]
Propaganda by the deed went out of &#39;fashion&#39; at the turn of the 20th century... you know why? Coz it didn&#39;t fuckin&#39; work&#33;
You know what else went out of fashion? Communism.

Propaganda by the deed alienated working class people more than anything.

Why? Because when your &#39;action&#39; is blowing shit up and killing civilains it&#39;s not very hard for the state and media to tar and feather you in the public arena, anarchists in the late 19th century early 20th century were regarded by many people in the USA and europe in the same way that &#39;Islamists&#39; are regarded now, as bloody-thirsty terrorists who want to &#39;destroy&#39; civilisation.
1.Propaganda by the deed is targeting: government, military, politicians and businessmen. Some civilians may die, yes, but civilians will die in any conflict... especially in a revolution.

Tell me, if the anarchists didn&#39;t use Propaganda by the deed in the early 20th century - would they be in the history books? Would anyone have heard anything about them during the time they were alive?

It is precisely this tactic that lead to the development of the steretypical &#39;bomb-throwing anarchist&#39;, anarchy and anarchists as purveyors of chaos, death and destruction in the popular mind.

Propaganda by the deed gave the state strong grounds to violently suppress not only the anarchist movement, but political dissent in general, resulting in the banning of many organisations, papers, and the imprisonment and murder of scores of revolutionaries.
2.How many revolutions happened when the government was politically tolerant? Nearly every case we see, the government is always suppressing the revolutionaries when the revolution occurs. It works more in our favor than it doesn&#39;t.

Ever heard of martyrdom?

Propaganda by the deed also functions on the false premise that isolated acts of violence can &#39;spark&#39; a revolution.

&#39;No individual can create a rebellion, it comes out of the conditions&#39;.

3.Political violence may contribute to the development of revolutionary conditions, but then again it may do the complete opposite. The fact is this sort of violence, particularly when it&#39;s violence directed at civilains tends to alienate more people than it &#39;radicalises&#39;. Perhaps if we lived in a time where class consciousness was rising or strong, such violence would be more appropiate, but when you live in reactionary times this sort of thing will only serve to marginalise the movement and anarchist ideas.

You&#39;re a fool if you think blowing up the cafes of the bourgeoisie is a &#39;consciousness raising&#39; exercise.
I&#39;m not talking about revolution in America, I&#39;m talking about revolution abroad. If America was bogged down by a bunch of &#39;bomb-throwing anarchists&#39; then the people in the third world may actually be able to lead a successful revolution without American intervention.

Again i ask, are you kidding?

Nechayev was a crackpot nihilist, not a &#39;real&#39; anarchist, whatever that is supposed to mean.
He was a revolutionary.

Just saw this bit...

I guess now i understand why you support propaganda by the deed
Keep reading.

Scarlet Hammer
Regardless of how some people here feel about Stalin, I would think or rather I would hope that they would support the Red Army over fascists and capitalists considering that through Stalin and the Red Army, a revolution happened through most of europe and even in germany&#33;
4.Nope, several people here despise all bourgeois conflicts, including WWII. They usually say Stalin was, by the time WWII began, a bourgeois anyway.

There is a dozen groups that have a large member base, however I don&#39;t see why we should be focusing our struggle against the "genocidal israelis," and not the middle east as a whole, because from what I have witnessed there is no good side in that conflict.
Name one.

The genocidal Israelis are the reason that the Middle East is so messed up. They created the rabidly anti-communist Hamas; they&#39;ve diverted attention away from the class struggle; they&#39;ve been all around assholes.

So whom are we to support? The oppressive government? The capitalists themselves? What is so wrong with supporting and fighting for a working-class revolution?

Granted the majority of them have been fooled by propaganda, they however think very much like Communists, and I know for a fact the vast majority of americans know and believe the system/government is wrong, they just don&#39;t know that there is a better system out there, and one that caters to the people, and not the wealthy aristocrats playing government.
5.The third world and their struggle to end the imperialist aggression. You, of all people here, should agree that the West is bourgeoisified and so long as imperialism exists the working class in the West will be conservative.

All I&#39;m saying is that right now Propaganda of the Deed is the only tool we have at our disposal.

Not all Communists are firm cut and dry Internationalists, and I would think twice in comparing us whom believe in "Socialism in one country," to national Socialists, because you would just show that you know nothing of national Socialism, because there is no Socialism in nazism.
They better be, communism is a worldwide movement whether you like it or not.

"Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains."
-Karl Marx [/b]
1. It doesn&#39;t matter who the Propaganda by the deed were targeting. Working people died in their actions. You could use the same logic to justify the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, a national symbol of economic prosperity and the dominance of global capitalism, due to the fact that the building was &#39;full of capitalists&#39; and that &#39;they were originally targeting public officials and the bourgeoisie&#39;.

2. How many revolutions have been created and boosted through individual acts of terrorism?

3. It historically, most of the time, contributed to the further degeneration of a revolutionary process. I think Peru is a perfect example. The Shining Path lost considerable political influence amongst the working class due to their extreme acts of terrorism. This has also occured in Europe, America, Russia, and even some third world countries where anarchist movements started to pop up. Haven&#39;t you ever heard the expression "bomb throwing anarchists"? The thing that you are advocating is the thing that killed your movement and any chance to move towards a classless society based on the cooperation of the whole populace within the realms of the United States.

4. Eh, I would of fought alongside the Greek, Yugoslavian, French, Czechslovakian, Russian, Italian, Polish, Dutch, or Scandanavian partisan forces. Just because I look upon Stalin negatively, doesn&#39;t mean I would resist the opportunity to fight alongside the working class of Russia against the terrifying force of fascism.

5. The West is bourgeoisified, but that doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t support the interests of minorities, the impoverished, or the working class within the confines of the first world. No matter how half-hearted their interests, they should be viewed as proletarian, due to their ultimate relation to the means of production. We can examine the "bourgeoisification" of the first world working class as something that was formed materially and can be fixed in such a way, or we can view it as something that God casted on all American and European working people that is similiar to that of original sin that will be there forever. Through continuing the struggle for

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Why then do you call yourself a Anarchist-Communist?
Why do you ask such a dumb question? I&#39;m obviously showing the correlation between how communism has fell from the radar and their pacification.

