revolution and violence

[danyboy27]

if i dont believe in a violent revolution, will i be dropped in the opposing ideologies and labelled has a counterrecolutionary?.

[comrade stalin guevara]

I would say no.
I am a advocate for peace, however peace will not change the system,i belive violent revolution is impossible to avoid

I dont see a reason why you would be droped, every one has an opionion just dont barrage the boards with anti communist propaganda and you will be fine

[Sam_b]

I don't believe anybody on this board has a particular bloodlust for a violent revolution. However, it cannot be discounted. The ruling class has a plethora of military resources at its disposal, and I think its naive to think that they can be won over by peaceful means.

[danyboy27]

I don't believe anybody on this board has a particular bloodlust for a violent revolution. However, it cannot be discounted. The ruling class has a plethora of military resources at its disposal, and I think its naive to think that they can be won over by peaceful means.

the pen is mightier than the sword my friend...

sun tzu also got a ton of strategy to get the ennemy without weapons

[mykittyhasaboner]

the pen is mightier than the sword my friend...

sun tzu also got a ton of strategy to get the ennemy without weapons

so if one guy that was attacking you with a sword, you'd want a pen to defend yourself?

my point is in order for advocates of socialism to defend themselves, they need to meet brute force, with exactly that, force.

[Sam_b]

the pen is mightier than the sword my friend...

Not when we're crushed by the forces of capitalism. These people are ruthless. They've brutally crushed workers before, and they'll do it again.


sun tzu also got a ton of strategy to get the ennemy without weapons

Can you really make comparisons with Sun Tzu and the conditions of advanced capitalism?

[danyboy27]

Not when we're crushed by the forces of capitalism.

Can you really make comparisons with Sun Tzu and the conditions of advanced capitalism?

advanced capitalism is structured, and like any structured organisations, you can make it crumble by subtile mean.

desinformation, false flag operation, many of those could be used.

it would sure work better than blowing up something or do a manifestation

[BIG BROTHER]

The option of violent revolution isn't really ours, but the bourgeoisie's. It is them who will result to every measure to secure there interests(remember what happened in Chile with Allende?) that's why a violent revolution is necessary.

[Sam_b]

desinformation, false flag operation, many of those could be used.

What? I'm intregued.

Regardless, this seems to go entirely against Marxism and the idea of the self-emancipation of the working class. These don't seem like mass actions at all, rather the tactics of a small clique/elite which seizes control of a situation for opportunistic purposes and is against our politics as revolutionary socialists/anarchists.

We can't, don't and won't work within capitalisms means and rules to achieve liberation: we work outside of it to break it when the time is right.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I stayed up ridiculously late on Monday night reading "The Art of War". It was certainly interesting and there was a lot of wisdom in what was said. However, I'd have to concur with others. That's not to undermine the importance of the pen, but both instruments serve their purpose and both are useful in their proper relative circumstances.
If you go to a rally or protest of some sort and spot someone trying to incite a riot, tap them on the shoulder, and when they turn around, hold up a pen. I guarantee you that you'll be the one to incite a riot--of laughter!
Hand out all the flyers you want, but at the end of the day it will take more than that to get the bourgeois to surrender.
"Without a People's Army, the People have nothing."

[danyboy27]

well, look like my unorthodox mean are entuerely unethical, but so far those are the only ones i know to make capitalism crumble.

it will not necessarly lead to a system to be communism, but would probably with intenese and long effort shrink the system.

[Sam_b]

it will not necessarly lead to a system to be communism, but would probably with intenese and long effort shrink the system.

So its nothing more than reformism, i'm guessing.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Whether a revolution is violent or not (should) depends on the ruling class, not the revolutionaries.

For a revolution to be successful, a great amount of logic and strategy has to be used and in doing this, you have to know how far the enemy will go. If the ruling class will go without a fight, very unlikely, then a non-violent revolution is usually preferred but if the ruling class will fight to the death, like most regimes, using non-violence will only result in a slaughter.

Non-violence works very well for reformation in a democratic, media-friendly, sympathic population but will get you no where on trying to completely overthrow a system.

Edit- BTW, "36 Strategies of War" by Robert Greene is very interesting read. I would consider it the modern "Art of War".

[BIG BROTHER]

Whether a revolution is violent or not (should) depends on the ruling class, not the revolutionaries.

For a revolution to be successful, a great amount of logic and strategy has to be used and in doing this, you have to know how far the enemy will go. If the ruling class will go without a fight, very unlikely, then a non-violent revolution is usually preferred but if the ruling class will fight to the death, like most regimes, using non-violence will only result in a slaughter.

Non-violence works very well for reformation in a democratic, media-friendly, sympathic population but will get you no where on trying to completely overthrow a system.

Edit- BTW, "36 Strategies of War" by Robert Greene is very interesting read. I would consider it the modern "Art of War".

quoted for the truth, the option of a violent revolution its not in our hands, but our enemies.