Is civil war desirable in the U.S. as a

[shadowed by the secret police]

Lenin said:

"...during every transition from capitalism to socialism, dictatorship is necessary for two main reasons, or along two main channels. Firstly, capitalism cannot be defeated and eradicated without the ruthless suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, who cannot at once be deprived of their wealth, of their advantages of organization and knowledge, and consequently for a fairly long period will inevitably try to overthrow the hated rule of the poor; secondly, every great revolution, and a socialist revolution in particular, even if there were no external war, is inconceivable without internal war, i.e. civil war, which is even more devastating than external war, and involves thousands and millions of cases of wavering and desertion from one side to another, implies a state of extreme indefiniteness, lack of equilibrium and chaos." (V.I. Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, March-April 1919)

[freakazoid]

While I do not agree with the part about the dictatorship, I do think that there will be a sort of civil war.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36094&st=75

[Cyanide Suicide]

I'm not sure if a civil war in the US is desirable. I think it's too big both by population and area, and would be too hard to revolutionize at once. Ideally, in my opinion, states seceding individually, then going from there.

[Dimentio]

Simply, just wait to the point when the US turns into a hyper-centralised fascistic empire and then you could make some sort of october revolution, with a great, great deal of luck needed...

[La Comédie Noire]

I think when the U.S economy collapses they'll be a civil war between those who want to preserve the union, nationalists, and those who want to bring about socialism, us. But that depends on if you agree with the assertion that the U.S economy is going to crash.

[YSR]

A civil war in a revolutionary situation would be suicide for the Left, as the situation stands right now.

Will, as Lenin suggests, there be a civil war after the takeover of most of the fundamental tools of society, waged by the losing capitalists and their lackeys? Almost undoubtedly.

But what is being suggested in the thread title (and not by Lenin) is a civil war a precursor to socialist revolution. Should it break out, we're screwed. I point to the example of Autonomia in Italy in the 80's. They were essentially engaged in armed warfare with the State and the State crushed them. One thing we must avoid (particularly from an anarchist perspective) is pitched warfare with all of the State's apparatus. Until such point as we get a sympathetic army on our side, we cannot be victorious.

This whole discussion may smack of mastrabatory thinking (ie. who cares, since we're nowhere near this point in the U.S?) but I think it's important to discourage this type of "open warfare" mentality for two reasons. One is practical: at this stage of the class struggle, the State has the resources to crush us all like bugs. Were any group to engage in open warfare (I'm talking serious fighting, here. Weather Underground or even BLA don't even begin to count) the State would utterly crush all of us.

The second reason is theoretical: I don't think warfare with the State's machinery on its own terms is even desirable. It is a throw-back to an obsolete style of conflict. For anarchists, who don't recognize the legitimacy of any state-structure, forming an army to fight in the fields is just asking to be subverted. Our warfare, whenever and wherever it appears (like today! because we fucking need it!) must be confrontational on our own terms. As much as I dislike the word "post-modern," it's the perfect description of how we must fight.

(Not that any of this is to downplay organizing, which I regard as 90% of the struggle. The revolution will come through industrial occupations, communal structuring, and refusal of capitalist hegemony. But it must be protected, and that's where this discussion comes in.)

[manic expression]

If there were to be any upheaval in the US, I would put my money on the establishment solidifying itself. If the country broke up, it would probably give more leverage to Christian fundamentalists and the far RW, not leftists. Basically, I can see "fascism" in the US far more easily than I can see socialism.

At any rate, if there were to be a breaking up of the country, leftists COULD feasibly organize and take control of certain areas and set up small socialist communities (a la Paris, Bavaria, etc...). However, I think the bourgeois establishment is too strong, the leftist movement far too weak (understatement) and the "middle class" too reactionary.

[Severian]

Desirable? What's the matter with you? You gotta be some kind of sociopath to think civil war is desirable.

Now, Lenin was pointing out that civil war was inevitable for socialist revolutions at the time....Russia was going through one at the time.

Civil war in some form is inevitable in other times as well...the exploiters will not give up their property willingly.

But obviously we want to minimize the destruction as much as possible. Both from the humanitarian reasons that matter to any psychologically normal person - and to preserve the material and cultural conditions needed to build a classless society.

[Janus]

Desirable? No.

Necessary? Perhaps.

However, the only civil war that I can envision in industrialized nations can only occur between the conflicting social groups i.e. the proletariat and bourgeois.

[shadowed by the secret police]

Well Lenin relished the idea of Civil War and also of revolutionary terror to destroy the enemies of the people. If you look at history and the major revolutions they all encompassed civil wars.

