Revolution

[Marxmade]

If we really want revolution, it will not come by us sitting indolently by. Lenin's revolution didn't fall into his lap, he actively committed to revolution; and as futile as it may sound, i think we should be doing the same.

What gets me, is that we all speak with such vim about revolution, socialism, and communism, yet we omit the element of action. We sit in forums, posting our ideas and arguing against those who would disagree; yet what we need so desperately is unity. Fine, we all have different ideas on how social reform should be enacted, but we agree on one thing; capitalism must fall. If we can't make it work and we fail, then so be it. I can live with failure, but not inaction. Let no one say we didn't try. For capitalism is not our true enemy until revolution ensues; for now, our only enemy, is our own apathy.

[Raúl Duke]

There have been many threads like this....


yet we omit the element of action.

There's a practice subforum that talks about "elements of actions" and a Events/Propaganda subforum that gives a lists of "elements of actions" that one could partake. We also have sticky threads which gives lists of revolutionary organizations one could join.

Are you part of an active organization?


We sit in forums, posting our ideas and arguing against those who would disagree;

What else could you do on a fourm?

Not everyone here just sit around and post. Many people here are active.


yet what we need so desperately is unity. Fine, we all have different ideas on how social reform should be enacted, but we agree on one thing; capitalism must fall.

Here you would notice a great deal of disunity, since its a forum of discussion; but that doesn't mean they don't sometimes come together to resist capitalism: the main point of agreement.

[SonofRage]

I don't post as often as I used to *because* I'm active and don't have as much time as I used to. I'm curious...what organizing are you doing?

[abbielives!]

it's not our apathy, it the general populations apathy

[KC]

Dude, shut up.

[Rawthentic]

abbieisdead!, what an excuse for being a coffeeshop "revolutionary".

And to the original poster, I am active, and I know that many comrades are here as well.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 11, 2007 10:01 pm
abbieisdead!, what an excuse for being a coffeeshop "revolutionary".

And to the original poster, I am active, and I know that many comrades are here as well.

what? i am active
its not that we need to be more active we just need more people involved

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by abbielives!@June 11, 2007 10:07 pm
its not that we need to be more active we just need more people involved
I completely agree. Revolution cannot succeed if it's not popular. And although I'd love to take up arms in a violent overthrow, we would not succeed without the will of the working class. Too many people are becoming more and more content with their class situation; this makes revolution that much harder... And i don't much like being called apathetic, it's merely circumstantial.

[cenv]

its not that we need to be more active we just need more people involved
Uh, and you expect more people to just spontaneously involve themselves in our struggle?

We get more people involved by being active.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Zampanò@June 11, 2007 09:45 pm
Dude, shut up.
:lol: QFT


And to the original poster, I am active, and I know that many comrades are here as well.

as active as you can be in the situation that you put yourself in...


If we really want revolution, it will not come by us sitting indolently by. Lenin's revolution didn't fall into his lap, he actively committed to revolution; and as futile as it may sound, i think we should be doing the same.

the Bolshevik Revolution came for many reasons but mainly because the bolsheviks did two things:

1) created public opinion for years
2) had the leadership and planning, and were in general just able to take advantage of a revolutionary crisis in Russian society

People's Wars in China, Peru, Nepal, Vietnam, Philipines, and India for example, have done the same.

What's difference is that in imperialist countries, the conditions for revolution aren't just there at any moment like they are in thoroughly oppressed nations, where there is always a revolutionary crisis. Yes we are still oppressed and exploited but the difference is shit like; running water. So we rely on exposures and building public opinion coupled with an inevitable revolutionary crisis to create revolution. The party I'm supporting has been doing just that.


What gets me, is that we all speak with such vim about revolution, socialism, and communism, yet we omit the element of action

I've been arrested more times than you for revolutionary action :lol: no seriously though, join a party or direct action group. Revolutionaries today as always don't omit the element of action. I would argue our theories are perfections of it.

[Janus]

There have been many threads like this....
Yeah, if we got a follower for every polemic like this, capitalism would've fallen by now.

[Chicano Shamrock]

As romantic as the revolution sounds it is near impossible right now in the US. The state has been using propaganda heavily for the past 400 years here. It will take time. I was in an argument the other day with a Mexican friend who was defending the minutemen. It just blew my mind.

