Propaganda of the deed

[RGacky3]

What do the Anarchists here think of the concept of Propaganda of the deed, are things like assasinations, bombings, Guerilla movments and the such helpful to the Anarchist cause? My own thoughts are that they are helpful in getting those who are already Socialists moving and help a revolution get started, but for a country with a very small Socialist base it might be crushing to their PR.

For me the Concept of Propaganda of the deed is somewhat appealing, but that probable is because of my hot early 20s male blood. But I think that organising along Anarcho-Syndicalist Union lines is much more practical.

What are your thoughts?

[Janus]

are things like assasinations, bombings, Guerilla movments and the such helpful to the Anarchist cause?
We've discussed some of these topics recently.

Setting up militias (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660&hl=assassination)
assassinations (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62838&hl=terrorism)
Propaganda of the deed (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55137&hl=bombing)
Bombings (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60213&hl=bombing)

In the context of class struggle, direct action should definitely be a viable option but we should focus on building a mass movement at the moment rather than relying on terrorist tactics which are usually contradictory with such movements.

[RGacky3]

I'll lower the criteria down to acts of Sabotage, Bombings and Assasinations as those are generally equated with Propaganda of the Deed.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

So long as we're extremely careful, I think it's justified. Assasinations, in particular.

-Alex

[An archist]

all those things may be helpful, but indeed, more effective froms would be to organise, pla actions, get people on your side, but don't liit yourself to one form of action, like the hippies only care for peaceful actions and a rowing nmber of anarchists only care for violent actions.
We should be pragmatic and use the form of action most useful and appropriate for the moment.

[RGacky3]

Lets talk about the United States as it is now.

[RNK]

The major problem with the concept of propaganda of the deed and other direct actions is that it needs to be coupled with a very strong, very unignorable ideological stance.

These tactics were tried here in Quebec about 30-ish years ago by a group calling itself the "Front du Liberation du Quebec", or Quebec Liberation Front. They were a seperatist group who wanted Quebec independance and to that end they carried out bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and other actions against what they saw as anti-Quebec targets, such as foreign business owners, foreign businesses, etc. In the end, however, they were defeated. With the police unable to deal with them, the city called in the military, who declared marshal law and eventually killed or arrested all of the main members.

Other similar movements like the Weather Underground suffered the same problems. Because they didn't couple their actions with loud propaganda, their efforts fell on deaf ears. Movements like these require that support is mobilized as they are taking out such actions.. that is the whole point of "propaganda of the deed". They are deeds meant to make an ideological statement in order to draw in sympathisers. but with the power of the Canadian and US media against them, these groups were quickly marginalized, and everyone simply believed they were nothing but murderers and terrorists. They failed to gain popular support and because their organization could not grow, and one-by-one they were taken out, until eventually the group was incapable of acting.

Proper direct action needs to be carried out against very specific and carefully chosen targets and needs to be accompanied by an undeniable message. It needs to catch the attention of the masses without disgusting them, and to do so, it needs to essentially "flow" with public opinion, to a point. If there is some company that lays off a few hundred workers because it's moving its plant to China or whatever, most people won't be very disgusted if that company suddenly suffers a catastrophic fire in the middle of the night, which guts their entire operation and costs them millions of dollars. Most people would be privately pleased. But if the same thing happened in the middle of the day, and people were killed and hurt, well.. then people wouldn't be so quick to support it. The point is, it needs to be well thought out and needs to essentially be an extension of the people's frustration. Once people see this, they may start to think, "Hey, whoever's doing this, I seem to agree with it... maybe they're not as bad as the media keeps saying they are."

Essentially, it needs to be more than simply protesting and spraypainting a little slogan on some wall. But it needs to be less than outright violence against other people (unless the people's opinion deems that satisfactory). Essentially, it should combine sabotage with a political message, at all times. A very clear political message.

[pandora]

I am having a hard time with the Anarchists, just came from a march where they were burning the flag and defecating on it. Problem was a good percentage of the most active and diligent marchers were Veterans for Peace, a bunch of bad asses who were ready to kick their ass.

It was strange picking up the flag off the ground and helping a crying girl whose friend had been shot by a snipper last year and buried with the flag, she was hysterical, to put it in a bag, we gave it to the anti-war vets to dispose of. I really found the Anarchists to be a bunch of insensitive dumb asses punk kids, ( having been a punk for years myself say this with a big smile) and I really respect the vets for feeling that the idea of freedom is to burn the flag if they want.

