Welcome to Gaia! ::

Can you not see that you are more reliant on the rich than I am, in fighting them over rights? It implies that they have a power we want- In reality, their only power over us is their imaginary number game. If we stop playing their game, we eliminate their power.

There is no need to fight something that doesn't exist. We just need to realize that it doesn't exist and act on that realization.

Reliant on the rich? Er... you mean by needign to work for them because I'm poor and they have money? Yeah. That's exactly what being a proletarian is all about, mister.

And no, it implies that they are holding back, and that we can get s**t from them, and we will be the ones to galvanise the workers in struggle for gains within capitalism, and show ourselves to be the only ones capable of leading the proletariat to real gains. While you sit there saying 'it's all a lie!' So when the time comes, and the workers start to kick up some massive s**t, like they did in February, well, this time they'll have a party to ead them from the outset, and won't have to go through July and September on the way to October.

And in october we will take the Winter Palace, and you will be crying your petty, pacifist-kautskyan tears of BAAWWW that we did it and not you.

And I will lol.

You have? Good. Now spread the concept. Gain support with me. If we all accept that their power is a false concept and refuse to work for them, what do they have? Vacant factories, zero workforce, no revenue- Their imaginary system collapses under them and gives them no power. Their hired armies are working on paper that represent nothing, and will be fired or quit, having no reason to continue working where their pay buys nothing. Within a month, likely a week, we will dismantle their economic power and be free to take back the factories and resume working under equal ownership and deomcratic government.

Not necessarily actually. Che makes a point in Guerrilla Warfare to point out that every guerrilla fighting unit starts out as this little hit-and-run tactics style of fighting, and the war will not be won until you can fight on the terms of your enemy. Look at the American Revolution, the sniping and the hiding in the bushes only lasted long enough to build up a real army that could march in lines across the battlefield and defeat the British. And when the British realized that they were organized and they were on the same playing field the British left. Granted, to fight a modern-day nation, especially one of the NATO ones on their own terms sounds like a daunting task but it can be done. It's a war of attrition either way. It's a complicated process but it can be done. You have to not use suicide bombers and do things the way that they are typically done by "terrorists".

But look at them too, they are these awful barbaric people who want nothing but the destruction of infidels right? You bet your sweet a** if those nations fought together that they would get the US out of there, especially if Iran wasn't busy trying to figure out which side it wants to be on. But the nations can not afford to lose US aide that builds their schools and roads and sewage systems so they harbor the terrorists because they hate America, but they play nice so that they can get money from us. In the Korean war there was the use of tactics that we would consider terrorist today but in my opinion North Korea pretty much won. Although a ceasefire isn't the end of a war and there's not really a clear winner.


It's a delicate balance, I admit that. But it would be possible to have a violent revolution, you just can't make it all your revolution is about. Look at Ireland, they used terrorist tactics as well, but they're considered freedom fighters. It's a perception thing. You have to find a way to get to the masses that's more effective than the current means that's used to control them.

Well if that wasn't a shitload of me not being able to express my thoughts...

That's not exactly palace-storming attire there, Gracchia.

You think they haven't learned how to fight guerrilla tactics? What do you think they've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Admittedly, it's a good war tactic. But it's still not going to get anywhere for several reasons- As mentioned, they have more firepower- Troops, guns, training, planes, tanks and international support. So there's a simple logistical problem of "It's hardly physically possible".

Secondly, there's the propaganda spin. We would be turned into mindless terrorists in the eyes of the people we are fighting for. The workers would be against us and cling tighter to the coat sleeves of their owners, for fear of being turned into a dictatorial Red Fascism, which is exactly how it would be spun. We would lose the interest and support of the people most vital to our role. So there's a problem of "It's bad for our morale", (Our referring to the workers we hope to liberate)

Thirdly, assuming we DO win and kill all of the capitalist leaders, against all odds and reason- What then? Go back to the people who fear us and hate us and say "Well, you're free now, good luck"- Or worse yet, set up another republic which has a good chance of ending up just as corrupt as all the other proposed Communisms, with little to no support from our own workforce? There's a problem of "How doe we execute this without failing again, with no support from our workers"

Also, terrorism is very broad. It is not simply flying planes into buildings. It is any act that of violence meant to instill fear to promote or reject an idea. That WOULD be terrorism. It would also be very easy to spin that terrorism in the eyes of the people away from our liberation and to the idea that we just want to blow s**t up and cause trouble for good, apple-pie eating, absolutely free Americans. Just look what we did to 9/11, in terms of spin- Hardly anybody knows WHY they did that, but if you look into it you can see clear motivation and reasoning, albeit wrong action.

Violence is an acceptable and probable way to overthrow the current hierarchy. Violence has been an acceptable way to solve political issues since the dawn of humanity. Although I do suppose the primitive hunter-gather tribalism could be exempt from this, but that age is long past. Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Now I'm not a Maoist but I've got to agree with this. You want to enforce a law you've got to have a punishment for those who break said law. Now this could be something light like a fine or community service, or something much greater such as exile or death. Everyway you've still got to enforce it with the punishment. The government has a monopoly on force as well it should, because if it didn't then it would taken over by whatever group that had the most or biggest gun. This is what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The exploited become the new exploiters. The workers create a government that deprives the bourgeoisie class of so called "rights" and "Freedoms" in order to safeguard the revolution. I mean really could you just imagine what would happen if the Bolsheviks let the remains of the Czarist forces and the Provisional Government do whatever they felt like. Or if they hadn't violently risen up at all?

As for peaceful reforms or peaceful revolutions (I know our current bourgeoisie society has contradictions in it but this is just double plus ungood.) they tend to be limited to small reforms. Also they usually take a longer amount of time I mean everyone talks about the successes of the civil rights movement but Plessy V. Fergusuon was decided in 1896 and the civil rights act was passed in 1964. Yeah 68 years of non-violent struggle........... This is our best hope? You know I'm probably being too generous here considering race relations before 1896 and after 1964 but I think the point is clear. You can't just expect people to roll over as you threaten their interests and ideology. They're not going to play by your rules. If you don't fire back they will gun you down with even batting an eyelash. If you organize a march they'll organize a firing squad. You organize a sit in they organize a raid. You call a strike they call the Pinkertons. People won't just sit around and get at shot at no matter how pleasing an idea is. They have to a chance to fight back, to not just be martyrs that you can use in a speech about how the capitalists are violating rights.

The Paris Commune was destroyed because it didn't exercise its full force. It didn't go after Versailles; it didn't take over France's national bank. There's not going to be just a general strike or some great enlightenment that will immediate dismantlement the old society. A new state will need to rise up and defend the gains of the workers. Even if you do get a majority of the population to agree with you it won't matter. Unless they have planes, tanks, bombs, and guns to defend themselves they'll end up being chewed up and spit by the military industrial complex.

If this comes out as just a long rant I apologize. But I'm really just tired of this pacifist attitude that everything will be rainbows and happiness as long as we don't incite violence. These petty morals hold violence as some kind of poison that infects everything it touches. It ignores the tactical and dialectic nature of violence and simply engages in moralizing humanist bullshit.