I told him that they are standing at the border with rifles ready to shoot your people. He said they're illegals. I said what does that mean though illegal in what sense. He said the law. I said who's laws? He said he was an American citizen and I asked if that negated the fact that he is Mexican. I asked what illegal means beyond the law and he had no answer. In the end I found out that he was a libertarian and he thought that the American Libertarian Party was somehow descended from Karl Marx.

This is the years of propaganda in action. This ignorance is something that is stopping the revolution from happening right now. At this point more proletariat would join the state's army than the people's army. What you can do is try to educate the people around you or join a group that does something bigger.

[Idola Mentis]

Yep. You can't have your revolution before people know what the fuck they are doing. And while it would be nice if every single opressed worker spontaneously found out what to do at the same time, I don't think we want to try to calculate the likelyhood of that happening.

So you need to get out there and persuade people of what is to be done. Before you can do that, you yourself need to know what needs to be done, and why. And you need to *agree* on it. And no pussyfoot compromising either - a realistic, simple plan which can be proven within reason to work, drawn up in a language which has the power to convince.

Anyone got that, upload it and drop us a link, and we'll get started. (Seriously. Come on. It can't be that hard, can it?)

[BobKKKindle$]

Many users have stressed the importance of unity and political activism in reply to the original poster's comments, but it is more complicated than this. A distinction has to be made between the objective and subjective conditions that are required for a revolution - the leadership of a revolutionary party and political agitation form the subjective conditions, but these are not effective unless the appropriate objective conditions exist - conditions relating to the material conditions in which people live, and which derive from the tendency of Capitalism to enter periods of crisis, during which people live in conditions of intolerable suffering and hardship and thus are more willing to accept revolutionary ideology and pose a challenge to the system.

At the moment, at least in developed countries, these objective conditions do not exist and so unfortunately it is a case of 'waiting'. That is not to say we should drop our political struggle - we should however be realistic and recognize that at the moment a revolution is not going to occur. But don't worry - The increasing debt crisis in developed countries means that economic prosperity is unsustainable and soon the economy will enter an enduring depression on a global level.

[Idola Mentis]

Um, the situation has been horrific for generations - some places for more than a century - in development countries. Revolutions come, are corrupted, go. Waiting for the right conditions won't get you there. Organizing and agreeing on a course of action, if not a common reason for those actions, will.

Leadership of a revolutionary party? Political agitation? What's the expression? Oh, yeah: Bugger that. Find out how to convince people. If you can't convince people your course of action is right, then there's something wrong with your plan, not with the people. Sparks of revolution turn up all the time, flare up and are stamped out or just spent. Death, destruction and chaos with little or nothing gained. But if you have a good plan, and enough people in on it, what can stop you?

So show the world a path that will lead to a free world - a realistic one, one which convinces the opressed, and watch the next spark set the world on fire.

[BobKKKindle$]

Leadership of a revolutionary party? Political agitation? What's the expression? Oh, yeah: Bugger that. Find out how to convince people. If you can't convince people your course of action is right, then there's something wrong with your plan, not with the people.

I am not blaming the people, I am simply taking a realistic and materialist position whereas you are assuming that regardless of the material conditions in which people live, effective political agitation can create a revolutionary situation. This is simply not the case - you have to appreciate that a revolution will result in great destruction and uncertainity such that if people are able to survive with a minimum degree of material comfort, they will not be willing to pose a revolutionary challenge to the system.

'Sparks of revolution' do not occur all the time - most of the time class struggle is limited to trade union action which only results in temporary gains within the framework of the existing system. I would appreciate it if you could cite recent case studies in which a revolutionary situation existed.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:08 pm

its not that we need to be more active we just need more people involved
Uh, and you expect more people to just spontaneously involve themselves in our struggle?

We get more people involved by being active.

we are active

[Dr Mindbender]

I want to get active again (I used to be in the early 2000's I went to Genoa etc) but right now Im surrounded by quasi-fascist asshole loyalists that would skin me alive if i came out publicly with any left wing sentiment.

