|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:59 pm
The last few days i have been reading up on various communist revolutions/revolutionaries that have taken place and that have led them and i was curious to see how members of the GCP would go about starting/maintaining a revolution and what tactics you would use during said revolution
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:43 pm
This is brief, I could write pages and pages of stuff on this subject (and I may) but for the convienience of all-
Start- Support is the most important thing to have, you must have support from the people. After you have this you select the most fit for combat, the most keen in theory, and the best with technology who all have strong political backgrounds and who have comrades in the movement you can recomend them (at least two).
After this is done you send your top men around the country (one in every major city, two or more in large cities and one per forest or large wilderness). You establish bases everywhere and recruit every where. You then must create and maintain surveilance on the government, preferably by putting inside men in the police, FBI, etc. Then you send a unit to Cuba, a unit to Niceragua, one to Venezuala, one to Vietnam, and consult the leaders and push for them to supply the revolution or at least support it. After this is done then you arm the soldiers, have them get their own weapons and also give them what can be given and train them in guerilla tactics. Use them. I could go on if you'd like...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:45 pm
Here's a good book on the subject by one of Fidel's former generals (you can read in to it on this page) http://www.amazon.com/150-Questions-Guerrilla-Alberto-Bayo/dp/0873640225/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1_rdssss0/002-1292527-5191264
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:48 pm
The Leninator! This is brief, I could write pages and pages of stuff on this subject (and I may) but for the convienience of all- Start- Support is the most important thing to have, you must have support from the people. After you have this you select the most fit for combat, the most keen in theory, and the best with technology who all have strong political backgrounds and who have comrades in the movement you can recomend them (at least two). After this is done you send your top men around the country (one in every major city, two or more in large cities and one per forest or large wilderness). You establish bases everywhere and recruit every where. You then must create and maintain surveilance on the government, preferably by putting inside men in the police, FBI, etc. Then you send a unit to Cuba, a unit to Niceragua, one to Venezuala, one to Vietnam, and consult the leaders and push for them to supply the revolution or at least support it. After this is done then you arm the soldiers, have them get their own weapons and also give them what can be given and train them in guerilla tactics. Use them. I could go on if you'd like... By all means comrade continue thats why i started this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:44 pm
The most important part of a revolution is gaining the trust of the people without that it will surely fail true it would be a great help to get support from other communist governments but i think another vital part more so then that is where one starts their revolution if it were me i would probably start in third world countries where people have nothing to loss and everything to gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:07 pm
BakuraTheSoulStealer The most important part of a revolution is gaining the trust of the people without that it will surely fail true it would be a great help to get support from other communist governments but i think another vital part more so then that is where one starts their revolution if it were me i would probably start in third world countries where people have nothing to loss and everything to gain I'd start it in a powerful country, probably my home country due to the fact that I know the terrain and culture better (although the culture baffles me at how dumb much of it is I understand how it works). If you made a middle eastern country or any small weak country socialist it would be crushed immidiatly, the only exceptions to this rule is Cuba and Vietnam, Cuba had the support of the USSR and had time to grow too powerful for the US to want to engage. Vietnam lost 4.5 million of its citizens to the US, and over 1.5 million citizens of other countries were killed. I think it should be a powerful country in depravity, like Russia in the early 1900s or China before the revolution or the US during the depression. The US is heading that way as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:13 pm
True a powerfull country in the middle of depravity would be the ideal spot for starting a revolution but countries are rarely in such conditions so it would be best to start in a place like Africa that could only gain and gain immensly from communism untill waiting for a country to reach such a depravity and africa is not a small middle eastern country with the proper training equipment and strategies one could definatly turn africa into a strong communist nation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:26 pm
I'm inclined to agree with Bakura would not it be best to start in a third world country were it would be easy to gain support while at the same time gathering support from other communist countries because it would be easier to start a revolution their then in a first wold country where their are so many adversaries and speedbumps as it where that would get in the revolutions way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
It would be easier to win a revolution in a third world country but much harder to maintain it is my point, if there was a small yet fast growing socialist country with support from every socialist country on earth the US would crush it, they'd wipe it out with bombs and have the support of all other large world powers. Plus, if it was a small third world country you'd have very little influence on the rest of the world, it would be hard to inspire revolution, plus, in a third world country the economy you start out with will be terrible as will be many ideas held, you would have to start by giving equality to blacks and women and gays which in itself could inspire a revolt, while in the US there would be few complaints and the economy would be decent.
