Armed Revolution vs. Pacifism

[cb9's_unity]

Ok last night i was thinking about revolution and about my beliefs and such. I have always considered myself somewhat of a pacifist but I also understand that to have a revolution some may have to die. So i came up with a sort a vision for how to link my 2 beliefs. All i ask is that if you disagree don't flame me and point out bullshit in a constuctive way.

So imagine 300,000 of the most dedicated workers marching on washington D.C (i picked the number more or less randomly) But instead of being armed with Guns, Explosives or knives they are simply armed with Tools food and water (afterthought: gas masks or some sort breathing devises should be brought too). The tools only to rip down or find a way around any physical obstacles that they may encounter. But what about the army or the police. How is a march like that physically stopped and who will be the first soldier to shoot at thier own people?

Now lets say the army does fire and there is a massacre. Now it would be time for an armed revolution. Also the firing on of innocents would certainly inspire some more to fight (including previous pacifists).
I am someone who believes that history will always look more fondly at people and movements who take the high road then the ones that take the low. Certainly a pacifist revoltion would be the high road of revolution but an armed one may be more practical. Hopefully i can get some good critisms of my post in order to develop it or throw it away.

Ps. i realize i'm a terrible speller and if a sentence doesn't make sense somewhere i apoligize in advance. Oh and for any reason this needs to be moved i'm cool with that.

[Ol' Dirty]

not a bad idea. But still, it would be hard for the people to accomplish anything without something to create and establish a new state.

[Pirate Utopian]

and let's say they dont massacre everyone then they will do so when this movement really starts to mean something.
and if they do then alot of people have been meaninglessly killed because they should have picked up weapons before.

[cb9's_unity]

But such an extreme show of power would certainly convince some if not a large part of the military to desert, and i wouldn't neccesarily tell them to drop there weapons on the way out. We would hit them at spots other than D.C. And if we pick up weapons immeadiatly many of our own will die anyway. When we go marching up to take the govenors mansion or whatever i'm pretty sure the guard will have no remorse shooting us if we have guns in his face.

In a revolution two things are of vital importance, the military and the sympothy of the people.

As to Muigwithania's comment, what better place start a new state the the oval office of the white house. :D

[RedLenin]

The problem with trying to come up with ways in which a revolution would work, is that revolutions are rather spontaneous. They happen when least expected and they happen in their own way. We can speculate all day about ways in which revolutions could be minimally violent, but that doesn't change the fact that revolutions/uprisings happen outside of us. Revolution is the work of the masses and it happens usually unexpectedly. The point is to influence the revolution and move it in the right direction; socialist revolution.

In my opinion, the most peaceful revolution would be one in which the Proletariat comprises the vast majority of the entire population. If the Proletariat can create a dual power scenario, get armed, and have a revolutionary leadership, the bourgeoisie may recognise the futility of resisting. Now, undoubtedly some bourgeois reactionaries will resist and will be dealt with by the armed force of the people, but a situation like the one outlined above may avoid a full-blown civil war.

I think that a world socialist revolution will vary in degrees of armed struggle depending on the location. I think the determining variable is the number and organization of the workers. However, it is idealistic to advocate a non-violent revolution, for the shere fact that it wont happen like that.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by cb9'[email protected] 02, 2006 11:05 pm
But such an extreme show of power would certainly convince some if not a large part of the military to desert, and i wouldn't neccesarily tell them to drop there weapons on the way out. We would hit them at spots other than D.C. And if we pick up weapons immeadiatly many of our own will die anyway. When we go marching up to take the govenors mansion or whatever i'm pretty sure the guard will have no remorse shooting us if we have guns in his face.

In a revolution two things are of vital importance, the military and the sympothy of the people.

As to Muigwithania's comment, what better place start a new state the the oval office of the white house. :D
<_< it&#39;s naive to think a big part will quit, and yes someof us will die but because we can push back the cops, guards ETC... it will be way less.
pacifism doesnt work because sitting still doing nothing is not scaring anyone off

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Some changes can be brought about by pacifism, but I doubt that a revolution could be done by pacafistic means alone.

:ph34r: - Ninjas win revolutions not hippies

[Connolly]

The tools only to rip down or find a way around any physical obstacles that they may encounter.

Ok, here is the scenario.

1) The white house is already aware of the oncoming gathering since to tell 300,000 people and keep it secret is impossible.

2) Security is stepped up greatly at the whitehouse and near by military barracks are on stand by. Helicopters, possibly armed are hovering above and patrolling the sky while others are on stand by.

3) Mass gathering begins to occur - slowly (anything else is unrealistic).

4) You say you have tools to remove obstacles?

5) Workers (only a few - since everyone cannot do this task all at once) begin to remove gates and railings at the whitehouse. THIS IS CRIMINAL DAMAGE - first arrestable offence. Police supervising this gathering of workers arrest those physically doing the damage and take them off in a squad van.

6) Other workers take their place and continue.

7) Step 5 occurs once again until at some point, enough way throughs are created.