[Comeback Kid]

For the simple fact that we would be massarced in the streets by a combined police and military presence, plus media spin would place as terrorists.
Anything more then a Coup de tate is impossible at this stage in history.
unless you are vangardist idiot then no. revolution is not possible atm.

[Big Boss]

There definately is a presence of many active comrades in this site, but let's no forget that you can be active in many different ways because the situation is different from country to country. I haven't been posting and my last post was probably 7 months ago. I've been part of the student movement in my university and it has taken a lot time of my day. But we must remember that by simply talking or having a dialog with someone about our political views we are fighting the good fight, because that person could change his opinion about things and also convince others.

[RedArmyFaction]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:07 pm
What gets me, is that we all speak with such vim about revolution, socialism, and communism, yet we omit the element of action. We sit in forums, posting our ideas and arguing against those who would disagree; yet what we need so desperately is unity. Fine, we all have different ideas on how social reform should be enacted, but we agree on one thing; capitalism must fall. If we can't make it work and we fail, then so be it. I can live with failure, but not inaction. Let no one say we didn't try. For capitalism is not our true enemy until revolution ensues; for now, our only enemy, is our own apathy.
Cause, most people in here are chicken shit. They come in these forums acting all hard, talking about their plans and ideas for their revolution but it's all bullshit. You know, in England we have a saying...............actions speak louder than words.
The CP of the UK..................what the hell are they doing ? Sitting on their arses waiting for things to happen. What we need is hardcore militant Socialist/Communist groups but i can't think of any. Of course.........we all know how to bring about the revolution............that's the easy part. The hardpart is that no one has got the guts to do it.

[Axel1917]

This whole sitting around and doing nothing thing is true of most of this board. It is essential to get involved and rigorously study theory and current events. Theory and practice must be united, for actual practice is what tests the validity of the theory.

[terroristmilitia]

Originally posted by Comeback [email protected] 15, 2007 12:04 pm
For the simple fact that we would be massarced in the streets by a combined police and military presence, plus media spin would place as terrorists.
Anything more then a Coup de tate is impossible at this stage in history.
unless you are vangardist idiot then no. revolution is not possible atm.
It's plain that a revolution will not start and spread within the first world. Even the lower classes in the U$ and other imperialist countries rely on the exploitation of "third world" labor for their continued affluence. The number of people who realize what's going on and what needs to be done about it is so small the capitalists will quickly crush a literal armed struggle, as a previous poster pointed out. As a member of an imperialist country, I don't think I know much about how to bring about the revolution. There are people in Nepal, India, and the Philippines who are much better informed on such questions.

[BreadBros]

I agree 100% with Bobkindles. Considering the relative stability and economic growth of the past decade (if not the past 30 years) we've done relatively well in light of massive capitalist opposition. This is an era of capitalist domination and therefore self-doubt/uncertainty among the left. That looks to change in the future and in a pretty drastic way, we're undergoing some of the biggest economic changes in history right now.


It's plain that a revolution will not start and spread within the first world. Even the lower classes in the U$ and other imperialist countries rely on the exploitation of "third world" labor for their continued affluence.

True to some degree, but thats a fundamentally unstable system that wont continue forever.

[syndicat]

It's plain that a revolution will not start and spread within the first world. Even the lower classes in the U$ and other imperialist countries rely on the exploitation of "third world" labor for their continued affluence.

This is not true to any significant degree. The profits that the banks and corporations pump out of the debt trap and unequal exchange with the third world goes to build up the wealth of the capitalist elite. There's no reason for them to give any of this to the "lower classes." In fact over the past three decades, in case you hadn't noticed, the capitalist elite in the USA has mounted an aggressive assault on the working class throughout society. The wage rate has dropped by over 13 percent, health insurance is disappearing, welfare rights have been gutted, the minmum wage has been allowed to go down in value, through the "war on drugs" and aggressive policing, a large part of the "reserve army of labor" has been stuffed into prison cages. The tax burden has been shifted from the rich to the working class. All these changes have occured despite huge growth in labor productivity and the looting of the third world. People are forced to work longer hours to get by. So where's all this lower class "affluence" you're talking about?

