NON Violent Manifesto

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I was just wondering if we could all agree on the need for NON violence in whatever our methods and ideology we belong to: Anarchist, Marxist, Leninist, Stalnist-Maoist, whatever.

If we are going to get anywhere we need to reject what didn't work in the past and when you start to use violence you start becoming more and more authoriatiarian and centralized and that's a bad thing as we found out through the history of this past century.

I mean, even if the big gov did come after us I would encourage us to use what Ghandi did and keep on using non violence and civil disobedience even if they come after us with the violence. If worse comes to worse, we could always go back to the communes and refuse to work for the capitalists since as we all know, they need US more than we need THEM!

I am young and still learning and I don't believe I or anyone has all the answers so don't expect them from me, I am just putting it out there that whichever strategy, ideology, philosophy we are under we just use these things and try to get to our goal through non violent practices.

To this I hope we can all agree.

-PacifistAnarchist

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, we can't agree, at all.

You clearly have no understanding of revolution.

"Violence is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one." (Das Kapital chapter 31)

[Solitary Mind]

I Agree...with CompaneroDeLibertad....

and Ghandi isn't too good of an example, because even as a pacifist, he supported the caste system...

Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I'd like to agree with you, PacifistAnarchist, but unfortunately it's not that easy. I think our line should be that we shouldn't encourage mindless violence, only constructive violence. That is, violence yielding positive results. How can we possibly, and perhaps just as importantly, WHY SHOULD WE reject violence completely? Who does that benefit?

The class system is based on violence. And we live in violence. Disease, poverty, malnutrition, thirst, this is violence.

Why should we feel pity for the mercenaries, for the capitalist class?

If the capitalist class and its collaborators want peace, then all they have to do is to lay down their arms, to step down. But they won't.

Peace will come at a time when the class enemies have been eliminated.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:41 PM


If we are going to get anywhere we need to reject what didn't work in the past and when you start to use violence you start becoming more and more authoriatiarian and centralized and that's a bad thing as we found out through the history of this past century.




The use of violence does not mean the development of centralized hierarchy, look at the anarchist "terrorists" of 20th century russia. thier use of force did not result in vertical organization.


I mean, even if the big gov did come after us I would encourage us to use what Ghandi did and keep on using non violence and civil disobedience even if they come after us with the violence.

Non-violent tactics are useful in some situations and completly idiotic in others. Why would you allow somone to beat you while just sitting there. There is nothing empowering in that, it solves nothing.

Ghandi was not the only person in india which was fighting for liberation, there were much more militant movements which contributed to the british leaving. You cannot ignore the enormous cost (human and material) that britian sustained in two world wars, which of course factored into it.

Pacifism simply assures a state-monopoly on violence.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 26 2006, 08:17 PM
I Agree...with CompaneroDeLibertad....

and Ghandi isn't too good of an example, because even as a pacifist, he supported the caste system...

Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!
What about Martin Luther King??

He is more respected anyway

[-=Viva La Revolution!=-]

i agree with solitary mind(nice use of quote!) ;)
no matter what we cant start a revolution without violence
its almost impratical as democracy itself
i see what you are trying to fail to say, but......

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by PacifistAnarchist+Sep 26 2006, 03:47 PM--> (PacifistAnarchist @ Sep 26 2006, 03:47 PM)
Solitary [email protected] 26 2006, 08:17 PM
I Agree...with CompaneroDeLibertad....

and Ghandi isn't too good of an example, because even as a pacifist, he supported the caste system...

Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!
What about Martin Luther King??

He is more respected anyway [/b]
He was also killed, as you may have noticed, and the 40 years later what has his movement really achieved? Did anything actually change? Did racism and racial-social disparities vanish?


Non-violence and pacifism = If we all do nothing maybe things will change.

[Tekun]

Its impossible to destroy the system that degenerates all our working class brothers and sister to mere wage slaves without violence
Impossible

"Revolutions" like the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia and the downfall of the communist regime in Bulgaria didn't show the effectiveness of a "nonviolent revolution" but rather, it demonstrated the weakness and restraint of the communist forces in Eastern Europe

The only thing that peaceful revolutions have accomplished is reform, not change or improvement
Have the lives of Russians or Eastern Euro's improved since the fall of socialism?
Nope, on the contrary the lives of a majority of ppl have gotten worse
Some "revolution"
The very same socialist governments that were erected through force accomplished more for those ppl than what these quasi-revolutions have produced

If the government came after us, we'd be dead as well as our movement
The only way to repel attacks is through resistance, using the examples of the various partisan groups throughout Europe and Asia during WW2
Gandhi might have accomplished independence for India, regardless of their indepence, the majority of Indian's are as bad or even in worse conditions than they were under British rule
No change, just reform

Civil disobedience will accomplish much yet the capitalist system would still continue to exploit millions
Resistance and retaliation against the capitalist system, is the only way that capitalism will come to an end
Its gonna be costly and bloody, but it has the potential of ending the ongoing crimes against billions of humans that is the cornerstone of capitalism


BTW: This belongs in Theory

[Cryotank Screams]

Do you really think that a revolution could happen without violence? That the oppressors would just hand over their power without a fight? That the state could be crushed with no fight? That a great socio-cultural revolution could happen just like that? That is an impossibility, violence is a very crucial element to the revolution.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by -=Viva La Revolution!=-@Sep 26 2006, 03:53 PM
no matter what we cant start a revolution without violence
its almost impratical as democracy itself
Interestingly I once had a professor who described steel as the democratic metal. When steel farm impliments came about, they were easily developed into weapons (in fact most medieval weapons are based on farming equipment). That's when peasant uprisings started being possible, everyone had something to swing :)

I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion but it is an interesting tidbit.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:41 PM
To this I hope we can all agree.
Evidently, no. Look at the name of this forum again. And don't give me a "peaceful revolution" - no such thing. A revolution is by definition a violent act, because it removes the ruling class, and then liquidates it. Of course, if you've got a framework that involves bringing power to the working class, without any deaths, feel free to present it. Good luck. ;)

[Enragé]

Look at what Ghandi accomplished

Yay! He kicked out the british...kinda (corporations etc still there)

and now instead of being screwed over by british bosses, they're screwed over by indian bosses
AND
the country collapsed into two parts, who arent exactly friends
etc etc

progress!

[Orange Juche]

I'm all for non-violent activity where it can be realistically successful, or inspire people towards a movement, or something like that. When non-violence is an option, it should always be exercized first.

But

Its unrealistic to think class war can be a nonviolent war. It is the final real human battle, the major struggle. No level of nonviolent activity will stop them, people will be massacred, it would be genocide and we would accomplish nothing. I'll admit that the violence neccissary is unfortunate, but I also admit that yes, it is neccessary.

In the words of Malcolm X, "In regards to nonviolence, to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks is criminal." The system itself is brutal, and any risistance will make their responce far more brutal.

[Exovedate]

The non-violent route is exactly the route the capitalists want you to take, because it's often easier to silence the tongue than the blazing rifle. "A bullet is worth a thousand words." If we all just sit around talking about how the system needs to change, nothing will ever come of it. Sometimes people just need to realize that when the government is coming through your neighbour's door to haul them off, its time to put down the pen and pick up the gun.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:19 PM
If we all just sit around talking about how the system needs to change, nothing will ever come of it. Sometimes people just need to realize that when the government is coming through your neighbour's door to haul them off, its time to put down the pen and pick up the gun.
Well, to be fair, they don't advocate sitting around. They advocate non-violent direct action.

[A CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 26 2006, 08:17 PM
Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!
I agree completely with Malcolm X on violence in a revolution.

Here's an excerpt from his speech, "Message to the Grass Roots" 1963


Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution -- what was it based on? The landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you -- you don't know what a revolution is. Because when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution -- what was it based on? Land; the landless against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed. And you're afraid to bleed. I said, you're afraid to bleed.

[Solitary Mind]

MLK? i respect him, but i respect Malcolm X also.

MLK was a good man, but preached too much non violence, and look, he might be more respected, but to me Malcolm X had the idea, listen to his speech on revolution...

is it maybe that as he also said "your afraid to bleed"

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 26 2006, 08:17 PM
I Agree...with CompaneroDeLibertad....

and Ghandi isn't too good of an example, because even as a pacifist, he supported the caste system...

Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!
O YEA! I remember that successful violent Revolution Malcolm X headed.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!+Sep 27 2006, 12:51 AM--> (Jesus Christ! @ Sep 27 2006, 12:51 AM)
Solitary [email protected] 26 2006, 08:17 PM
I Agree...with CompaneroDeLibertad....

and Ghandi isn't too good of an example, because even as a pacifist, he supported the caste system...

Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!
O YEA! I remember that successful violent Revolution Malcolm X headed. [/b]
Wow your comment shows you can't even appreciate ideas, idiot

Marx talked about revolution

OH WHAT A REVOLUTION HE LED ALSO!

His idea was right, and he pushed for it, but got killed

You try doing alot when your Dead

Oh and i take it you dont like Marx's ideas neither?

[Demogorgon]

I wonder why the Socialist cause isn't getting anywhere? Could it be half it's supporters are extremists fantasising about violence?

The means of violence are death and detruction and the ends of violence are death and destruction, you cannot build anything out of it. I can forsee violence happening in a revolution but you lot have all the subtlety of a sledge hammer if you think the violence is going to simply be people rising up and killing capitalists in cold blood. Any violence will be instigated by the capitalists in an effort to hold onto power. That's something to be regretted and avoided as much as possible. Not looked forward to and celebrated. Aren't we meant to be better than them?

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:39 AM
I wonder why the Socialist cause isn't getting anywhere? Could it be half it's supporters are extremists fantasising about violence?

The means of violence are death and detruction and the ends of violence are death and destruction, you cannot build anything out of it. I can forsee violence happening in a revolution but you lot have all the subtlety of a sledge hammer if you think the violence is going to simply be people rising up and killing capitalists in cold blood. Any violence will be instigated by the capitalists in an effort to hold onto power. That's something to be regretted and avoided as much as possible. Not looked forward to and celebrated. Aren't we meant to be better than them?
the point is to crush capitalism and the enemy, the exploiters, and letting them live honestly wouldn't work out, look what happened to batista after he let Fidel Castro live...you need an extreme change, thats the point of revolution, and you dont want what you worked for to be destroyed so quickly. and we dont just kill capitalist, that would be killing ALOT of people.

its not like im saying to go murder everyone in cold blood, but a revolution comes with bloodshed, thats how it goes, and thats the only revolution that will work in my opinion at least

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Solitary Mind+Sep 27 2006, 01:44 AM--> (Solitary Mind @ Sep 27 2006, 01:44 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 01:39 AM
I wonder why the Socialist cause isn't getting anywhere? Could it be half it's supporters are extremists fantasising about violence?

The means of violence are death and detruction and the ends of violence are death and destruction, you cannot build anything out of it. I can forsee violence happening in a revolution but you lot have all the subtlety of a sledge hammer if you think the violence is going to simply be people rising up and killing capitalists in cold blood. Any violence will be instigated by the capitalists in an effort to hold onto power. That's something to be regretted and avoided as much as possible. Not looked forward to and celebrated. Aren't we meant to be better than them?
the point is to crush capitalism and the enemy, the exploiters, and letting them live honestly wouldn't work out, look what happened to batista after he let Fidel Castro live...you need an extreme change, thats the point of revolution, and you dont want what you worked for to be destroyed so quickly. and we dont just kill capitalist, that would be killing ALOT of people.

its not like im saying to go murder everyone in cold blood, but a revolution comes with bloodshed, thats how it goes, and thats the only revolution that will work in my opinion at least [/b]
To be honest, I'll take what we have now over a society that kills those that it disagrees with. And yes I know capitalism isn't exactly peace and love to it's oppnents, but the worst I have to put up with is the occasional beating from the police. I'm still alive.

Any society born out of violence will remain violent. I'll paraphrase Orwell here, the violence won't be done to safeguard the revolution, the revolution will be to justify the violence. There is a reason incidentally why Chavez in Venezuala has been so much more succesful than those who came before him, and that's simple he didn't come to power through violence (I'm not saying the '92 coup was wrong, but it was better this way), he came to power by winning an election and has kept the Democratic process in place and indeed improved it to the extent it is starting to look like real democracy. You may say he hasn't achieved everything he might have if he were more radical, but so what? He has kept the country stable and Venezuala will be better in the long run for it.

That is what I want for the whole world, measured sensible change. If that makes me a reformist, i don't mind. I honestly think that is much better than fighting in the streets and people who are completely blameless getting killed.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Sep 27 2006, 01:55 AM--> (Demogorgon @ Sep 27 2006, 01:55 AM)
Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 27 2006, 01:44 AM

[email protected] 27 2006, 01:39 AM
I wonder why the Socialist cause isn't getting anywhere? Could it be half it's supporters are extremists fantasising about violence?

The means of violence are death and detruction and the ends of violence are death and destruction, you cannot build anything out of it. I can forsee violence happening in a revolution but you lot have all the subtlety of a sledge hammer if you think the violence is going to simply be people rising up and killing capitalists in cold blood. Any violence will be instigated by the capitalists in an effort to hold onto power. That's something to be regretted and avoided as much as possible. Not looked forward to and celebrated. Aren't we meant to be better than them?
the point is to crush capitalism and the enemy, the exploiters, and letting them live honestly wouldn't work out, look what happened to batista after he let Fidel Castro live...you need an extreme change, thats the point of revolution, and you dont want what you worked for to be destroyed so quickly. and we dont just kill capitalist, that would be killing ALOT of people.

its not like im saying to go murder everyone in cold blood, but a revolution comes with bloodshed, thats how it goes, and thats the only revolution that will work in my opinion at least
To be honest, I'll take what we have now over a society that kills those that it disagrees with. And yes I know capitalism isn't exactly peace and love to it's oppnents, but the worst I have to put up with is the occasional beating from the police. I'm still alive.

Any society born out of violence will remain violent. I'll paraphrase Orwell here, the violence won't be done to safeguard the revolution, the revolution will be to justify the violence. There is a reason incidentally why Chavez in Venezuala has been so much more succesful than those who came before him, and that's simple he didn't come to power through violence (I'm not saying the '92 coup was wrong, but it was better this way), he came to power by winning an election and has kept the Democratic process in place and indeed improved it to the extent it is starting to look like real democracy. You may say he hasn't achieved everything he might have if he were more radical, but so what? He has kept the country stable and Venezuala will be better in the long run for it.

That is what I want for the whole world, measured sensible change. If that makes me a reformist, i don't mind. I honestly think that is much better than fighting in the streets and people who are completely blameless getting killed. [/b]
I understand where your coming from, but look at Cuba, the revolution came through violence, revolution is a struggle, and the capitalists wont readily give it up, they will commit crimes against their own people before losing power, thats why i believe in violent revolution, if a non violent revolution was possible, id gladly accept it, but it's not gonna happen you get me?

[violencia.Proletariat]

To be honest, I'll take what we have now over a society that kills those that it disagrees with.

I have never read that suggestion on this board. I have however read the suggestion to execute those who activley participate in violent counter revolution.


And yes I know capitalism isn't exactly peace and love to it's oppnents, but the worst I have to put up with is the occasional beating from the police. I'm still alive.

Yeah if you've been to some shit anti war protests. If you participate in a proletarian uprising you run the risk of being shot or permanent imprisonment. The capitalists will kill anyone to defend their power.


Any society born out of violence will remain violent.

Any society that developes in the modern world is technically a society that developed out of violence. Afterall, we came to this point of modernization after thousands of years of violence. Secondly that is a completely preposterous suggestion as there is no "peaceful society" to make that decision.


he came to power by winning an election and has kept the Democratic process in place and indeed improved it to the extent it is starting to look like real democracy.

Liberalism at its finest.


I honestly think that is much better than fighting in the streets and people who are completely blameless getting killed.

What does this even mean? A violent proletarian revolution always (theoretically and in reality) has mass support from the proletarian population. Therefore the vast majority supports the violent revolution.

[Hampton]

and the 40 years later what has his movement really achieved? Did anything actually change?

