REVOLUTION - is a bloodless revolution possible?

[RED PARTIZAN]

Do you think a bloodless revolution is possible?
Can we teach the masses and have a peacelful and progressive change within our society?

[Blibblob]

no

But an all out massacre is not needed. But bloodless is imposible.

[redstar2000]

Possible? yes.

Probable? no.

:cool:

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Maybe in the next evolutionary stage.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Simpsons quote:

African guy: "Our leader, the great Muntu, came to power in a bloodless coup! It was aaallll smotherings" (makes hand motion like he's suffocating someone with a pillow).

So, basically, people have to die but blood does not necessarily have to be spilled in the literal sense :biggrin:

--- G.

[Saint-Just]

If the bourgeoisie ever relinquish the chains of our oppression, hand over the means of production and give re-birth to their thoughts.

It would be counter-revolutionary folly to assume that that this will ever happen. We will never create revolution if we wait for the impossible. The exploitative class can only perish in a sea of blood, if they don't we will never see revolution. If they do, it will be revolution and there will have been blood spilled.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 5:17 pm on Feb. 8, 2003)

[Blibblob]

So, do you think a bloodless revolution is possible?

(directed at Red Partizian)

[Hegemonicretribution]

I beleive it is possible, however the blood most likely spilled will be our own. Our advantge lies in lives. With this as one of our greatest assets it is unlikely we will not use it in the fight. Yet I do not agree with this, and still think that it is possible to change without it.

[CheViveToday]

A bloodless revolution could be possible if the leader was an amazing military strategist, and they were trying to revolutionize a small country with little technology. If you study the Cuban Revolution, a large percentage of the bases Che and Castro capture, surrender without any shots being fired as they see the rebels approach. I guess that rules out most situations however, I wouldn't count on a truly bloodless revolution ever happening. And if you think about it, this can never really happen in theory, because all revolutions sprout from other revolutions where blood has been shed.

[Blackberry]

Bloodless revolution is possible, but very unlikely to happen.

I'm sure we would all agree that a bloodless revolution is preferable, though.

[RED PARTIZAN]

took the words out of my mouth redstar and neutral nation.

[BOZG]

[quote]took the words out of my mouth redstar and neutral nation.[quote]

Same. The capitalist classes will just disappear without a fight.

[Blibblob]

"Same. The capitalist classes will just disappear without a fight."

HOW!, they dont want to lose their money. And with that money, they will always be a step ahead of us, technology wise, and how many followers they have.

"I'm sure we would all agree that a bloodless revolution is preferable, though."

Perferable, but not possible. THEY WILL NOT GIVE UP WITHOUT A FIGHT. Look, the entire reason for the war against Iraq is for the damn oil. Try and make it cheeper. We are going to war, THERE WILL BE DEATH. The capitalists will use whatever means possible to get what they want, for their own self gain.

[Eastside Revolt]

I think a bloodless revolution is near impossible. With a good political strategy that includes as many people as possible, and avoids overall descrimination, I think that bloodshed could be greatly reduced.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Blibblob on 9:07 pm on Feb. 9, 2003


Perferable, but not possible. THEY WILL NOT GIVE UP WITHOUT A FIGHT.


That is an opinion though. There has to be some small chance of a bloodless revolution. It doesn't matter if it is a million-in-one chance. It's still there.

[Umoja]

If your the minority of the people, and the majority rise up, then really you can't do much.

[cadre vicente]

bloodless revolution is possible.

if there's no guns and knives involved and your enemy blast you first with a deadly viral gas attack, that is.

the mases dont believe in a peaceful and calm way of fighting.

[peaccenicked]

Unfortunately the army is not neutral and a revolution usually splits the military into those who are loyal to democracy and those who loyal to the wishes of big business. A revolution is about winning the majority. This process tends to spill over into the military.However good generals know when to surrender and if the forces of revolution are overwhelming, it is advisable to surrender. The storming of the winter palce was less bloody than Eisensteins reproduction. More people died in the production of the movie.

[ravengod]

yes i think it is
at least bloodless counter revolutions were possible
poland for example
and so on
why couldnt it be popssible?

[CruelVerdad]

People can fight for what they whant, in a peaceful way, but i don`t think that everyone will listen...
You need to be more radical.
And the problem is that we are primitive, so, there will be deads at some point.
Thats the problem, when big powerful countries, have political and economical interests, and they are just looking the best thing for them, NOT for the people.