8) Workers begin entering whitehouse property. SECOND ARRESTABLE OFFENCE - Trespassing on private property.

9) The army and riot police are called in at this point since there has been a considerable breach of security.

10) Workers continue storming the property.

11) In the off chance that someone actually has the chance to reach the building,
security, police and army will catch them.

12) In the almost impossible chance that a worker actually gains access to the building, he will be shot there and then. He will be portrayed in the media as and individual extremist/terrorist trying to kill a "demoratically elected president".


But what about the army or the police. How is a march like that physically stopped

With weapons. Remember, you are the pacifist. Riot police with batons would slaughter and divide the workers into an unorganized mob. The objectives which the workers set would be lost in the pannick and fear. Last resort, guns, APCs and tanks would be used.

You cannot think of 300,000 workers as one big block, one big giant with combined strength. It has a beginning and an end. At any given moment, some will be actually doing something while the rest are observing or looking for an opportunity.

Tianamen* square is a perfect example of how the state destroys such mass actions of pacifism.


who will be the first soldier to shoot at thier own people?

I dont care who it is. The fact is that the army are trained to do a job - serve the state. They are trained to take orders.

They will shoot without any hesitation.


Now lets say the army does fire and there is a massacre. Now it would be time for an armed revolution.

Why have the massacre in the first place.

In the scenario you raise, a massacre is inevitable pretty much.


Also the firing on of innocents would certainly inspire some more to fight (including previous pacifists).

So your idea is to sacrifice a few thousand workers in a massacre in order to spark something else off.

Thats manipulative. Would you tell them first that this is your plan? Or would you keep it from them? I dont think many would volunteer to be massacred.

Would it inspire more to fight? How? The media would portray whats going on as a bunch of maniacs in a mob trying to "damage public property" and "kill a democratically elected leader" etc etc etc etc.

It didnt inspire revolution in China did it. If anything, a massacre would do the opposite.




Thats my criticism. :)

I think you should have a study (I know I havnt :P ) of the massacre in tinaeman* square in China. That would be a start. Maybe learn the failures of it, the advantages of it and learn some "mob dynamics" - I bet the whitehouse have.

I personally see pacifism as not workable for a proletarian revolution.

[MrDoom]

Rather than trying to force the situation to fit a plan (pacifism, all-out violence), we should adapt the plan to the situation. Trivial pacifist tendencies should not get in the way of our movement&#39;s effectiveness.

[Cryotank Screams]

Why not skip the massacre stage, and go straight to armed militia groups?

In my opinion that would make more strategical sense, considering you would be preserving the number and power of your guerilla forces, and saving the lives of those whom you would have sent into DC armed with nothing but simple tools.

[cb9's_unity]

The RedBanner thanks this actually was the type of critisism i was looking for... not to say i agree with you but you did raise a lot of good questions i hadn&#39;t thought about. Also before i start i am not strictly a pacifist and reckognize the possible need of force. And also this wouldn&#39;t be random and it would have to occur while there was a real movement going on. the majority of the people would have to be pissed of with the government.


1) The white house is already aware of the oncoming gathering since to tell 300,000 people and keep it secret is impossible.
Ofcourse there will be an attempt to make all of the details as secret as possible but yah it would be impossible to keep it secret (damn wire taps). So i guess we will have to match there orginization with orginization of our own.


3) Mass gathering begins to occur - slowly (anything else is unrealistic).

Good point that would have to be thought out.


4) You say you have tools to remove obstacles?

Whatever would be needed to remove a fence or baracade that could simply be pushed with mass force. I dont know exactly, that would go into the very specifics of things.


5) Workers (only a few - since everyone cannot do this task all at once) begin to remove gates and railings at the whitehouse. THIS IS CRIMINAL DAMAGE - first arrestable offence. Police supervising this gathering of workers arrest those physically doing the damage and take them off in a squad van.

Armed revolution is also an arrestable offence. If you are trying to overthrow the government i don&#39;t think you care about its laws anymore. Second the police couldn&#39;t get to the people removing the baracade. Police would have to get through a sea of people in order to get to those. This would not be a mob but an organized group of revolutionaries. Oh and every few people who are arrested you just need more cops to look after them.


9) The army and riot police are called in at this point since there has been a considerable breach of security.

If there called in at this point there absolutly fucked. I don&#39;t think your average dunkin donuts cop is gonna build a baracade so if there is only this level of security then all that will have to happen is take down the gate in front of the white house. So actually you would have to assume that washington had already found out about this and took it seriously enough to pull large amounts of officers from other places. And remember if this is a mass movement of the proletariat that any revolution will need then there comes the possibility of there being less cops (as they are usually not in league with the bourgeoisie).
Through numbers and organization workers could move there way through a lot.



12) In the almost impossible chance that a worker actually gains access to the building, he will be shot there and then. He will be portrayed in the media as and individual extremist/terrorist trying to kill a "demoratically elected president".

Almost everything will be done as a group. this huge group of people would not let just one person go and face the enemy by himself.
As for the media can we not try to take news stations. The people of Oxaca did it and they took many. All we would need is one and all we would need to do is put out one message or news cast before the government jammed the signal (if they could).