In the context of the Civil Rights Movement, what did the self defense or violent position of Malcolm X, Panthers, Deacons of Defense, or Robert F. Williams accomplish?

Them taking a beating brought it to the whole nation, though it was not good for the person getting their head busted open. The gun toting and fiery rhetoric of shooting back really didn't win fans from a lot of people who were not already thinking that way.

[Demogorgon]

I have never read that suggestion on this board. I have however read the suggestion to execute those who activley participate in violent counter revolution. Because of course taking away a human beings life because they hold different political views from you is so progressive, isn't it? People live in Cloud Cuckoo land if they honestly think this is a good idea.

Yeah if you've been to some shit anti war protests. If you participate in a proletarian uprising you run the risk of being shot or permanent imprisonment. The capitalists will kill anyone to defend their power.Yet you want to do the same as them, don't you?

Any society that developes in the modern world is technically a society that developed out of violence. Afterall, we came to this point of modernization after thousands of years of violence. Secondly that is a completely preposterous suggestion as there is no "peaceful society" to make that decision.Modern society is violent because it has it routes in violence. If you think by some act of horrendous violence you can bring about a peaceful society, I would put you on the same level as Bush and co who think they can make the world peaceful by bombing it until nobody can fight back
Liberalism at its finest.And what if it is? At least it works, unlike silly fantasies of killing people to achieve your aims. I don't care about ideological purity or what ideologues on either side want to call me, what I care about is liberating people from capitalism. Any such move towards this has to be grounded in the real world. I don't give a flying fuck about any view, no matter hoow grounded in supposed Marxist ideology it may be that doesn't have a cat's chance in hell of functioning on planet earth.

What does this even mean? A violent proletarian revolution always (theoretically and in reality) has mass support from the proletarian population. Therefore the vast majority supports the violent revolution.If you think innocents don't get killed in fighting, your just the sort they are looking for to fight in Iraq. Anyway do you think any violent revolution is going to have working class support? Ever? Tell people of your manifesto for a better world where workers have their just rights and they will be interested. Tell them it's the gas chambers for anybody who disagrees and they'll look at you as if you've taken leave of your senses.

Ultimately as I have tried to say many times, there will never be a revolution if people want to cling to ideological purity taken from 150 year old works whose authors would be horrified at the way people look at their work. Socialism isn't a game. it isn't something to give you a bit of a dangerous edge. Something to make people respect you, because you know, your ready to kill. These are just notiions we should leave behind as we grow up. The world is governed by certain laws of human nature and the realities of social interaction. We cannot change these and nor should we want to. Socialism is something for real people, not for soulless machines who are willing to kill on spurious grounds.

Certain people on this board make me wonder whether they really do want change or whether they just want to get into a penis ccomparing contest over who has the most revolutionary politics. Who is the most ideologically pure person around. People criticise the bourgoise so much here, but this kind of talk is the epitome of bourgoise idealism, it ignores the realities of working people and their need for change in favour of the forgotten battles of the nineteenth century.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:39 AM
I wonder why the Socialist cause isn't getting anywhere? Could it be half it's supporters are extremists fantasising about violence?

Doesn't make sense. The socialist movement in the US at least, has engaged in very few violent acts over the past 40 years and it is still not a mass movement.


Any society born out of violence will remain violent.

Like the United States? (American Revolution, violent wars against Indians to take their territory, war against Mexico to take half its territory, etc)

So are you making the case for overthrowing the US government? Now we're getting somewhere!



There is a reason incidentally why Chavez in Venezuala has been so much more succesful than those who came before him, and that's simple he didn't come to power through violence

The presidents before Chavez came to power through violence? Really? In reality, Venezuela has had one of the most stable "democracies" in Latin America.

And if there is any reason he has become successful it is because he is responding to the needs of the workers better than his predecessors did. It has nothing to do with being less violence and actually, considering the 92 Pro-Chavez coup and the recent anti-Chavez coup one could argue that the Chavez influence has made Venezuelan politics MORE violent that it previously had been.



You may say he hasn't achieved everything he might have if he were more radical, but so what? He has kept the country stable and Venezuala will be better in the long run for it.

Ah, "stability"! The favorite word of the conformist! The current Chinese government loves to talk about how it enforces "stability" in China. The PRI boasted about holding stability for quite a long time in Mexico.


That is what I want for the whole world, measured sensible change. If that makes me a reformist, i don't mind. I honestly think that is much better than fighting in the streets and people who are completely blameless getting killed.

You fail to understand. Capitalism is all about death, violence, and destruction. It cannot be anything but these things. Needless death, needless hungry, people dying of completely curable diseases but don't have the money for it. Capitalists enjoying all the wealth of the world while the poor and working class make due with the scraps. This is reality. This is precisely the kind of completely unwarranted and innocent death that capitalist brings and that socialism is fighting to do away with.

And it is strange how no one yet noticed the complete irony of someone arguing for capitalist reform as a way to decrease violence in the world! Look around you! Look at Iraq! Afghanistan! With the prospect looming over new wars in other parts of the world! What say you to this violence? What say you to the fact that in almost all of the advanced capitalist states, the major "reform" parties, with the only chance of winning of supported, either openly or discreetly these wars of plunder which have claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocens already!

So will a revolution for liberation and socialism be violent? Yes, just like ANY revolution, including bourgeois capitalist revolutions. But this violence will be a toothpick on a mountain when compared with the death and violence that is necessary, that occurs every single day within the capitalist system. Whether the leader is "reformist" or not.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 27 2006, 03:00 AM
You fail to understand. Capitalism is all about death, violence, and destruction. It cannot be anything but these things. Needless death, needless hungry, people dying of completely curable diseases but don't have the money for it. Capitalists enjoying all the wealth of the world while the poor and working class make due with the scraps. This is reality. This is precisely the kind of completely unwarranted and innocent death that capitalist brings and that socialism is fighting to do away with.

And it is strange how no one yet noticed the complete irony of someone arguing for capitalist reform as a way to decrease violence in the world! Look around you! Look at Iraq! Afghanistan! With the prospect looming over new wars in other parts of the world! What say you to this violence? What say you to the fact that in almost all of the advanced capitalist states, the major "reform" parties, with the only chance of winning of supported, either openly or discreetly these wars of plunder which have claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocens already!

So will a revolution for liberation and socialism be violent? Yes, just like ANY revolution, including bourgeois capitalist revolutions. But this violence will be a toothpick on a mountain when compared with the death and violence that is necessary, that occurs every single day within the capitalist system. Whether the leader is "reformist" or not.
Do I fail to understand any of this? Please don't talk to me like I am some kind of apologist for capatilism. I hate all capitalism, whether it be market capitalism or state capitalism.

Ah! State Capitalism, the great big elephant in the corner. The reason why Russia is now under that bastard Putin and why Imperialists crow about the fall of so called "Communism". This is what violence will lead to. Capitalism is more than individual capitalists. it is an inbuilt problem in society. Fight your revolutions, kill your enemies, impose your new Governments that talk about reform and progress. capitalism will say ok and change itself accordingly so the same old injustics continue under a new name. That's what happened in the Soviet Union.

Think of human society as a body and capitalism as a serious ailment. Currently I am having trouble with a sore back. The physiotherapist didn't say I should do all sorts of drastic things to my back, destroy parts of it to eradicate the problems. Instead I am doing various things to improve it. And it's the same for getting rid of capitalism. Big showy revolutions don't achieve anything except from the destruction wrought. Like it or not, it is a slowy cured disease.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Because of course taking away a human beings life because they hold different political views from you is so progressive, isn't it?

Actually I have never suggested taking a life because they hold different political views, but because they are willing to use violent action (including terrorism) in order to stop the revolution. If you don't suppress these individuals you are supporting what you say your against.


Yet you want to do the same as them, don't you?

I rather doubt any bourgeoisie would come out in public during the immediate post revolution. It's not something we have to worry about. And besides, its not up to me what's suppressed, its up to the community councils who democratically vote on it.


If you think by some act of horrendous violence you can bring about a peaceful society, I would put you on the same level as Bush and co who think they can make the world peaceful by bombing it until nobody can fight back

I suggest you got to "I'm a moronic liberal left.com" then. The vast majority of people on this board are your enemies if you think revolutionaries are comparable to Bush.