About influence- if the US says something the world pays attention, not so much Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or any African country other then South Africa. You could start revolution there and have people there gaining support but you do want to take it to a first world country for the actual revolution, once you have that power you can use the support you gained in those countries to activate sleeper cells of freedom fighters there and you've got a domino effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:02 pm
The Leninator! It would be easier to win a revolution in a third world country but much harder to maintain it is my point, if there was a small yet fast growing socialist country with support from every socialist country on earth the US would crush it, they'd wipe it out with bombs and have the support of all other large world powers. Plus, if it was a small third world country you'd have very little influence on the rest of the world, it would be hard to inspire revolution, plus, in a third world country the economy you start out with will be terrible as will be many ideas held, you would have to start by giving equality to blacks and women and gays which in itself could inspire a revolt, while in the US there would be few complaints and the economy would be decent. About influence- if the US says something the world pays attention, not so much Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or any African country other then South Africa. You could start revolution there and have people there gaining support but you do want to take it to a first world country for the actual revolution, once you have that power you can use the support you gained in those countries to activate sleeper cells of freedom fighters there and you've got a domino effect. What you say is true and living their myself i know that the current american government would do what you say but say a revolution was started in Africa not even this current government would resort to bombing it that would be far to much bad publicity for america in the eyes of foreign countries But what you say about influence really is a good idea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:28 am
BakuraTheSoulStealer The Leninator! It would be easier to win a revolution in a third world country but much harder to maintain it is my point, if there was a small yet fast growing socialist country with support from every socialist country on earth the US would crush it, they'd wipe it out with bombs and have the support of all other large world powers. Plus, if it was a small third world country you'd have very little influence on the rest of the world, it would be hard to inspire revolution, plus, in a third world country the economy you start out with will be terrible as will be many ideas held, you would have to start by giving equality to blacks and women and gays which in itself could inspire a revolt, while in the US there would be few complaints and the economy would be decent. About influence- if the US says something the world pays attention, not so much Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or any African country other then South Africa. You could start revolution there and have people there gaining support but you do want to take it to a first world country for the actual revolution, once you have that power you can use the support you gained in those countries to activate sleeper cells of freedom fighters there and you've got a domino effect. What you say is true and living their myself i know that the current american government would do what you say but say a revolution was started in Africa not even this current government would resort to bombing it that would be far to much bad publicity for america in the eyes of foreign countries But what you say about influence really is a good idea Bombing Vietnam was bad publicity and it was far away, bombing Iraq was bad publicity, if not at the time we did it then now, America seems not to care and would be supported by many capitalist countries in it, they would make up a lie about weapons producing or evil or something and attack if not psyically then economically with trade embargos, which would destroy a country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:25 am
The Leninator! BakuraTheSoulStealer The Leninator! It would be easier to win a revolution in a third world country but much harder to maintain it is my point, if there was a small yet fast growing socialist country with support from every socialist country on earth the US would crush it, they'd wipe it out with bombs and have the support of all other large world powers. Plus, if it was a small third world country you'd have very little influence on the rest of the world, it would be hard to inspire revolution, plus, in a third world country the economy you start out with will be terrible as will be many ideas held, you would have to start by giving equality to blacks and women and gays which in itself could inspire a revolt, while in the US there would be few complaints and the economy would be decent. About influence- if the US says something the world pays attention, not so much Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or any African country other then South Africa. You could start revolution there and have people there gaining support but you do want to take it to a first world country for the actual revolution, once you have that power you can use the support you gained in those countries to activate sleeper cells of freedom fighters there and you've got a domino effect. What you say is true and living their myself i know that the current american government would do what you say but say a revolution was started in Africa not even this current government would resort to bombing it that would be far to much bad publicity for america in the eyes of foreign countries But what you say about influence really is a good idea Bombing Vietnam was bad publicity and it was far away, bombing Iraq was bad publicity, if not at the time we did it then now, America seems not to care and would be supported by many capitalist countries in it, they would make up a lie about weapons producing or evil or something and attack if not psyically then economically with trade embargos, which would destroy a country. yea but i mean africa is like the definition for third world i could understand maybe sending a team of elite people in to take out the revolutions leaders or key people but bombing Africa i dont think America would do it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:36 am
BakuraTheSoulStealer The Leninator! BakuraTheSoulStealer The Leninator! It would be easier to win a revolution in a third world country but much harder to maintain it is my point, if there was a small yet fast growing socialist country with support from every socialist country on earth the US would crush it, they'd wipe it out with bombs and have the support of all other large world powers. Plus, if it was a small third world country you'd have very little influence on the rest of the world, it would be hard to inspire revolution, plus, in a third world country the economy you start out with will be terrible as will be many ideas held, you would have to start by giving equality to blacks and women and gays which in itself could inspire a revolt, while in the US there would be few complaints and the economy would be decent. About influence- if the US says something the world pays attention, not so much Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or any African country other then South Africa. You could start revolution there and have people there gaining support but you do want to take it to a first world country for the actual revolution, once you have that power you can use the support you gained in those countries to activate sleeper cells of freedom fighters there and you've got a domino effect. What you say is true and living their myself i know that the current american government would do what you say but say a revolution was started in Africa not even this current government would resort to bombing it that would be far to much bad publicity for america in the eyes of foreign countries But what you say about influence really is a good idea Bombing Vietnam was bad publicity and it was far away, bombing Iraq was bad publicity, if not at the time we did it then now, America seems not to care and would be supported by many capitalist countries in it, they would make up a lie about weapons producing or evil or something and attack if not psyically then economically with trade embargos, which would destroy a country. yea but i mean africa is like the definition for third world i could understand maybe sending a team of elite people in to take out the revolutions leaders or key people but bombing Africa i dont think America would do it It might get small reprimands from other countries but since it was to eliminate the "threat of communism" the backlash on the u.s would probably be minimal at best
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:40 am
Comrade, check out Guerrilla Warfare by comrade Esterno "Che" Guevara, it covers the not-only the tactics of a revolution, but also the political enviroments needed or made from revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