I think I have I have to agree with the Veterans for Peace that the majority of these kids are snot nosed brats with no concept of how many of their forefathers died for them to have a Constitution. A Constitution which although it needs to be much further LEFT in my opinion, is so much better than the Right of Kings before it, and the state of many other nations. For instance they would have been shot in a few other countries, and if the facist pigs get their way they will be again.

I need to add here, that the Constitution was but one step in social evolution, and that in my belief historical dialectics prevail that a better system will take it's place.

Following the ideals of Subcommandante Marcos, that the ideals of democracy are good, a big shock to many leftists who go to Chiapas, but that they do not go far enough to guarentee the rights of participation of the proleteriat.

(I have to add this do to questions about this post, if you have more questions I will be sure to respond, but that is enough for now.)

The Vets were very cool about, they said as they took the flag into the bag, that the Constitution is a flawed document, but it was the best men could do at that time. That perhaps in the future we can do better, but for now we must honor the freedom to be able to burn the flag, for that is what they and their friends died for if nothing else.

I also really respect that they are marching against the war in Iraq and find our current system in error and that it is corrupt, and that they also agree that these wars are lies to get more profit for the few.

I understand the need for freedom to burn the flag, an image of the capitalist state, but those doing so should be more conscious of vets of the radical left who still love the spirit of the Constitution, even if it needs more rights for the people.

If we are to have a true Revolution we will need to include these brothers and sisters too, so try to walk in their shoes too, and just not your own. I think that is the real point of this post.

[RNK]

Um... why are you here? You sound more like a liberal. And you're in the CC. Wow.

[pandora]

Good RNK,
Thank you for replying to this. I surprised myself so was looking for a reaction.
I was surprised by my reaction as well, normally I'm the one getting maced at protests so I was surprised I got pissed when I am normally in support of all showings dismissing the nation state in it's present form.

There is nothing wrong with being "Liberal" it refers to Leftist politics in general, socialist and communist, and I do believe in Communist ideals, with state run industry, but not one which is overly authoritarian against individual rights. I share some ideas of individual freedom with the Anarchists, such as the rights of squatters, etc.

One mistake, however, I feel that Leftist groups make in taking power is their treatment of former military that have joined the Left. It was Raul's executions of such individuals that sickened me towards him.

We live in a confusing world where many former vets have seen the grossness of the current nation state system, and how people's ideals of liberty have been sold out for the corporate dollar first hand. Some of these individuals are the strongest and most durable soldiers the Left has. To alienate them is stupid.

I was a punk and a squatter in the Lower East Side and a member of Squat or Rot, and I do noth think many of the original members of that organization which led the orig. Tomskin Sq Park riots would agree with the bullshit that went down today. I think they would have been more respectful of the solidarity of Leftest Vets., and the need for them in the movement for strengh.

However, this does not mean selling out on any ideals, such as the right to burn the flag and dismiss the current form of the nation state, it means we need to make a change without alienating, but without compromising belief.

That is why I bring this up here. In general I think the kids today at the march (1/3 of the age of the vets) needed to be more respectful of those they were marching with , I was impressed that the vets encouraged their freedom, and was encouraged by their openess to the Anarchists.

My concern is with the lack of openess towards Vets for Peace, or anti-corporate veterans by the Anarchists.

If we are going to be overcoming the facists, we don't want to alienate vets who have seen the bs of the current system and rebuke it

[coda]

<<I am having a hard time with the Anarchists, just came from a march where they were burning the flag and defecating on it.>>



They were shitting on the flag&#33;&#33; Yay for them&#33; I hope they meant it.

My only hope is that the anarchist kids grow up to be anarchist adults--- like me&#33;

[RNK]

I disagree with most of what you&#39;re saying. I don&#39;t feel like going into details but sufficed to say, liberals are not "leftists" in any sense of the word except when used by far-right conservatives. "Liberals" are right-wingers.

I see no problem with burning and desecrating a flag. The vets may not like it, but it&#39;s the vets problems for having archaic and conservative notions about what the flag represents and what destroying it represents. Destroying a flag is a simplistic act of symbolizing one&#39;s dislike of their state and government, because that is all a flag is -- a symbol of the state. And what is the state? Nothing but an arbitrary set of authorities that are forced upon most of us. So, no, I will never look down on burning the symbol of state power. Veterans be damned.

[pandora]

I have enjoyed flag burnings as a symbol of burning power in the past too, particularly when burned by people who have been oppressed by it. Some how the burning of the flag by people in the ghetto feels like necessity for empowerment, but when a bunch of wanta be rich kids do it it seems stupid.