With weapons. Remember, you are the pacifist. Riot police with batons would slaughter and divide the workers into an unorganized mob. The objectives which the workers set would be lost in the pannick and fear. Last resort, guns, APCs and tanks would be used.

First i am not the polarized Ghandi pacifist. If someone attacks you, you every right to defend yourself. We&#39;d bring clubs and hammers to defend ourselfs. My idea may not be perfectly peacefull of even bloodless but it is a hell of a lot more peacefull than trying to shoot people.


You cannot think of 300,000 workers as one big block, one big giant with combined strength. It has a beginning and an end. At any given moment, some will be actually doing something while the rest are observing or looking for an opportunity.

Not only are they workers but they are revolutionaries. There will be some sort of training for them. We would have to train that many if not more how to shoot and fight in an armed revolution why could we not do it in this situaiton.


I dont care who it is. The fact is that the army are trained to do a job - serve the state. They are trained to take orders.

They will shoot without any hesitation.

The army is also made up in large part by the poor class. They would realize the huge benifet it would be to them if the revolutionaries succeded. Many members of the army do have brains and can think for themselves. Actually my cousin is in the national guard and is a socialist. Ofcourse he joined far before he became a socialist and is now trying like hell to get out. I know for a fact that if he was in uniform that day not a single bullet would come out of his gun.


So your idea is to sacrifice a few thousand workers in a massacre in order to spark something else off.

Thats manipulative. Would you tell them first that this is your plan? Or would you keep it from them? I dont think many would volunteer to be massacred.

Would it inspire more to fight? How? The media would portray whats going on as a bunch of maniacs in a mob trying to "damage public property" and "kill a democratically elected leader" etc etc etc etc.


Like workers in an armed revolution they would know of the possibility of dying. How would a group of former ordinary joes wish to fight a trained military that will have less sympothy for them when there own lifes are threatend. Every one would know the dangers and realize that what they were doing was for the greater good, it is the same thing as revolutionaries who happen to have guns with them.

[cb9's_unity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 11:57 pm
Rather than trying to force the situation to fit a plan (pacifism, all-out violence), we should adapt the plan to the situation. Trivial pacifist tendencies should not get in the way of our movement&#39;s effectiveness.
Any final plan that the left makes will have to be well thought out to fit the situation we are in. I admit i don&#39;t know much about the actuall details of how russia&#39;s revolution was conducted or china&#39;s. All i know is that they did not live in times of the advanced swat teams, fully automatic weapons, and government spy sattelites that are capable of seeing you take a shit ( and actually i know russia was at war at the time of the revolution so there attention could not be paid completly to the revolution). I actually don&#39;t see how a full out armed revolution will work? How do we stand a chance against the advanced armies of today without loosing record numbers of people. Doesn&#39;t a modern miltia revolution threaten to kill more people than i would ever suggest marching on washinton.
I don&#39;t believe my ideas to be trivial and idealistic. I&#39;m proposing an idea that could be affective.

Oh and sorry i couldn&#39;t answer about china, I was in a rush. But as far as i know (wich isn&#39;t all that much) it was just a group of students not connected to any real movement or at least not the type i am talking about.
Actually though i wouldn&#39;t mind studying tiananmen square. What if that mob had acted in a different way. I wouldn&#39;t mind doing a study group, if you can start one or at least tell me how to.

[Connolly]

Whatever would be needed to remove a fence or baracade that could simply be pushed with mass force. I dont know exactly, that would go into the very specifics of things.

Possibly another arrestable offence - carrying tools (ie. screwdriver, hacksaw, blowtorch etc etc.) with intent for criminal damage or assault (also they&#39;d probably get you for public safety offences using them at a demo). And with people trickling in rather then all appearing at once they&#39;d probably pluck those carrying them one by one.

What im trying to point out is that them bastards who work for the state will use the laws against you and to justify physical action.


Armed revolution is also an arrestable offence.

Yes, but the simple fact that your armed dosnt make you very arrestable. Thats the point of being armed - to be able to resist.


If you are trying to overthrow the government i don&#39;t think you care about its laws anymore.

But those laws would affect you if you werent able to resist them and their enforcers.


Second the police couldn&#39;t get to the people removing the baracade. Police would have to get through a sea of people in order to get to those.

The police know in advance that your coming. A quarden* would be formed. The whitehouse is surrounded by police - possibly even roads are blocked off within a certain radius of the whitehouse leaving you very far from the gates.


would not be a mob but an organized group of revolutionaries.

That depends on what you mean to be organized. As I said previous, the police will use force to cause mass pannick and de-organize these revolutionaries.

Also, 300,000 gas masks is abit much dont you think? Its unrealistic. In reality, the police also have tear gas and water cannons etc. at their desposal - thats before a single bullet is fired.


Oh and every few people who are arrested you just need more cops to look after them.

Thats why they will use the army in co-op with the police. Along with re-enforcements from other states.


