Welcome to Gaia! ::

And we do this by not fighting back? We just stand there and do nothing but talk? That's like saying that you shouldn't fight off a rapist but should just try and convince them that raping people is wrong. The Bourgeoisie doesn’t care whether you are pacifist or a militant they'll still shoot you in the face. In fact the pacifists are usually the first to go because they are the easiest prey. They'll make a lot of noise but they'll never break those chains they wear. Although the bourgeoisie have morals they're at least able to recognize that they can move them just like goalposts. That their class interests can't and won't be held back by infantile notions like good and evil. Pacifists have more freedom of action in first world countries because they are less of a threat as their bourgeoisie already has complete control of the ideological state apparatus. You don't need to fire a shot; they can call on the secular gods of freedom and liberty to shift their forms so that they have justification for selling you down the river. Your ability to protest was created by the actions of direct activists; it was paid for with blood and iron. Seriously read some Louis Althusser, his ideas on humanism are quite interesting.

Back on topic though chairman bob sucks. Although so does the entire American left so it's really a moot point.

Yes, it's a pretty large problem. From the command standpoint, they want everyone to be the same for "unit cohesion" but more for it being easier to manage people when they think, look, and act the same.

However, the popular democratic ideas floating amongst the lower ranks of having their own weapons and armor because the NATO issue blows donkey balls. And yes, people are buying AK's M9s, whatever they want. Of course, their rank/billet dictates how they can aquire these, but in America's military, as long as you're buying it yourself, and only following rules and regulations governing them, then they don't care...

EDIT: This is my first post with a (not hacked) Windows 7 Operating system... Again, this operating system is (not hacked and is instead) awesome. (going through pains to mention someething dubious without mentioning something dubious)

II'm pointing out that political change is rarely peacefull and that any political system of thought if it is to surrvive must enforce it's self through a ideological state apparatus. Thus I hold your oppossistion to violence the be wishfull thinking.

And the capitalists won't object to this plan because they're having tea and biscuits? When you threaten someone's political power it doesn't really tend to go over well.

This is vague. How do you gain power? Do insert your idelogy into seat of power through electoral politics? Flooding people of your ideaology into a certain geogrhapical area, or perhapes into a certain sector of the economy? How do you gain power? Because it's not just given you have to take it with both hands and elbow everyone else in the face to keep it in your hands.

And you expect to convince people of this how? Why would people be willing to give up their jobs, their way to gain sustenance. Unless you have a job and the wages that come with it you tend to lose your ability to buy food. Are you're supporters just going to tune in and drop out of contemporary society until everyone else follows them? Yes isolate yourselves from the masses and allow the capitalists to demonize you as crazed hermits, that'll work. I mean after all look at how those communes in the 1960s were able to turn us into a socialist republic.... oh wait.

Strange from what I've seen it seems to me that the workers suffer the most when economic conditions go under. Are you going to have some kind of saftey net made from counter-economic efforts to stop everyone from falling deeper into poverty?

Numbers help with political power but they are not themselves a form of power. The peasents far outnumbered the fuedal lords and knights, but they didn't conctrol the fuedal society. The working class has always had numerical superiority but they did not control the government and thus were not able to secure their class intrests.

And they can't shoot that because? History has shown us that people will shoot peacemakers before. Bloody Sunday for example, the demonstrators were just marching to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II when the Imperial guard fired on them. Unless some sort of war occurs and the capitalists are powerless to stop you from just walking into the capital and claiming power they'll gun you down where ever they find you. Just understand people don't care if your idealogy is peacefull, if you threaten their power they will us every means to stop you. At first they proably use petty legal manuvering, spying, and maybe a little bit of intimidation. But if you don't get the message they'll turn the hoses on you, then they'll use tear gas, next they'll send in the baton wielders, and then finnaly they'll just spray lead. Doesn't matter who you're going against. It could be a seven year old girl, she would still drop space colonies on you.

Who is threatening? We're simply not playing the game anymore.