I agree with Black Dagger excessive violence for the sake of rebellion will only alienate the working class from the revolution. If any violence is to be done, it should be thought, and the people should be mobilized and focused on the revolution as in the people&#39;s war of china, then the violence was well thought out, and productive; not a couple of punks throwing crude bombs at McDonalds.
You&#39;re insane. There&#39;s no possible way for the working class to fight the bourgeois in the same way that the Chinese did, or the Soviets. Technology is on the side of the bourgeois... if we all gathered in one place as a "army" we would be destroyed with just a few air strikes.

&#39;Propaganda of the Deed&#39; is the only means to revolution. Many decentralized attacks on capitalist infrastructure is the only means to weaken, and eventually, overthrow our masters.

Hitler is in the history books too, so should we also try to implement the "Endlösung der Judenfrage," and believe that some people are "Lebensunwertes Leben”?&#33;
What a dumbass comment. Hitler was the president of a country, he didn&#39;t need to kill a bunch of Jews or start a war to make his way into the history books. The anarchists were just workers, immigrants -- nobodies. They accomplished far more than any of the so-called "communists" on this forum.

Ever hear of stupidity?
You&#39;re such a child.

Stalin was not a bourgeois or any other counter-revolutionary term you could throw at him.
Again, your idiocy shines bright. I never said this, I actually like Stalin since he was one of the few communists who actually did something. However, I&#39;m an anarchist so I don&#39;t intend to follow in his footsteps.

The Communist League.
Learn to read. I wanted a workers group in the Middle East who are fighting the occupation by the Israelis.

Yea, you know those jews and their diabolic plan of having their own country, and living there in peace, rolleyes.gif .
Oh, wow. Looks like we have a supporter of Israel here... wonder how long until you get restricted. Wait, you wont... you&#39;re part of the sect that hates me. Nevermind, you&#39;re safe.

Don&#39;t confuse "Israeli" with "Jew" because no real Jew would rather their people die in Germany than flee to the USA. Zionists are pigs.

There is no struggle besides the struggle against islamic fascists, theological tyranny and idiocy, and terrorists, which is whom the israelis are fighting, why? Because muslims can&#39;t play nice with others.

However the israelis are also counter-revolutionary and in league with US and other oppressive institutions, so thus I will not say they are the good side, but they are the lesser of two evils.
"Islamic Fascists"? Well, Mr. Bush, I think you should take some time to actually read about groups like Hizb&#39;allah and Iran.

A Stalinist who supports Israel... never thought I would see the day.

Wow, blowing shit up, and killing people; brilliant&#33;
Yeah, I thought so too. A revolution without killing people, is that what you want - hippy?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by RedDali
1. It doesn&#39;t matter who the Propaganda by the deed were targeting. Working people died in their actions. You could use the same logic to justify the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, a national symbol of economic prosperity and the dominance of global capitalism, due to the fact that the building was &#39;full of capitalists&#39; and that &#39;they were originally targeting public officials and the bourgeoisie&#39;.
I could, and I do. The attack on the World Trade Center was completely legitimate. Working class people die every day, about 33,000+. If a few more in the wealthy West need to die to the end daily death of thousands - so be it. Call me heartless, if you must, but you know that I am right.

2. How many revolutions have been created and boosted through individual acts of terrorism?
Quite a few, actually. In Russia, Lenin&#39;s very own brother was using &#39;Propaganda of the Deed&#39; in his plot to kill the Tsar and his sister was banished - this radicalized Lenin. Cuba too had a revolution after a small militant group attacked the government which spurred revolutionary activity around the country.

Basically all guerrilla warfare is Propaganda by the Deed.

3. It historically, most of the time, contributed to the further degeneration of a revolutionary process. I think Peru is a perfect example. The Shining Path lost considerable political influence amongst the working class due to their extreme acts of terrorism. This has also occured in Europe, America, Russia, and even some third world countries where anarchist movements started to pop up. Haven&#39;t you ever heard the expression "bomb throwing anarchists"? The thing that you are advocating is the thing that killed your movement and any chance to move towards a classless society based on the cooperation of the whole populace within the realms of the United States.
I disagree, if used incorrectly it will hurt the movement. Otherwise it does nothing but help, ie Russia and Cuba.

4. Eh, I would of fought alongside the Greek, Yugoslavian, French, Czechslovakian, Russian, Italian, Polish, Dutch, or Scandanavian partisan forces. Just because I look upon Stalin negatively, doesn&#39;t mean I would resist the opportunity to fight alongside the working class of Russia against the terrifying force of fascism.
I&#39;m mainly talking about Leo Uilleann and all of the people who agree with him. I forget the names of the others, but I can look it up later if anyone really cares.

5. The West is bourgeoisified, but that doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t support the interests of minorities, the impoverished, or the working class within the confines of the first world. No matter how half-hearted their interests, they should be viewed as proletarian, due to their ultimate relation to the means of production. We can examine the "bourgeoisification" of the first world working class as something that was formed materially and can be fixed in such a way, or we can view it as something that God casted on all American and European working people that is similiar to that of original sin that will be there forever. Through continuing the struggle for
How do you plan on changing the lives of the very few people in the US who do live in genuine poverty? You cannot just expect to set up a very small vanguard and rule harshly over the largely reactionary working class.

With the number of truly oppressed people in the US being so low - the only means to weaken/destroy the government is through Propaganda by the Deed.

[Cryotank Screams]

Why do you ask such a dumb question?

You stated that Communism outdated, which infers that you were saying that Communism is no langer valid, and or that your against Communism, hence why I asked an honest question.


You&#39;re insane. There&#39;s no possible way for the working class to fight the bourgeois in the same way that the Chinese did, or the Soviets.

Yea, and I bet a people&#39;s army overthrowing a tsar and monarchist system that had been in place for hundreds of years seemed impossible to; just because technology has advanced doesn&#39;t change the power and effectiveness of a true people&#39;s army, and guerilla warfare when done correctly and strategically.

Furthermore given the modern currents and political speed of governments I highly doubt air strikes would be called upon, lmao.


What a dumbass comment.

My point was that you think that just because some "anarchists," blew shit up, and got into the history books, gives validation to this "propaganda of the deed," and since hitler is in the history books to, does that also give validation to his policies? I mean if you have one you can&#39;t exclude the other.


You&#39;re such a child.

