Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

REVOLUTION

82 replies to this topic
Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#61

Posted 10 January 2005 - 07:05 AM

QUOTE
Hey,

I just happen to be believe in communist revolution so I'm very interested in this discussed.

This question increasingly becomes more serious (beyond everyone who already knew first hand about all the racism, poverty, jailing and other outrages in this country).  And, if you all wait until it really is fascism or the equivalant, it's going to be too late to organize to stop it (like Germany, which even though its not going to go down the same way its still worth looking at how that country got there and what people tried to do to stop it).

In light of that, I wanted to post this statement on exactly this question from The Revolutionary Communist Party of the US.


Statement from the Revolutionary Communist Party:
THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT
FROM HERE FORWARD!

YOU THINK YOU KNOW.... BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA.... JUST WHAT BUSH HAS IN STORE FOR.... YOU.... US.... THE WORLD.... OUR FUTURE!

Straight up—Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages....
full statement at


Very interesting. I can't say I support communism though. I believe that compromise is great and I totaly support the implimentation of many socialist ideas, I also see the need for a free market (inteligently regulated, so not realy free in the true scense of the word, but I think you get my point).

Basicaly I want to see a compostite system. Let's take the good ideas from different sides and find a way to make them not only work together, but compliment each other. Then we eliminate what sucks as best as possible.

Red Hat Girl
  • Red Hat Girl

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2004

#62

Posted 15 January 2005 - 08:25 PM

Yeah, the hard part isn't so much having the revolution, but what you do afterwards, so it doesn't turn into just an upsidedown version of capitalism (where everyone who was formally oppressed gets to oppress everybody) and people have to get fed and culture developed. That's why I liked the brief vision in the statement, because it got into all that.

There's a lot more deeper stuff too. There are articles and books about sustaining a market under socialism, this is one:

http://rwor.org/a/v2...1166/lotta1.htm

Which you might find interesting.

Any one else have any thoughts here? I don't think a topic like this should die out so easily.

Red Hat Girl

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#63

Posted 16 January 2005 - 02:33 AM

If you look at history violent revolution always ends either in the suppression of the revoltying group and/or intense bloodshed resolting in a weak goverment . It is nonviolent revolution that has proven most effective in acheiving the revolutionaries goals such as the boycott in south africa, the strikes in poland, and the plebicite in chile. These all became pretty stable goverments and avoided bloodshed. smile.gif

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#64

Posted 16 January 2005 - 08:23 AM

QUOTE
Yeah, the hard part isn't so much having the revolution, but what you do afterwards, so it doesn't turn into just an upsidedown version of capitalism (where everyone who was formally oppressed gets to oppress everybody) and people have to get fed and culture developed.  That's why I liked the brief vision in the statement, because it got into all that. 

There's a lot more deeper stuff too.  There are articles and books about sustaining a market under socialism, this is one:

http://rwor.org/a/v2...1166/lotta1.htm

Which you might find interesting.

Any one else have any thoughts here?  I don't think a topic like this should die out so easily.

Red Hat Girl 


Yeah, I hear what you are saying. I do want to say that capitolism without some socialist (and left wing) ideas can not susstain itself. The great depresion is an example of this.

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#65

Posted 16 January 2005 - 10:16 PM

why not socialism by itself, because it doesnt have to be a dictatorship, denmark is a perfect example. yet if i may quote winston churchill here 'communism is the equal sharing of miseries, and capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings' this is true in a way but is also very biased, if you want a fair goverment socialism would be t favorable, if you want lots of money capitalism is favourable

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#66

Posted 17 January 2005 - 12:06 AM

QUOTE
why not socialism by itself, because it doesnt have to be a dictatorship, denmark is a perfect example. yet if i may quote winston churchill here 'communism is the equal sharing of miseries, and capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings' this is true in a way but is also very biased, if you want a fair goverment socialism would be t favorable, if you want lots of money capitalism is favourable 


I see what your getting at, but remember that Denmark is not completely socialist.
I see the need for socialist ideas and capitolist ideas combined. Why not have public schools, healthcare and all that. At the same time, why should I not be able to start a buisness (a legal buisness), and why should I not get paid a little more for skilled labour and working hard?

What I don't want to see; people getting the same amount of money no matter what they actualy do or how hard they work, I don't want to see totaly ungregulated buisness that gets to do what ever it wants, corporate welfare, tax dollars going to rediculus and useless programs.

muitobrodaman
  • muitobrodaman

    HUMAN or HITLER?

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2005

#67

Posted 19 January 2005 - 04:49 PM

QUOTE
If you look at history violent revolution always ends either in the suppression of the revoltying group and/or intense bloodshed resolting in a weak goverment . It is nonviolent revolution that has proven most effective in acheiving the revolutionaries goals such as the boycott in south africa, the strikes in poland, and the plebicite in chile. These all became pretty stable goverments and avoided bloodshed.




