Revolution and Violence

Black_Cross wrote:

Now, if we were to release the prisoners, give them back a small portion of what makes them human, not only will that immidiately affect their outlook, but they will, in my opinion, be swept up by the current of brotherly love, in which the social revolution will be steeped. Now, there may be some whose mentality is just too warped to reach even by this means. But if they wish to keep trying to commit their crimes, they will almost inevitably be met by force of arms, as during the revolution we will arm ourselves (otherwise, we're already off to a terrible start, fighting against a state with a monopoly on violence). It will be much harder for these criminals to operate under these circumstances, first because no parent with a gun would allow their child to be raped (and if the pedophile dies, will anyone really feel remorse? or prosecute the parent?), and second because the people will be energetic in their defense of the revolution, and will be in the streets, making it very difficult for the criminal to hide, thus making his crime basically inaccessible.

Again, this is only my opinion, and it will be up to the people to decide what is to be done. I can only try to influence the decision. And if they are not released, we can only hope that it will be resolved in another way, and that whatever is decided will not lead to the foundation of another prison system, which i believe will be the foundation of a new State.

so, whilst we're on the subject, in your opinion, anarchy can only be achieved after a stage of violent revolution? why? is there no other way to disable the arms of the state?

JackBrindelli wrote:

so, whilst we're on the subject, in your opinion, anarchy can only be achieved after a stage of violent revolution? why? is there no other way to disable the arms of the state?

History has shown that revolution will always be violent. Ghandi may have protested in a peaceful manner, but there was still violence committed against the Indian people, and i'm sure some was committed by the Indian people.

Let's be clear that just because a revolution is violent, doesn't necessarily mean that we need people killed. During a revolution, political rage, which i believe to be festering inside of most, if not all of us, will no doubt manifest itself in riots, occupations, and the like. Not only that, but the State, in its natural reaction to self-organization (the State is inherently opposed to independance, as is shown from its birth to this day), will no doubt sic the hounds on us. Whether they give the order to fire, or just come to intimidate, violence has already been utilized; guys just don't meander waving M-16's around for nothing, so the point is to threaten violence (whether they use the violence or not is hardly the point).

In fact, the very nature of the State is violent. We live in constant violence. If we didn't, would you fear the police? Would you obey them if they didn't have a gun, a knight-stick, a tazer, and handcuffs on their side? I find that doubtful. So whether we're living "peacefully" or resisting the State, we are inevitably thrown into a state of violence.

And why should we be averse to violence of resistance? I use the example of two neighbors often. If you want peace but your neighbor wants war (or wants you to submit to him), is peace a viable option? It is not. Until your neighbor is forced to desist, there can be no peace whatsoever. This is why we must base our new society on the principles of liberty, peace, and brotherhood, to eliminate that threat from its very roots (the state), cos afterall, people tend to be peace lovers, and averse to bloodshed. Hell, even during the first tribes' migrations you can see the beginning of what we call international law.

So it isn't violence that we should concern ourselves with, considering it is inevitable, and a constant of our pitiful existence at this point, but how to limit the blood shed on either side of this conflict. We should turn to collectivization and federation between trades as swiftly as we can in order to immobilize the State, as they are only enabled by the wealth we create for it and the bourgeoisie.

JackBrindelli wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

Now, if we were to release the prisoners, give them back a small portion of what makes them human, not only will that immidiately affect their outlook, but they will, in my opinion, be swept up by the current of brotherly love, in which the social revolution will be steeped. Now, there may be some whose mentality is just too warped to reach even by this means. But if they wish to keep trying to commit their crimes, they will almost inevitably be met by force of arms, as during the revolution we will arm ourselves (otherwise, we're already off to a terrible start, fighting against a state with a monopoly on violence). It will be much harder for these criminals to operate under these circumstances, first because no parent with a gun would allow their child to be raped (and if the pedophile dies, will anyone really feel remorse? or prosecute the parent?), and second because the people will be energetic in their defense of the revolution, and will be in the streets, making it very difficult for the criminal to hide, thus making his crime basically inaccessible.

Again, this is only my opinion, and it will be up to the people to decide what is to be done. I can only try to influence the decision. And if they are not released, we can only hope that it will be resolved in another way, and that whatever is decided will not lead to the foundation of another prison system, which i believe will be the foundation of a new State.

so, whilst we're on the subject, in your opinion, anarchy can only be achieved after a stage of violent revolution? why? is there no other way to disable the arms of the state?

while its not the fact that peaceful revolution is completly useless, everyone wishes there be no bloodshed.
but the fact of the matter is that if we try to peacefully organize, the pigs are going to start cracking heads. why not fight fire with with fire? if the pigs have guns, we have heart and soul. and the spirt of the working class can not be killed.
the state is a violent entity.
so the only language they understand is violence.
while limiting of bloodshed is a must, we are lovers, but need to have the fuel of hatred for the state, or our revolution will just be shot down and merely remembered as a short temporary uprising. and that is not something that any workers' movement should ever be remembered as.

i am personally opposed to violence, hate, or anger. i see them all as destructive forces and refuse to use them. maybe if someone came up to me with a guy i would use violence because i would be overcome by fear, but in the end, the idea is not to use it. one should develop the skills necessary to not use violence. anger and hate are also destructive and should never be used, in fact, they are more destructive than violence itself. they dwell in the mind, while violence is something physical. if you cannot calm your mind, then how can you act skilfully? anger and hate inevitable lead to violence, so if you are going to use violence, at least restrain yourself from anger and hate.

much can be achieved with peace.

god0fmusic wrote:

i am personally opposed to violence, hate, or anger. i see them all as destructive forces and refuse to use them. maybe if someone came up to me with a guy i would use violence because i would be overcome by fear, but in the end, the idea is not to use it. one should develop the skills necessary to not use violence. anger and hate are also destructive and should never be used, in fact, they are more destructive than violence itself. they dwell in the mind, while violence is something physical. if you cannot calm your mind, then how can you act skilfully? anger and hate inevitable lead to violence, so if you are going to use violence, at least restrain yourself from anger and hate.

much can be achieved with peace.

well i hate capitalism and i hate the state.
i think the state beating the christ out of our comrades is enough to make me want to violently smash the state.
im sorry if i interfere with your 1000 flowers market movement.
i want workers' self management
i want class consciousness
i want liberation
i want solidarity
right fucking now!
its not worth it to wait any longer.

