Use of Force

[Raziel Hotokashi]

Sounds like pseudo-reformist to me...There is merit in non-violence, even if Seraph sounds more of a hipy than a pacifist. There is a point for violence, and there's a point for peace. Revolution should come only when the country truly needs it. In the early parts of the Russian Revolution, there was popularity behind Communism and people actually wanted it. THAT is when you start the revolution. You need more than a simple majority for Revolution and you have to give the borgioise the option to save face and surrender their power before you take it.

Afterwards, it shouldn't be about opression and taking the power from the crumbling borgioise, but repairing what they have torn down, and re-educating the masses so that they better understand what the ******** just happened.  

[Grin de Fiend]

I believe that the use of force should be used when other methods fail.  

[divineseraph]

Raziel Hotokashi

Sounds like pseudo-reformist to me...There is merit in non-violence, even if Seraph sounds more of a hipy than a pacifist. There is a point for violence, and there's a point for peace. Revolution should come only when the country truly needs it. In the early parts of the Russian Revolution, there was popularity behind Communism and people actually wanted it. THAT is when you start the revolution. You need more than a simple majority for Revolution and you have to give the borgioise the option to save face and surrender their power before you take it.

Afterwards, it shouldn't be about opression and taking the power from the crumbling borgioise, but repairing what they have torn down, and re-educating the masses so that they better understand what the ******** just happened.

As I have mentioned, if we have this majority, then we don't NEED violence.  

[divineseraph]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

divineseraph

It WILL work- They do not force oppression, they mask it as freedom. That is how, in America, the capitalist control works. People do it willingly, they opt to be slaves because they are told that it is the right thing to do.

And I agree completely, the rich will never willingly just give up control. But they will HAVE no control if we get enough people in agreement with our cause. It will be in the form of ultimate boycott- Nobody will work for them, nobody will earn them money, their resources and legal, economic and political control will wither and become nothing.

The working class outnumbers the rich many, many times over. We don't need violence. We just need a good dose of intellect and priority. We need to disregard systems of economics that hold us in our positions and keep the rich in power.

It is by OUR choice, by the choice of the workers, to keep the rich in power- We still work for them, and not because they force us to with guns to our heads- They have an enticing economic trap system that many common people fall for. And since it is us, the people, who hold the power, by simply disregarding their capitalist offer, we can take away their power.

I am not talking sit-ins for worker power. I propose something much simpler. We have numbers. We have power. All we need to do is stop letting them control us. We don't need guns to ignore cash.

Let us go through this slowly:

Quote:

It WILL work- They do not force oppression, they mask it as freedom.

Wrong. The two are not only not exclusive, but go hand in hand.

Quote:

That is how, in America, the capitalist control works. People do it willingly, they opt to be slaves because they are told that it is the right thing to do.

People do it willingly because they see no other choice. Communism is dead, remember? The bourgeoisie and the reformists have been blaring that at the top of their lungs. The working class is not attracted to communism, not because they are good little slaves, but because they see it as dead.

Quote:

And I agree completely, the rich will never willingly just give up control.

Not the 'rich.' This isn't a conflict between 'rich' and 'poor' but between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Quote:

But they will HAVE no control if we get enough people in agreement with our cause.

As long as you don't have the whole population on side, they are gonna have the cops and the army. When they force the issue what are you gonna do? "Don't use violence"? Bullshit. The workers will ignore you and set up a government of their own in spite of your efforts.

And so you say "No, we must have the whole population!" This is also bullshit. The police are the front-line institution of defence for the bourgeois state. EVERY DAY they oppress the population for the bourgeoisie. EVERY DAY they enforce capitalist laws and capitalist morality.

Do you really think they are gonna come over to you?

An deven if we imagined for just a moment that the cops and the army could be convinced to side with those they oppress day after day...

What about foreign intervention? When England, France, Germany and Japan decide to restor bourgeois 'order,' when the US bourgeoisie invites Mexico to take some liberties with the southern states...

What do you suppose your 'revolution' should do?

The rest of it amounts to the old tired formula of 'general strike!'
So here's the thing there: you are propagandising away telling the workers to go on strike, or to make the s**t THEY WANT, and to give it to the factories and shops THEY WANT and so on.

I'm not gonna deal with that right now... I am drained by Ragnarok and reading reformist posts...

They will not attack us. They do not have that kind of authority, and frankly, I think they are cowards. They KNOW that they need the people. If they kill us for not working in their factories, then who do they have to work for them?

In America, ZERO force is used to make people work. There is a threat of starvation and general discontent without money, but there are never, in any business situations, armed men forcing labor. The control is entirely, 100% psychological, bred through fear, the fact that a capitalist system is the only one they know, and slander against any other system.

They will not use force.

And WHO, exactly, would use the force? You're saying "They" like the same person who runs Mcdonalds happens to also be a five-star general. Businesses do not have military control, they have legal and economic control. They have money, so they hire lobbyists to change laws in their monetary favor. While the WAR industry pulls strings in the military, they do not really have the power to do anything.

Keep in mind, this would be during a time when there is no workforce to do the work for these leaders. They would have very little power. They could declare war with both of their remaining soldiers, so what. They're not Sayans here, they are just people who have a whole lot of money and use what people need to control them. I admit, this is exaggeration, I expect a split of around 75-25 in our favor, but even then, that manqy people dropping out of the economic system would cause it to collapse entirely and force those still on the other side to join us or starve in their failed economy.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

divineseraph

They will not attack us. They do not have that kind of authority, and frankly, I think they are cowards. They KNOW that they need the people. If they kill us for not working in their factories, then who do they have to work for them?