Almost everything will be done as a group. this huge group of people would not let just one person go and face the enemy by himself.

Yes, but its unrealistic that anymore than a few can enter the property at the same time since surely you cant demolish the whole fence - but rather create small openings where people can trickle in. Youd get a bottle neck situation and probably a stampede if everyone tried to get in at the same time.


As for the media can we not try to take news stations. The people of Oxaca did it and they took many. All we would need is one and all we would need to do is put out one message or news cast before the government jammed the signal (if they could).

To carry out this operation would need quite abit of organization inorder for it to sychronize with the storming of the whitehouse.

All tv station HQ&#39;s/transmission studio&#39;s wouldnt be located in the same location or state - adding to the problem of organization.

Again - the more people involved - the more washington knows - and the greater the chance of preemptive action by the state.


We&#39;d bring clubs and hammers to defend ourselfs

Everyone would not arrive at the same time. The police would pick them off as they trickle in.

If the police officer says "Im confiscating that hammer and bat their sonny" - what do you do? - hit him with it before he hits you?


Not only are they workers but they are revolutionaries. There will be some sort of training for them. We would have to train that many if not more how to shoot and fight in an armed revolution why could we not do it in this situaiton.

Because the revolution you speak of is peaceful - they wouldnt have guns.

Plus - its illegal to set up a paramilitary organization. With 300,000 members - they&#39;d snuff you out before such an organization would get off the ground.


The army is also made up in large part by the poor class. They would realize the huge benifet it would be to them if the revolutionaries succeded

Yes, we would hope that such a thing would happen.

But a big mass of people turning up to storm the building wouldnt make it apparent that there&#39;s a revolution going on. The soldiers would think "WTF".




Ok, ok. My "vision" of a socialist revolution is far different from yours.

I expect the workers themselves, without any sort of hierarcial command system, to firstly sieze bourgeois property in their own community and defend it against aggression. This would happen on a widespread basis, all accross the country.

So my view is defensive, while yours is offensive, an attack on the whitehouse.

I really cant see such a thing happening.

The goal is to abolish bourgeois property, siezing the white house does fuck all to achieve this, all it is is a building - the president might not even be there - or might fly out in a chopper when things get rough.

The struggle isnt against one man, or one building - its against society. Society is constructed of communities - if anything, communities should be first to be siezed.

Ever hear of "Free Derry"?........I dont know much about it myself, but somthing of that sort I have in mind. Some of the Irish members on this board might tell you moreabout it.

The workers must be armed and ready to defend the gains they achieve.

[Ricardo]

This is probably a stupid question that can&#39;t be answered, but when the revolution takes place, how many people do you guys think will actually be fighting for the revolution. If it is an overwhelming majority, couldn&#39;t the people who would fight, and even the people who support the rebel just stop working? Couldn&#39;t this start a revolution?

What would the government do if people just went on strike? They wouldn&#39;t force people to work? When support for the revolution becomes as great as it is needed to start one, why would there be a need for violence.

I&#39;m all for the use of violence in class struggle, but I&#39;ve always wondered this.

[RedLenin]

What would the government do if people just went on strike? They wouldn&#39;t force people to work? When support for the revolution becomes as great as it is needed to start one, why would there be a need for violence.
The state has shown, time and time again, that it will resort to massive violence and brutality to stop any revolutionary situation, including a general strike. This was shown in Spain for example when the army opened fire on workers with machine guns. Even if 85% of the population was participating in the revolution, we would still need to defend ourselves against the reactionary elements of the other 15%. The violence may not be great, but it will be there.

[RebelDog]

As to Muigwithania&#39;s comment, what better place start a new state the the oval office of the white house.

What a great place to rip down and start to destroy the bougeois state, or any state for that matter.

If we all march on capital cities we are not at home seizing the factories. We should stay right where we are, take over the means of production and protect them from the bourgeois fightback with everything we have and put doubt in the mind of the ordinary policeman/army private who is sent to attack working people in their communities/factories.
The bourgeoise can set up another government outside the capital city, they cannot move the means of production. We should take what is ours and defend it ferociously from the counter-revolutionaries until we are in a position to completely destroy them. The workers will defend the factories and strangle the bourgeois economy, that is the greatest hope in my view.

[Organic Revolution]

why leave yourselfs vulenerable? to be a martyr to which most people would accually be scared off by (slaughter aint a fun thing). forward, frontal attacks against the state are the most effective as has been seen on numerous occasions.