i think that is the problem with some anarchists, and especially with communists. you want things now but these things require mindful action. it requires a lot of action but it doesn't have to be violent in any way.
if you gathered a group of people (20 or so), and made them all message people on youtube like i have done, in a month or so you could have contacted over 20,000 people (doing this about 30 minutes a day). at least 5% of these people would become interested in anarchism and eventually join the movement or do things with an anarchist perspective. some 80% more would be absolutely amazed as to what anarchism is and maybe read up on it.
this is a peaceful means of action which is extremely successful if put into action. the thing is, i have messaged many people on youtube and a bunch of people messaged me saying they were interested. this wakes people up, and that is what is needed. not everyone has to be an anarchist for things to work out. i have turned towards libertarianism recently, but i would be perfectly fine living arround anarchists which run their society anarchically. after all, it would benefit me because i would have individual freedom and be living arround a decent society.

participating in politics can actually bring about a great deal of democracy if you know what you're doing. through politics you can introduce a lot of elements of participatory democracy which would benefit society a lot.

god0fmusic wrote:

i think that is the problem with some anarchists, and especially with communists. you want things now but these things require mindful action. it requires a lot of action but it doesn't have to be violent in any way.

And all those legions of police, army, navy, reserve soldiers that the State has at its disposal will be made to stand down? I find that unlikely. And as i also find it unlikely that you, like I, won't defend yourself when they're firing rubber at us, beating us with heavy sticks, or worse, you would unfortunately be labeled violent as well. Everyone knows it's regretable, but we understand that we have been forced into this violent structure of things.

And DF isn't representing any mainstream ideological thought within socialism, as far as impatience goes. It's just his personality. In the end though, revolution cannot be rushed, it will be up to the people, how daring they are, how much initiative they employ, how much resistence they are subject to from the State and from without, etc.

Quote :

if you gathered a group of people (20 or so), and made them all message people on youtube like i have done, in a month or so you could have contacted over 20,000 people (doing this about 30 minutes a day). at least 5% of these people would become interested in anarchism and eventually join the movement or do things with an anarchist perspective. some 80% more would be absolutely amazed as to what anarchism is and maybe read up on it.
this is a peaceful means of action which is extremely successful if put into action. the thing is, i have messaged many people on youtube and a bunch of people messaged me saying they were interested. this wakes people up, and that is what is needed.

And then what?

Quote :

not everyone has to be an anarchist for things to work out.

Right, they just have to be willing to build when the time comes. That's why we don't need to convert people, but just keep the revolution on the right path. I think it's safe to say that the people take the revolution in a natural, democratic direction. We just need to keep the spirit alive and avoid the coercion of the State, a reason it needs smashin. Of course, expropriation is key given that private property is another obstacle towards democracy.

Quote :

participating in politics can actually bring about a great deal of democracy if you know what you're doing. through politics you can introduce a lot of elements of participatory democracy which would benefit society a lot.

Unfortunately, i think the people realize how phony their democracy is, at least at an unconscious level, considering there are a lot more democratic entities in this country other than electoral politics, but they go unused because they're indoctrinated from childhood and taught that Rome was when people became civilized, and that it was the zenith of democracy, so their whole life they believe that voting on some elitist dick, who always happens to have the people's best interest in [the back of his] mind is the pinnacle of societal participation.

Black_Cross wrote:

JackBrindelli wrote:

so, whilst we're on the subject, in your opinion, anarchy can only be achieved after a stage of violent revolution? why? is there no other way to disable the arms of the state?

History has shown that revolution will always be violent. Ghandi may have protested in a peaceful manner, but there was still violence committed against the Indian people, and i'm sure some was committed by the Indian people.

Let's be clear that just because a revolution is violent, doesn't necessarily mean that we need people killed. During a revolution, political rage, which i believe to be festering inside of most, if not all of us, will no doubt manifest itself in riots, occupations, and the like. Not only that, but the State, in its natural reaction to self-organization (the State is inherently opposed to independance, as is shown from its birth to this day), will no doubt sic the hounds on us. Whether they give the order to fire, or just come to intimidate, violence has already been utilized; guys just don't meander waving M-16's around for nothing, so the point is to threaten violence (whether they use the violence or not is hardly the point).

In fact, the very nature of the State is violent. We live in constant violence. If we didn't, would you fear the police? Would you obey them if they didn't have a gun, a knight-stick, a tazer, and handcuffs on their side? I find that doubtful. So whether we're living "peacefully" or resisting the State, we are inevitably thrown into a state of violence.

And why should we be averse to violence of resistance? I use the example of two neighbors often. If you want peace but your neighbor wants war (or wants you to submit to him), is peace a viable option? It is not. Until your neighbor is forced to desist, there can be no peace whatsoever. This is why we must base our new society on the principles of liberty, peace, and brotherhood, to eliminate that threat from its very roots (the state), cos afterall, people tend to be peace lovers, and averse to bloodshed. Hell, even during the first tribes' migrations you can see the beginning of what we call international law.

So it isn't violence that we should concern ourselves with, considering it is inevitable, and a constant of our pitiful existence at this point, but how to limit the blood shed on either side of this conflict. We should turn to collectivization and federation between trades as swiftly as we can in order to immobilize the State, as they are only enabled by the wealth we create for it and the bourgeoisie.

but this can't just 'happen' without weakening the states grip first surely? perhaps by finding ways of depleting the arms of the state, disuade people from joining the army/police force, the fewer these exploited exploiters there are, the easier it will be to over throw the state surely. in a particularly bad analagy, if you starve the guard dog, it can't protect it's master. the state needs to be put on a diet. otherwise, there are techniques and methods in place to surpress riots, not just with the police either, but the army who would no doubt have no problem in using excessive force to stop things "going bad".

JackBrindelli wrote:

but this can't just 'happen' without weakening the states grip first surely?

It could and it has. The State isn't usually weakened or buttered up before a revolution. The State or the private sector usually just fuck things up, or the natural bust will come around, and people get aggitated, and, when it gets to a point, their aggitation will blow up and manifest itself in occupations, as well as some rioting and protesting (though come "revolution", the rioting and protesting will become a secondary tool of the working class, the first being revolutionary action like occupations of the industries and redistribution of the agrarian lands)

Quote :

perhaps by finding ways of depleting the arms of the state, disuade people from joining the army/police force, the fewer these exploited exploiters there are, the easier it will be to over throw the state surely.

Sure, and that could be a goal for you here in the now, but you can't stall or manipulate a revolution, so it's all intermittent until the real work starts.

Quote :

in a particularly bad analagy, if you starve the guard dog, it can't protect it's master. the state needs to be put on a diet. otherwise, there are techniques and methods in place to surpress riots, not just with the police either, but the army who would no doubt have no problem in using excessive force to stop things "going bad".