Really? I am not the one that has ran out of things to say, so I just start name-calling, lol.


b]Learn to read.[/b]

How about yourself, I said there is a dozen revolutionary groups out there with a large member base, and you said name one, and I did, whether they are based in the middle east was not apart of the conversation.


Oh, wow. Looks like we have a supporter

Oh, wow you didn&#39;t read my post, I said israel was the lesser of two evils, I never said I supported them, and I don&#39;t support them, I simply said between them and the terrorists they are the better of two evils however I don&#39;t support them because they are counter-revolutionary, and in league with the US and other oppressive institutions.


"Islamic Fascists"? Well, Mr. Bush, I think you should take some time to actually read about groups like Hizb&#39;allah and Iran

I don&#39;t have to, I watch the news, I&#39;ve read the koran, and I have seen the way these people act.


Yeah, I thought so too. A revolution without killing people, is that what you want - hippy?

Blowing shit up randomly is not a revolution by anyway means; will blood spill during a true revolution, certainly, however why are you demanding violence? Does that somehow make you feel powerful? Like you "sticking it to the man"?

:rolleyes:

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 24 2006, 01:12 PM
Yea, you know those jews and their diabolic plan of having their own country, and living there in peace, :rolleyes: .

There is no struggle besides the struggle against islamic fascists, theological tyranny and idiocy, and terrorists, which is whom the israelis are fighting, why? Because muslims can&#39;t play nice with others.


Really? The only struggle is the struggle against "Islamic fascism?" What about the struggle against imperialism? Does that count as a struggle? You sound more like Christopher Hitchens than a real Maoist.

Scarlet Hammer has a long history of white chauvinism and complaining about "reverse racism," so it doesn&#39;t surprise me to learn that he&#39;s a fucking Zionist pig.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
You stated that Communism outdated, which infers that you were saying that Communism is no langer valid, and or that your against Communism, hence why I asked an honest question.
Wrong, I said it went out of fashion, which means very few people actually give a fuck about it.

Yea, and I bet a people&#39;s army overthrowing a tsar and monarchist system that had been in place for hundreds of years seemed impossible to; just because technology has advanced doesn&#39;t change the power and effectiveness of a true people&#39;s army, and guerilla warfare when done correctly and strategically.

Furthermore given the modern currents and political speed of governments I highly doubt air strikes would be called upon, lmao.
No, it was completely possible because the only real weapons in 1917 were guns. Now, a army full of guns can be blown up and killed even before engaging the enemy. Don&#39;t think that the US wouldn&#39;t turn into a even greater police state if a peoples&#39; army sprouted up.

To further prove I am right, when was the last time anyone engaged in a tradition one big army vrs another big army? It&#39;s illogical and blatant suicide.

My point was that you think that just because some "anarchists," blew shit up, and got into the history books, gives validation to this "propaganda of the deed," and since hitler is in the history books to, does that also give validation to his policies? I mean if you have one you can&#39;t exclude the other.
Propaganda by the deed works, it has been proven. Hitler&#39;s nationalism also obviously worked because the Germans really didn&#39;t give two shits about what he was doing. How those two can be related, I have no idea. You&#39;re just grasping at straws with your crappy argument.

Really? I am not the one that has ran out of things to say, so I just start name-calling, lol.
If you can&#39;t have a respectful debate with me, why should I try to have a respectful debate with you? You presented no argument except a pathetic one-liner.

How about yourself, I said there is a dozen revolutionary groups out there with a large member base, and you said name one, and I did, whether they are based in the middle east was not apart of the conversation.
Because you&#39;re a stubborn imbecile, I&#39;ll briefly go over the debate which led up here:

After a paragraph dedicated to Hizb&#39;allah with examples of bourgeois conflicts the left got involved in in the past:
"Naturally in these cases, the greater evil must be destroyed by any means - even if it means supporting a bourgeois party. Of course we would prefer to support a working class resistance group, but there is none."

You state:
"Search through google, or wiki and I guarantee you that you will find dozens of revolutionary groups internationally fighting for the revolution."

I reply with this:
"Ah yes, that revolutionary group with 3 members - always helpful in fighting the genocidal Israelis... "

Your unbelievable logic decides this is a legit reply:
"There is a dozen groups that have a large member base, however I don&#39;t see why we should be focusing our struggle against the "genocidal israelis," and not the middle east as a whole, because from what I have witnessed there is no good side in that conflict."

You keep on ignoring the actual topic so you can reply with some stupid comment to get the last word. When it&#39;s blatantly obvious that there are no working class resistance groups to the Israeli occupation. So, please, shut the fuck up.

Oh, wow you didn&#39;t read my post, I said israel was the lesser of two evils, I never said I supported them, and I don&#39;t support them, I simply said between them and the terrorists they are the better of two evils however I don&#39;t support them because they are counter-revolutionary, and in league with the US and other oppressive institutions.
I read it just fine. You believe that Israel is just trying to live in peace. In fact, I bet you also believe that the US is just trying to live in peace by invading Iraq.

I don&#39;t have to, I watch the news, I&#39;ve read the koran, and I have seen the way these people act.
Wow, if you happened to be talking about Jews - the whole board would be on your ass. Good thing you&#39;re talking about Muslims, you&#39;ll find many "comrades" here who hate them the same. Racist.

I too have read the Koran, but you obviously misread it. And watching the news? No wonder you&#39;re so fucked up.

Blowing shit up randomly is not a revolution by anyway means; will blood spill during a true revolution, certainly, however why are you demanding violence? Does that somehow make you feel powerful? Like you "sticking it to the man"?
Who said anything about randomness, fool? I support violence because I oppose the bourgeois... why else?

[Cryotank Screams]

Really? The only struggle is the struggle against "Islamic fascism?" What about the struggle against imperialism? Does that count as a struggle? You sound more like Christopher Hitchens than a real Maoist.

Imperialism? That is only a small portion of the problem, however the root cause of this conflict is still that the muslims don&#39;t want israel to be a state simply for the fact that it would be a jewish state, and the israelis are fighting the muslims because they want the to be their own country.


Scarlet Hammer has a long history of white chauvinism and complaining about "reverse racism," so it doesn&#39;t surprise me to learn that he&#39;s a fucking Zionist pig.

Ooo, I am against race based policies, and suddenly I am a white chauvinist? Your an ass, and if you believe in race based policies then your also a racist.