England had three civil wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_civil_war

France had a bloody civil war during its revolution 1789-1794

France again during the Commune 1871

Russia 1917

Spain 1936-1939

Chinese Civil War 1920s, 1930s, & 1940s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_civil_war

Cuban Civil War 1956-1959

Angolan Civil War 1970s

Vietnamese Civil War 1950s, 1960s, 1970s

The Finnish Civil War 1918

Etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars

And of course Amerika had a civil war that arose over the contradictions between Northern (bourgeois) industrialism and Southern (slave) agrarian societies

[Tekun]

Useful is the better word, meaning that during an internal conflict social consciousness and class unity can be effectively reached if the working class organizes an reaches out to those involved in senseless violence against their own working class brothers and sisters

In fact, a civil war facilitates this outreach by simplifying class divisions and worsening material conditions which will encourage many to seek an alternative

[SPK]

A revolutionary process will always necessitate some kind of civil war, large or small. Certain anarchists believe that through consciousness-raising or changing people’s minds, all people – bourgeois, proletarian, and petty-bourgeois – can be won over to a new society in a peaceful and nonviolent way. And that no revolution should occur before that point. That’s nonsense. Certain Marxists believe that the working class as a whole – despite clear support by elements of the proletariat for the most ultra-reactionary ruling class forces (here in the usa) -- can be won over to the need for overthrowing capitalism. And that no revolution should occur before that point. That’s nonsense too.

Revolution is going to absolutely require the use for force and violence against the bourgeoisie and its servants. There will be, under the best hypothetical circumstances, a lot of people who are going to have to be shot. We shouldn’t let that prospect of civil war deter us.

[AGramsci]

First and foremost, in the Western Democracies as it stands right now, there is no need for violence in any form and fashion. We could simply just elect members of the Radical Leftist persuasion into office and, though difficult, most of our progressive initiatives. Plus, politics in the U.S. is 100% public relations at this point and violence would destroy our already stigmatized image.

Secondly, I'd just like to warn that we cannot interpret the writings of our forebearers to literally for they existed in very different times and places. Also, doing as such leads to a very dogmatic mode of thinking that would hamper the Liberal ideology that we hold so dear.

[Question everything]

An open war between the small scaterred anti-U.S. gouvernement forces with our support and that of angry workers, fighting the greatest super power in the world... that doesn't seem to bright for some reason. I think that we try to win over the army, then rise with the workers, In a way similar to that of the Russian revolution, tired and angry soldiers fight against the gouvernement that made them that way, makes more sense to me then sending the workers into the machine guns of soldiers (who often come from backgrounds worse then the workers and probably would sympathize with them) in desperate hope of victory.

[shadowed by the secret police]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:21 am
First and foremost, in the Western Democracies as it stands right now, there is no need for violence in any form and fashion. We could simply just elect members of the Radical Leftist persuasion into office and, though difficult, most of our progressive initiatives. Plus, politics in the U.S. is 100% public relations at this point and violence would destroy our already stigmatized image.

Secondly, I'd just like to warn that we cannot interpret the writings of our forebearers to literally for they existed in very different times and places. Also, doing as such leads to a very dogmatic mode of thinking that would hamper the Liberal ideology that we hold so dear.
Yes, the establishment will let us elect our own people to power to overthrow the existing bourgeois order. With all due respect, comerade, you're living in dream world!

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:47 pm
Desirable? No.

Necessary? Perhaps.

However, the only civil war that I can envision in industrialized nations can only occur between the conflicting social groups i.e. the proletariat and bourgeois.
Are all class wars concidered civil wars if they are executed in a single nation-state?

[hazer87]

If there is a revolution, it must happen soon. It's sickening how much power our federal government has over us. We pay them to maintain our safety and our interest, supposedly. Mean while they rule us, protect themselves, and are obviously concerned with their own interest. How much longer can we let this happen? Because it will be to late if we waite much longer. Take the patriot act for example. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms for the protection of our way of life, and part of that is to keep the federal government in check, it gives us the right to over-throw the government if when it gets to powerful and is not looking out for the interest of the people. The patriot act pretty much takes away that right, for anyone who mentions an attack on the government can be put in prison for life. Right there, they gave themselves complete control over us. How could we let this pass? How can we just sit back and watch our rights, not only as americans, but as people to be taken away from us. Where are our unalienable rights? Life, Liberity, and the Persuite of Happiness. The only life we can live is the one they tell us to. Liberity, what liberity? Someone can be put in prison for a minor posession of marijuana for up to 20 years or more, while a rapist is put there for 2 years and let back into society. A man can be put to death for treason by speaking out against the government if they feel threatend, while they can kill thousands for their own personal well being. Happiness, ask anyone if they're are truely happy with their lives and the way we must live. Ask those who work 2-3 jobs and barely see their children whom they can barely support, while some rich smuck sits on his ass making 5 times as much and spoiling himself, giving his little children sporty cars for their 16th birthday, while the poorer man struggle to put food on their plate. We must raise our voice and let them know that they will take advantage no longer, that our lives are for us to live, not theirs to maintain their lush life style. For if their ears shall go deaf to our voice, let us speak a language they better understand. Let us use our might and will to overthrow this threat to our way of life. For if we do not act now, we let them know they have won, and we are forever their pets. Think about this, there were supposedly a quater of a million people at a protest over the weekend in D.C. Imagine, all these people in our capital, where the supreme court is, the congress building and the capital building. Imagine all those people armed, how hard would it be to take over those buildings, the 3 branches of our government back in control of the people. And if they open fire, the rest of the american people will see the trueth, that our lives do not matter, only for the use of the elites well being. I know I will fight for my life, for the lives of my future children and the lives of my countrymen. I will fight to save this nation and our humanity.[QUOTE]Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.-John Stark, an American Revolutionary from New Hampshire, that fought for his freedom.