I was referring to exactly that period that we would call revolution, that is, the stage of expropriation by the proletariat and the peasants, and also, in the same stage, the restructuring of society along anarchic lines, that is, authority from the bottom-up, federation of industries, etc.

If we're talking about the mean time, however, it should be noted that fighting the cops, protesting, marching, etc., is just to aggitate, increase consciousness, and maybe light the spark of revolution (Something like what happened in Greece [i'm not saying we should try to become martyrs]). We don't need to overcome the police or the army at this point, but rather show our discontent through these confrontations.

A bigger problem is that of the beginning of revolution. If occupations start to occur in isolated instances, you could bet that the arms of the state would have their eyes and ears open for more of the same. I think overcoming this will be the most substantial obstacle in our way. But unless they're willing to straight mow us down (which would mean putting a significant dent in your working population), we'll eventually overcome. I think the spirit and the vigor that will sweep over a revolutionary population will make them tenacious; just look at Russia and Spain. Both under heavy fire from without, but in neither case did the invading army ever show that it could overtake the revolutionary population (In Spain, the state's duplicity, like withholding necessary war materials, withholding well armed soldiers from the front, and bowing down to the USSR). When people finally feel like they're a part of something, you'll see them come to life. That be our trump card.

Black_Cross wrote:

It could and it has. The State isn't usually weakened or buttered up before a revolution. The State or the private sector usually just fuck things up, or the natural bust will come around, and people get aggitated, and, when it gets to a point, their aggitation will blow up and manifest itself in occupations, as well as some rioting and protesting (though come "revolution", the rioting and protesting will become a secondary tool of the working class, the first being revolutionary action like occupations of the industries and redistribution of the agrarian lands)

Ok so where is this anarchist utopia? because i'm not sure i know of one that still exists. and how do you know you can count on a majority of the oppressed ariving on the same page at the time of the revolution? they may be willing to riot, but whats to stop the powerful from blinding them as to whos fault it really is? how do we know those truly responsible wont escape scrutiny because people are too busy partaking in tribal animosity?

Quote :

Sure, and that could be a goal for you here in the now, but you can't stall or manipulate a revolution, so it's all intermittent until the real work starts.

just a side note. im pretty sure the power of "the mob" has been manipulated before, and that people power has been corrupted for some pretty bad causes, revolutions have been called not just for 'virtuous' ideas.
although i doubt thats the ontext in which you meant it. i agree, you cant plan a revolution in the same manor that you could plan a concert, but you can plan the events that lead up to it.

Quote :

If we're talking about the mean time, however, it should be noted that fighting the cops, protesting, marching, etc., is just to aggitate, increase consciousness, and maybe light the spark of revolution (Something like what happened in Greece [i'm not saying we should try to become martyrs]). We don't need to overcome the police or the army at this point, but rather show our discontent through these confrontations.

yes, but without weakening the arms of the state all that serves as is an annoyance to EVERYONE not just the state, because the powers that be know how to use this kind of thing to their advantage. violent protest in isolated areas only leads to governments "cracking down" on peoples rights and freedoms WITH the backing of a majority, because lots of people get pissed off at the "criminal damage" and inconvenience caused by such things. as well as that, it's counter productive to treat agents of the state such as cops and soldiers as scum and try to fight them, it would be far more useful if they could be shown they are no better off on the side of the status quo. if you start bashing their helmets with pebbles they wont take too kindly to you, but persuade them (or at least some of them), and the state is fucked, just like when the Cossack regiments in Saint Petersburg turned on the tsar in the russian revolution.

Quote :

A bigger problem is that of the beginning of revolution. If occupations start to occur in isolated instances, you could bet that the arms of the state would have their eyes and ears open for more of the same. I think overcoming this will be the most substantial obstacle in our way. But unless they're willing to straight mow us down (which would mean putting a significant dent in your working population), we'll eventually overcome.

the state will be willing to do anything to stop a radical change in the world, because of the way they have engeneered their system, they can afford to bump off a large portion of society, then they can ship in large numbers of people from countries they have previously fucked up, who need work/food. if anything that would suit the state better, because in that case they have shipped in their own skapegoats for the next time their system goes balls up. they can just blame the people who look different. therefore you have to disable their means, or else they will simply "mow us down".

Ps. appologies or the poor quoting here, i haven't a clue how it works.

Quote :

Ps. appologies or the poor quoting here, i haven't a clue how it works.

Fixed. the first quote should look like this [quote] and the second should look like this [/*quote] (without the asterisk).

And i'll respond to this post tomorrow, as i'm shy on time right now.

JackBrindelli wrote:

Ok so where is this anarchist utopia? because i'm not sure i know of one that still exists.

I don't know of any utopias having ever existed. There are still portions of the world that are anarchic, but they are not completely anarchism as they are within a capitalist framework.

Now, i never stated that the revolution wasn't subverted in some way, i'm just saying that revolution can and has occured without weakening the state's physical strength. Once the revolution occurs, it may be that some sections of the armies may align itself with the people and not the state, but this isn't really up to us, it's up to the army soldiers and the sentiments within each unit.

Quote :

and how do you know you can count on a majority of the oppressed ariving on the same page at the time of the revolution?

Well what inevitably happens during a revolution? Systems are overturned. So while the wanna-be politicos and bourgeois elements of society are vying for control (this can be quite time consuming), what is the working class doing but sitting on its ass? Of course they're not gonna all know what should be done, they don't have the knowledge for that. It's our job to get the workers to return to the industries and return to the fields, and to reorganize labor on a basis of the needs of all. If this happens they'll be compelled by necessity to organize into guilds/councils and federations to be efficient in their work. And the people will naturally be geared towards a system based on well-being, as this is what makes our conscience human (That we feel, and therefore through empathy/sympathy, we feel for others, and understand their plight through our own)

Quote :

they may be willing to riot, but whats to stop the powerful from blinding them as to whos fault it really is? how do we know those truly responsible wont escape scrutiny because people are too busy partaking in tribal animosity?

Well this is pre-revolution of course, because you're assuming here that the powerful have retained their power, meaning that fundamental change in the socio-economic structure has not occured. So, if the powerful were able to accomplish redirecting the blame, then they may have killed the revolution before it was born (i don't think this is likely though, if the populice was really readying itself for a physical conflict with the state).

Quote :

just a side note. im pretty sure the power of "the mob" has been manipulated before, and that people power has been corrupted for some pretty bad causes, revolutions have been called not just for 'virtuous' ideas.
although i doubt thats the context in which you meant it.