The goal is vague because that is the nature of it, at it's core. Is power for the working class not your goal? And is the obstacle in front of it not the fact that the capitalists hoard it through their economic system? So, then, the goal is exactly that. Take the power from the capitalists. It is not "Start a war" or "Kill bad people"- It's "Ensure that the workers get what they deserve" Your method is shifty at best, and it is either all or nothing. If we try violence and fail, we lose decades of progress. Not only will our name be tarnished and feared and many of our supporters dead, laws may even get more oppressive in the name of "safety", like the Patriot Act we saw with Bush. If, again, the goal is to take their power rather than kill them, as seems to be the common fallacy here, my method is cleaner and can not really go wrong- Absolute worst case scenario is that we wasted a few years of time. No backwards slide, no propaganda oblivion, no bloodshed.

Back on subject. It would be mildly taxing, but if it is well organized, it should only take a week, or maybe a month at the most. Rationing food for a short time may have to occur, or self-employed allies could start communes for the time being. Again, however, it would only last until the economy collapsed, and it would have to begin all at once with a large portion of the workforce following.

That's because we are in the system. We need to escape the system and leave it behind- The mines still produce ore, the cows are still breeding and giving milk, the fields are fertile. The only reason workers tend to suffer is because they are in a system where the dollar rules the world- Even if everything is still able to be produced and the workers are still working, if there is a hiccup in the number system, people don't eat. It is a problem that economy creates for itself, by itself and of itself. Point being- economic hardship is unique to economic systems.

Because they lack the- What now? Economic power. Which is why the chains binding us to the system are the economic system itself. This is why attacking the economic system is the perfect solution- It eliminates the controlling factor of the rich and eliminates the means to gain such power again, assuming we do not revert back to another economic system. It is also concentrated on what is controlling us, rather than just killing the guys in power to set up new guys in power.

They shot what now? Demonstrators? Oh. I see. I thought you were talking about my idea. Interesting unrelated story, but I wish we could stick to the subject at hand. If you are confused, I suggest you read my prior posts on the subject of why they have no target to attack.

But you idea is to remove capitalism isn't? To end the current socio-economic system? If you want to remove the system that gives them power it doesn't matter how you do it you're still threatening their power. I mean really ever you're trying to end the capitalist system of production and they're going to oppose you for that, or you're not and they may or may not oppose you. It would depend on the nature of the reform and the political flavor of the month. But the idea that just because you're not threatening them with death doesn't mean they'll just roll over and go kill themselves in their own libertarian utopia on the moon.

And how do you maintain their gains. Just hope the other capitalists in the world, or the remains of the capitalist class in the nation where the revolution has occurred is made up of hippies who will respect infantile notions such as human rights? The capitalists have power because they own the means of production as their property. They have the legal, cultural, and military defense of their property. It's not simply the takeover of the government by person of persuasion X; it's the destruction of the old government and the building of a new one on its remains. I mean when the Bolsheviks won the revolution did they just crown Lenin as the new czar? No, they set up a system of socialist republics that were governed by soviets.

Which is why the Russian revolution of 1905 stopped the next one from happening right? The Bolsheviks were ruined and would never gain support again am I right? It's also why the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in India is such a large problem, because they have no popular support and everyone hates them, am I correct?

The Reichstag fire may not have been caused by Communists but they were the certainly the main targets of the Reichstag Fire Decree. Also how are you immune to this? Simply because you guys are going to go live in isolation for a while? They'll still march up to you with their clubs swinging and their voices crying out "Freedom, Freedom, Freedom"! Or maybe a different slogan, ever way the result will be the same.

Uh hu... yeah. And I'm sure no one will denounce your ideas once they see they don't bear fruit. No one will decide to just accept to live under the capitalist rule because they lose their revolutionary fervor. Your opponents won't portray your ideas and any ideas associated with you as one in the same? Sheesh and I thought I was crazy during my Anarchist days, but even I supported some action against the capitalists. Though it would have been a counter economic black market coup done with an alliance between the lumpen-proletariat and the lumpen-bourgeoisie.

Yeah have you ever tried to organize a general strike? It would probably be easier for you to just hack into the defense network of the US gain control of their nuclear weapons and just hold the world hostage.

