I think you should really think about a situation where the majority of a populace in a area supports radical change and the implictions that would have for a radical organization trying to make a radical change and how easy it would be for that org to carry out these changes when they have the mass support.
But they´ve got all the guns
By 'force' you presumably mean the actions required to shake off the people who control us?
If it as to be violent, then it necessitates that peaceful methods were used and exhausted, and that its the wishes of the overwhelming majority. In such a situation force would only occur when the infrastructure tried to assert itself over peoples growing autonomy. And violence in that sense would be acceptable as its a revolutionary situation.
Quote:
But between the government and the capitalists they have all the guns and control the propaganda. Which rules out both really doesnt it?
There shouldnt be a need to start stockpiling weapons just yet LOL as long as when weapons can be retrieved we have the means to distribute them, we can look to defections in the army and seizing state assests along the way.
Convert wrote:
But between the government and the capitalists they have all the guns and control the propaganda. Which rules out both really doesnt it?
Someone needs to use the guns. Generally army units dislike firing on civillians, especially in their own country. The question is getting army units to fight loyal government units. In situation after situation loyal army units have been sent out against the people and those whose loyalty was in question stayed in barracks. The loyal part of the army is almost invariably a tiny minority.
I cant quite get past the thought to have a revolution you would need to either do it by force or by propaganda/mass revolt.
But between the government and the capitalists they have all the guns and control the propaganda. Which rules out both really doesnt it?