Indeed. People can be manipulated, but not revolutions. I'll expand so i'm understood. Let's use the example of Hitler, just for quick reference. The German people want revolution, Hitler blames the Jews for all their problems, and the people buy into that baloney and ultimately Hitler and his Reich come to control the state. Yes, here the people were fooled outta their wits, but was this a revolution? It was not. So let's understand what revolution is. Revolution implies that a swift, radical, fundamental change in the social and economic organization of a society has been effected. But we know what Germany's state looked like prior to Hitler, so could we possibly name Hitler's rise to power as revolution? There was no fundamental change, merely a fresh new look for an old system.

Quote :

i agree, you cant plan a revolution in the same manor that you could plan a concert, but you can plan the events that lead up to it.

I suppose you could try, but what would this plan look like? Would you include as a step in said plan that the people need to feel resentment towards the stratification of society (obviously they may term it differently, but that's basically what it is)? If so, then there's going to be some waiting in your plan.

Quote :

If we're talking about the mean time, however, it should be noted that fighting the cops, protesting, marching, etc., is just to aggitate, increase consciousness, and maybe light the spark of revolution (Something like what happened in Greece [i'm not saying we should try to become martyrs]). We don't need to overcome the police or the army at this point, but rather show our discontent through these confrontations.

Quote :

yes, but without weakening the arms of the state all that serves as is an annoyance to EVERYONE not just the state, because the powers that be know how to use this kind of thing to their advantage. violent protest in isolated areas only leads to governments "cracking down" on peoples rights and freedoms WITH the backing of a majority, because lots of people get pissed off at the "criminal damage" and inconvenience caused by such things.

Could you provide an example of this? I just don't know of any states cracking down on rights after a few pesky showdowns between the pigs and the people. Especially not with popular support. Yes, they have the media to contort the riots in any way they want, but they're generally forced to be honest, at least to the extent of representing the rioters position (only to a vague extent of course, as if they elaborated they would likely come off as the guilty party), and if the people are informed, they may at least be understanding of the position of the rioters.

Quote :

as well as that, it's counter productive to treat agents of the state such as cops and soldiers as scum and try to fight them, it would be far more useful if they could be shown they are no better off on the side of the status quo.

Agreed, but this is a choice that the pigs themselves will have to make, as i don't believe we have the time nor the ability to sit down to a fire-side chat with the reactionary forces of society. If they help us, great, if not, that's just one more barrier we'll have to overcome.

Quote :

if you start bashing their helmets with pebbles they wont take too kindly to you, but persuade them (or at least some of them), and the state is fucked, just like when the Cossack regiments in Saint Petersburg turned on the tsar in the russian revolution.

Right, but if i'm not mistaken, this came about during a time of revolutionary spontaneity, so they were compelled to decide quickly where their loyalties laid. It's not uncommon for the rear-guard of the army and some of the police to find the peoples' course just and leave the state.

Quote :

the state will be willing to do anything to stop a radical change in the world, because of the way they have engeneered their system,

I'd say 'almost anything'. I give the people within the state some credit for being smart, and i believe they understand what would be the consequence of reverting to the nineteenth century and turning the gun on your own population. Who would feel safe in a country with a state that is openly aggressive towards its own population? Who would feel that the state represents them and their interests (which is one of the only things that validates the state)? If they did this enough, or on a large enough scale, i think it's safe to say some of the more obvious consequences, such as alienating the population (the consequece of this would of course to be to ignite the revolution, as is common with martyrs and states aggressive towards its population)

Quote :

they can afford to bump off a large portion of society, then they can ship in large numbers of people from countries they have previously fucked up, who need work/food. if anything that would suit the state better, because in that case they have shipped in their own skapegoats for the next time their system goes balls up. they can just blame the people who look different. therefore you have to disable their means, or else they will simply "mow us down".

In effect this would require time-travel. Over the centuries since statism arose, the people have been fighting with the establishment, and they've done fairly well. Obviously we've failed in establishing an entire society based on the principles guiding these struggles, but we've accomplished suppressing to an extent the state's violent, oppressive tendencies. As such, i believe there is no way the state would suddenly revert to its more barbarous culture of punishing the opposition with sheer aggression (as we see with the establishment of capitalism), even if its existence was threatened. If they did, for whatever reason, choose this route, you could kiss peace and prosperity goodbye, as i think it's safe to assume the country would resemble those like Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, or the Shah's Iran.

Black_Cross wrote:

Well what inevitably happens during a revolution? Systems are overturned. So while the wanna-be politicos and bourgeois elements of society are vying for control (this can be quite time consuming), what is the working class doing but sitting on its ass? Of course they're not gonna all know what should be done, they don't have the knowledge for that. It's our job to get the workers to return to the industries and return to the fields, and to reorganize labor on a basis of the needs of all. If this happens they'll be compelled by necessity to organize into guilds/councils and federations to be efficient in their work. And the people will naturally be geared towards a system based on well-being, as this is what makes our conscience human (That we feel, and therefore through empathy/sympathy, we feel for others, and understand their plight through our own)

How do you decide you have the authority to get workers back to the fields/industries? and wont the creation of federations etc lead to further hierachy, with chair people appointed and so on? and what if someone's trade is more important (food?) than another (art and design?) and so using the leverage from having a necessity to give themselves power?

Quote :

Well this is pre-revolution of course, because you're assuming here that the powerful have retained their power, meaning that fundamental change in the socio-economic structure has not occured. So, if the powerful were able to accomplish redirecting the blame, then they may have killed the revolution before it was born (i don't think this is likely though, if the populice was really readying itself for a physical conflict with the state).

Quote :

Indeed. People can be manipulated, but not revolutions. I'll expand so i'm understood. Let's use the example of Hitler, just for quick reference. The German people want revolution, Hitler blames the Jews for all their problems, and the people buy into that baloney and ultimately Hitler and his Reich come to control the state. Yes, here the people were fooled outta their wits, but was this a revolution? It was not. So let's understand what revolution is. Revolution implies that a swift, radical, fundamental change in the social and economic organization of a society has been effected. But we know what Germany's state looked like prior to Hitler, so could we possibly name Hitler's rise to power as revolution? There was no fundamental change, merely a fresh new look for an old system.

In that case, revolution WAS on the menu, but people were manipulated in order to prevent it. Is there a contingency plan to prevent such levels of mis-information leading to another Nazi Germany scenario?