I agree that just because someone had to shoot someone for the state does not make them a hero, actually it makes them war criminals. However, if after this they have a change of heart and realize how fucked up the system is they become very powerful allies against the state.

As far as liberals, in their current manifestation neo-liberalists, or as sell out wanker democrats, yes I agree with you.

Nor do I find the current state of the Constitution to be an ideal, it is but a stepping stone to a socialist document, which would be a stepping stone to a Communist utopia eventually.

It is what it was, a statement from the 17th century, a time of slavery. Where only White men had power. I revised my statement above to explain my thoughts in this more clearly.

It is not so much about trying to save a bullshit nation state, as respecting veterans who are coming to the left. Current liberals and Constitutionalists piss me off as well it is an outdated document littered with bullet holes. The blood on the flag bought by the rockets red stream and the bombs bursting through air are enough to make me puke red white and blue.

But I agree with Marcos interpretation of democracy to fulfill socialist ideals as a first step towards Communism.

As far as your question of my ideals, I believe all means of operation should be owned and operated by the people, through the state perhaps as path to this, but eventually by the people themselves.

I think it is interesting that I have gone from flag burning against the nation state, to still detesting the nation state, but not wanting to alienate those who have come to the Left after realizing the fucked-upness of the current regime.

Perhaps a way to balance these two objectives will come. As a Canadian, you have a different perspective than one raised in the propagaganda bullshit of the US so it is difficult for you to identify with what we go through in the US you have a lot more mental and emotional freedom.

We are inundated with propaganda day in and day out. I agree with you that in finding allies in resistance to the bullshit we should not sellout to the idea of a nation-state, but I do not think we be assholes to people who are slowly moving farther and farther left, and coming out of their coccons in the US

Regime change, and mental change is much more difficult here. If I lived where you live I would feel as you do.

Right now I am just irate over asshole police photograghing us even though we had kids marching, trying to keep solidarity to protect the Anarchists against the liberals as you call them who would left them to the cops if we didn&#39;t fight them on tis and call for solidarity.

In any march of tens of thousands in the US there is going to be controversy right now, because there is so much fear and brainwashing.

As far as your attitude towards vets for peace, they are the ones getting arrested on a daily basis for protesting the war outside of highschools in the US and who are trying to keep kids from signing up. Maybe you need to do a little more research.

[coda]

I agree, Pandora. The anarchists certainly should respect those vets who denounce the current war and renounce the wars they&#39;ve participated in. It&#39;s wrong for the anarchists and the Left in general to stereotypes these veterens for that.

On the other hand some of the veterens need to give up the glorification of the flag and what that the flag stands for.

Respect and solidarity is a two way street. the anarchists should respect the vets for turning their back on militarism and the vets should respect the anarchist youth who have turned their back on capitalism and popular culture to join in the fight for freedom against illegal murder and occupation.

Point: They are all on the same side.

[pandora]

I agree nya, you said it better than I could. Together, they could work to really stop recruitment for this capitalist blood bath.

Actually most of the vets agreed with the kids and their right to burn the flag as a symbol of what freedom should be, so they had made their peace with it. Which was surprising as a lot of their friends were buried with it.

I think the burying of vets with the flag is another propaganda trick to keep disgruntled vets from defecting. Another tactic is to make them feel alienated and isolated so they feel like they have no place in the world to go but the military institution.

I think the Anarchists can help fight this apathy too. How I have no clue, but these two groups seem to be closer every day as people get sick of the bullshit in their name.

[manic expression]

pandora

Private property is at the center of the Constitution. Therefore, it is an obstacle, not a "stepping stone".

"Democracy" has to be analyzed in the context of the surrounding situation. Unless you have a society with worker control and collectivized property/resources, "democracy" means nothing (or it means freedom for rich people).

The only real argument against burning a US flag is how it might alienate other parts of the anti-war movement. However, think about the bigger picture. After the occupation ends (be it a year or a decade from now), where will these people be? They&#39;ll take their signs and go home faster than you can say "Code Pink". They have no interest in overthrowing capitalism, their solitary aim is to end only the most overt forms of imperialism and nothing more.

Anyway, it&#39;s a small point of disagreement, but I thought I&#39;d share my thoughts on it.

[Forward Union]

Propaganda of the deed isn&#39;t just destructive, it can also be (and in most circumstances is betetr to be...) constructive. And in the current political climate, I think both can be useful depending on the context.