Bombing it? Where have I suggested the use of bombs? Who would I be bombing? Proletarians makeup the majorities of urban areas. Why don't you quit MAKING SHIT UP.


At least it works, unlike silly fantasies of killing people to achieve your aims.

:lol: Go support Clinton you fucker, he's an imperialist bastard too. While your at it go hang up a poster of that racist, classist, supporter of violence imperialist gandhi too.


what I care about is liberating people from capitalism.

Which you CANNOT do. The only liberation from capitalism is A.) For the proletariat to physically sieze the means of production or B.) Abolish industrial society.

Since B is not in our interests and clearly out of the question, A is the only option. You cannot do A without having the intent to use violence to defend yourself. The bourgeoisie will kill you whether you are peaceful or not. If your more willing to remain peaceful and get thousands slaughtered for your bullshit moral interests then your true interest is not liberating people from capitalism but self righteous moral superiority.


If you think innocents don't get killed in fighting, your just the sort they are looking for to fight in Iraq.

Where did I ever suggest innocents don't get killed? What I am suggesting is that the vast majority of the proletariat will support the revolution. Therefore they know the risks they run and will not cower behind your fucking moralism but instead fight for their liberation. If you wish to stand in the way of this I suggest you fuck the hell off.


Anyway do you think any violent revolution is going to have working class support? Ever?

YES, IT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE SUPPORT. Look at any proletarian revolution/insurrection (Paris 71/68, Spain throughout modern history but especially the revolution of 36, Hungary 56, etc) . They have all been violent and all had mass support.


Tell them it's the gas chambers for anybody who disagrees and they'll look at you as if you've taken leave of your senses.

Fuck you man. Your gonna sit here and completely MAKE SHIT UP because your argument is weak, then don't bother coming here. I see no reason to debate you further because you clearly have been defeated.

[Lenin's Law]

And yes I know capitalism isn't exactly peace and love to it's oppnents, but the worst I have to put up with is the occasional beating from the police. I'm still alive.

How very comradely of you!

So it's OK if an Iraqi woman or child is killed in the street, it's fine if some village in Afghanistan is getting bombed out, but as long as I'M OK, as long as I, as one of the ultra-privileged in the world, is not getting my ass beat, I'll live with the system!

This kind of individualistic selfishness and is the epitome of not even liberalism, but of bourgeois conservatism.

Never mind that my rights are getting torn away bit by bit, never mind that the average worker is losing his/her real income while the income of the very rich are exploding. Never mind paying laying off workers in the first world , while paying slave wages to workers in the third world while corporate profits are zooming to astronomical levels.

Never mind all that! After all, I've got a nice computer, big TV and a dog named Crap! I'm doing just fine so US Imperialism you can bomb whoever the heck you want, exploit workers all you want, just, ah, make sure the AC works when I get back home!

I wonder what you would say if you were blond-haired, blue eyed German living in 1933: I am not for revolution! For that would cause violence and after all, although I know the Nazis are not so friendly to the Jews, I am doing just fine and the worst I can get is a kick in the ass from some Nazi for not saying Seig Heil fast enough! But ya know what, I'll take that anyday over some big mean nasty revolution that represents the vast majority of the population!

You know something? If the socialist movement is not where it should be, it's exactly because of people like you. Selfish individualists who will sell us out in an instant to obtain some meaningless sense of bourgeois "security".

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 27 2006, 03:20 AM

And yes I know capitalism isn't exactly peace and love to it's oppnents, but the worst I have to put up with is the occasional beating from the police. I'm still alive.

How very comradely of you!

So it's OK if an Iraqi woman or child is killed in the street, it's fine if some village in Afghanistan is getting bombed out, but as long as I'M OK, as long as I, as one of the ultra-privileged in the world, is not getting my ass beat, I'll live with the system!

This kind of individualistic selfishness and is the epitome of not even liberalism, but of bourgeois conservatism.

Never mind that my rights are getting torn away bit by bit, never mind that the average worker is losing his/her real income while the income of the very rich are exploding. Never mind paying laying off workers in the first world , while paying slave wages to workers in the third world while corporate profits are zooming to astronomical levels.

Never mind all that! After all, I've got a nice computer, big TV and a dog named Crap! I'm doing just fine so US Imperialism you can bomb whoever the heck you want, exploit workers all you want, just, ah, make sure the AC works when I get back home!

I wonder what you would say if you were blond-haired, blue eyed German living in 1933: I am not for revolution! For that would cause violence and after all, although I know the Nazis are not so friendly to the Jews, I am doing just fine and the worst I can get is a kick in the ass from some Nazi for not saying Seig Heil fast enough! But ya know what, I'll take that anyday over some big mean nasty revolution that represents the vast majority of the population!

You know something? If the socialist movement is not where it should be, it's exactly because of people like you. Selfish individualists who will sell us out in an instant to obtain some meaningless sense of bourgeois "security".
Yeah, because that's me all over :lol:

[Guerrilla22]

Often the only way change can be brought about is through forced armed revolution or armed violence, which some may call terrorism to bring attention to a certain movement. Sure we don't want to resort to violence, but it is a necessity. Name one successful non-violent revolution? And don't say Ghandi, because de-colonization would have happened regardless in India, it was too expensive and difficult to for Great Britian to control the Indian sub-continent after World War two and don't say the civil rights movement, because plenty of violence happened there. See Detroit 1967, or Fred Hampton.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Sep 27 2006, 01:55 AM--> (Demogorgon @ Sep 27 2006, 01:55 AM)
Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 27 2006, 01:44 AM

[email protected] 27 2006, 01:39 AM
I wonder why the Socialist cause isn't getting anywhere? Could it be half it's supporters are extremists fantasising about violence?

The means of violence are death and detruction and the ends of violence are death and destruction, you cannot build anything out of it. I can forsee violence happening in a revolution but you lot have all the subtlety of a sledge hammer if you think the violence is going to simply be people rising up and killing capitalists in cold blood. Any violence will be instigated by the capitalists in an effort to hold onto power. That's something to be regretted and avoided as much as possible. Not looked forward to and celebrated. Aren't we meant to be better than them?
the point is to crush capitalism and the enemy, the exploiters, and letting them live honestly wouldn't work out, look what happened to batista after he let Fidel Castro live...you need an extreme change, thats the point of revolution, and you dont want what you worked for to be destroyed so quickly. and we dont just kill capitalist, that would be killing ALOT of people.

its not like im saying to go murder everyone in cold blood, but a revolution comes with bloodshed, thats how it goes, and thats the only revolution that will work in my opinion at least
To be honest, I'll take what we have now over a society that kills those that it disagrees with. And yes I know capitalism isn't exactly peace and love to it's oppnents, but the worst I have to put up with is the occasional beating from the police. I'm still alive.

Any society born out of violence will remain violent. I'll paraphrase Orwell here, the violence won't be done to safeguard the revolution, the revolution will be to justify the violence. There is a reason incidentally why Chavez in Venezuala has been so much more succesful than those who came before him, and that's simple he didn't come to power through violence (I'm not saying the '92 coup was wrong, but it was better this way), he came to power by winning an election and has kept the Democratic process in place and indeed improved it to the extent it is starting to look like real democracy. You may say he hasn't achieved everything he might have if he were more radical, but so what? He has kept the country stable and Venezuala will be better in the long run for it.

That is what I want for the whole world, measured sensible change. If that makes me a reformist, i don't mind. I honestly think that is much better than fighting in the streets and people who are completely blameless getting killed. [/b]
This is controversial but I sotta agree with this

[Rollo]

I'm sorry but have you seen the middle east lately?

[Pirate Utopian]

to quote Huey P. Newton “Sometimes if you want to get rid of the gun, you have to pick the gun up”
im against violence and guns in a daily life sure and im not beating someone up unless it's self-defence.
but the cops have guns, billyclubs and teargas.
remember gandhi had almost everyone in India supporting him, we cant have that in any western nation because they are to oblivious to how badly capitalism has failed.
Martin Luther King was a great man and alot of the things he said motivated alot of good people, but even the non-violent will be killed by the capitalist because he doesnt backdown even for a man who wouldnt hurt a fly, very heartless.
during a revolution we should look at what's best to do next and sadly this wont be friendly all the time.