I specifically said I do not support israel twice, and that I don&#39;t consider them to be genocidal, and yet your calling me a zionist, again I say your an ass.


Wrong, I said it went out of fashion, which means very few people actually give a fuck about it.

I guess I misinterpreted what you said, because I assumed being out of fashion and being outdated had the same meaning.


Propaganda by the deed works, it has been proven. Hitler&#39;s nationalism also obviously worked because the Germans really didn&#39;t give two shits about what he was doing. How those two can be related, I have no idea. You&#39;re just grasping at straws with your crappy argument

Again your not seeing what I meant by my statement, so I am not going to repeat myself yet again, and you don&#39;t understand why exactly hitler got into power, the political history leading up to and during the WII, and the german world-view and philosophy, otherwise I think you would have thought twice about insulting us and saying we didn’t give a shit about what he was doing.


No, it was completely possible because the only real weapons in 1917 were guns.

Have you not seen the US army fighting insurgents? It’s basically a gun battle, I mean granted there is tanks and other larger arms involved and what have you but essentially a focused and mobilized people’s war and guerilla warfare is still feasible, given the warfare technology that is being currently used.


Propaganda by the deed works, it has been proven.

No it didn’t work, it just made the working class that much fearfull of i.e. alienated from Anarchism, and Leftist politics, and it only slightly weakened the government.


If you can&#39;t have a respectful debate with me, why should I try to have a respectful debate with you? You presented no argument except a pathetic one-liner.

I presented several arguments however they seemed to go over your head, how that is interpreted as being “disrespectful,” is beyond me, when I find something stupid I say it’s stupid, and it should be noted that I am not calling you as a person stupid just what your saying, so if that is what you set you off, then I’m sorry, lol.


"Naturally in these cases, the greater evil must be destroyed by any means - even if it means supporting a bourgeois party. Of course we would prefer to support a working class resistance group, but there is none."

Exactly, when I read that line I assumed your were talking about in general, and not in regards to the middle east, hence when I isolated that to talk about, that is were the confusion probably started, had I known that is what you were talking about the middle east specifically, I would have ignored it.

[Stellix]

All you guys are nuts.

Life under Communism/Anarchism would be terrible. There would be chaos and famine.

Life in America is great. We have so many awsome things here. Even the poorest people are obese.

Why concern yourself with the third world? Those places suck, they don&#39;t have internet over there. They are third world because they never invented anything of value. Forget them, and enjoy all your first world luxurys. Most Westerners work hard and deserve them.

Would your life REALLY be better under Anarchy? I think not.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:45 AM
All you guys are nuts.

Life under Communism/Anarchism would be terrible. There would be chaos and famine.

Life in America is great. We have so many awsome things here. Even the poorest people are obese.

Why concern yourself with the third world? Those places suck, they don&#39;t have internet over there. They are third world because they never invented anything of value. Forget them, and enjoy all your first world luxurys. Most Westerners work hard and deserve them.

Would your life REALLY be better under Anarchy? I think not.
We are not aristocrats.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Again your not seeing what I meant by my statement, so I am not going to repeat myself yet again, and you don&#39;t understand why exactly hitler got into power, the political history leading up to and during the WII, and the german world-view and philosophy, otherwise I think you would have thought twice about insulting us and saying we didn’t give a shit about what he was doing.
Did you just try to change the topic.. again? We were talking about Propaganda by the Deed, not the bourgeois conflict known as WWII. Stay on topic.

Have you not seen the US army fighting insurgents? It’s basically a gun battle, I mean granted there is tanks and other larger arms involved and what have you but essentially a focused and mobilized people’s war and guerilla warfare is still feasible, given the warfare technology that is being currently used.
The insurgency isn&#39;t the type of fight you want to wage against the bourgeois - it&#39;s the kind I want too. It&#39;s small groups running around like &#39;bomb-throwing anarchists&#39; causing destruction.

What you want is a large army (like Mao) and that&#39;ll be destroyed in mere minutes.

No it didn’t work, it just made the working class that much fearfull of i.e. alienated from Anarchism, and Leftist politics, and it only slightly weakened the government.
What about Russia and Cuba? It may not be succesful in bringing about Anarchy, but Anarchy cannot come to be until the world revolution. Until then, the anarchists can only try to bring about the revolutionary fervor by leading the way like they did in the past.

I presented several arguments however they seemed to go over your head, how that is interpreted as being “disrespectful,” is beyond me, when I find something stupid I say it’s stupid, and it should be noted that I am not calling you as a person stupid just what your saying, so if that is what you set you off, then I’m sorry, lol.
And when I find a childish argument, I will say it&#39;s childish. Maybe if you made a valid argument.. just one.. we&#39;d be able to have a respectful debate.

Exactly, when I read that line I assumed your were talking about in general, and not in regards to the middle east, hence when I isolated that to talk about, that is were the confusion probably started, had I known that is what you were talking about the middle east specifically, I would have ignored it.
The wording should have tipped you off right away: "resistance" isn&#39;t usually used in place of "revolutionary."

[kaaos_af]

Yeah, I have to agree.

[Rollo]

Yet D_Bokk questions why he was restricted in the first place.

[kaaos_af]

I edited my post since you wrote that- upon rereading I decided he does have some good points.

I think a lot of people here have missed the whole idea.

[Rollo]

I read his post, I agree with a lot of what he says but he&#39;s a bit of an asshole.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:01 AM
Islam, a religion, has become more threatening to the US than communism; homosexuals pose a greater threat to America; for crying out loud, Janet Jackson&#39;s right nipple is a bigger threat than we are. What&#39;s going on? The main issue here is communists who are willing to concede their ideology in order to appease the masses inside the West.
We are not a "threat to America". We&#39;re not supposed to&#33; "America" is not some "evil entity".


For one, these communists are "riding the fence" on many issues. Many people refuse to take sides on the Israel-Palestine conflict, they spew a bunch of crap about &#39;inter-imperialism&#39; or &#39;bourgeois conflict&#39; as if it actually means something. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much of a bourgeois conflict this is - the working class will die and continue to die until the conflict ends.

So let&#39;s see..."taking a side" will make the working class to stop dying? Your "support" is meaningless...unless, of course, you&#39;re about to go there to "fight for the working class".


Secondly, the Western communists have a odd relationship with the working class in the West. For reason I cannot possibly understand, they feel that the working class in the West deserves more and their lives are more important.