[An archist]

see, in your pkan there&#39;s a few problems: if people start tearing down the defences around the white house, the police will send in riot squads, fire tear gas, send in super-soakers, whatever they got. If you don&#39;t fight back at that point, the whole protest will turn into a bunch of people running away. A lot of them probably won&#39;t bother trying this again, since it went horribly bad the first time. So you have to be able to fight back: you have to be armed, be it with sticks and stones, with molotovs or with guns.
The pacifist solution would only work if you have a massive movement and are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives (more then the armed uprising would cause)

[cb9's_unity]

Ok i&#39;m not completly giving up and it&#39;s possible the white house was well... ambitious but could this not be an effective way of talking certain means of production (probably not 300,000 but whatever we&#39;d need). If we go in guns blazing and slaughter the guards inside the building, what will get us sympathy. Why will the government not just drop a bomb in the building at the exact point were are all in a meeting (this type of technology have never been encountered before by any large scale revolution). I&#39;m guessing the answer might be that the borgeoisie will not want there property destroyed but It would be a perfect chance for the government to say "hey this isn&#39;t about class, go home and be slaves again". Even if they didn&#39;t take an easy but extreme meassure like that i don&#39;t think if half of this site were defending a steel factory we would stand a chance against a swat team of at that point delta force.
If we do things more peacefully then the state won&#39;t have excuses to kill us, and i know the workers in america do have enough power right now to demmand explanations. i have asked questions about how an armed revolution would take less workers lives than my plan. Does a gun really protect you or does it just give an excuse for the better armed, better equipped and better trained soldiers to kill us. The rich give the orders but all it comes down to is the poor fire the guns. It&#39;s much easier to kill someone and forget about what class your in when they are threatening you own life.

ps. about the gas masks, i also said breathing devices, even if that means goggles and a scarf that you can piss in to protect against certain gasses.

Second ps? thanks i think i&#39;m getting a better idea of what a revolution would look like.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by cb9&#39;[email protected] 03, 2006 04:03 pm
Ok i&#39;m not completly giving up and it&#39;s possible the white house was well... ambitious but could this not be an effective way of talking certain means of production (probably not 300,000 but whatever we&#39;d need). If we go in guns blazing and slaughter the guards inside the building, what will get us sympathy. Why will the government not just drop a bomb in the building at the exact point were are all in a meeting (this type of technology have never been encountered before by any large scale revolution). I&#39;m guessing the answer might be that the borgeoisie will not want there property destroyed but It would be a perfect chance for the government to say "hey this isn&#39;t about class, go home and be slaves again". Even if they didn&#39;t take an easy but extreme meassure like that i don&#39;t think if half of this site were defending a steel factory we would stand a chance against a swat team of at that point delta force.
If we do things more peacefully then the state won&#39;t have excuses to kill us, and i know the workers in america do have enough power right now to demmand explanations. i have asked questions about how an armed revolution would take less workers lives than my plan. Does a gun really protect you or does it just give an excuse for the better armed, better equipped and better trained soldiers to kill us. The rich give the orders but all it comes down to is the poor fire the guns. It&#39;s much easier to kill someone and forget about what class your in when they are threatening you own life.

ps. about the gas masks, i also said breathing devices, even if that means goggles and a scarf that you can piss in to protect against certain gasses.

Second ps? thanks i think i&#39;m getting a better idea of what a revolution would look like.
the pigs and bourgeoise are gonna attack the revolutionaires regardless but if we are armed we can fight them off, and the moral highground bullshit of not having an excuses, they&#39;ll just call the revolutionaires rioters, crooks and sush so that it doesnt even matter cause the cops wernt shooting actvists but criminals.
the revolutionaires wont get any sympathy bnecause the major station wich "inform" the people outside that area will either: 1) not tell them at all, 2) call the revolutionaires fascists and/or criminals.
and bombing the revolution?, you really think it&#39;s good for the revolutionaires to be all the same place at the same time? :huh:

[blueeyedboy]

Simply put, a revolution cannot happen without some form of violence involved. If the workers marched on 10 downing street or something, the police wont hesitate to inflict as much damage as possible to them. Previous riots have proved this, with Police actually going out of their way to follow rioters and injure them on purpose, not from orders but personal vengeance. This is take from the Brixton riots in England in the 1980&#39;s or 1970&#39;s I can&#39;t remember. It would be the same in a worker&#39;s uprising. If it happened on a huge scale, the Army wouldn&#39;t hesitate to unload the latest weapons on the workers, and so it becomes pointless of even thinking about a pacifist revolution.

Personally, if the Army got involved, then some would side with the workers and they would need the soldiers because of their superior combat experience and use of firearms and such like. The majority though wouldn&#39;t because of their indoctrination into protecting thier country. The aforementioned soldiers would see through that, but most won&#39;t. The majority probably don&#39;t understand the whole capitalism-socialism issue anyway because they are soldiers, they don&#39;t need to know that. They are trained to fight and kill that&#39;s all.

With regards to the revolution, a well-trained platoon could probably wipe out hundreds of workers anyway, because most workers won&#39;t have combat experience or might not have even fired a gun in their lives before. It&#39;s essential for socialism that soldiers join the ranks, cause if they don&#39;t then the workers won&#39;t win, simple as. I mean how can a group of car factory workers take on a well-drilled platoon of soldiers? It can&#39;t be done and it won&#39;t ever be done.

I would prefer a pacifist revolution of course, but that can&#39;t happen and a violent revolution of which it is composed of soley workers won&#39;t work either. To be truthful, I don&#39;t see at the moment what would work.