Right and the capitalists just let you spread your message and organize until you commit this action? They don't prepare for the strike and mechanize their production as much as possible? They wouldn’t fire the workers who are your comrades so that they starve on the street? Have you been listening to the political media at all, pre-emptive attacks are all the rage. They’re like crack except legal, and easier to justify in their use.

I'm aware of the faults of the price system, but I also realize that we will have to build the new world out of the remains of the old and thus some old prejudices will remain for a time at least. Thus the whole need to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, to purge the populace of their ideological inferiority. Personally I think the price system will be replaced with energy accounting, but I'm rambling.

*sigh* And how do they maintain control of the means of production? By a system of laws that is supported with violence of course, I think I may have repeated myself seeing as laws need force to be enforced but whatever. If you walk into a factory and claim to set up a socialist republic the owners will simply call security and throw you out. If you come back with your followers they'll call out the police. You still haven't explained how you're going to stop them when they use force, or why they wouldn't use force.

Well perhaps you could spell it out for me, because all I've seen is that they won't kill you because you’re non-violent and don't do protests. Hell the capitalists have killed people who didn't protest their regime before. You think everyone rounded up by Mussolini was arrested because they broke the law? No some were just in the wrong place at the wrong time; others were simply arrested for printing words. You don't think you would escape notice if another sedition act was put up? You think they wouldn't infiltrate your organization and simply arrest you for having your ideology laughable, truly laughable. The truth is that you can be attacked, you will be the target of abuse, and you will have to do something about it. Contemporary society is filled with contradictions that are struggling against each other and they don’t pull back punches. Seriously lrn2communism.

I don't think he really read my reply, otherwise he would have picked up the gundam reference I threw in there. lol

*Martin Luther King was gunned down like a fool.

Correction.

MLK was really good at amassing people to the equal opportunity cause, but do you seriously believe his marching about really did anything but put a face on the movement? Thy were seeing no gains, MK was actually calling in the military on his own people who were rioting violently for overthrowing the oppression... they were gunned down, peaceful or not.

Eventually MLK got his, too, and got shot as he deserved for being such a counter productive pacifist. I personally feel like MLk was in emply by the government to put a peaceful face on the movement, to lull people into a "ghandi" like movement, seeing as how America likes tho think ghandi was successful and s**t. MLK, really, put a hamper on Malcom X and the Black Panthers, various other radical black /equal opportunity groups that were going to seize power. We could've overthrown society in the 60's during the uprisings of when MLK was killed, which was the straw that broke the camels back. they had to kill the one guy who was serving the government's interests pacifist wise, that made everyone go into uproar and kill police, overturn cars, and produce pure mayhem.

If we had an organize socialist group at the time with a goal of revolution, we would've had no hard time of it at that point. Instead, we went the path of revisionism and allowed the government to recover and pronounce martial law to force us back into compliance. This isn't the stuff thats popularly advertised by "black history month" or "history books" they continue to promote their bullshit capitalist agenda of the peaceful MLK and the peaceful Ghandi whom accomplished SO MUCH!!

Honestly, dude, look at our government. is anything ANY better for minorities legally? No, not really. they can get employed, and theres some bullshit hate crime laws passed, and the general public's opinion of "minorities" is much higher as if they are equal to us, because they are... But let me tell you, living in a predominantly black city, they are poor, bitterly oppressed, denied education and a future. they turn to crim ebecause if they don't, they will die. And when they, do, they still get imprisoned or die. Many imprisoned falsely simple because they were black. Being at the butt of a society like that, it pisses me off that they have the gall to say MLK did all this bullshit, he didn't do a god damned thing except incite rage at his death, but due to his own counter productive pacifistic teachings, his people stopped short of revolution.

/History lesson

That's due to the economic system- Those who start poor tend to stay poor. You think there's some sort of conspiracy keep black people down? No, the conspiracy is to keep poor people down- black people just generally started out poor.

You just completely ignored the entire paragraph poitning at how nothing MLK did accomplished anything.

Further, blacks were never given ANYTHING, anything, to take them from where they were. In fact, i see no difference for them today than there was 50 years ago, they may have been more financially better of then than now. Most of it has little to do with the economy as much as it has to do with bigotry and oppression of people, not based on their social class, but on the colour of their skin and the area they live in.