Explain


They&#39;ll adamantly defend the proletariat in places like the US, irregardless of how bourgeoisified they&#39;ve become.

"bourgeoisified"? :lol:

Stop pulling words out of your ass, closet MIMer


Many fail to recognize that the proletariat in the West are enemies to the international proletariat. Every four years, they will elect politicians who will exploit, oppress and murder proletarians around the world; they will support their troops irregardless of the morality of the conflict; they will ignore the suffering of the third world; they will support imperialism.

So?


Eleven times more people die every day from starvation, a problem easily rectified, and how many times do these "communists" ever mention that? They don&#39;t

Because communism is not "charity".


they&#39;re concerned more about America and other Western countries than they are of the poor and oppressed. In a word, they&#39;re racists.

No, they are usually concerned about their own country because that&#39;s where they live.


As an anarchist, you should support &#39;Propaganda by the Deed&#39; and not run around trying to convince people that capitalism is bad - show them&#33; Not with your hippy-ass drum circles for world peace.


Revolution isn&#39;t a bunch of people prancing around in an enchanted forest of magic - it&#39;s the utter destruction of this capitalist system.

If you would have said "your crappy punk rock and ridiculous hairstyles" then at least you&#39;d have made a bit more of "sense".


If you&#39;re a pacifist, you might as well go out and vote for the green party and quit wasting people&#39;s time posting on a Revolutionaryleft forum, even though your ilk dominates it&#39;s ranks.

Most people here is not "pacifist".


The bottom line is: stop trying to appeal to the masses.

Stop trying to find excuses to murder them


If there is hope, it lies in the third world...

Hope for what? Since you hate "Western workers" and you seem not to support capitalism AND you are trying to have "hopes" about something happening AND you&#39;re in "the West", I can conclude you&#39;re quite stupid and just looking for a way to murder western workers in the name of a pseudo-revolution. "Oh but civilians always die..." :rolleyes:


Tell me, if the anarchists didn&#39;t use Propaganda by the deed in the early 20th century - would they be in the history books? Would anyone have heard anything about them during the time they were alive?

At my school&#39;s history books, there were some mentions of anarchism in the late 19th-early 20th century and were talking about their unions and relevance in the working class back then, not about them "blowing up shit" or "murdering politicians".


&#39;Propaganda of the Deed&#39; is the only means to revolution.

And the only way to make the working class think of you as a bomb-throwing lunatic, since you didn&#39;t even "appeal to the masses" because they are evil "westerners" (excepting in the "third world" where they might even think you&#39;re whoever devil their favourite superstition has, because, let&#39;s face it, they are not any better than the "bourgeoisified westerners").

[Cryotank Screams]

Did you just try to change the topic.. again? We were talking about Propaganda by the Deed, not the bourgeois conflict known as WWII. Stay on topic.

I commented on something you said about the german people during WWII, which was brought about by a point I made that involved Hitler, which was a point that I was trying using a comparison but you failed to get.


The insurgency isn&#39;t the type of fight you want to wage against the bourgeois - it&#39;s the kind I want too. It&#39;s small groups running around like &#39;bomb-throwing anarchists&#39; causing destruction.

What you want is a large army (like Mao) and that&#39;ll be destroyed in mere minutes.

I wasn&#39;t saying that the revolution should be like insurgency in iraq, I was saying that modern guerilla combat is still feasible. Furthermore look at how many are in power, and then look at the masses, we vastly out number our shackle holders, and with an angered, mobilized and focused masses, a revolution again is still feasible, because a few people can not stop a nation that is turning against them and demands a revolution.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Rollo+--> (Rollo) I read his post, I agree with a lot of what he says but he&#39;s a bit of an asshole.[/b]
I completely agree. However...

So was Marx. I bet you guys would have restricted him too.

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected]
We are not a "threat to America". We&#39;re not supposed to&#33; "America" is not some "evil entity".
Yes it is. And you know damn well I&#39;m speaking of the US government and it&#39;s supporters.

So let&#39;s see..."taking a side" will make the working class to stop dying? Your "support" is meaningless...unless, of course, you&#39;re about to go there to "fight for the working class".
And support for any ideology is useless as well. What have you done for communism? If you haven&#39;t started an armed rebellion, why are you "supporting" communism?

The point of the matter is that we shouldn&#39;t just stay neutral, we should actually be radical. Support does mean something, especially for the people who are doing the fighting. I&#39;m sure Hizb&#39;allah isn&#39;t out to gain the support of the Western communist in their fight against Israel, however it doesn&#39;t hurt them.

Explain
When a Western proletarian dies, it&#39;s a tragedy; when a third world proletarian dies, it&#39;s a statistic. 3,000 Americans dead is a "tragedy" while 33,000 third world children dieing doesn&#39;t deserve a post.

"bourgeoisified"? laugh.gif

Stop pulling words out of your ass, closet MIMer
I pulled it out of Lenin&#39;s ass.

So?
So that means the US proletariat is an enemy to communism. . . at least right now.

Because communism is not "charity".
When did I say communists should give them stuff?

No, they are usually concerned about their own country because that&#39;s where they live.
That&#39;s nationalism.

Most people here is not "pacifist".
I disagree. Just look at their reaction to gun laws and 9/11.

Stop trying to find excuses to murder them
Where&#39;s the excuse?

Hope for what? Since you hate "Western workers" and you seem not to support capitalism AND you are trying to have "hopes" about something happening AND you&#39;re in "the West", I can conclude you&#39;re quite stupid and just looking for a way to murder western workers in the name of a pseudo-revolution. "Oh but civilians always die..."
You obviously have no grasp on the situation. When the third world frees themselves from Western Imperialism - only then can the Western proletarian be able to free themselves from capitalism.

You&#39;re severely underestimating the power of imperialism.

At my school&#39;s history books, there were some mentions of anarchism in the late 19th-early 20th century and were talking about their unions and relevance in the working class back then, not about them "blowing up shit" or "murdering politicians".
Congrats? Fact is, those anarchists were supporters of &#39;Propaganda by the Deed.&#39; Watch Free Voice of Labor: The Jewish Anarchists.