[Rawthentic]

This isn&#39;t about "what would work", its about what needs to be done. History shows that the ruling classes will not give up their positions without a life or death struggle. Im not saying to launch guerrilla warfare, but if and when the workers take control the means of production, they have to kill some capitalists to take them over and/or kill some capitalists to defend them.

[phoenixoftime]

Did anyone see "How to Plan a Revolution" on the BBC? It followed some opposition party activists in Azerbaijan during the 2005 elections as they planned a revolution amidst the elections rigged by the incumbent regime. Thousands of opposition supporters gathered in a square to protest peacefully, and it ended in the police coming in and beating everyone to a pulp. Good film, won an award too.

But seriously, in the United States, if you managed to get 300,000 people in front of the White House and got them to behave and stay there for days on end... the police aren&#39;t legally gonna be able to do squat and if they do, it&#39;ll only increase your media coverage.

[bcbm]

The question is a false dichotomy. When the under-classes rise up, they&#39;ll do whatever needs to be done to tear down this mess. Of course, given the disposition of the bosses, it will most likely come down to violent conflict.

[Political_Chucky]

Let me cite a quote( a rather long one) from The Autobiography of Malcolm X ( if anyone has noticed, I believe Malcolm X was is a true inspiration for leftist thinking, even if he did not intend it for that use). Its Malcolm&#39;s views on The March to Washington and its message of integration.( This was when he was still with the Nation of Islam)

"Not long ago, the black man in America was a fed another form of the weakening, lulling and deluding effects of so-called "integration." It was that "Farce on Washington," I call it.

The idea of a mass of blacks marching on Washington was originally the brainchild of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters&#39; A. Philip Randolph. For twenty or more years the March on Washington idea had floated around among Negroes, Northern Ghetto Negroes, even thousands of previously Uncle Tom Negroes[(Malcolm was referring to African-Americans who were basically reformists and more or less supporters to the government, even if they meant well.)] began talking "March&#33;"

Nothing since Joe Louis had so coalesced the masses of Negroes. Groups of Negroes were talking of getting to Washington any way they could- in rickety old cars, on buses, hitch-hiking, walking, even, if they had to. They envisioned thousands of black brothers converging together upon Washington to lie down in the streets, on airport runways, on government lawns-demanding of the congress and the White House some concrete civil rights action.

This was a national bitterness; militant, unorganized, and leaderless. Predominantly, it was young Negroes, defiant of whatever might be the consequences, sick and tired of the black man&#39;s neck under the white man&#39;s heel.

The white man had plenty of good reasons for nervous worry. The right spark- some unpredictable emotional chemistry- could set off a black uprising. The government knew that thousands of milling, angry blacks not only could completely disrupt Washington-but they could erupt in Washington.

The White house Speedily invited in the major civil rights Negro "Leaders."
They were asked to stop the planned March. They truthfully said they hadn&#39;t begun it, they had no control over it- the idea was national, spontaneous, unorganized, and leaderless. In other words, it wwas a black powder keg.

Any student of how "integration" can weaken the black man&#39;s movement was about to observe a master lesson.

The White House, with a fanfare of international publicity, "approved,""endorsed,"and "welcomed" a March on Washington. The big civil rights organizations right at this time had been publicly squabbling about donations. The New York Times had broken the story. The N.A.A.C.P. had charged that other agencies&#39; demonstrations, highly publicized, had attracted a major part of the civil rights donations-while the N.A.A.C.P. got left holding the bag, supplying costly bail and legal talent for the other organizations&#39; jailed demonstrators.

It was like a movie. The next scene was the "big six" civil rights Negro "leaders" meeting in New York City with the white head of a big philanthropic agency. They were told their money-wrangling in public was damaging their image. And A reported &#036;800,000 was donated to a United civil Rights Leadership council that was quickly organized by the "big six."

Now, what had instantly achieved black unity? The white man&#39;s money. What string was attached to the money? Advice. Not only was there this donation, but another comparable sum was promised, for sometime later on, after the march . . . obviously if all went well.

The original "angry" March on Washington was now about to be entirely changed.

Massive international publicity projected the "big six" as march on Washington leaders. it was news to those angry grassroots Negroes steadily adding steam to their March plans. They probably assumed that now those famous "leaders" were endorsing and joining them.

Invited next to join the March were four famous white public figures: one Catholic, one Jew, one Protestant, and one labor boss.

The massive publicity now gently hinted that the "big ten" would "supervise" the March on Washington&#39;s "mood" and its "directions."

The four white figures began nodding. The word spread fast among so-called "liberal" Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and Liberates: it was "democratic" to join this black March. And suddenly, the previously March-nervous whites began announcing they were going.

It was as if electrical current shot through the ranks of bourgeois Negroes-the ver so-called "middle-class" and "upper-class" who had earlier been deploring the March on Washington talk by grass-roots Negroes.

But White people, now, were going to march.