It is very hard for a nonviolent revolution to become large enough, newsworthy enough, covered by the news enough, to actually get any result at all.

It usually involves a large amount of compromise, such as amnesty for torturers.

It is largely unacceptable.

Often enough it is very difficult to get it into the heads of people who have been brainwashed that it is even a worthy goal.

A violent revolution is a solution, but needs a lot of factors to work right. It mostly does not.

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#68

Posted 19 January 2005 - 05:33 PM

yeah but if we do have violent revolution we most likely get ruthlessly slaughtered.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#69

Posted 19 January 2005 - 11:36 PM

QUOTE
yeah but if we do have violent revolution we most likely get ruthlessly slaughtered. 

Not if we do it right.

muitobrodaman
  • muitobrodaman

    HUMAN or HITLER?

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2005

#70

Posted 20 January 2005 - 02:24 PM

QUOTE (jizzyman @ Jan 19 2005, 17:33)
yeah but if we do have violent revolution we most likely get ruthlessly slaughtered.

If we do any revolution violent repression is a possible outcome.

But a succesful revolution has less chances of being ignorable. If the battle for the media has been lost, it is the only option.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#71

Posted 20 January 2005 - 10:11 PM

QUOTE
If we do any revolution violent repression is a possible outcome.

You could also ague that violent repression is possible if we don't revolt.

muitobrodaman
  • muitobrodaman

    HUMAN or HITLER?

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2005

#72

Posted 20 January 2005 - 10:45 PM

QUOTE (Leftcoast @ Jan 20 2005, 22:11)
QUOTE
If we do any revolution violent repression is a possible outcome.

You could also ague that violent repression is possible if we don't revolt.

yep... and what is the relevance? as in... What exactly are you adding to this thread?

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#73

Posted 21 January 2005 - 04:13 PM

well, what the objective should be is to bring international pressure on the oppresing goverment, boycotts work too, blacks in south africa got their equal rights by boycotting the store. they stocked up on material and didnt buy for five months, they demanded the freedom of nelson mandela among other things and they were very succesful.

muitobrodaman
  • muitobrodaman

    HUMAN or HITLER?

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2005

#74

Posted 21 January 2005 - 05:49 PM

QUOTE (jizzyman @ Jan 21 2005, 16:13)
well, what the objective should be is to bring international pressure on the oppresing goverment, boycotts work too, blacks in south africa got their equal rights by boycotting the store. they stocked up on material and didnt buy for five months, they demanded the freedom of nelson mandela among other things and they were very succesful.

What if the revolution is being attempted is against a superpower (China or US) and therefore there is NO palpable international pressure?
What if the media doesn't want to portray your side of the story? (Corporate Owned Gov't or Gov't Owned Media)


What if the story is as clear cut as in South America? All Blacks knew that the apartheid existed, no such thing with nazism and the holocaust.


I just thought... What is the difference between terrorism and violent revolution?

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#75

Posted 21 January 2005 - 06:08 PM

well technically terrorism is violent revolution. and international pressure is not the only thing that can make a non violent revolt succeed. the blacks in south africa won their rights by showing th whites the injustices thy suffered

muitobrodaman
  • muitobrodaman

    HUMAN or HITLER?

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2005

#76

Posted 21 January 2005 - 09:57 PM

QUOTE (jizzyman @ Jan 21 2005, 18:08)
well technically terrorism is violent revolution. and international pressure is not the only thing that can make a non violent revolt succeed. the blacks in south africa won their rights by showing th whites the injustices thy suffered

hmmm...

I never said that international pressure is the only thing, but it if the government is strong enough it ends up being that way

The south africans lived in apartheid, and that gave some advantages, everyone knew it was going on among other things.


Who did they (south africans) show the injustices to? Whites? The whites in power? and yet Mandela stayed in jail for how long?

Can there be terrorism without want of revolution?

Which really brings a new question.

What exactly is a revolution? A new head of state? Us as heads of state? A new system of government?

maybe there can be revolution for or against on a single subject, like the war on Iraq?

Is every democratic election a peaceful revolution?

Violence can work. Non-violence can work. But non-violence is unviable in certain places, violence is considered barbaric in others.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#77

Posted 22 January 2005 - 12:18 AM

QUOTE
yep... and what is the relevance? as in... What exactly are you adding to this thread? 


The point being there, muitobrodam, is that you could become violently oppresed as a result of not revolting. This may or may not be a very likely scenerio, but none the less possible. More dirrectly answering your question, it was ment to provoke thought about the cause and effect of revolting or not revolting.

muitobrodaman
  • muitobrodaman

    HUMAN or HITLER?