[rouchambeau]

What do you say to the Black and Hispanic communities that are not being empowered nor are any better off when they allow the police to brutalize them?

Your post, PacifistAnarchist, reaks of white privilege.

[Guerrilla22]

Non-violence? Its impossible to be non-violent when the US keeps using armed force to push its agenda, lok what's transpiring in the Domincan Republic right now, another aremd US intervention in Latin America.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:41 PM
I was just wondering if we could all agree on the need for NON violence in whatever our methods and ideology we belong to: Anarchist, Marxist, Leninist, Stalnist-Maoist, whatever.
PA, to see where nonviolence gets you, check out the history of Chile.

A democratic socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected president of Chile in 1970. There was much talk at the time about this being a peaceful transition to socialism, without the necessity for a violent revolution, etcetera. The bourgeoisie there, and their amerikan imperialist puppetmasters, did not take kindly to Allende's nationalization of key industries. They threw their support behind the military and began to agitate against Allende's administration.

Despite the clear and constant danger of a reactionary coup against the government, Allende steadfastly refused to distribute arms to the proletariat. Even after a failed, abortive coup in June, 1973, the government made no attempt to set up people's militias and crush the resistance in the armed forces. The military moved in September of that year, killing Allende, installing the infamous General Augusto Pinochet in power, and unleashing a wave of reactionary terror across the country. The revolutionary movements there suffered a devastating blow.

Allende's commitment to pacifism and legality was a path to defeat for the working class of Chile. :(

[Marukusu]

If non-violent revolutions worked, we would all live in a happy communist society by now.

I definately side with the violent revolutionaries on this subject, violence is a sad but necessary path for communism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:10 PM
If non-violent revolutions worked, we would all live in a happy communist society by now.

I definately side with the violent revolutionaries on this subject, violence is a sad but necessary path for communism.
By the same logic we could say if violent revolutions worked we'd all be happy Communists. They haven't exactly yielded anything except a new form of terror, have they?

[Marukusu]

By the same logic we could say if violent revolutions worked we'd all be happy Communists. They haven't exactly yielded anything except a new form of terror, have they?

Well, at least all the progressive revolutions I can think about has been violent, even if they all more or less "failed" after some time.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:20 PM
Well, at least all the progressive revolutions I can think about has been violent, even if they all more or less "failed" after some time.
I think a larfe part of their failing was down to their being violent. If you use violence to establish power, some group or another will end up taking control and the sonsequences will often be dictatorship. That can hardly be good. If you want a revolution to work you need to have the power very much with the people rather than with a brand new ruling class and that will only come about by the people taking control surely and steadily from those that currently have it.

More specifically it will work the way succesful reform always works. The ruling classes will first of all deny more power to the people, then they will give a bit to them to placate them but that will only make the people more able to demand more, so a bit more is given and soon enough the ruling classes have to yield completely.

Note, I am not saying this will not include any violence at all, but this violence must not under any circumstance be insigated by us. Violence is only acceptable purely as self defence.

[Comrade Marcel]

An important addition to SPK's Post.

Chavez almost went the way of Allende, but unlike what happened in Chile, the CIA lackies didn't have complete control of the Venezeualian military the way Pinochet controlled Chile's.

In both cases force dictated the outcome.

Chavez learned a lesson from this attempted coup. Just last year they bought 20,000 AK47s! These will be used to arm the masses to defend the socialist aims of Venezuela.

Just thought I would note that to the pascifist fools who try to claim Chavez as one of their own.

As for Ghandi and MLK, you can have those imperialist lackies. Did you ever stop to wonder why the bourgeois love and promote these people so much?

[Marukusu]

Note, I am not saying this will not include any violence at all, but this violence must not under any circumstance be insigated by us. Violence is only acceptable purely as self defence

You are right that violence is wrong and all that, but let us be realistic: the henchmen of the state, be it policemen or soldiers, regularily threaten, beat and shoot the oppressed masses into submission. This is a natural part of tha society we live in - fuck with the state and the state fucks with you. Practically everyone knows this and most people accept this system, because they belive in the lies of the capitalists and the religious preachers.
This system of violence will go on until one day when the oppressed has "had enough" and has been able to see across the lies of the clergy and the capitalists, and when that happens use of violence to overthrow the oppressors will automatically be justified.
We talk about the creation of a new society, of a new world where the oppressed majority will be in power. The creation of this workers society will be created using all means necessary, including violence, threats and even torture. The liberation of the oppressed of the world is at stake, and I wouldn't risk the whole revolution by "non-violent resistance".
Non-violence is a nice thought, but it is too utopist. I'll probably end up using violence when the revolution comes (If I'm still alive by then :()

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Solitary Mind+Sep 27 2006, 01:20 AM--> (Solitary Mind @ Sep 27 2006, 01:20 AM)
Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@Sep 27 2006, 12:51 AM

Solitary [email protected] 26 2006, 08:17 PM
I Agree...with CompaneroDeLibertad....

and Ghandi isn't too good of an example, because even as a pacifist, he supported the caste system...

Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!
O YEA! I remember that successful violent Revolution Malcolm X headed.
Wow your comment shows you can't even appreciate ideas, idiot

Marx talked about revolution

OH WHAT A REVOLUTION HE LED ALSO!

His idea was right, and he pushed for it, but got killed

You try doing alot when your Dead

Oh and i take it you dont like Marx's ideas neither? [/b]
How does it show I "can't even[sic] appreciate ideas"? I can appreciate ideas. There are few things I appreciate more than ideas. It's just ironic to talk down about someone who had so much success with pacifism and then providing someone who supported violent revolution but succeeded much less than the prior. Also the fact that he "supported" violent revolution and largely supported non-violent action is somewhat ironic to me which is why I pointed it out. Are you supposed to be intimidating me by saying I don't like Marx's ideas? If you are making such an outlandish remark let me retort with an equally outlandish one, SO I GUESS YOU SUPPORT ALL OF MARX"S IDEAS RIGHT?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:13 PM
What do you say to the Black and Hispanic communities that are not being empowered nor are any better off when they allow the police to brutalize them?

Your post, PacifistAnarchist, reaks of white privilege.
Yes that may be true, but then again, who isn't a privileged person here? Anyone that has a PC , internet and have the time to post on an internet forum must be privileged to some extent I think.

Look what I was saying was that we wouldn't just sit around and do nothing when the state forces come to attack us and no I wasn't being utopian to think they wouldn't do it. Although if we gathered in MASS, I mean 2 million, 5 million , 10 million all around the capital and refused to go away until they do what we wanted what then? Kill 10 million of us?

OK if they do try to do that my response would be to tell the workers and everyone to leave your jobs, forget about working for these guys and use your saved money to go off into the countryside where we can build our own communes and form our own anti-capitalist communities.

I'm not saying that it would be perfect and everything but I think that non-violent direct action solutions are infinitely better than violent revolutions, for they typically require "leadership" and a centralized hierarchy...and we all know what happens what those two things come together.

[YSR]

Originally posted by PacifistAnarchist+Sep 29 2006, 12:00 AM--> (PacifistAnarchist @ Sep 29 2006, 12:00 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 11:13 PM
What do you say to the Black and Hispanic communities that are not being empowered nor are any better off when they allow the police to brutalize them?

Your post, PacifistAnarchist, reaks of white privilege.
Yes that may be true, but then again, who isn't a privileged person here? Anyone that has a PC , internet and have the time to post on an internet forum must be privileged to some extent I think. [/b]
Uh, yeah. That's why you are talking the way you are. So start using your privilege to undermine and destroy privilege or else you're just another racist liberal, content to complain but never do anything.


Look what I was saying was that we wouldn't just sit around and do nothing when the state forces come to attack us and no I wasn't being utopian to think they wouldn't do it. Although if we gathered in MASS, I mean 2 million, 5 million , 10 million all around the capital and refused to go away until they do what we wanted what then?

Why "the capital"(sic)? That's not where the power is. The power of the state and capitalism is manifested in your daily life by the bourgeoisie in your own community. Plus, what are you gonna do? Ask the President to be nice?