[Janus]

Are all class wars concidered civil wars if they are executed in a single nation-state?
Yes, according to the most popular definition of civil war:
"a war between political factions or regions within the same country."

[Question everything]

The 2nd amendment give us the right to bare arms for the protection of our way of life, and part of that is to keep the federal government in check, it gives us the right to over-throw the government if when it gets to powerful and is not looking out for the interest of the people. The patriot act pretty much takes away that right, for anyone who mentions an attack on the government can be put in prison for life.

I'm kinda tired comrade but here goes... are you acually surposed to overthrow the great military power in the world when the biggest weapons you can carry around is colt? even if bring out a machine gun, they got fucking tanks... and nothing in the consitution,
it gives us the right to over-throw the government a constitution like that would have been a fucking farce...

[Janus]

are you acually surposed to overthrow the great military power in the world when the biggest weapons you can carry around is colt? even if bring out a machine gun, they got fucking tanks... and nothing in the consitution,
Weapons and supplies do give advantages to a certain side but so does size and determination. I think this has been shown in the numerous military victories that less advanced military forces have achieved over seemingly stronger and better armed ones.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm going to have to say that Civil War is not a desirable outcome anywhere. In the US we already had one civil war, the results were horrorific and that was with 19th century technology, I don't want to see what would happen with all the weapons around now.

[Question everything]

Weapons and supplies do give advantages to a certain side but so does size and determination. I think this has been shown in the numerous military victories that less advanced military forces have achieved over seemingly stronger and better armed ones.

I understand that I'm saying that the revolution should begin as non-voilent and the propaganda should be allowed to at least creat popular dissertion, or mixed sympathies, hence a creating a revolution similar to that of Russia's with an angry and hungry army fighting for their poletarian comrades and not the bourgois.

*(sorry for my many typos)

[Janus]

with an angry and hungry army fighting for their poletarian comrades
You mean an angry army composed of proletarian comrades.

[freakazoid]

hazer87 - do you mind if use that for a pamphlet http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60668


I'm kinda tired comrade but here goes... are you acually surposed to overthrow the great military power in the world when the biggest weapons you can carry around is colt? even if bring out a machine gun, they got fucking tanks... and nothing in the consitution,

Yes, I believe you can. Just because they have tanks and big guns doesn't make them invincible. The biggest weapon I can carry around is a colt? I didn't know that. And if we work on it there are a large group of people who could be our comrades. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59388

[hazer87]

Sure you can, anything I can do to help the cause of freedom. Like Zach de la rocha said "It has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime. What better place than here, what better time than now."

[freakazoid]

Sweet, thanks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxRDC0agfKI :D

[Question everything]

I'm saying get the army on our side, pacificism before that, encourage solidarity, I mean these guys are poor often minorities , who are only trying to make ends meet.

[RNK]

So naive.

The military is not simply going to flop over onto it's belly. There will be no romantic wave of revolution suddenly sweeping the population, carrying with it a hope for a better future like in the movies. Do not entertain these silly notions that things will be okay. We all seem to be willing to carry out a revolution only when someone else has started it.

We all need to come to terms with the fact that being a revolutionary will mean sacraficing ourselves. We must realize that even our deaths are a victory for freedom. And we must realize that we will probably not live to see the fruits of our efforts.

[Question everything]

I just don't like killing and non-violence followed by a socialist military rising up and fighting the bourgeous with their own weapons seems like the best Idea, don't get me wrong, if there was an Uprising in my city I'd be out on the street, I'm just saying I don't like the idea of fighting with the army, doesn't mean when the time comes I won't, doesn't mean I'll obey faithfully until the army and the workers unite, I'm just saying if I had a choice I'd rather stand in solidarity with the all of the oppressed...

[freakazoid]

Looks like the Nazis at stormfront think that there will be a civil war not to far off, http://www.storm
front.org/forum/showthread.php/coming-civil-war-states-and-358781.html http://www.storm
front.org/forum/showthread...and-358781.html

This is one of the big reasons that we need to be prepared. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:07 am
Looks like the Nazis at stormfront think that there will be a civil war not to far off, http://www.***************/forum/showthread...and-358781.html (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php/coming-civil-war-states-and-358781.html)

This is one of the big reasons that we need to be prepared. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660
Don't post a direct link to fascist sites, break the link next time

[freakazoid]

?? Umm... ok, fixed. But why?