Quote :

I suppose you could try, but what would this plan look like? Would you include as a step in said plan that the people need to feel resentment towards the stratification of society (obviously they may term it differently, but that's basically what it is)? If so, then there's going to be some waiting in your plan.

i meant organising events such as strikes, protests and things. gobally organised and synchronised, if it were to all happen at once, then the worlds states could be powerless, would resort to desperate measures to prevent revolution, and have the people turn on them, for instance if someone is shot dead for standing in a cops way. then a global revolt could occur. like the greek riots, only global, so the worlds states would be unable to assist one anoher. surely things like the internet make such organisation possible?

Quote :

Could you provide an example of this? I just don't know of any states cracking down on rights after a few pesky showdowns between the pigs and the people. Especially not with popular support. Yes, they have the media to contort the riots in any way they want, but they're generally forced to be honest, at least to the extent of representing the rioters position (only to a vague extent of course, as if they elaborated they would likely come off as the guilty party), and if the people are informed, they may at least be understanding of the position of the rioters.

i was using global terrorism as a very crude similarity. after 9/11 things like a war in the middle east, or stepping up of security to prevent freedom of movement, or shoot to kill policies became slightly more acceptable, the same happened here in this climate of terror, where security cameras are so calmlyacceted as they are "for your own safety", an ID scheme is still set to come into place, as well as dna databases of everyone, criminal or otherwise. all this occured, yet the bush government obtained the peoples backing for a second time, and blairs labour survived into a 3rd term. however, other examples could be things like striking in the 80s could get you black listed, and expressing left wing views could land you with a secret service file with your name on it.

Quote :

Agreed, but this is a choice that the pigs themselves will have to make, as i don't believe we have the time nor the ability to sit down to a fire-side chat with the reactionary forces of society. If they help us, great, if not, that's just one more barrier we'll have to overcome.

this guy stood on a fold up ladder in london said it best "you cant blame a blind man for not being able to see". we cant blame these idiots or being poorly educated puppets. what we can do is fight for them too, even if they dont want our support, we should argue for their right to strike for instance. we should try to show them how much poorer they are for backing the state, not simply hope they jump on the bandwagon when a riot kicks off.

Quote :

In effect this would require time-travel. Over the centuries since statism arose, the people have been fighting with the establishment, and they've done fairly well. Obviously we've failed in establishing an entire society based on the principles guiding these struggles, but we've accomplished suppressing to an extent the state's violent, oppressive tendencies. As such, i believe there is no way the state would suddenly revert to its more barbarous culture of punishing the opposition with sheer aggression (as we see with the establishment of capitalism), even if its existence was threatened. If they did, for whatever reason, choose this route, you could kiss peace and prosperity goodbye, as i think it's safe to assume the country would resemble those like Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, or the Shah's Iran.

Wherever people are likely to overcome the state, up shall spring fasism in one form or another, unless the revolution is globally coordinated and executed. otherwise the state can deal with it quite simply, for how easy is it for a small portion of people to be surpressed, as they come pre-divided in nations. internationalism is the only way for change.

JackBrindelli wrote:

How do you decide you have the authority to get workers back to the fields/industries?

I didn't and i don't. We need to prod people with our words and coordinate our actions to try to get production going again, as there is usually a slight hiccup in production after a government is overthrown, or after its authority is questioned to the point of direct democratic action. Of course, you and i are workers as well, so we're not trying to lead anyone, of course, we're just trying to coordinate with our comrades so the revolution doesn't fail before it even really begins.

Quote :

and wont the creation of federations etc lead to further hierachy, with chair people appointed and so on? and what if someone's trade is more important (food?) than another (art and design?) and so using the leverage from having a necessity to give themselves power?

I understand your argument, and i employ it from time to time, but here it's rather irrelevant. When i say federated (Just like Proudhon in 1863 [He changed his position later ] and Bakunin) , i don't mean to imply any authority, and, defacto, there is none as long as federations are just tools for coordinating production. As long as the land and tools of for production are held in common, then there will be no heirarchy. Also, don't think of Federations as different entities, seperate from the working class. Federations would just be the medium that workers of different countries would use to coordinate their business. We could go into a long discussion about how this might look, function, etc., but for now i think that's irrelevant as well.

Quote :

In that case, revolution WAS on the menu, but people were manipulated in order to prevent it. Is there a contingency plan to prevent such levels of mis-information leading to another Nazi Germany scenario?

I hope so. People should not be historically amnestic enough to let racism and fascism rule your country, especially when mixed. Also, in this country, and a few other industrial countries to be sure, we know whitey controls the industry, so who would be the scapegoat, blacks? YA! Them blacks are hordin' all the money and takin' all our jerbs!!! I dunno, i just think it's farfetched. Capitalism has remained insidious and a hard concept for the people to grasp, but fascism and nazism are bold-faced.

Quote :

i meant organising events such as strikes, protests and things. gobally organised and synchronised, if it were to all happen at once, then the worlds states could be powerless, would resort to desperate measures to prevent revolution, and have the people turn on them, for instance if someone is shot dead for standing in a cops way. then a global revolt could occur. like the greek riots, only global, so the worlds states would be unable to assist one anoher. surely things like the internet make such organisation possible?

To be sure, but do we have the numbers for it? There is a lack of organization because there is a lack of recruitment, so to speak. People may be ideologically, ethically, and practically more anarchist than they think, and surely more than they are capitalist, but they have trouble processing these things beyond the nationalistic lines that they're indoctrinated to think along. Unfortunately, for most people it will take social revolution to bring them to realise what they could have, and what they are able to build (figuratively as well as literally), through an anarchist organization of society.

But if you're inclined to try your idea, your best bet would be to join the IAF and pitch it there, where there is a strong anarchist undercurrent.

Quote :

i was using global terrorism as a very crude similarity. after 9/11 things like a war in the middle east, or stepping up of security to prevent freedom of movement, or shoot to kill policies became slightly more acceptable, the same happened here in this climate of terror, where security cameras are so calmlyacceted as they are "for your own safety", an ID scheme is still set to come into place, as well as dna databases of everyone, criminal or otherwise. all this occured, yet the bush government obtained the peoples backing for a second time, and blairs labour survived into a 3rd term. however, other examples could be things like striking in the 80s could get you black listed, and expressing left wing views could land you with a secret service file with your name on it.

Ok, but riots aren't just things anarchists do for fun, they're usually spurred on by some injustice that occured in that area. And even though the terrorism on 9/11 had its reasons as well (and there's really no comparison given the levels of violence), these two are incomparable because we're talking about two completely different variables; i'm speaking of citizens, and your speaking of "aliens", or "foreigners". The reactions from each waging violence, on whatever scale, are going to be quite different.