I think there was some graffitti during the '68 uprising which so eloquently addresses this: "Your happiness is being bought. Steal it!" You gotta do shit for yourself, not ask some leader to step off.


Kill 10 million of us?

As long as they can get away with it, I don't see why they wouldn't kill anyone who messes with them. That's capitalism, baby.


OK if they do try to do that my response would be to tell the workers and everyone to leave your jobs, forget about working for these guys and use your saved money to go off into the countryside where we can build our own communes and form our own anti-capitalist communities.

Utopian fantasy. Plus, it's total bullshit lacking any solidarity. Like the Wobblies say, "An injury to one is an injury to all."


I'm not saying that it would be perfect and everything but I think that non-violent direct action solutions are infinitely better than violent revolutions, for they typically require "leadership" and a centralized hierarchy...and we all know what happens what those two things come together.

Okay, the problem here is that you've made an opinion sound like a fact. You've said:

A.) Non-violent direct action is better than violent action.
B.) This is because violent revolution requires centralization.
C.) Heirarchy is bad.

I agree with points A and C but there's absolutely no evidence to prove the second point. In fact, history shows us just the opposite. The revolutions of 1848, the Paris Commune of 1871, the beginnings of the Russian Revolution, the Spanish revolution of the late 1930's, the May 1968 in Paris, among so many others are examples of violent revolutions that began with common people. Whether or not they were co-opted later is up for interpretation.

This moral objection to violence as a revolutionary tool is rooted in privilege and Enlightenment moral bullshit. We, as radicals, must embrace any and all means of reaching the commune. We must evaluate our decisions based on what works, not what god told us is right. If non-violence works for a specific situation, great, that means more people are healthy, which is always a good thing. But if violence works, then it works. A prescriptive decision made out of the course of serious revolutionary struggle is misguided at best, arrogant at worst.

[An archist]

the problem with violence is that it does lead to centralization and authoritarianism, pacifistanarchist has a point there, in any kind of warfare, you'll need someone to make decisions in critical situations.

The problem with nonviolence is that it's near impossible to overthrow the government.

I say: peaceful when possible, violent when necesary (and only then) problem there is: when is it necesary? :wacko:

It's too easy to say violence is the only way, it's not.

[Mesijs]

I agree that we should avoid violence as much as possible. But when there is an actual uprising, you can't stop people resisting ruling class pure violence.

Although we shouldn't encourage violence and not use it after an uprising.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 29 2006, 07:32 PM
the problem with violence is that it does lead to centralization and authoritarianism, pacifistanarchist has a point there, in any kind of warfare, you'll need someone to make decisions in critical situations.

The problem with nonviolence is that it's near impossible to overthrow the government.

I say: peaceful when possible, violent when necesary (and only then) problem there is: when is it necesary? :wacko:

It's too easy to say violence is the only way, it's not.
I agree totally!

For if we begin to use violence as a tool of repression against ANY class, reactionary or not, we've lost the revolution already. We might as well go back to "bourgeos democracy" if all we can do is be an oppresive Stalinist state.

Either we believe in freedom of speech for everyone, and that means EVERYONE, or we don't believe in it at all. Violence is the tool of oppressors, of reactionaries, revolutionaries and progressives must think of better, alternative ways of acheiving our goals, for the ends never justify the means.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 29 2006, 03:32 PM




the problem with violence is that it does lead to centralization and authoritarianism, pacifistanarchist has a point there, in any kind of warfare, you'll need someone to make decisions in critical situations.

Thats not true at all. Democratic workers militias work without hierarchy. The officers are elected and recallable, there is no saluting or hierarchy. These were used throughout the Spanish Civil War by the anarchists.


Either we believe in freedom of speech for everyone, and that means EVERYONE, or we don't believe in it at all. Violence is the tool of oppressors, of reactionaries, revolutionaries and progressives must think of better, alternative ways of acheiving our goals, for the ends never justify the means.

This is just liberal ranting. No not everyone here believes in freedom of speech for reactionaries. Violence is not a tool designated for any one class.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by PacifistAnarchist+Sep 26 2006, 08:47 PM--> (PacifistAnarchist @ Sep 26 2006, 08:47 PM)
Solitary [email protected] 26 2006, 08:17 PM
I Agree...with CompaneroDeLibertad....

and Ghandi isn't too good of an example, because even as a pacifist, he supported the caste system...

Now as Malcolm X said...THERE IS NO REVOLUTION WITHOUT BLOODSHED!
What about Martin Luther King??

He is more respected anyway [/b]
Dr. King drew attention to civil rights issues,
not the class struggle.
Ghandi didnt accomplish shit.
And the system exists becasue it uses violence.

[Raisa]

You know what PeacefulAnarachy, I think youre a NARC.....

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by PacifistAnarchist+Sep 30 2006, 07:57 PM--> (PacifistAnarchist @ Sep 30 2006, 07:57 PM)
An [email protected] 29 2006, 07:32 PM
the problem with violence is that it does lead to centralization and authoritarianism, pacifistanarchist has a point there, in any kind of warfare, you'll need someone to make decisions in critical situations.

The problem with nonviolence is that it's near impossible to overthrow the government.

I say: peaceful when possible, violent when necesary (and only then) problem there is: when is it necesary? :wacko:

It's too easy to say violence is the only way, it's not.
I agree totally!

For if we begin to use violence as a tool of repression against ANY class, reactionary or not, we've lost the revolution already. We might as well go back to "bourgeos democracy" if all we can do is be an oppresive Stalinist state.

Either we believe in freedom of speech for everyone, and that means EVERYONE, or we don't believe in it at all. Violence is the tool of oppressors, of reactionaries, revolutionaries and progressives must think of better, alternative ways of acheiving our goals, for the ends never justify the means. [/b]
Thanks for prooving my point; i.e. that you would rather support bourgeois democracy and thus the imperialization of 3rd world countries and millions of people for the benefit of mostly white people.

This is the same nationalism that Chomsky desplays now, but was just the same with Kautsky and others who are really capitalist at heart. Give yourself a reasuring pat on the back!

[KC]

Why hasn't this been moved to OI?

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Fuck off. <_<

No-one will give up a shred of power without there being bloodshed.

[Comeback Kid]

The class that has everything is really going to give it up without a struggle. :rolleyes:

Have fun with your non-violent revolution. I will still come help you when your getting the shit kicked out of you by a riot cop.

[Solitary Mind]

my question is, how do you come to the conclusion that a violent revolution will lead to an oppressive aftermath?

an armed struggle is the only way to take control, you want a non violent revolution? tell that to the police, with their WEAPONS


but then again it&#39;s probably more an issue of fear of YOUR OWN life, and the fact that your not willing to give it up, but would rather see your ideal world without any sort of damage done to you

"you afraid to bleed"

but in a non violent revolution, oh you will bleed, at the hands of the cops, but you will turn the other cheek and bleed alone

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It&#39;s an intriguing idea though, non-violent revolution, if a little utopian. I mean, what if we all collectively just stopped one day, refused to participate at all in the system. Every single one of us. What would happen as a consequence of that, unlikely as it is? That&#39;s an open question, I&#39;d be interested to hear responses. Would the ruling class just try and kill every last one of us? Would they be forced to give up? I don&#39;t know, it&#39;s an interesting idea though.

-Alex

[Pirate Utopian]

there would be less food and we will die of hunger after a few months

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:27 PM
It&#39;s an intriguing idea though, non-violent revolution, if a little utopian. I mean, what if we all collectively just stopped one day, refused to participate at all in the system. Every single one of us. What would happen as a consequence of that, unlikely as it is? That&#39;s an open question, I&#39;d be interested to hear responses. Would the ruling class just try and kill every last one of us? Would they be forced to give up? I don&#39;t know, it&#39;s an interesting idea though.

-Alex
well if that were ever to happen, the ruling class would just use the weapon they always have, fear. and fear is very broad, killings, beatings, gassing. the reasons why a non violent revolution is not possible

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:27 PM
It&#39;s an intriguing idea though, non-violent revolution, if a little utopian. I mean, what if we all collectively just stopped one day, refused to participate at all in the system. Every single one of us. What would happen as a consequence of that, unlikely as it is? That&#39;s an open question, I&#39;d be interested to hear responses. Would the ruling class just try and kill every last one of us? Would they be forced to give up? I don&#39;t know, it&#39;s an interesting idea though.