And the only way to make the working class think of you as a bomb-throwing lunatic, since you didn&#39;t even "appeal to the masses" because they are evil "westerners" (excepting in the "third world" where they might even think you&#39;re whoever devil their favourite superstition has, because, let&#39;s face it, they are not any better than the "bourgeoisified westerners").
I don&#39;t plan to appeal to the masses in the West. In fact, I don&#39;t rightly plan on appealing to anyone whatsoever. I view the revolution in certain stages; one stage needs to be met before you move onto the next. The first stage is the destruction of imperialism... which can be done through outside governments rejecting imperialism. The other method is inside &#39;Propaganda of the Deed&#39; where few anarchist actions lead to more and inevitably weakening the US government. The next is the destruction of capitalism.

Scarlet Hammer
I commented on something you said about the german people during WWII, which was brought about by a point I made that involved Hitler, which was a point that I was trying using a comparison but you failed to get.
Failed and not caring are two different things.


I wasn&#39;t saying that the revolution should be like insurgency in iraq, I was saying that modern guerilla combat is still feasible. Furthermore look at how many are in power, and then look at the masses, we vastly out number our shackle holders, and with an angered, mobilized and focused masses, a revolution again is still feasible, because a few people can not stop a nation that is turning against them and demands a revolution.
Guerilla warfare is &#39;Propaganda by the deed.&#39; Masses don&#39;t always win wars; look at the conflict between Britain and Africans during the colonization of Africa. The Africans lacked advanced weaponry - just like today&#39;s proletariat - and were consequently slaughtered.

[Cryotank Screams]

Failed and not caring are two different things.

Ooo, funny; not trying to see the obvious comparison I was making in saying that just because some “anarchists,” got in the history books doesn’t validate what they did just like because Hitler got in the history books doesn’t validate what he did, point being that just because your in the history books doesn’t validate the policy or people, or make them great and admirable.

So thus just because some "anarchists," got in the history books for their stupidity doesn&#39;t mean we should adopt their ideas.


Guerilla warfare is &#39;Propaganda by the deed.&#39; Masses don&#39;t always win wars; look at the conflict between Britain and Africans during the colonization of Africa. The Africans lacked advanced weaponry - just like today&#39;s proletariat - and were consequently slaughtered.

Guerilla warfare is not propaganda by the deed, said propaganda is just wantonly blowing up public buildings and hurting the working class while simultaneously trying to hurt the system and or government, that is certainly not guerilla warfare.

Furthermore I really don’t know what you think today’s armies are equipped with but it’s certainly not a drastic of a difference as in the case of the British versus the Africans. The Africans had crude weapons like spears, and other such weapons, while the British had guns and canons, and knowledge of modern warfare.

Today anyone can have guns, and other larger armaments, and knowledge of warfare can be learne dby anyone, so it’s not like were fighting some death bots, and again just because today’s governments may have slightly better equipment it still could not with stand a war coming from within, and that again with a mobilized and angry people, a revolution is possible.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Ooo, funny; not trying to see the obvious comparison I was making in saying that just because some “anarchists,” got in the history books doesn’t validate what they did just like because Hitler got in the history books doesn’t validate what he did, point being that just because your in the history books doesn’t validate the policy or people, or make them great and admirable.

So thus just because some "anarchists," got in the history books for their stupidity doesn&#39;t mean we should adopt their ideas.
They’re two completely different situations. Hitler was a bourgeois, in other words he had everything going for him. If he didn&#39;t threaten the wealth of other bourgeois, he wouldn&#39;t have been attacked.

Guerilla warfare is not propaganda by the deed, said propaganda is just wantonly blowing up public buildings and hurting the working class while simultaneously trying to hurt the system and or government, that is certainly not guerilla warfare.
Anarchists don&#39;t target workers, fool. Guerilla warfare is small groups of people attacking the military, government and corporations in order to spur a revolution. How is that not propaganda by the deed?

Furthermore I really don’t know what you think today’s armies are equipped with but it’s certainly not a drastic of a difference as in the case of the British versus the Africans. The Africans had crude weapons like spears, and other such weapons, while the British had guns and canons, and knowledge of modern warfare.

Today anyone can have guns, and other larger armaments, and knowledge of warfare can be learne dby anyone, so it’s not like were fighting some death bots, and again just because today’s governments may have slightly better equipment it still could not with stand a war coming from within, and that again with a mobilized and angry people, a revolution is possible.

Air force, satellites, bulletproof gear, tanks, armor piercing weapons, guns that can shoot around corners, chemical warfare... need I go on? You&#39;re assuming that the bourgeois are going to play nice, sorry to break it to you - but you&#39;re wrong.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:01 AM
Islam, a religion, has become more threatening to the US than communism; homosexuals pose a greater threat to America; for crying out loud, Janet Jackson&#39;s right nipple is a bigger threat than we are. What&#39;s going on? The main issue here is communists who are willing to concede their ideology in order to appease the masses inside the West.


The reason your cute little ideology is not a threat to anyone is because, simply put, it’s a total failure built upon faulty premises and utopian dreams.

The first faulty premise is that the “working class” is a coherent, homogenous group that has the same interests and desires. It isn’t, just like not all blacks and not all women have the same interests and want the same things. Plenty of the international proletariat wants to become bourgeoisie drones. If they were happy being working class drones they never would have left the rice paddies or the village for the factory. It’s as if you said all the animals at the zoo would live in peace if you let them out.

Second, your ideology has no practical application. Communists themselves admit their favored system has never existed. Yet we are supposed to believe that simply because it sounds logical (to you) and because you really, really, really believe in it, that it will work? Sorry Jethro, the world doesn’t really function like that. I know that you and your ilk have solutions to the inherent problems with your utopia, like the idea that somehow rationed time cards will negate the human desire to accumulate wealth and material possession; but those “solutions” are even more absurd than your base philosophy. Your entire argument rests on the same idiotic proclamation I saw on a website pilfered by a silly teenage uber-capitalist: “logic trumps experience”. You think that because something sounds logical to you it’d make a great socio-political order, and you’re pissed that few other people agree with you. After a while you have to kind of realize that you might be wrong, ace. Ever heard the cliché “50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong?” No, of course that’s not it, you need to believe that everyone else is brainwashed and hasn’t figured out how brilliant you are. Just like every other whackjob and screwball in history.

