Welcome to Gaia! ::

Things seem to have gotten a little bit dull around here. Therefor, I am going to liven things up.

First, I start with this proposition. Why would an armed revolution be needed to destroy capitalism? Wouldn't that be the worst way to go about changing it?

Second, I elaborate on that sentence. If armed conflict is used to destroy capitalism, wouldn't most of the infrastructure also be destroyed? Leaving thousands if not millions homeless after it was all over? And if not that, then what of the hospitals, roads and farms? Wouldn't a mass famine result if the farms were destroyed?

Third, I propose a secondary alternative. What if peaceful revolution is used? Wouldn't just having everyone leave their work post effectively stop capitalism in its tracts?

Fourth, I support the alternative. If no product is being made or sold, then in what sense does capitalism still exist? With no product there is nothing to sell. With no buyers, there is no product.

Finally I ask, why do we need to absolutely destroy capitalism anyway? It does have its positive effects and is very useful in keeping things in a resemblance of order. Would it not be possible to adapt capitalism to something more useful instead of destroying it completely?

And that concludes this post.

The first two Modern revolutions were in Italy and Germany. Mussolini and Hitler both were peaceful revolutionaries and used revolutions from above using the state. That is a peaceful revolution one that comes from above another issue is simple ideology. Should the Revolution succeed does a populace need to be even aware of this transfer of economics and simply go on to call it Capital? With a revolution from above/peaceful revolution there is no need for an epistemological break for the same laws apply. All that needs to be done is to keep people thinking that nothing is happening and simply "take the rug out from over them" and replace it with a new one.


I am pro armed revolution. Peaceful transfer does not allow a break of any sort and will just lead to yet another revolution from above. An armed bloody revolution does not often leave the mind of the current populace as well as a passive revolution.

So would "harm" instill more ore less involvement or purpose in the mind of the cognitive individual? o.O

What Im saying is that wouldnt having harm being present be a better motivator/ antaganizer then that of "minimal" quasi-passive revolution? I am asking which has a greater impact on the current populace and which divides greatest?

I feel that a worse thing is a division within. Disagreements on things that are big can kill a movement.

Great...play with your pants on and take showers often. Save often also. Next get Best of Star Wars.

I recall that attacking with violent uprising often involves a civil war. English Civil War resulted from were it started. A monarchy was still in power after Cornwall. Also 14th century France is another good example. Violence often leads to a loss. Gunida tought you something? Even Hitler? Being peaceful works better in the end.

Good question's. I think doing a revolution is a very extreme and last resort type of thing when there is no clear way and all other options have been tried. I can't stand capitalism now days because of all the corruption and I'm for fair trade and not free trade and I think programs like NAFTA/CAFTA have really hurt my fellow man in Latin America and other country's around the world. Check out Greg Palast at gregpalast.com and read what he says about vouchers and third world country's. It's so gross and turned me off even more to capitalism. Please understand I'm not against businesses and trading and all that stuff but capitalism has just been so corrupt in the last ten years plus. But you're totally correct on your theory of armed revolution. It would do that and I think would set you back. The only way I'd be for an armed revolution is if there isn't a way to change things either with money or democratically. I think if you have enough people to leave their jobs and do it all at once would make that happen. If you still have people attending jobs enough for the business to run it wouldn't really do any good because they'd still be making profit and the same thing works with boycotts. I personally don't think it's really a reality to destroy capitalism but I do think we can fix corruption and that's real and you can only do that by going after the corrupt corporations who do horrible things by not buying their products etc.

Not really Hitler is a poster child of a capitalism in decay so citing him is not far off. Though Hitler had little to fight, mainly it was small fights against communist and others, nothing like a government against you as you stated that makes it big. Though capitalism came into being around the 14th century after the Black Death; due to a third of Europe dead, for the first time the rich had to pay in order to get people to work for them. So more or less you payed or loss, though there were fights none the less were the nobles imprisoned people as surfs due the loss of theirs.