Why, some downtrodden, jobless, hungry Negro might have gotten trampled. Those "integration"-mad Negroes practically ran over each other trying to find out where to sign up. The "angry blacks" March suddenly had been made chic. For the status-seeker, suddenly it was a status symbol. "Were you there ?" You can hear that right today.

It had become an outing, a picnic.

The morning of the March, any rickety carloads of angry, dusty, sweating small-town Negroes would have gotten lost among the chartered jet planes railroad cars, and air-conditioned buses. What originally was planned to be an angry riptide, one English newspaper aptly described now as "the gentle flood."

Talk about "integrated"&#33; It was like salt and pepper. And, by now, there wasn&#39;t a single logistics aspect uncontrolled.

The Marchers had been instructed to bring no signs- signs were provided. they had been told how to arrive, when, where to march. First-aid stations were strategically located-even where to faint&#33;

Yes, I was there. I observed that circus. Who ever heard of angry revolutionists all harmonizing "We Shall Overcome. . .Suum Day..." while tripping and swaying along arm-in-arm with the very people they were supposed to be angrily revolting againsts? Who ever heard of angry revolutionists swinging their bare feet together with their oppressor in lily-pad park pools with gospels and guitars and "I have a Dream" speeches?

And the black masses in America were-and still are-having a nightmare.

These "angry revolutionists" even followed their final instructions: to leave early. With all those thousands upon thousands of "angry revolutionists," so few stayed over that the enxt morning the washington hotel association reported a costly loss in empty rooms.

Hollywood couldn&#39;t have topped it.

In subsequent press poll, no one congressman or senator with a previous record of opposition to civil rights said he had changed his views. What did anyone expect? How was a one-day "integrated" picnic going to counter-influence these representatives of prejudice rooted deep in the psyche of the American white man for four hundred years?

The Very fact that millions, black and white, believed in this monumental farce is another example of how much this country goes in for the surface glossing over, the escape ruse, surfaces, instead of truly dealing with its deep-rooted problems.

What that March on Washington did do was lull Negroes for a while. But inevitably, the black masses started realizing they had been smoothly hoaxed again by the white man. And, inevitably, the black man&#39;s anger rekindled, deeper than ever, and there began bursting out in different cities, in the "long, hot summer" of 1964, unprecedented racial crises.”

If you read this carefully, I think you can definitly get the message about peaceful revolutions and why it cannot work.

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 04, 2006 06:51 pm
The question is a false dichotomy. When the under-classes rise up, they&#39;ll do whatever needs to be done to tear down this mess. Of course, given the disposition of the bosses, it will most likely come down to violent conflict.
Yes I think either way it will end in violence while our society functions the way it does. But I still like to hope things can be resolved peacefully ;) I am a bit of a pacifist but I guess that it comes down to the best way to deal with situations.

[kifl]

unfortunatly there would be violence.

also if someone shoots at me i&#39;m shooting back.

[Epoche]

It won&#39;t happen I&#39;m tellin you. Any violent revolutions that might happen will be contained. In order for it to work, it would have to be so extremely organized that it would be beyond human capability. The "revolution", from here on out, will consist of forum locals who chat about it on this board for the rest of eternity, if they don&#39;t die first.

My advice is to find a small group of people to love and share yourself with...and fuck the rest of the world. It is now, unfortunately, every man for himself. Seriously, forget about the revolution and live for your people. The most you can do is your part in retribution and revenge on capitalism in general. Find a group, commit to them, and be weary of anyone else.

Maybe, someday in a far off galaxy, a species like us might evolve and get it right. This planet, my friends, is doomed. Do not waste yourself in trying to save it. Kick it so that it might fall faster. Or don&#39;t, and come here everyday to chat about it.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

But if these 300,000 were to fight violence with non-violence, for every one of them that died, many more would join the cause.
I would happily die for a revolution if I knew it would inspire that many more to fight in my footsteps. And I believe any true revolutionary would do the same.
300,000 deaths could equal 900,000 more pissed off people.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Chris [email protected] 11, 2006 11:21 am
I would happily die for a revolution if I knew it would inspire that many more to fight in my footsteps. And I believe any true revolutionary would do the same.
I guess I am not a true revolutionary, then. I have no desire to sacrifice my life without a fight.

[Ol' Dirty]

I apologize for not making a more elaborate contribution to the thread earlier. Due to time constraints now, I can only write a short response.

Change in society can be either shallow reform or a revolutionization of the way things work. Pacisifism is a great ideology, but only to a certain extent. You are not going to create a whole new working-class society and culture by making marches and having sit-ins. To truly revolutionize society, you can not rest on your laurals or morals. You can&#39;t simply sit and talk&#33; You must create class-conciousness and struggle for your rights.

[Epoche]

Never. I&#39;m tellin you man. Listen to me. Anything even remotely resembling a revolutionary uprising will be apprehended before it even starts. The CIA and FBI got flags on everything ever said about "communism." This is not conspiracy...this is reality.

The most you can do toward the cause is anarchic activity, and even that is useless. Tiny surgical strikes, vandalism, theft, whatever.....pointless.