Making your philosophy sound more ridiculous than it seems on its face is hard to do, I really have to say. The idea that you could bring about the destruction of the modern state with a cute little revolution of your fellow pot-smoking bongo-playing hippie friends is preposterous. The state has existed in one form or another for all of human history. From the simple tribe with loose customs based on seniority and oral history; to city-states with a bureaucratic hierarchy; to the modern nation-state with thousands of years of history, trillions of dollars in expenditures and millions upon millions of laws, rules and regulations; the state in some form or another has always existed and will always exist. Humans are too much like bees for any other system to work. Humans are animals and nearly every animal – especially advanced animals – has a form of organization that suggests anarchy isn’t exactly practical. We need the organization, efficiency and especially the accountability that comes with bureaucracy.

Your utopian ideal is based on another faulty premise: that decisions can be made by consensus. Consensus is a real nice ideal but it’s patently obvious that at no point in your life have you either had a position of responsibility or even a real job because important decisions simply cannot be made strictly by consensus. If you want a perfect example look at the United Nations – it is built on the idea that its decisions have to be made by consensus, and it’s completely impotent.

That the proles of the world could possibly get together to reach a consensus, after magically congealing into a global revolution, is laughable. There’s a hidden lesson in Orwell’s 1984 that everyone misses: that’s that the proles are too disorganized, too shortsighted and otherwise simply incapable of anything resembling an effective revolution. People change oil or bag groceries for a living for a reason, and that reason is specifically why they’ll never rise to power in an organized fashion.

If, on the other hand, you believe that communism in some form will be the inevitable next step in the evolution of the modern political economy, a change that will not take place for hundreds or thousands of years, what the hell are you so worried about? Sit back, relax, load up the bong and let nature take its course, because you’re not making a single bit of difference no matter how cute the slogans on your signs are.

You’re 19 years old. You don’t know or understand anything. You think you do because you’ve read a few cool books on philosophy and history and economics and all your fellow idealists all agree with you and are like totally committed to the cause, man. And now you think you’re the big cock of the walk. You know how life ought to work and you’ve convinced you’re going to change it. And best of all it’ll like totally piss off the establishment which is fuckin’ rad, man. Jam on.

If we had a nickel for every one of you, we wouldn’t be having this discussion because we could afford to give everyone on the planet a solid gold house. And if we had a dime for every one of you who grew up and realized life isn’t that simple then by God we could install diamond-encrusted 64-inch plasma screen TVs in every room of those solid gold houses.

Instead of foolishly holding on to an ideology that is about as practical as bicycling to Mars, how about you become educated in how life actually works, learn to be moral and ethical and start demanding similar behavior from our elected officials and business leaders. Then you could say you’re far less useless than you are now, which is pretty freaking useless.

[D_Bokk]

In all honesty, I didn&#39;t read much of what you typed at all. Even more honesty, I don&#39;t give a fuck what you have to say.

[Avtomatov]

I read it all. And he bases his entire argument on cliches,generalizations, and stereotyping.

He also does not understand the state.

[Cryotank Screams]

They’re two completely different situations. Hitler was a bourgeois, in other words he had everything going for him. If he didn&#39;t threaten the wealth of other bourgeois, he wouldn&#39;t have been attacked.

Alright, take Hitler out of my point, because that has completely distracted from my main argument, my initial point was/is I don&#39;t think a history book page should be the basis of validation for an idea that was my main point.


Anarchists don&#39;t target workers, fool. Guerilla warfare is small groups of people attacking the military, government and corporations in order to spur a revolution. How is that not propaganda by the deed?

People work in corporations, so if you were to target a monopoly such a McDonalds or Wal-Mart the working class still work there, so thus even though you would be hurting the corporation and the system at the same time you would have to hurt and or kill working class people.

Any where you choose to strike you would still be hurting working-class people in some way.

Guerilla warfare and the people&#39;s war is a concentrated effort, were the people act as a true army, and are mobilized and focused on a specific goal, and act much in the same way an army does; what your talking about sounds more like a couple of individuals bombing sites, but without the general masses help or their knowing, and without the help of any group, just individuals bombing sites.

Furthermore there is no possible way you could fulfill propaganda by the deed on a US military base, you wouldn&#39;t get past the gates.


Air force, satellites, bulletproof gear, tanks, armor piercing weapons, guns that can shoot around corners, chemical warfare... need I go on? You&#39;re assuming that the bourgeois are going to play nice, sorry to break it to you - but you&#39;re wrong.

Point made; however the numbers I am talking about, the government would not dare do that because it would take out essentially the entire nation&#39;s population, I am talking about a people&#39;s war on a large scale, where it would be to costly for the government to take any drastic action.

[Avtomatov]

Point made; however the numbers I am talking about, the government would not dare do that because it would take out essentially the entire nation&#39;s population, I am talking about a people&#39;s war on a large scale, where it would be to costly for the government to take any drastic action.
When america comes under threat, they will do anything. Look at hiroshima and nagasaki.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:00 PM

Point made; however the numbers I am talking about, the government would not dare do that because it would take out essentially the entire nation&#39;s population, I am talking about a people&#39;s war on a large scale, where it would be to costly for the government to take any drastic action.
When america comes under threat, they will do anything. Look at hiroshima and nagasaki.
QFT.

Possibly the best point in the thread.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Alright, take Hitler out of my point, because that has completely distracted from my main argument, my initial point was/is I don&#39;t think a history book page should be the basis of validation for an idea that was my main point.
It validates that the method brings attention to the struggle. The only reason many of the American communists found their way into the history books was because they were persecuted... because of what the anarchists did. Heh. Otherwise they would have just been 20,000 people shaking their fist and doing nothing.

People work in corporations, so if you were to target a monopoly such a McDonalds or Wal-Mart the working class still work there, so thus even though you would be hurting the corporation and the system at the same time you would have to hurt and or kill working class people.

Any where you choose to strike you would still be hurting working-class people in some way.
If they wanted to strike a military weapon manufacturer, should they? I say yes. Kill a few workers now, or let a bunch of workers be mowed down by the weapons they produce.

Guerilla warfare and the people&#39;s war is a concentrated effort, were the people act as a true army, and are mobilized and focused on a specific goal, and act much in the same way an army does; what your talking about sounds more like a couple of individuals bombing sites, but without the general masses help or their knowing, and without the help of any group, just individuals bombing sites.