Quote :

this guy stood on a fold up ladder in london said it best "you cant blame a blind man for not being able to see". we cant blame these idiots or being poorly educated puppets. what we can do is fight for them too, even if they dont want our support, we should argue for their right to strike for instance. we should try to show them how much poorer they are for backing the state,

That's true, and i agree 100% with the kook on the ladder. And everything you said is fine, except that it won't mean anything in the end. First, if we do support their right to strike (which i've no problem with beyond it being a waste), why would they use it? Do we have any reason to think they would? You've meantioned that they're puppets, and who's the puppeteer? The State. If there did come a time when it would be useful for them to strike, their mentality would have been shaped with a statist perspective, just by the environment he's been put into. So in more peaceful parts of this country, for instance, a few cops here and there might get the notion that striking may be for the good, but if there isn't a popular concensus with those police in the areas that the state may be in danger, or that may just be more criminal, there won't be a strike.

Quote :

not simply hope they jump on the bandwagon when a riot kicks off.

You're misrepresenting what i said. You're confusing pre-revolution with revolution. I was speaking on revolution, but you've changed the focus all of a sudden to pre-revolution. Also, let's be clear that i'm not saying to injure any officers. As people, and individuals, we should have no problem with them beyond a somewhat warped mentality, which can be fixed. It's only as an institution that the pigs are our enemy. If they're an obstacle in the way of social progress and general well-being, we should have no aversion to removing them (not killing them, as it shouldn't come to that), and as soon as the state and the bourgeoisie is expropriated, they'll find themselves removed from their previous position defacto, by way of the social revolution (or they can move, since it's likely this would be an isolated country, not a world-wide thing).

Quote :

Wherever people are likely to overcome the state, up shall spring fasism in one form or another, unless the revolution is globally coordinated and executed. otherwise the state can deal with it quite simply, for how easy is it for a small portion of people to be surpressed, as they come pre-divided in nations. internationalism is the only way for change.

Take a moment to think about how capitalism looks on an international scale. There's no pattern from one country to the next, so the likelihood of conditions being ripe in two countries in one instance is slim. Maybe you'd look to more leftist countries like Cuba or Venezuela for a bit of help, but countries will generally rise up on their own terms. So unless you're talking about the possibility of a Mexican revolution having a domino effect on other capitalist south american countries (which isn't farfetched), you're not looking at a bright future for "coordinated, international uprising".

Sorry if there are any holes, i was kinda in a rush.

Black_Cross wrote:

I hope so. People should not be historically amnestic enough to let racism and fascism rule your country, especially when mixed. Also, in this country, and a few other industrial countries to be sure, we know whitey controls the industry, so who would be the scapegoat, blacks? YA! Them blacks are hordin' all the money and takin' all our jerbs!!! I dunno, i just think it's farfetched. Capitalism has remained insidious and a hard concept for the people to grasp, but fascism and nazism are bold-faced.

firstly, historically, people are kept ignorant by the state, history is taught in such an inaccessible manor, as are most subjects, and to such a limited degree, that really, the people (lets use britain as an example) have little more knowledge of things like ww2 than "Oh, we won! We were the good guys! The Nazi's were twats!", they aren't told how the deals that the allies forced upon the germans after ww1 or the failings of capitalism ultimately lead to the rise of hitler.
secondly, race isnt (forgive me saying this) quite that black and white. people will seek all kinds of scapegoats, and the latest one is muslims. a wide range of people take the opinion "extremists in the middle east hate women and execute gays. these people look like those extremists. therefore they must think the same way as them! they're here to take away our 'rights'!!!" and no one has the balls or the knowledge to oppose them in the mainstream!
in times of economic prosperity, i might have agreed that racialism was far fetched. but here we are in recession, in a poorly educated (in my opinion nation) with unemployment at 2million. this is the beginnings of what led partly to hitler in the first place!

Quote :

To be sure, but do we have the numbers for it? There is a lack of organization because there is a lack of recruitment, so to speak. People may be ideologically, ethically, and practically more anarchist than they think, and surely more than they are capitalist, but they have trouble processing these things beyond the nationalistic lines that they're indoctrinated to think along. Unfortunately, for most people it will take social revolution to bring them to realise what they could have, and what they are able to build (figuratively as well as literally), through an anarchist organization of society.
But if you're inclined to try your idea, your best bet would be to join the IAF and pitch it there, where there is a strong anarchist undercurrent.

im sorry i cant pretend to know what the IAF is. secondly, for a social revolution, how do you suggest kicking one of them off, and in what way does it differ from a normal revolution. also i would like to point out i did not mean i will be planning a revolution for next wednesday or anything like that, im saying when the time comes and there is support, the struggle MUST be global or it will be snuffed out, even if successful in small areas.

Quote :

Ok, but riots aren't just things anarchists do for fun, they're usually spurred on by some injustice that occured in that area. And even though the terrorism on 9/11 had its reasons as well (and there's really no comparison given the levels of violence), these two are incomparable because we're talking about two completely different variables; i'm speaking of citizens, and your speaking of "aliens", or "foreigners". The reactions from each waging violence, on whatever scale, are going to be quite different.

you'd be surprised how quickly citizens turn to aliens when it suits the state. it doesnt seem to bother them that the tube bombers were british citizens, they were extremists, therefore they fit into the category of outsider. of course, ultimately i am not supporting their actions, but they are a valid example of how governments use isolated examples in order to monitor EVERYONE. the same could be said of 'chavs'. a few of them are known as trouble makers, yet EVERYONE is ultimately filmed by the cameras installed in order to deter their actions. ultimately they are citizens, but it suits the government to alienate and demonise them, and make the people feel they need protecting from the ugly world outside.

Quote :

That's true, and i agree 100% with the kook on the ladder. And everything you said is fine, except that it won't mean anything in the end. First, if we do support their right to strike (which i've no problem with beyond it being a waste), why would they use it? Do we have any reason to think they would? You've meantioned that they're puppets, and who's the puppeteer? The State. If there did come a time when it would be useful for them to strike, their mentality would have been shaped with a statist perspective, just by the environment he's been put into. So in more peaceful parts of this country, for instance, a few cops here and there might get the notion that striking may be for the good, but if there isn't a popular concensus with those police in the areas that the state may be in danger, or that may just be more criminal, there won't be a strike.