For example, the Black panthers opened and ran their own clinic in the poorer communities in Chicago, back in the 60s. This, I would say is far better example of Propaganda of the deed than say, the actions of Ravachol in the 1800s.

Locally, we&#39;re doing something similar. There&#39;s a lot of background to it, but in brief. There&#39;s an area of town, not far from where most of our members live, that has become somewhat notorious for it&#39;s drug-crime. One building was squatted by junkies, and the community complained about it, and even tried to get them out of the community themselves. Eventually, the council stepped in.

But they only stepped in because they want to destroy that building, along with the Race equality council, and women&#39;s information centre next door, to build flats.

We&#39;ve taken the women&#39;s info centre over. And have also taken a plot of land behind it. And have spend the past few months cleaning the area of heroin needles, and litter, laying turf, flowers, gravel paths etc. We&#39;re going to turn it into a community garden, and have a giant revolutionary mural on the side of one of the abandoned buildings. Getting the whole community in on the project.

Then, when they come to build flats on it we&#39;ll defend it, and probably loose, but hopefully this will radicalise some of the working class community in support of us, perhaps boost our membership, and certainly give us a name.

Personally, I see this as propaganda of the deed.

[RNK]

I agree. Propaganda doesn&#39;t always have to be destructive -- though certainly destructive propaganda has a place. Proper care needs to be taken to ensure that the act of struggling for the people doesn&#39;t result in alienating people, and in that sense, a proper analysis of the local situation needs to be made.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:28 pm
I agree. Propaganda doesn&#39;t always have to be destructive -- though certainly destructive propaganda has a place. Proper care needs to be taken to ensure that the act of struggling for the people doesn&#39;t result in alienating people, and in that sense, a proper analysis of the local situation needs to be made.
Yes, and although it&#39;s often assumed that violence is a no-go area for now, im not sure that&#39;s strictly true. Direct action, well though out, with a practical purpose, can actually be empowering and inspiring.

If we play the "mischevious do-gooder" card we can actually become very popular. Not only as we are the ones who &#39;dared&#39; to do what everyone else was thinking should be done, but that unlike other political groups, we are seen to be something and if we get away with it, and it works it can be a tremedous boost to the confidence of the working class.

I am referring to situations whereby a community group forms to resist a development, perhaps the dumping of toxic waste, or the building of flats on a local play park (normally done through petitions etc). And a section of that population takes extreme steps to, say, monkey wrench the dozers, physically block or sabotage some sort of machinery.

The reson this works, is because it&#39;s not obvious that it&#39;s some form of political ideological extreamism, it&#39;s practical, down to earth, and in touch with the needs of our class.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yes, totally agree with Love Underground.


Hmm. Not sure how feasible this would really be, but wouldn&#39;t it be great to start an adoption agency which would accomodate homosexual couples, in contrast to the catholics shutting down rather than contradict scripture?

-Alex

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:43 am
Yes, totally agree with Love Underground.


Hmm. Not sure how feasible this would really be, but wouldn&#39;t it be great to start an adoption agency who would accomodate homosexual couples, in contrasts to the catholics shutting down rather than contradict scripture?

-Alex
That would indeed be cool. For some.

[RGacky3]

To Pandora.

What you talked about is a problem I have with a lot of Revolutionary leftists, they pretty much have no respect for their fellow working class people. Although I would have no problem burning a flag in the right situation, and I am against all types of nationalism and patriotism, I think Anarchists in a protest, burning a flag right in front of Veterans for Peace is a bit disrespectful to them, even though they were fighting for the ruling class and not for the ideals they were told about, I&#39;m sure many of them still have some emotions attached to it, and thats burning the flag is&#39;nt a way to win them over, its pretty much just giong to alienate Anarchists.

Think about it, Imagen you are a Christian and a War Veteran who realized that the government is a sham that it only protects the rulling class interest and the Capitalism is a form of Slavery and so on, but you still have pride in the country you grew up in, and you still are a firm believe in the bible, then you see a bunch of Anarchists burning the flag and burning bibles and such, do you think your going to listen to those guys when they come over and explain their ideas too you? Probably not, your probably going to think "What a bunch of ass holes," and then go vote Democrat.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:36 pm
What do the Anarchists here think of the concept of Propaganda of the deed, are things like assasinations, bombings, Guerilla movments and the such helpful to the Anarchist cause?
Any sensible anarchist activist should view their actions in the context of &#39;how it will benefit class struggle and the anarchist movement.&#39;

There have been many anarchists throughout history who have participated in such deeds. Notably men like Leon Czolgosz who assassinated President McKinley or Alexander Berkman who attempted to assassinate Henry Frick an industrialist responsible for the murder of ten Steel workers by his Pinkerton detectives (hired strike braking thugs). More recently there was the Angry Brigade who set off small bombs in government buildings designed to frighten (no one was killed during their campaign).