For a revolution to be a liberatory social transformation, in which the mass of the people liberate themselves from the class sytem and other structures of oppresion, you'd need very massive movements, involving millions of ordinary people. You'd have to see the growth of class and revolutionary consciousness, through experience in these struggles and new mass organizations.

i disagree with B.K.'s idea that the "subjective" conditions of revolution are in the growth of a "revolutioanry party" to provide "leadership." "the self-emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." remember that? this means the crucial change in "subjective" conditions has to be a change in mass consciousness within the working class, which can only develop through struggle. Through collective action and mass organization people can develop a greater sense of their own power, and if that doesn't happen, they'll continue to think "You can't fight city hall."

[Rawthentic]

as active as you can be in the situation that you put yourself in...
What do you mean?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 12:52 am

as active as you can be in the situation that you put yourself in...
What do you mean?
i mean bein in a 2 man group where the other member lives hours away. its tough to be active like that.

BTW Immortal Technique kicked fucking ass :lol: its too bad it was in a church otherwise it'd've been better.

[Rawthentic]

Oh, thats not really a problem. I help organize where I can and pass out literature, it doesn't hold me down really.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

that's why we have organizations in the first place, so that we can be more effective 1 guy leafleting isn't going to compare to a group of people with some people agitating some getting contacts, some passing out leaflets etc...

[Rawthentic]

Thats why I am part of an organization, thats why I am a CL member. The Panthers started out with 2 comrades, like I said, it isn't a problem for me.

[rouchambeau]

Dude, shut up.
Seconded.

[terroristmilitia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:43 pm

It's plain that a revolution will not start and spread within the first world. Even the lower classes in the U$ and other imperialist countries rely on the exploitation of "third world" labor for their continued affluence.

This is not true to any significant degree. The profits that the banks and corporations pump out of the debt trap and unequal exchange with the third world goes to build up the wealth of the capitalist elite. There's no reason for them to give any of this to the "lower classes." In fact over the past three decades, in case you hadn't noticed, the capitalist elite in the USA has mounted an aggressive assault on the working class throughout society. The wage rate has dropped by over 13 percent, health insurance is disappearing, welfare rights have been gutted, the minmum wage has been allowed to go down in value, through the "war on drugs" and aggressive policing, a large part of the "reserve army of labor" has been stuffed into prison cages. The tax burden has been shifted from the rich to the working class. All these changes have occured despite huge growth in labor productivity and the looting of the third world. People are forced to work longer hours to get by. So where's all this lower class "affluence" you're talking about?

For a revolution to be a liberatory social transformation, in which the mass of the people liberate themselves from the class sytem and other structures of oppresion, you'd need very massive movements, involving millions of ordinary people. You'd have to see the growth of class and revolutionary consciousness, through experience in these struggles and new mass organizations.
I agree with you that we have it worse and worse within the United States, but I fail to see any corresponding growth in revolutionary consciousness. As the chasm between CEO and even the middle class grow, the middle class is shouting angrily at shareholder meetings as if somehow they'll reform corporate greed. I think it's more a concern that their dividends aren't high enough more than they're worried about the conditions of the sweatshops where some of their products might be made. The workers, say like WalMart associates, get some tablescraps in Medicaid, maybe foodstamps, and a food bank and that's enough to remind them that their manager's open door policy is much better than organizing the store (and consequently getting fired for organizing). The corporations invest millions of dollars in maintaining the image that somehow they give a crap about someone other than themselves.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I hear people who are angry about their workplaces and at the government all the time. They're not apathetic, they truly do feel frustrated. But then suddenly an authority figure will tell them that we need a government and that capitalism is human nature, and they go back to suffering in silence. Because the status quo will comfort and subdue the people despite the fact that it is exploitive in nature.

But remember, in some places in the developing world the people may be on the brink of uprising. Whether they'll truly gain anything or be crushed or subverted by forces of reaction remains to be seen.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:18 am
This whole sitting around and doing nothing thing is true of most of this board.
What proof of you of that?
Was it not you who was slagging off all of those who were active at the G8 in Germany recently?
Hm.

----------------------


Anyway, it comes down to your form of activism - as every situation (country, political climate, etc) have different forms of activism which are necessary, and which will be productive, rather than counter productive.
Planting the seeds of social change can be done in many ways; whether it's organising collectives, educating friends (as R.Harvey saids "the conversation spreads" :D ).
I am as active as I can be right now (kind of overwhelmed!). You do what you can, help others to do so.

