How war is a good thing - This should prove to be contravers

[Pete]

As the war drums rage in America and Britain I have a question to ask all of my comrades who would condone violent revolution. Is it not the perfect time for a revolution when a nation is faring badly in a war, or a war goes against popular wishes? I am not pro-war, but I took an objective look at the situation and realized that the Revolutionaries in Iraq will have a better chance of ousting Saddam if he is occupied with bigger fish. He will not realize the knife in his back unitl it is to late. The same goes for George Bush and Tony Blair. We should protest the war, but if it does come we should redouble our efforts and begin using rhetoric and socialist theory against the government inorder to distablize it. When else would a nation be weaker then when it is busy slaughtering on a different continent?

[bluerev002]

True true, that is how the Russian Rev. happend also right? Although, there might be US intervention, and George W. Bush might see this as a way to get Saddam out.

Bush might ally himself w/ a group telling them that he will provide all the weapons they need. Bush might then place whoever he wants as the new leader and use him as a puppet.

Maybe war is good for a revolution, but when its with a country that loves imperialism so much as the US, it might not turn out to be as good as the ppl hope.

[peaccenicked]

''Our political line, embodied in resolutions, was worked out in advance with far greater precision than that of any other party. Events, however, have created an entirely new situation. The chief mistake made by revolutionaries is that they look backward at the old revolutions, whereas life gives us too many new things that have to be fitted into the general pattern of events.''
Lenin

The problem of to-day is that the old forms of revolution can not re-occur, this is due to unipolar(U.S ) globalisation. It is finance capital, moribund and fearful of its future. It needs to show how powerful it is. We need to show resistance but I think this is merely the beginning of pre revolutionary situation in which imperialism is losing credibility among the people of the world as a way of ruling the world.

[Pete]

We should never throw out the lessons of the past (as my 'Friendship and Learning' thread states), because if we do we will forget them. ALthough the same thing does not work twice, it can be manipulated and adapted to fit new situations. I would support any revolutionary movement the springs out in Iraq. Unless it is American-supplied/supported ect because we all know how those end up.

[CheViveToday]

Yeah. If a revolution were to take place in Iraq before a war, Bush would probably still attack calling the revolutionaries "Terrorists", and claiming they would continue to harbor weapons of mass destruction. A revolution after a war would be close to impossible, since there will be such a profound Western presence. Perhaps several years after a war.

[Domino]

If the revolutionaries in Iraq kick Saddam out (which I hope they do)... don't you think the U$ is going to take the credit for it? They'll say that their actions leaded to peace for the people in Iraq http://www.rocketsky.net/~mysmilies/contrib/corky/corkysm31.gif

[DEFMARX]

I don't see how a war would do anything to help a domestic revolution. It would certainly not take place during this war. Unfortunately during nearly every war, whether it is protested or not, it raises patriotic feelings among the masses. Also, this war is too easily marketable and Iraqis and Saddam Hussein are too easily demonized. Whether John Q. American likes to realize it or not, going to war against people of color and of a foreign culture is easily justifiable in this country.

There was a quote I can't remember exactly, taken from the Neuremburg Trials, that went somthing like....All you have to do in order to gain a nations support is show them an grandiose picture of themselves, and tell them that it is under threat. It is really quite simple.

I know that quote is far from accurate, but you get the idea. If anyone does know the quote I am refering to, please post it.

Also, the conditions the economy would be in would not be very well equipped to support a redistribution of wealth. Besides, there are so many things to be done before revolutionary conditions would be ideal in this country: like rebuilding domestic industry, nationalize education, and unprogram society by redirecting pop culture from bling bling to more intellectually stimulating things, like being creative instead of greedy.

(Edited by DEFMARX at 7:01 am on Mar. 11, 2003)

[redstar2000]

CrazyPete, there's a sense in which it is "always correct" to make propaganda for revolution.

On the other hand, I can't see any realistic prospects for revolution in the United States for decades, at least. A dramatically unsuccessful imperialist war could change that, of course...but it should be recalled that even lost wars are not inevitably followed by revolutions.

War is, indeed, always risky for ruling classes...and revolution is one of those risks. But I think it will be several wars down the road before we can speak realistically about revolution in the U.S.

:cool:

[Valkyrie]

Ha! I don't even think an unsuccessful imperialist war would do it. You would have thought rigging the elections and installing a puppet would have done it.. But... Nope!

What would spur an insurrection is if TV were outlawed and the cable wires were pulled out of the ground... People would be burning down the White House in rage. I am being serious about this. The TV is a drug for mainstream society.... and people would freak without it. Sad.. but true.....

[CruelVerdad]

War is good if you can realy change things as they are working, otherwise you`re just supporting murder...
This is a great time for the americans that don´t support the Bush government. Is now when they have to take action!

[Arkham]

Actually, insofar as the US is concerned, you have it exactly backwards. Historically, times of war have set back socialist movements decades if not more. This happened during WW1 (and was arguably the primary reason for the US entering the fray, to offset the hugely growing socialist movement domestically), and WWII. One doesn't need to look too hard to see what happened to the burgeoning communist movement in the US post WWII.

Its nice to try to find a silver lining around these imperialist misadventures, but with the exception of our first foray into Cuba, and Vietnam, Cambodia, etc, battles abroad have done nothing but hurt movements. The "war on terror" would be no exception, rather, it makes a great memetic case against any change in the status quo.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I was just thinking earlier today that if we went to war people would be pissed...etc. Then I started thinking well whats next, voting right wing governments, making life shit etc? Then I decided that there would be no point.