The ones that live. The ones that see their class brothers and sisters having the s**t kicked out of them, being shot in droves and say '******** it, I didn't sign up to get shot with nothing in return.'
They will go back to work because your programme offers them nothing.

divineseraph

In America, ZERO force is used to make people work. There is a threat of starvation and general discontent without money, but there are never, in any business situations, armed men forcing labor. The control is entirely, 100% psychological, bred through fear, the fact that a capitalist system is the only one they know, and slander against any other system.

Really? So picket lines are not set upon by batton wielding police officers? Protests are not bashed and dispersed with batton, taser and teargas?

Well, they are. And I guess in this imaginary America there are also Dragons and Wizards and s**t?

divineseraph

They will not use force.

Pretend for a moment that I did agree with your understanding of the US as being this wonderful land of class peace...

Why do you imagine that when everyhting is on the line, that they will not?

divineseraph

And WHO, exactly, would use the force? You're saying "They" like the same person who runs Mcdonalds happens to also be a five-star general. Businesses do not have military control, they have legal and economic control. They have money, so they hire lobbyists to change laws in their monetary favor. While the WAR industry pulls strings in the military, they do not really have the power to do anything.

That Maccas person isn't a general. Though I do you doubt for a second that when their very class existence is at stake they will not sign up?

They may not be a General, but they or their friends will still be the ones pullingthe trigger.

Besides, ignore that for a moment. Who cares if this Maccas owner doesn't do a ******** thing. The military and cops who will be shooting workers will be doing it on behalf of his class.

divineseraph

Keep in mind, this would be during a time when there is no workforce to do the work for these leaders. They would have very little power. They could declare war with both of their remaining soldiers, so what. They're not Sayans here, they are just people who have a whole lot of money and use what people need to control them. I admit, this is exaggeration, I expect a split of around 75-25 in our favor, but even then, that manqy people dropping out of the economic system would cause it to collapse entirely and force those still on the other side to join us or starve in their failed economy.

Sure it would. But those 'two soldiers' you mentioned don't have to be magical blonde apes, they just have to be "willing to do what they other guy won't," namely: use violence against the opposition.

Also, even if we imagine I agreed with all of your plan so far...

As I

What about foreign intervention? When England, France, Germany and Japan decide to restor[e] bourgeois 'order,' when the US bourgeoisie invites Mexico to take some liberties with the southern states...

What do you plan to do then?

No, your plan is nothing other than a recipie for disaster at best, and a plan to hold off the revolution indefinitely "until we have 75% support" at worst.  

[Intermundia]

Show me a time in history where there was a revolution that did not lead to blood shed and then I will buy into your theory.

Look to the October Revolution man. Once the workers took control of the government the supporters of the Czar, The Provisional government, The Menshiviks, and even foreign powers like japan and England came to thwart their revolution. They can and will use force to make us work!  

[Herobane]

Comrade Rob

Show me a time in history where there was a revolution that did not lead to blood shed and then I will buy into your theory.

Look to the October Revolution man. Once the workers took control of the government the supporters of the Czar, The Provisional government, The Menshiviks, and even foreign powers like japan and England came to thwart their revolution. They can and will use force to make us work!

Do civil rights movements count?  

[Intermundia]

Herobane

Comrade Rob

Show me a time in history where there was a revolution that did not lead to blood shed and then I will buy into your theory.

Look to the October Revolution man. Once the workers took control of the government the supporters of the Czar, The Provisional government, The Menshiviks, and even foreign powers like japan and England came to thwart their revolution. They can and will use force to make us work!

Do civil rights movements count?

No. A revolution  

[Herobane]

Comrade Rob

Herobane

Comrade Rob

Show me a time in history where there was a revolution that did not lead to blood shed and then I will buy into your theory.

Look to the October Revolution man. Once the workers took control of the government the supporters of the Czar, The Provisional government, The Menshiviks, and even foreign powers like japan and England came to thwart their revolution. They can and will use force to make us work!

Do civil rights movements count?

No. A revolution

kk

Thought I'd get that clarified. The two are similar, after all...

I can't think of any off the top of my head...

It has to be a successful revolution, right?  

[Intermundia]

Herobane

Comrade Rob

Herobane

Comrade Rob

Show me a time in history where there was a revolution that did not lead to blood shed and then I will buy into your theory.

Look to the October Revolution man. Once the workers took control of the government the supporters of the Czar, The Provisional government, The Menshiviks, and even foreign powers like japan and England came to thwart their revolution. They can and will use force to make us work!

Do civil rights movements count?

No. A revolution

kk

Thought I'd get that clarified. The two are similar, after all...

I can't think of any off the top of my head...

It has to be a successful revolution, right?

Yes  

[Raziel Hotokashi]

A good portion of African Independence movements?
India?  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Raziel Hotokashi

A good portion of African Independence movements?
India?

I now ******** all about Africa, but India.. Ah, I know that.
The bourgeoisie loves too trumpet the pacifism of Gandhi. After all, he counseled the German Jews to throw themselves off cliffs to stop the Nazis from killing them as opposed to engage in heroic actions such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

But what the bourgeoisie does not talk so openly is the terrorist campaign in the Punjab. There we saw a civil war raising the cost of maintaining the police and military force in the colony. In the end, it was cheaper to leave than to maintain an organised force there. Afterall, England still has huge pull in the Indian economy, but now the natives take care of policing, freeing up England for other imperialist wars.  

[Raziel Hotokashi]

Africa: A good portion of Africa was decolonized through Communist guerrilla groups engaging in conflicts with the motherlands. The other half of Africa simply lobbied for independence with nothing more than popular support.  

[AngelRebourn]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

currently dominant is the view that violence will be necessary, or at least it will probably be necessary.

Here's what I think,

I think that It's going to be necessary due to the ignorance of the people and the corruption of the current governments. They will initiate the violence by trying to wipe whatever revolution out before it can spread into a major threat.

But that's only my opinion.