[Arkham Asylum]

What are we waiting for?

We are waiting for a apocalyptic ideal god to save us from ourselves and the utter hell we have constructed.

[Herman]

We can only be as active and revolutionary insofar as the circumstances where we live and interact allow us.

[Black Cross]

Just off the topic a bit; how many people actually think that, reasonably, revolution is possible in the United States. I just ask because things haven't really progressed towards revolution since... ever (obviously just my opinion). Personally, I think there has just been way too much "patriotic" propaganda force fed into the minds of its citizens. They are malcontent, yet, from what i see from the tons of people i have worked with, they do nothing. I think people of america have become, irrevocably, too docile and complient.

[Janus]

how many people actually think that, reasonably, revolution is possible in the United States.
Currently? Definitely not and it probably won't be realistic for quite some time.

[abbielives!]

i don't think people are actually apathetic, i think the just don't belive that anything signifagently better is possible. i think people understand the corrupt nature of the system (just look at popular culture) but don't think there is anything they can do about it.

Michael Albert on TINA (there is no alternative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3w7zbPLnxg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUDaiWPzV8...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUDaiWPzV8&mode=related&search=)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 01:42 am
Thats why I am part of an organization, thats why I am a CL member. The Panthers started out with 2 comrades, like I said, it isn't a problem for me.
um yeah and they quickly spread. They weren't operating as 2 guys for long. And no being in a 2 guy chapter hardly qualifies as "organization" plus Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale live like right next to each other

[Rawthentic]

Just because its 2 guys doesn't mean we aren't active, so thats that.

I don't know what you mean, but we are an active national organization.

[cenv]

Joe's wrong. We aren't an active national organization. We're an active international organization. Not only do we have many active members in the US -- we have active comrades in Britain, the EU, and even the Middle East. From what I hear, our membership is around 50 people now, which I think is pretty good considering the League has only existed for a few years. And that's not even counting all the supporters we have.

We produce six regular, on-time publications in two languages and have plans to add publications in two more languages within the next few months. We have weekly meetings, and many of our members are extremely active in their respective locations. We are open to working with everyone from Leninist groups to anarchist groups. We do not require that our members adhere to a particular ideology such as "Maoism," and we do all this while maintaining a strictly working-class organization, advocating direct control of matters by the working class, and condemning petty-bourgeois ideologies that insist on putting a minority above the workers to "lead" them.

In short, we are a nonsectarian, very active organization that recognizes the importance of building an organization and society that is run by workers instead of simply in the name of them. Now you, as an RCP member may feel that you have the authority to point at us and laugh because we only have 2 members in the bay area. But realize that after 30+ years of existence, the only thing RCPers can manage to gloat about is that they have more members than us. If you want to put down our organization, you should talk about how you think direct control of the movement and post-revolutionary society by the working class is a terrible thing to advocate; you should say that we need to be more sectarian; you should say that we need to be more active. There's really no point to attacking an organization because it only has 2 members in the bay area after 3 years of existence (simultaneously ignoring the fact that the League has made great strides elsewhere). Please, this is just petty sectarianism.

And if you want some advice that your own organization can take to heart, it's this: go for quality, not quantity.

[Rawthentic]

And if you want some advice that your own organization can take to heart, it's this: go for quality, not quantity.
Just like Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated.

[BlessedBesse]

hi there!

please humor my newbie question--

earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that the media would spin the actions of revolutionaries as terrorism. What's the difference between terrorism and this type of revolution?


Besse

[Janus]

What's the difference between terrorism and this type of revolution?
Terrorism is simply a specific tactic while revolution entails actual socio-political change. The term terrorism is thrown around so much these days that it has become a vague moralistic term used to claim the moral high ground and thus without a universal and objective definition.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Bite the hand+June 18, 2007 07:20 am--> (Bite the hand @ June 18, 2007 07:20 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:18 am
This whole sitting around and doing nothing thing is true of most of this board.
What proof of you of that?
Was it not you who was slagging off all of those who were active at the G8 in Germany recently?
Hm.