I don&#39;t mean to rain on your parade people...but look around. You&#39;ll be here ten years from now discussing the same shit. Nothing will be different, except you&#39;ll be closer to dying.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 06:11 pm





Never. I&#39;m tellin you man. Listen to me. Anything even remotely resembling a revolutionary uprising will be apprehended before it even starts. The CIA and FBI got flags on everything ever said about "communism." This is not conspiracy...this is reality.

If you are going to spew out all of this reactionary drivel, then why are you here instead of OI? This is Revolutionary Left, not Reformist Left.

We&#39;d all love for a peaceful exchange of power between the masses and the elite. It simply isn&#39;t going to happen. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and rallying behind the banner of peace when the people are still starving and destitute most certainly isn&#39;t helping anyone, unless, of course, you consider the elite. :rolleyes:


The most you can do toward the cause is anarchic activity, and even that is useless. Tiny surgical strikes, vandalism, theft, whatever.....pointless.

What you are talking about is petty hooliganism, not real revolution. The masses want, nay, need real change to strike out the cancer of capitalism, not just skin-deep reform.


I don&#39;t mean to rain on your parade people...but look around. You&#39;ll be here ten years from now discussing the same shit. Nothing will be different, except you&#39;ll be closer to dying.

By all means, explain your grand scheme, O Will of The People. :lol:

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+December 11, 2006 06:26 pm--> (black banner black gun @ December 11, 2006 06:26 pm)
Chris [email protected] 11, 2006 11:21 am
I would happily die for a revolution if I knew it would inspire that many more to fight in my footsteps. And I believe any true revolutionary would do the same.
I guess I am not a true revolutionary, then. I have no desire to sacrifice my life without a fight. [/b]
I am saying hypothetically, that if it were certain that your death would inspire revolution that much, to the point where change was almost certain, you would not give your own life?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Chris Hiv_E_+December 11, 2006 08:04 pm--> (Chris Hiv_E_ @ December 11, 2006 08:04 pm)
Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 11, 2006 06:26 pm

Chris [email protected] 11, 2006 11:21 am
I would happily die for a revolution if I knew it would inspire that many more to fight in my footsteps. And I believe any true revolutionary would do the same.
I guess I am not a true revolutionary, then. I have no desire to sacrifice my life without a fight.
I am saying hypothetically, that if it were certain that your death would inspire revolution that much, to the point where change was almost certain, you would not give your own life? [/b]
Anything worth dying for is worth living for. My body isn&#39;t worth their consciousness; I&#39;d rather live free than be a martyr.

[black magick hustla]

Sometimes, you use the ballot.

And other times you use bullets.

Depends on the circumstances. You cannot just DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY and expect to be succesful.

[Epoche]

By all means, explain your grand scheme

I don&#39;t have one, Muig. I could, however, take over an entire city with enough men. That&#39;s a decent start, but anything other than muscle and strategy I must leave up to the brains. What is left after I am done is in the hands of the scientists and philosophers. I would, for example, hand Rosa the deed to this planet and say "okay Rosa, its show time....let&#39;s see what you got."

I don&#39;t mean to sound mocking either. I am not laughing at those who frequent philosophy forums with the assumption that it will be productive, since I myself am such a person, who, five years ago, began internet philosophy with a "big idea." I was a bit naive, and I suppose most here are as well.

But I love you all and would fight with you if that day ever came. Until then, I am waiting to die.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

I don&#39;t know I guess I have a warped mindset but being a martyr and an icon for a revolution is very appealing to me.

[cb9's_unity]

what is the difference between being a martyr in a peacefull revolution and being one in a violent one. If an already violent revolution pops up the people on this site will be the first ones to grab guns. We will then be massacred by a better trained and better equipped army or police force and will be forced to leave the fighting to the ones still alive. The only thing we would have done is to justify capitalist action against any revolutionaries.

The government though run by the bourgeoisie does need to answer to the proletariat. The media will not act as the arm of the capitalists as many people think it will on this site. We have to remember that many members of the media and even the bourgeoisie are as class-unconsious as the proletariat and peacefull actions against the government will get a response by the media. Talk of revolution will go on in households and talk shows and the first time a protester is shot the class-unconsious media and proletariat will go into a frenzy. Armed revolution insights anger peacefull revolution will provoke thought

Any major movement of peace or violence of the proletariat i will join and if bullets have already been fired i hope my above statement is false.

[liberationjunky]

It believe it would have to be a mixture of the two. Their has to be peaceful protest so that outsiders dont just think the revolution is just a bunch of crazy people running around with guns. Also peaceful protest will inspire others to join the cause.

In the meantime the "real" revolutionaries who undestand that crisis percipitate change must do their part too. No government force can contain the revolution if it is simultainiously going on all across the nation.

Then either a civil war will break out where the government could be overthrown or the majority of the country will voice their opinions and maybe the government will step down(although this seems pretty impractical)

[Fawkes]

I&#39;m for a peaceful revolution in the beginning but I would not at all be hesitant to take up arms the second the state violently fights us (right away).