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2005

#78

Posted 22 January 2005 - 01:47 AM

QUOTE (Leftcoast @ Jan 22 2005, 00:18)
QUOTE
yep... and what is the relevance? as in... What exactly are you adding to this thread? 


The point being there, muitobrodam, is that you could become violently oppresed as a result of not revolting. This may or may not be a very likely scenerio, but none the less possible. More dirrectly answering your question, it was ment to provoke thought about the cause and effect of revolting or not revolting.

ahhh... I didn't see that. I thought it was just a logic thing. As in I say "This may happen because of that" and you say "This may happen if not that"

"Become violently opressed because of not revolting"


I LIKE that. If people think that you are weak they will take advantage.

The Kurds have been opressed for a LOOOOONG time, and because of this have been attempting independence. If they showed their ability militarily, this would not continue. If they had power this would not continue.

Violence is a tool. Those who have it can use it, and will use it if it is their best option.

Is violence ever the best option is what this topic is trying to answer.

If the media has been lost, can we regain it through violence?
Will people listen to a revolution that has been called by their media as "Terrorist"?

As long as we subscribe to "family values" "nation's values" "religious values" they will listen.

How many republicans would turn democrat if they only saw democrat propaganda? About how Kerry is such a great guy, how he acted in Vietnam... How bush declares crusades.
How many democrats would turn republican if they only saw republican propaganda? About how America is onto a new era of and end to terror... How Kerry cheated on his fellow soldiers.

Hate to quote a movie but in "the girl next door" the kid says that "moral fiber is about finding that one thing that you want"

What would you not do for Freedom? "Liberty or DEATH" For Medicine? For Food? To stop another Terrorist attack?

Violence is a tool.

A revolution? What is a revolution? Would the destuction of Microsoft represent a revolution? Of the US GOP? Of a dictatorship?

revolution is revolution, no matter how you do it.

jizzyman
  • jizzyman

    BB(Q)King

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004

#79

Posted 23 January 2005 - 12:54 PM

QUOTE (Leftcoast @ Jan 17 2005, 00:06)
QUOTE
why not socialism by itself, because it doesnt have to be a dictatorship, denmark is a perfect example. yet if i may quote winston churchill here 'communism is the equal sharing of miseries, and capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings' this is true in a way but is also very biased, if you want a fair goverment socialism would be t favorable, if you want lots of money capitalism is favourable 


I see what your getting at, but remember that Denmark is not completely socialist.
I see the need for socialist ideas and capitolist ideas combined. Why not have public schools, healthcare and all that. At the same time, why should I not be able to start a buisness (a legal buisness), and why should I not get paid a little more for skilled labour and working hard?

What I don't want to see; people getting the same amount of money no matter what they actualy do or how hard they work, I don't want to see totaly ungregulated buisness that gets to do what ever it wants, corporate welfare, tax dollars going to rediculus and useless programs.

canada is a pretty good example of socailist and capitalist ideas, health care, shelter, education. cuba wouldnt be much different if it werent for the embargo

GTA WAR
  • GTA WAR

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004

#80

Posted 25 January 2005 - 10:19 PM

Why Again do you want a violent revolution. You want to kill who????

Servicemen/women. - not very productive.

Politictians... you have a way to remove them.

Business owners...why, to take there money/property. I think that is against the constitution.

Captions of Industry: hmmm, was it not there innovation or exploitations of such that uplifted this society **( of which is their right under the constitution)**out of the dust bowl and food/job lines of the early 1900, didnt this give the US jobs, better heath care/safer food production/ computers/longer lives etc..--anything you can think of, one must have an economic upside to invest in innovation or it will not come-- -

People cry FREEDOM yet only cry when they dont get it all there way..

"Truth is in the mind of the teller, History is in our freedom with integrity. Be careful to whom you extol this virtue." O.J.C.


muitobrodaman
  • muitobrodaman

    HUMAN or HITLER?

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2005

#81

Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:27 AM

the reason is not to kill people, it is to automatically have the power to instill changes in the system.

Power that is hard to get in the current system due to people being stupid f*cks and not going to the ballots, because of media, because of money in the wrong hands.

yea?

"People cry FREEDOM yet only cry when they dont get it all there way.."

what is freedom?

Red Hat Girl
  • Red Hat Girl

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2004

#82

Posted 27 April 2005 - 02:06 AM

I recently read this article and thought of this post:

The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Present Era
http://rwor.org/a/12...olarization.htm


PyroHazard
  • PyroHazard

    I AM THE DANGER!

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2004

#83

Posted 27 April 2005 - 04:18 AM

Ill only be revolting when our country starts to persecute gays, take away my guns and media, implement mandatory chips in our heads, and generally become a religious-ran monolithic dictatorship. America is the expired Diet Coke of Fascism. Only a meager percent, not fascist enough to revolt.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users