----------------------


Anyway, it comes down to your form of activism - as every situation (country, political climate, etc) have different forms of activism which are necessary, and which will be productive, rather than counter productive.
Planting the seeds of social change can be done in many ways; whether it's organising collectives, educating friends (as R.Harvey saids "the conversation spreads" :D ).
I am as active as I can be right now (kind of overwhelmed!). You do what you can, help others to do so. [/b]
I am not going to go over this again - the only people at G8 I have problems with were the the people (very few) that burned a cop car and started throwing things at the police, i.e. engaging in individual terrorism. The reason I get so much flak from saying this is because most of this board seems to support hooligan tactics, and therefore, in the last analysis, support the bourgeoisie, for as history has shown time and time again, that individual terrorism is only capable of strengthening bourgeois reaction.

What I have seen at this board for close to two years is a good deal of proof, I think. There are a lot of very young people that seem to spend more time on the Internet than getting involved. I did that myself when I was younger, but now I know that revolution does not happen through cyberspace.

[BlessedBesse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:52 pm

What's the difference between terrorism and this type of revolution?
Terrorism is simply a specific tactic while revolution entails actual socio-political change.
So without bringing morality into the discussion--

Revolution is terrorism that worked?
(ie successfully ignited socio-political change)

[Rawthentic]

No, revolution is made, in our day, by the majority, the working class. Terrorism most of the time involves individuals and small groups.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:17 pm


earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that the media would spin the actions of revolutionaries as terrorism. What's the difference between terrorism and this type of revolution?


it depends on how you define terrorism

the differance can be intent, that is to say terrorists are trying to force people in power to make some change, revolutionaries want to change the system entirely. that is to say terrorist belive in pressure politics. Lenin decribed a terrorist as a "liberal with a bomb".


it can be who you target, a terrorist will randomly kill civillians, a revolutionary will not.
terrorism is generally carried out by small groups witout the support of the population(note: is the enemy does collective punishment it can turn the people to your side)

of course the media will refer to any action you take as terrorism.

[BlessedBesse]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 21, 2007 04:08 pm
No, revolution is made, in our day, by the majority, the working class. Terrorism most of the time involves individuals and small groups.
So then it works like this then?



small # of people large # of people
|--------------------------|------------------------|
terrorism revolution

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Just off the topic a bit; how many people actually think that, reasonably, revolution is possible in the United States. I just ask because things haven't really progressed towards revolution since... ever (obviously just my opinion). Personally, I think there has just been way too much "patriotic" propaganda force fed into the minds of its citizens. They are malcontent, yet, from what i see from the tons of people i have worked with, they do nothing. I think people of america have become, irrevocably, too docile and complient.

If there ever was an American revolution I'd imagine it would begin in the cities. The campuses were the catalyst 40 years ago but they have fallen into the world of pampered priveledge and a lack of consideration for the struggles of working people. The best hope in America, if there ever will be one, will be the people in the big metropolises who have to fight every day for the most basic things in life like food and shelter. They know that something is wrong, they just haven't expressed it yet.

We used to talk about "power to the people." But the people have always had the power, they just typically are too afraid to use it, have to spend their lives working without giving rebellion a second thought, or they don't even know that such a concept as social revolution exists yet. But once they are aware then 50% of the struggle has been won.



So then it works like this then?
There's a difference in tactics as well, obviously. And the main problem with terrorism is that you can't just "blow up" capitaism. You can blow up a capitalist, but the system remains, and it becomes stronger and more dangerously reactionary with every terrorist act. One could even say that when revolutionaries turn to terrorism they become dangerously reactionary.

[Janus]

Revolution is terrorism that worked?
(ie successfully ignited socio-political change)
Revolution seeks actual change, terrorism is nothing more than a means/tactic in and of itself. Labeling a revolution mere terrorism is nothing more than moralistic grandstanding.

[Black Cross]

That isn't to say that terrorism is bad and revolution is good. It's all about context. Media propaganda will label anything they don't like, or anything that is bad for business, as terrorism. Che was a "terrorist", for instance. Anyone on this site, i'm sure, would say he's a revolutionary, but the media in america labeled him a terrorist because they wanted it to seem evil so no one else would act as he did.