You're not fully getting my point. My fault, i should have been more clear. The most important thing about that strategy would be kicking up a fuss, not to actually win the right to strike. Firstly, the more direct benefit might be some of the cops begin to directly sympathise with the cause, but ultimately, and perhaps more importantly, the fact the government who they fight for would continue to deny them that right would be the most powerful factor in order to cause unrest amongst the cops. I’m not suggesting all the cops need to be on our side, but it would help if just some of them were to have a crisis of loyalties, which would lead to internal dispute, as some of them come to the realisation they’re being taken for mugs, whilst the rest stay loyal to the exploiters, and so we reach an internal divide of scabs and strikers. If this coincides with wide spread revolt, things could potentially go far further than they would if you simply leave the police and assume they’re inept. A disorganised, depleted arm of the state would truly be powerless against a revolution of any kind.

Quote :

You're misrepresenting what i said. You're confusing pre-revolution with revolution. I was speaking on revolution, but you've changed the focus all of a sudden to pre-revolution.

How about you define both for me, just so I don’t make such a heinous error again?

Quote :

Take a moment to think about how capitalism looks on an international scale. There's no pattern from one country to the next, so the likelihood of conditions being ripe in two countries in one instance is slim. Maybe you'd look to more leftist countries like Cuba or Venezuela for a bit of help, but countries will generally rise up on their own terms. So unless you're talking about the possibility of a Mexican revolution having a domino effect on other capitalist south american countries (which isn't farfetched), you're not looking at a bright future for "coordinated, international uprising".

All the developed figure heads of capitalism approach crisis point in a recession, these are the most important factors here. Amerika, Britain, France, Germany, China (pre-emptively), even potentially Russia could soon be in the brown stuff, if things change in those key areas, the world follows. However, if they continue to blame the same old scapegoats, and promote the same old solutions unchallenged, nothing will change. At this critical time, if someone reaches the main stream with a message like anarchy, it could potentially be the push the world needs.
Sorry if there are any holes, internet explorer hates typing today for some reason, let me know if i missed anything.

Black_Cross wrote:

And all those legions of police, army, navy, reserve soldiers that the State has at its disposal will be made to stand down? I find that unlikely. And as i also find it unlikely that you, like I, won't defend yourself when they're firing rubber at us, beating us with heavy sticks, or worse, you would unfortunately be labeled violent as well. Everyone knows it's regretable, but we understand that we have been forced into this violent structure of things.

And DF isn't representing any mainstream ideological thought within socialism, as far as impatience goes. It's just his personality. In the end though, revolution cannot be rushed, it will be up to the people, how daring they are, how much initiative they employ, how much resistence they are subject to from the State and from without, etc.

Quote :

if you gathered a group of people (20 or so), and made them all message people on youtube like i have done, in a month or so you could have contacted over 20,000 people (doing this about 30 minutes a day). at least 5% of these people would become interested in anarchism and eventually join the movement or do things with an anarchist perspective. some 80% more would be absolutely amazed as to what anarchism is and maybe read up on it.
this is a peaceful means of action which is extremely successful if put into action. the thing is, i have messaged many people on youtube and a bunch of people messaged me saying they were interested. this wakes people up, and that is what is needed.

And then what?

to the first part:
the state will not just use violence. they are going to be careful. they will use violence is people are unaware of the violence, but if people become aware of it, the state will be very careful. so we have to make people aware of what the state does, and make sure to get the state in a stalemate.

and to the "and then what part", i say that once people are somewhat aware, especially of the violence the state represents, they will become doubtful of the state's ability to rule in a legitimate manner. once this is unleashed, it gets out of hand and fucks the state over pretty quick.

Sorry for the delay, i'm feeling lethargic.

JackBrindelli wrote:

firstly, historically, people are kept ignorant by the state, history is taught in such an inaccessible manor, as are most subjects, and to such a limited degree, that really, the people (lets use britain as an example) have little more knowledge of things like ww2 than "Oh, we won! We were the good guys! The Nazi's were twats!", they aren't told how the deals that the allies forced upon the germans after ww1 or the failings of capitalism ultimately lead to the rise of hitler.

This is true that the state prospers when the people are dumb. And i can't say that i'm the most knowledgeable about school cirriculums in foreign countries. But if i were to give this a logical analysis, it seems to me that, outside of the failings of capitalism (naturally), the rise of the third reich is probably taught to the people. This may be why there is little fascist sentiments nowadays, as those times were the pinnacle of fascism. I say this because, at least here (US), we were, no later than junior year, all about it (even the deals you speak of, which is a little shocking, as the US doesn't generally like owning up to mistakes). They didn't cover much the capitalist interests that were manifest in these "deals", and how they relate to war in general, and this specific case (because, of course, the illusion must be protected, else the system collapse in on itself like a dying star). So i think (for the most part) people here (and i would assume other countries have similar criteria as long as they weren't party to the Axis) understand the resentment that is bred when forcing a country into a sham deal, and then riddling them with guilt. And as far as Germany, Italy, and other nations less apt to teach about these things, i would bet that the accumulated experience of those times still resonates deeply with the populations of those nations. It's hard to cover up (as the state would like, i'm sure) an experience so tragic and violent (surely the reason that the US teaches about Vietnam, however shallow the lessons)

Quote :

secondly, race isnt (forgive me saying this) quite that black and white.

Haha, i forgive you at least. And i'll clarify my point below.

Quote :

people will seek all kinds of scapegoats, and the latest one is muslims. a wide range of people take the opinion "extremists in the middle east hate women and execute gays. these people look like those extremists. therefore they must think the same way as them! they're here to take away our 'rights'!!!" and no one has the balls or the knowledge to oppose them in the mainstream!
in times of economic prosperity, i might have agreed that racialism was far fetched. but here we are in recession, in a poorly educated (in my opinion nation) with unemployment at 2million. this is the beginnings of what led partly to hitler in the first place!

First, i'll say that i wasn't meaning it had to be blacks vs whites. I was simply saying that no blame can be placed on one race in particular (unless it was whites, which makes absolutely no sense, as we're in the majority... for now) because people know what color boss-man is. And if someone were to blame anyone else, i think they'd get laughed at.

And as for Muslim scapegoats, it had it's chance, but it's passed. It didn't take long for people to realize that Bush was a liar, and that Muslims do not hate our freedom (they hate its nature, surely). Also, we've been in 11 other recessions here, and never have we been tempted to blame and persecute a race, or follow blindly a leader of unprecedented discrimination. Yes, this one's likely bigger, but the trend has never been, here or anywhere else, to choose fascism, much less nazism; this is the exception, not the rule.

Quote :

im sorry i cant pretend to know what the IAF is.

International Anarchist Federation. Clear goals, unified tactics, large base.

Quote :

secondly, for a social revolution, how do you suggest kicking one of them off, and in what way does it differ from a normal revolution.