-Alex
Fear and greed would soon have enough workers working to supply the ruling class with whatever they need.

[An archist]

Originally posted by Solitary [email protected] 2 2006, 06:32 PM
well if that were ever to happen, the ruling class would just use the weapon they always have, fear. and fear is very broad, killings, beatings, gassing. the reasons why a non violent revolution is not possible
see, and that would make it clear to EVERYONE that our cause is a just one, that we are not necesarily violent, but that the rulers are.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by An archist+Oct 3 2006, 07:50 AM--> (An archist @ Oct 3 2006, 07:50 AM)
Solitary [email protected] 2 2006, 06:32 PM
well if that were ever to happen, the ruling class would just use the weapon they always have, fear. and fear is very broad, killings, beatings, gassing. the reasons why a non violent revolution is not possible
see, and that would make it clear to EVERYONE that our cause is a just one, that we are not necesarily violent, but that the rulers are. [/b]
and once we have the moral highground, then what?

[Vladislav]

There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution, but if a peaceful revolution does happen forget what I just said.

If you want peace........Prepare for War&#33;

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:10 AM

and once we have the moral highground, then what?
It&#39;s not about getting the moral highground, it&#39;s about getting a justification for a revolution a lot of people can agree with.
For your information: no too many people these days are interested in class war.
If the government uses violence against peaceful activists, there will be a huge reaction from the population.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by An archist+Oct 3 2006, 02:02 PM--> (An archist @ Oct 3 2006, 02:02 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 11:10 AM

and once we have the moral highground, then what?
It&#39;s not about getting the moral highground, it&#39;s about getting a justification for a revolution a lot of people can agree with.
For your information: no too many people these days are interested in class war.
If the government uses violence against peaceful activists, there will be a huge reaction from the population. [/b]
And then the state will use violence against them until there is no reaction from anyone.

[The Feral Underclass]

perhaps people can refer to this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50437&hl=Pacifism&st=75)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 3 2006, 07:02 AM
It&#39;s not about getting the moral highground, it&#39;s about getting a justification for a revolution a lot of people can agree with.
For your information: no too many people these days are interested in class war.

That&#39;s because class activism has been on the decline for some time. People&#39;s lack of interest is our own fault, not theirs. Most Americans are concerned with their jobs, more than any other issue and that is certainly a class issue. We need to be working to spread class consciousness which will give rise to militancy, not try to hide our demands in liberal peace-talk nonsense.


If the government uses violence against peaceful activists, there will be a huge reaction from the population.

No there won&#39;t. The government has consistently used violence against peaceful activists and there has been no reaction.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by An archist+Oct 3 2006, 07:50 AM--> (An archist @ Oct 3 2006, 07:50 AM)
Solitary [email protected] 2 2006, 06:32 PM
well if that were ever to happen, the ruling class would just use the weapon they always have, fear. and fear is very broad, killings, beatings, gassing. the reasons why a non violent revolution is not possible
see, and that would make it clear to EVERYONE that our cause is a just one, that we are not necesarily violent, but that the rulers are. [/b]
Well no, strikes get battered and broken all the time and there&#39;s no spontaneous mass uprising is there

I am quite serious when I say if you have any objection to the use of violence in a revolutionary situation then you should seriously reconsider whether your interests lie with the working-class

[Comrade Marcel]

Everyone should read Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in America (http://www.oxygensmith.com/~arc/readings/pacifismaspathology/index.html) by Ward Churchill as well. That&#39;s one Anarchist I respect.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 3 2006, 09:02 AM

It&#39;s not about getting the moral highground, it&#39;s about getting a justification for a revolution a lot of people can agree with.
For your information: no too many people these days are interested in class war.
If the government uses violence against peaceful activists, there will be a huge reaction from the population.
Actually thats not the case at all since its been happening forever. The only time people really get upset about protestors/workers getting killed is when they are ALREADY class concious.

We don&#39;t have to worry about violence driving people away, because we can only use violence when we have mass support of the working class. Whats so hard to understand about that? No one here is proposing we use violence with 5% of the fellow working class supporting us.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 07:08 AM
Why hasn&#39;t this been moved to OI?
Because as I see it its not an opposing ideology.

This thread is about discussing the merits of overthrowing capitalism, and creating radical change in society , through non-violent means.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by An archist+Oct 3 2006, 01:02 PM--> (An archist @ Oct 3 2006, 01:02 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 11:10 AM

and once we have the moral highground, then what?
It&#39;s not about getting the moral highground, it&#39;s about getting a justification for a revolution a lot of people can agree with.
For your information: no too many people these days are interested in class war.
If the government uses violence against peaceful activists, there will be a huge reaction from the population. [/b]
An Archist - me and you seem to be in 100% accord on this&#33; :D

The fact is that if we mobilize the people in MASS, I mean millions of people, they can&#39;t kill us all&#33; Remember, they need us more than we need them. What if people stopped working? What if people stopped buying what the capitalists are selling? What if we just march, I don&#39;t mean 50 or 100,000 or even 1 million, but 10 million of us and demand change and have all the TV cameras watching us and the whole world watching us then what?

If Americans reacted the way they did over 3000 deaths on 911 imagine the reaction over 10 million people being butchered right in front of their TV in their own living room? I don&#39;t think it would happen and if it does, it would mean the beginning of the end for that government.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 07:07 AM
Thanks for prooving my point; i.e. that you would rather support bourgeois democracy and thus the imperialization of 3rd world countries and millions of people for the benefit of mostly white people.

No no no, what I am saying is, given the choice between Stalinism and borgous democracy I will choose democracy. But to me, Stalinism is, if not fascist, just 1 step above fascism and Nazi Germany. So me saying that I choose democracy over Stalinism is like saying I choose democracy over Nazism and fascism.
It&#39;s a no brainer.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by PacifistAnarchist+Oct 4 2006, 01:49 AM--> (PacifistAnarchist @ Oct 4 2006, 01:49 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 07:07 AM
Thanks for prooving my point; i.e. that you would rather support bourgeois democracy and thus the imperialization of 3rd world countries and millions of people for the benefit of mostly white people.

No no no, what I am saying is, given the choice between Stalinism and borgous democracy I will choose democracy. But to me, Stalinism is, if not fascist, just 1 step above fascism and Nazi Germany. So me saying that I choose democracy over Stalinism is like saying I choose democracy over Nazism and fascism.
It&#39;s a no brainer. [/b]
"Stalinism" isn&#39;t an ideolgy, so you don&#39;t have to worry about some false dillema between "brougeois democracy" and "Stalinism".

You also obviously have no ability to differentiate between what a worker&#39;s state looks like and what a fascist state looks like. In fascism, there is a complete abscence of a progressive worker&#39;s movement; conversely, the USSR had a huge progressive worker&#39;s movement.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany cannot be compared. Quit trying, you just look silly.

I am also interested in your appearant hierarchy of ideologies. What is one step above fascism? How about two steps below Trotskyism? Or a step and a half above Maoism?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:41 PM

Because as I see it its not an opposing ideology.

This thread is about discussing the merits of overthrowing capitalism, and creating radical change in society , through non-violent means.
It&#39;s an opposing idealogy because it&#39;s a completely irrational idea. You cannot overthrow capitalism through peaceful means. Any idealogy based off of that idea is therefore useless.


I mean millions of people, they can&#39;t kill us all&#33;

Using this logic, why would we not take up arms? You somehow think that if we fought back with force they would somehow kill more of us than if we didn&#39;t. Do you have a grasp of class conciousness? The bourgeois does not think in terms or what is morally right or wrong. If you are interfearing with the way they organize society they are going to suppress you through anymeans necessary whether or not you are peaceful.


What if people stopped working?

Another sign of pacifist irrationality. First of all general strikes with the intention of seizing the means of production are ALWAYS violently suppressed. Not going to work does not put the means of production in workers hands, they must physically do that.