Furthermore there is no possible way you could fulfill propaganda by the deed on a US military base, you wouldn&#39;t get past the gates.
Castro attacked Moncada Barracks and spawned the 26th of July movement. How is that not Propaganda by the Deed? Propaganda by the deed isn&#39;t only small groups - it&#39;s meant to create larger uprisings, which it has done in the past.

Point made; however the numbers I am talking about, the government would not dare do that because it would take out essentially the entire nation&#39;s population, I am talking about a people&#39;s war on a large scale, where it would be to costly for the government to take any drastic action.
They had no problem exterminating Native Americans, Latin Americans and Africans in the past. What makes you think they&#39;ve become moral since then?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:00 AM
When america comes under threat, they will do anything. Look at hiroshima and nagasaki.
Americans attacking the japanese is very different from americans attacking americans on american soil.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:36 AM
The reason your cute little ideology is not a threat to anyone is because, simply put, it’s a total failure built upon faulty premises and utopian dreams.

I think this post is the best argument for unrestricting D Bokk. Let D Bokk post his thought-provoking, if not always correct, opinions in the regular forums so that bourgeois jerks like this guy don&#39;t butt in and make pointless posts attacking people for their supposedly "utopian dreams."

[Lenin's Law]

I disagree. Just look at their reaction to gun laws and 9/11.

I disagree. Just look at the thread titled "A NON violent Revolution?" Nearly everyone has responded negatively to this and made the case for the unforunate need for violence. ;)

And one event and one issue is all the evidence needed to make somone a pacificist?

I could easily imagine a Nazi barking about those "pacifist liberals&#33; Just look at their reaction to our invasion of Poland and the burning of the Reichstag&#33;"

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:41 AM
In all honesty, I didn&#39;t read much of what you typed at all. Even more honesty, I don&#39;t give a fuck what you have to say.
Of course you didn&#39;t. And of course you don&#39;t.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:49 AM
I read it all. And he bases his entire argument on cliches,generalizations, and stereotyping.

He also does not understand the state.
The communists on this board are no different - you use sweeping generalizations about capitalism and capitalists all the time.

I don&#39;t understand the state, eh?

Tell me: which person do you think understands the state more:

A 17 year-old communist (you)

or

A 30 year-old bureaucrat who has worked for the state at various levels (me)



Rationally, which person would you assume understands the state more?

[Gnosis]

Violence is not revolutionary, nor is peace.
In fact, there is no &#39;revolutionary&#39;, it is whatever you make it.

Anarchy is whatever you make it, that is the point. So it&#39;s delusional to say the anarchist is one thing or another, everyone is an anarchist.

Realize it and change the world.

[KC]

The communists on this board are no different - you use sweeping generalizations about capitalism and capitalists all the time.

Actually our assertions are based on an intricate and indepth analysis of the workings of capitalism as a socio-economic system.



I don&#39;t understand the state, eh?

Tell me: which person do you think understands the state more:

A 17 year-old communist (you)

or

A 30 year-old bureaucrat who has worked for the state at various levels (me)



Rationally, which person would you assume understands the state more?


The 17 year-old communist, probably, since you probably haven&#39;t studied the concept of the state and its use in society, whereas the communist probably has.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 27 2006, 11:10 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 27 2006, 11:10 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 02:49 AM
I read it all. And he bases his entire argument on cliches,generalizations, and stereotyping.

He also does not understand the state.
The communists on this board are no different - you use sweeping generalizations about capitalism and capitalists all the time.

I don&#39;t understand the state, eh?

Tell me: which person do you think understands the state more:

A 17 year-old communist (you)

or

A 30 year-old bureaucrat who has worked for the state at various levels (me)



Rationally, which person would you assume understands the state more? [/b]
Another logical fallacy.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Stalin&#39;s Law+--> (Stalin&#39;s Law)I disagree. Just look at the thread titled "A NON violent Revolution?" Nearly everyone has responded negatively to this and made the case for the unforunate need for violence. wink.gif

And one event and one issue is all the evidence needed to make somone a pacificist?

I could easily imagine a Nazi barking about those "pacifist liberals&#33; Just look at their reaction to our invasion of Poland and the burning of the Reichstag&#33;"[/b]
I take issues to an extreme to stress a point, the point being that many people on here are plagued with bourgeois intellectualism. They let "morals" get in the way of revolution. They&#39;ll "support" violent revolution, but denounce any violence which furthers a revolutionary cause. Why? Because they care too much about outside opinions of non-communists or "potential" communists according to them.

t_wolves_fan
Of course you didn&#39;t. And of course you don&#39;t.
So why waste your time? This thread wasn&#39;t made for capitalists to come in and make uneducated comments. It was meant to criticize and hopefully remedy a problem in the western left.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Just refresh my memory for me D Bokk. You know it&#39;s silly, but I can&#39;t for the life of me remember why september the 11th was legitimate. I mean, slamming passenger planes full of innocent civilians into buildings full of innocent civilians, that&#39;s the communist way, isn&#39;t it? But er... No, it&#39;s slipped my mind.

-Alex

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree
Just refresh my memory for me D Bokk. You know it&#39;s silly, but I can&#39;t for the life of me remember why september the 11th was legitimate. I mean, slamming passenger planes full of innocent civilians into buildings full of innocent civilians, that&#39;s the communist way, isn&#39;t it? But er... No, it&#39;s slipped my mind.

-Alex
Gladly.

On 9/11, Al-Qaeda had three targets:

1) Military - i.e. the Pentagon
2) Government - i.e. the White House
3) Economy - i.e. the Twin Towers

The first two targets are blatantly legitimate. The problem with the Towers is that it contained many people. However the intention of Al-Qaeda wasn&#39;t to bring down the towers, they couldn&#39;t possibly have imagined that the two towers would come tumbling down. Even so, the attack wasn&#39;t to kill "innocent" people - it was to send a message to the imperialists. Had the intent been to kill as many "innocent" people as possible, the target would have been an even more densely populated structure. Possibly the Super Bowl or some other useless event that so many Americans are mesmerized by.

The reason I put innocent in quotes was because I don&#39;t rightly believe any American whatsoever is innocent. Except, of course, children... but even they will eventually grow up and be the same as previous generations. So long as America continues to elect politicians who will: kill, starve and exploit the third world proletariat - how can they be innocent? Even more pertinent:why do the communists even support them?