Mid-debate is not an ideal place to be learning anarchist terminology, so i apologize, but a social revolution would differ from a "normal" one in that it's nature is completely radical, not just in the organization of society. To have revolution, you must have a radical restructuring of the organization of society. For it to be a social revolution, it would entail not only a restructuring of society, but also of priorities, ethics, and generally the minds of the people. Note that this is a natural progression, not a coerced one. If a revolution is not social, in brief, it will fail. To me though, revolutions that come from the grassroots must be social by their very nature.

Quote :

also i would like to point out i did not mean i will be planning a revolution for next wednesday or anything like that, im saying when the time comes and there is support, the struggle MUST be global or it will be snuffed out, even if successful in small areas.

Now it seems we've come to another topic, significant in its own right.

What makes you think individual national (or even provincial) revolution will inherently fail?

Quote :

you'd be surprised how quickly citizens turn to aliens when it suits the state. it doesnt seem to bother them that the tube bombers were british citizens, they were extremists, therefore they fit into the category of outsider.

You don't think the tube bombers are on a slightly different level than kids with rocks?

Quote :

of course, ultimately i am not supporting their actions, but they are a valid example of how governments use isolated examples in order to monitor EVERYONE.

I agree it's valid, but not as a counter to my argument given the heinous levels of violence employed by the bombers and the reactive violence of some pissed off citizens, who only target armored cops and things that break.

Quote :

the same could be said of 'chavs'. a few of them are known as trouble makers, yet EVERYONE is ultimately filmed by the cameras installed in order to deter their actions. ultimately they are citizens, but it suits the government to alienate and demonise them, and make the people feel they need protecting from the ugly world outside.

Heh, i actually had to look back to see how this part of the debate started in order to respond properly to this one. Chavs, as i understand it, aren't usually just isolated individuals who like performing crime. This may be how the media would like them portrayed, but its generally false. When talking about Britain, it's good to understand that there is a strong anarchist undercurrent, and a history of revolutionary youth vs. the state (and that there is a good amount of civilian support for the youth). This is the trend, so when the state and capitalism think they're endangered (not hard to believe), they'll resort to defense mechanisms like you've said.

Quote :

That's true, and i agree 100% with the kook on the ladder. And everything you said is fine, except that it won't mean anything in the end. First, if we do support their right to strike (which i've no problem with beyond it being a waste), why would they use it? Do we have any reason to think they would? You've meantioned that they're puppets, and who's the puppeteer? The State. If there did come a time when it would be useful for them to strike, their mentality would have been shaped with a statist perspective, just by the environment he's been put into. So in more peaceful parts of this country, for instance, a few cops here and there might get the notion that striking may be for the good, but if there isn't a popular concensus with those police in the areas that the state may be in danger, or that may just be more criminal, there won't be a strike.

Quote :

You're not fully getting my point. My fault, i should have been more clear. The most important thing about that strategy would be kicking up a fuss, not to actually win the right to strike. Firstly, the more direct benefit might be some of the cops begin to directly sympathise with the cause, but ultimately, and perhaps more importantly, the fact the government who they fight for would continue to deny them that right would be the most powerful factor in order to cause unrest amongst the cops. I’m not suggesting all the cops need to be on our side, but it would help if just some of them were to have a crisis of loyalties, which would lead to internal dispute, as some of them come to the realisation they’re being taken for mugs, whilst the rest stay loyal to the exploiters, and so we reach an internal divide of scabs and strikers. If this coincides with wide spread revolt, things could potentially go far further than they would if you simply leave the police and assume they’re inept. A disorganised, depleted arm of the state would truly be powerless against a revolution of any kind.

I understand, i just think anarchist organizations could better use their time. And i never assumed ineptitude, rather that given their position in regards to society and the state, they're not likely to use the right to strike, and not likely to care that subversive elements of society (as we're more than likely seen) are trying to "help" them. And i don't think we'll win any loyalties in this way. I'm not, however, telling you you shouldn't try it, or care about it, or anything like that.

Quote :

How about you define both for me, just so I don’t make such a heinous error again?

I believe i did, but no harm in repeating this rather important concept. When referring to revolution, we generally mean that period in which there is swift, radical change in the organization of society. This inherently means a period of expropriation, from the anarchist stand-point, as this is the only way this change can be effected. I can go into more detail about this, but for now, i find it unimportant. So in refering to a pre-revolutionary period, we're being more vague. This could mean that there is a revolutionary spirit in the air, but no expropriation has yet to be employed, or this could refer to an earlier period of a tumultuous economy, rioting, marching, protesting, etc. But what's important is that when i refer to revolutionary periods, i mean those in which the working class is beginning to undertake the re-appropriation of land and power.

Quote :

All the developed figure heads of capitalism approach crisis point in a recession, these are the most important factors here. Amerika, Britain, France, Germany, China (pre-emptively), even potentially Russia could soon be in the brown stuff, if things change in those key areas, the world follows.

I don't disagree. But i still do not see the possibility of such coordination in a revolution. As i said, and as history has shown, revolution is swift. So the likelihood of two countries undergoing the same or similar events at the same time is unlikely. However, if there is a successful revolution in Britain, and France or Germany soon had their own, you can be sure of aid from Britain, in some form or another, depending on the situation in Britain (as, even if they do complete a revolution, they will still need to work within their own country, as people and society would still be suffering from the capitalist hangover.

Quote :

However, if they continue to blame the same old scapegoats, and promote the same old solutions unchallenged, nothing will change. At this critical time, if someone reaches the main stream with a message like anarchy, it could potentially be the push the world needs.

Maybe, but personally i have no reason to be so optimistic, at the very least, not so soon. We'll see how bad this recession gets.

god wrote:

the state will not just use violence. they are going to be careful. they will use violence is people are unaware of the violence, but if people become aware of it, the state will be very careful. so we have to make people aware of what the state does, and make sure to get the state in a stalemate.

The people are always aware of the state's violence (they may not use our terminology), it's just that there is a point when they'll no longer approve of it, and a point when they will no longer tolerate it. And is it likely that they'll defend themselves with non-violent resistance? I don't think so. Not that there is no merit to non-violent resistance (i can think of a few places and periods where it was, or is preferable), but that there is a likelihood that people will defend themselves actively (meaning they'll employ a level of violence that will meet, or at least be enough to deter, that of the state's).

Quote :

and to the "and then what part", i say that once people are somewhat aware, especially of the violence the state represents, they will become doubtful of the state's ability to rule in a legitimate manner. once this is unleashed, it gets out of hand and fucks the state over pretty quick.

I couldn't possibly speak on this. But if you and others think it's worth the shot, by all means, do your worst.