What if people stopped buying what the capitalists are selling?

Nothing&#33; This is a completely naive and unrealistic strategy. People need certain products to live so you can&#39;t say "don&#39;t buy them." Secondly the purpose of workers revolution is to take the means of production. Not to live without using the means of production.


What if we just march, I don&#39;t mean 50 or 100,000 or even 1 million, but 10 million of us and demand change and have all the TV cameras watching us and the whole world watching us then what?

Nothing&#33; This will not put the means of production in your hands. You can peacefully march all day but the capitalists will not give it up. They will employ class traitors to beat you in the streets until you go back to work. Without results from your little marches, people will stop going on them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2006, 08:49 PM
Everyone should read Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in America (http://www.oxygensmith.com/~arc/readings/pacifismaspathology/index.html) by Ward Churchill as well. That&#39;s one Anarchist I respect.
I plug this book everytime this debate comes up. It is, indeed, an outstanding refutation of pacifism and a clear argument of why calling for pacifism is reactionary.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:46 AM
The fact is that if we mobilize the people in MASS, I mean millions of people,
I highly doubt you would ever convince millions of people to "passively oppose" a violent government.


they can&#39;t kill us all&#33;

They would&#39;t have to kill everyone, just those who are a threat. Others will go along to avoid being liquidated. Others will be bought off and even participate in the slaughter for the rulers.

Hitler showed that this is very possible. Pacifism worked well against him, eh? Keep this image in your mind every time you speak of pacifism:
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_what.JPG


Remember, they need us more than we need them.

They need us to make money, and depend on our very pacifism to stay in power&#33; the fact that you are recommending we do the very thing they rely on makes me wonder if you have any class consciousness for proletarians at all.

Simply refusing to bend to their will can only lead to us being bound, shackeled, killed. Only VIOLENT RESISTANCE can stop that.


What if people stopped working?

You could NEVER get EVERYONE to agree to do this. There will always be people willing to take over as scabs, and pigs willing to run over picketers and bust skulls to get the scabs through. Picket lines need shot guns, not just picket signs.

Even if you got a huge nation-wide strike going, it would only lead to starvation well the bourgeois lives on reserves. Without the eventual VIOLENT seizure of power, it would go nowhere.


What if people stopped buying what the capitalists are selling?

Like food, water, electricity and heat? I think it&#39;s pretty self-explanitatory. You can&#39;t just ignore a problem to make it go away. Didn&#39;t you get taught this basic tenant of life in Kindergarten?


What if we just march, I don&#39;t mean 50 or 100,000 or even 1 million, but 10 million of us and demand change and have all the TV cameras watching us and the whole world watching us then what?

March to where? To who? Do you even have an idea?


If Americans reacted the way they did over 3000 deaths on 911 imagine the reaction over 10 million people being butchered right in front of their TV in their own living room?

ameriKKKan&#39;s reaction to 9/11 was REACTIONARY to the extreme. I highly doubt 10 million people would be butchered, they would be bought off with imperialist surplus.

If conditions in the U&#036; ever got so bad that 10 million people would actually be willing to march, you would have VIOLENT REVOLUTION and probably LOTS OF KAOS. When people get pissed off about police brutality, or whatever else in the U&#036;, they tend to react VIOLENTLY.


I don&#39;t think it would happen and if it does,

You&#39;ve got that right. You&#39;re not proving your point by giving an impossible hypothesis.


it would mean the beginning of the end for that government.

Doesn&#39;t mean shit actually. Quite possibly just a new government, same policies.

BTW, your whole attitude is U&#036; nationalist. Not even one single mention of the 3rd world and where all the wealth to make U&#036; people happy is going to come from. You have much to learn.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by PacifistAnarchist+Oct 4 2006, 01:49 AM--> (PacifistAnarchist @ Oct 4 2006, 01:49 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 07:07 AM
Thanks for prooving my point; i.e. that you would rather support bourgeois democracy and thus the imperialization of 3rd world countries and millions of people for the benefit of mostly white people.

No no no, what I am saying is, given the choice between Stalinism and borgous democracy I will choose democracy. But to me, Stalinism is, if not fascist, just 1 step above fascism and Nazi Germany. So me saying that I choose democracy over Stalinism is like saying I choose democracy over Nazism and fascism.
It&#39;s a no brainer. [/b]
You chose bourgeois democracy, which is the CAUSE OF IMPERIALISM&#33;

Therefore, you pick your persynal taste for petty-bourgeois pleasures over the liberation of millions of human beings, and the biggest opposition to imperialism the world has ever seen: the USSR in the Lenin/Stalin era&#33;

Again, your U&#036; nationalism is showing.

You are certainly a "no brainer". I&#39;m willing to bet you will grow up and join the democraps one day. Then you can really support bourgoeis democracy and imperialism in practice&#33;

[Lenin's Law]

I think PA "means well", but unfortunately he is dead wrong on this issue (no pun intended) In reality, violence must always be an option, though a sad option for any real social revolution to flourish and survive. I am extremely reluctant to support a war waged by the bourgeoisie, but I am very willing to support a class war; one waged by the proleteriat against the capitalists. Indeed, whether one supports an actual revolution or betrays it, has to be to ultimate test as to whether one is serious revolutionary, or not.

One cannot be so hopelessly idealistic and naive to think that the capitalists who spend billions everyday on their war machine over and above the needs of the people and then would not use violence when their power and their capital are seriously under threat from the masses. You can sing songs and make chants all you want, but the capitalists will not care. Whining and marching won&#39;t do the trick either; that&#39;s all been done before and will not bring about any tangible results.

If we&#39;re talking about a serious attempt at revolution, at changing the means of production, and empowering the working class (not just exchanging one pair of capitalist master for the other, or having the bourgeois switch shoes from right to left) then violence must be on the table so long as our enemies the bourgeois have violence on the table. And trust me, as history has shown, they always will leave that on the table if it&#39;s not in their hands already.

[LoneRed]

ya PA, I agree with Comrade Marcel, Pacifism gets the people nowhere, its just dressed up as an anti-establishment program to get feel like they are doing something, when in fact they are doing nothing, and are just being complacent.

[Module]

Despite all I&#39;ve read here, I just simply cannot believe that violent means can reach peaceful ends. It just seems impossible to me.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:14 am
Despite all I&#39;ve read here, I just simply cannot believe that violent means can reach peaceful ends. It just seems impossible to me.
you do know that america was conquered from the indians do you ?

or that hitler was quite effectively stopped when nazi germany was confined to a few city blocks of berlin.

[Module]

Originally posted by piet11111+October 30, 2006 05:37 am--> (piet11111 @ October 30, 2006 05:37 am)
[email protected] 30, 2006 05:14 am
Despite all I&#39;ve read here, I just simply cannot believe that violent means can reach peaceful ends. It just seems impossible to me.
you do know that america was conquered from the indians do you ?

or that hitler was quite effectively stopped when nazi germany was confined to a few city blocks of berlin. [/b]
That&#39;s not entirely what I meant.
How can anarchism be achieved through violence, an opressive act, is what I meant. As in, how is farmer brown stopping the rabbits from eating his crops by ripping them all out a good idea?
...That was a shite example, but even so&#33;
I know it&#39;s unlikely, and as my knowledge grows apparently there is a good chance I would see it as impossible, but as a young bud... as they say... a violent revolution is simply not something I feel comfortable with :(

[Module]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:46 am
You know what PeacefulAnarachy, I think youre a NARC.....
It&#39;s nice to see there are pleasant open-minded people willing to share their ideas between their fellow man on this board. :mellow:

[piet11111]

its good your not comfortable with violence it would be a bad thing if you where perfectly comfortable with it.

but capitalism itself is a system that rely&#39;s on force to make us obedient drones for the capitalists.
the state is a tool designed to protect the capitalists from us the police ensures that their property is safe and that we dont do things like going on strike.
in 1914 poeple where on a strike in america and the capitalists send the national guard to machinegun them down.

the military is used to break open foreign markets and to sieze natural resources and to counter the ambitions of foreign capitalists.

anyway this is a very simple explanation as i dont have the time to go into detail.
i lost my fuggin pin card and im pissed off about it.