All of these examples have resulted in either execution or very long jail sentences. Even more recently than the Angry Brigade is the ALF and other animal rights activists who have been doing similar deeds and have seen many of their leading activists sent to prison, some for up to ten years.

How does this benefit the movement? What did and have those campaigns and actions actually achieved? What it has achieved mostly is the imprisonment of dedicated activists and wasted other activists and the movement’s time with prisoner support and solidarity. Those activists could be on the streets helping to build a mass movement, but are now languishing in jail.

Assassination, guerrilla campaigns and direct action are no good in periods of reaction and should only be employed during times of massive economic upheaval and revolution (when the time is right). There are of course specific moments when it is further justified; for example Stuart Christies (the Scottish anarchist) attempt at assassinating Franco. Resistance against a Fascist dictator and government is justified in any form at any time.


For me the Concept of Propaganda of the deed is somewhat appealing, but that probable is because of my hot early 20s male blood. But I think that organising along Anarcho-Syndicalist Union lines is much more practical.

Not only is it much more practical, it is much more beneficial.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 06:52 am

Assassination, guerrilla campaigns and direct action are no good in periods of reaction and should only be employed during times of massive economic upheaval and revolution (when the time is right).
One of the problems is how can one be sure the “time is right.” One could think they are experiencing the beginnings of a revolution only to have society fall back into a century of reaction. Is the projection of history and one’s own generational position always awardable or comprehensible? In the 60’s and early 70’s various groups contributed to this sort of activity, thinking they were on the brink of some sort of revolutionary change. Nevertheless, today we look back and realize that was not the case but for those groups the prospect seemed very real.

[Pawn Power]

Just to note, these activities often come with very heavy consequences and have a high risk factor for those involved and if taken up at the “wrong time” can not only be damaging to the contemporary “movement” but can also cause great harm and be life-ruining to the partaking individuals. So the question of if these actions are useful and when these actions are useful is vital.

[RNK]

The important thing is, when carrying out any action, you&#39;ve got to analyse how society at large will react to it. Sure, a lot of us would like to plant a bomb in the WH -- but what good would that actually do? None. Infact, it&#39;d be heavily counter-productive. Particularly in this day and age, bombing stuff just doesn&#39;t spark confidence in people.

I think an important factor is the fact that as yet our movement does not have the ability to actually stand toe-to-toe with the enemy. Our actions need to focus around gathering support. Partaking in activity that can easily be twisted by the media (and you know it always will) will do nothing but lose us support. We need to combine "soft-core" direct action with a strong, undeniable political statement. For instance, on 9/11 Al Qaida killed over 3,000 people to make a political statement. Things didn&#39;t turn out too well. But what if Al Qaida had instead spraypainted a gigantic political message on the Twin Towers, saying something like "HOW MANY DEATHS PER GALLON" or whatever? I think public opinion on them would be much more sympathetic. And it&#39;s not like the media could twist it against them; their message would be, quite literally, loud and clear to everyone.

It is only when the majority of people are supportive of the cause, and supportive of taking it further, that more violent direct actions should be taken; when it is clear that it is not a fringe group doing it, but rather that it is an expression of society as a whole.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+March 21, 2007 03:15 pm--> (Pawn Power @ March 21, 2007 03:15 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 06:52 am

Assassination, guerrilla campaigns and direct action are no good in periods of reaction and should only be employed during times of massive economic upheaval and revolution (when the time is right).
One of the problems is how can one be sure the “time is right.” [/b]
The working class will be making revolutionary demands in the streets.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I agree with TAT about instances such as Stuart Christie&#39;s attempt on Franco.

It&#39;s not really worth it in standard capitalism, the system just churns out another suit, invariably. Fascism is a bit of a different matter, since cults of personality can form large parts of their strength. Franco is a fairly textbook example of this.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And it&#39;s not like the media could twist it against them;

Dude, never underestimate the power of the media to distort. Assuming they thought that this message was a real threat:

In England, it&#39;d probably have a D-Notice slapped on it, and the thing wouldn&#39;t even reach the screens.

In America they are far too in thrall to corporates and Murdoch. And general righties. They&#39;d manage it, somehow. :rolleyes:

-Alex

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+March 21, 2007 10:19 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ March 21, 2007 10:19 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 21, 2007 03:15 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 06:52 am

Assassination, guerrilla campaigns and direct action are no good in periods of reaction and should only be employed during times of massive economic upheaval and revolution (when the time is right).
One of the problems is how can one be sure the “time is right.”
The working class will be making revolutionary demands in the streets. [/b]

That is still equivocal. The working class has made "revolutionary" demands in the streets and is to a much lesser extent still doing so. It appears that you are leaning to the quantity of the working class that is in the streets making revolutionary demands. Clearly, you don&#39;t mean all the working class. Even if it was a fast majority within one nation-state making radical demands the society in relation to the global structure could be no where near revolution.

Again, when "propaganda of the deed" was practiced there was to an extent workers making revolutionary demands in public. Obviously, the range of support has been tremendously variable in different epochs. The vague indicator that workers will be making demands in the streets can be misleading. What constitutes revolutionary demands and what quantity of the working class signify working class support?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

The Propaganda of the Deed is foolish. The Goverment uses the assasinations always as history has proven to mercilessly hunt down and anhilate the revolutionary leadership, thus destroying the countries socialist base nearly completely.

The only POSSIBLE positive result is that the Crackdown is so hard but mildly ineffective that revolutionary organizations use this as propaganda and incite the masses to revolt.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:47 pm
I agree with TAT about instances such as Stuart Christie&#39;s attempt on Franco.

It&#39;s not really worth it in standard capitalism, the system just churns out another suit, invariably. Fascism is a bit of a different matter, since cults of personality can form large parts of their strength. Franco is a fairly textbook example of this.

-Alex
Good point, Representative Democratic Capitalism is pretty much immune to Political Assasinations and the such.

But what about Symbolic things such as bombings? Can those have an effect on the system? Either Against the Political or Economic systems?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Bombings can be effective. But it very much depends on context. Currently, bombing a symbolic target would result in our being lumped into the same category as Al Qaeda and terrorists in general.

In the context of brutal totalitarian government, such as say, Pol Pot, it can&#39;t really get any worse, and you might as well. It&#39;ll probably be effective too, since the populace are likely to side with any resistance against regimes like that.

In a kind of &#39;pre-revolution&#39; state, it&#39;s worth it.

I do think there are more effective versions of POD though. It&#39;s not all bombs and guns, they&#39;re just one part.

-alex

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+March 22, 2007 01:13 am--> (Pawn Power @ March 22, 2007 01:13 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 10:19 am

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 21, 2007 03:15 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 06:52 am

Assassination, guerrilla campaigns and direct action are no good in periods of reaction and should only be employed during times of massive economic upheaval and revolution (when the time is right).
One of the problems is how can one be sure the “time is right.”
The working class will be making revolutionary demands in the streets.

That is still equivocal. The working class has made "revolutionary" demands in the streets... [/b]
No, I specifically answered question. Whether you accept that answer is entirely up to you.


...and is to a much lesser extent still doing so.

No they&#39;re not. There are no working class people in the streets anywhere in the western world making revolutionary demands.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+March 22, 2007 11:23 am--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; March 22, 2007 11:23 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 22, 2007 01:13 am

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 10:19 am

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 21, 2007 03:15 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 06:52 am

Assassination, guerrilla campaigns and direct action are no good in periods of reaction and should only be employed during times of massive economic upheaval and revolution (when the time is right).
One of the problems is how can one be sure the “time is right.”
The working class will be making revolutionary demands in the streets.

That is still equivocal. The working class has made "revolutionary" demands in the streets...
No, I specifically answered question. Whether you accept that answer is entirely up to you.


...and is to a much lesser extent still doing so.

No they&#39;re not. There are no working class people in the streets anywhere in the western world making revolutionary demands. [/b]
Okay, we&#39;ll go your way...

Have there ever been workers in the streets making revolutionary demands? If so, examples.

Are you a working class person? Do you make revolutionary demands?

[sexyguy]

Propaganda of the deed

The ‘deeds’ of chaotic capitalism, capitalists and their supporters are the best propaganda. Currently being handed to us on a plate. Simply explain the world as it is. As you see it, hear about it, and experiences it. That is the best ’practice’, the best ’activism’, the best way of developing revolutionary theory. The working class is more than capable of doing all the things you are all talking about and capable of much more than you are talking about. But the working class just like all other revolutionary classes throughout history cannot succeed without CONSCIOUS understanding of the world and SELF-CONSCIOUS UNDERSTANDING of its own power, as a class&#33;