People like authority i think

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 6 2004 23:46
marijaia wrote:
It's easy to see why redyred is unlikely to progress much further than the cleaner-up of shit. How long to retirement, old chap?

Tip: Having a dig at someone for having a dirty job and not getting up the career ladder doesn't get you much support amongst the left.... Come to think of it you should get on fine with half the people on here.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 7 2004 01:02
bigdave wrote:
My use of the word "animal" to try to describe some components of our consciousness seems to provoke a reaction in itself. I am not saying "animal" is any better than "human". I'm not saying I'm superior to anyone or "enlightened". All I'm saying is that parts of our consciousness have to do with survival, these elements being very dominant when activated. I suppose one way of putting is that your "selfish" thought patterns are parts of the animal consciousness. The media use this to sell shit. The rich who run the world use this to keep us de-educated and docile - to some, "class struggle" is literarily shouting at similarly-minded people and trying to "win" arguments for the sake of winning.

Yes humans have overiding instincts for self preservation and material gain thats obvious. But what you seem to misunderstand is that put in the simplest terms possible GREED has both a good and bad side. If only the ruling class were greedy we'd all just sit here and say things like ''oh well just got fired, no food for me, so i'll just lay here on the floor right now and die, never mind'' obviously that would be a shit world to live in, obviously self-interest makes people struggle to survive.

The point of Class Struggle is that you have to recognise that it is in your self-interest as an individual within a class to see that society should be improved so your class benefits, therefore making you benefit in turn.

Thus capitalism is inherently self destructive. As it creates the means by which it can be destroyed.

Quote:

Now, this may be people's "right" but the "people" don't stop at our borders. All over the world, people are dying from the exploitation they suffer. This exploitation can only be fought if the relatively small number of voters in the "West" find a way to fight back against the rulership of the rich. At this time, the voters vote in Bush and Blair. If my son had just died of dysentry building a slave railroad in Burma, I'd be a bit pissed off that the voters in the countries with the international power to change things just insisted that it was their right to remain ignorant and powerless.

what has a piece of paper every four years got to do with anything?

Quote:

Captain Sadness, I said that you seemed to want to pepetuate ignorance because you were arguing against the passing on of information to another, regardless of the information itself (hence the time-telling analogy). I see the media and education systems and religions as means of indoctrinating and controlling people - this has to be fought but it can't be until the "masses" understand some of how its done. Put down the Sun, switch off the TV. Start to think for yourself.

hmmm i reckon you should calm down a bit and argue rationally, because that paragraph makes very little sense

john

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Sep 7 2004 15:25
Quote:
You don't get anywhere without them on your side, they make and break the power brokers

The commercial media are entirely an instrument of the rich. The BBC might be comparatively better but not by much. Until the media act in the interests of the masses, they are the enemy.

Quote:
But what you seem to misunderstand is that put in the simplest terms possible GREED has both a good and bad side

Rather than good or bad, I try to think of the selfish elements of our animal nature like greed for food, sex, power, survival, as either appropriate or inappropriate for the situation.

Quote:
If only the ruling class were greedy

Exactly, it is our own willingness to be complicit in this system which allows it to continue. Much of that is based on forms of greed, massively stimulated by the media. The use of sexual and violent imagery are constantly pounded into us to keep our heads full of it.

Quote:
The point of Class Struggle is that you have to recognise that it is in your self-interest as an individual within a class

I think of "classes" of people as symptoms of an unequal society. I'm working class but not genetically. I hope that, at some point, enough people will be able to resist the propaganda that progress can be made to remove the cause of "classes".

Quote:
Thus capitalism is inherently self destructive

I agree, but the destruction of capitalist dystems just leads to a switch of dictators and starting from scratch. The capitalism does not disappear. The first peaceful revolution might be different.

Quote:
what has a piece of paper every four years got to do with anything?

Fuck all. This whole con of a system where we get to vote for the Eton old boy currently toadying enough to the rich and polished enough to elicit "trust" from the masses is part of the problem. A trick, an illusion of choice to keep us quiet. Our "representatives" are told how to vote by their "leader" or "party", not the people they are alleged to "represent".

Quote:
hmmm i reckon you should calm down a bit and argue rationally

Well my original point was that telling someone about how the media works to improve their awareness and improve their ability to resist it. Telling the time was an analogy used to keep the content of the information neutral for the purposes of argument. At some point I became a Phrenologist.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 9 2004 11:30
bigdave wrote:
Quote:
You don't get anywhere without them on your side, they make and break the power brokers

The commercial media are entirely an instrument of the rich. The BBC might be comparatively better but not by much. Until the media act in the interests of the masses, they are the enemy.

Media is just a word to describe the conveyance of information and perspectives, but ignoring this point for a moment is their any real point in telling us that the bbc is heavily biased, sorry mate but that just really obvious. I mean seriously do you think people on here are fucking stupid or something.

Quote:
But what you seem to misunderstand is that put in the simplest terms possible GREED has both a good and bad side

Rather than good or bad, I try to think of the selfish elements of our animal nature like greed for food, sex, power, survival, as either appropriate or inappropriate for the situation.

Oh leave it out with your pseudo-intellectual bilge, yes morality is subjective blah blah blah but for the benefits of this conversation i'm going to use GOOD and BAD because they are simple terms.

Quote:
If only the ruling class were greedy

Exactly, it is our own willingness to be complicit in this system which allows it to continue. Much of that is based on forms of greed, massively stimulated by the media. The use of sexual and violent imagery are constantly pounded into us to keep our heads full of it.

i'm sorry, i just completely disagree with this statement

Quote:
The point of Class Struggle is that you have to recognise that it is in your self-interest as an individual within a class

I think of "classes" of people as symptoms of an unequal society. I'm working class but not genetically. I hope that, at some point, enough people will be able to resist the propaganda that progress can be made to remove the cause of "classes".

I would have thought resisting the capitalist war machine was our main obstacle to the emancipation of the working class..but whatever

Quote:
Thus capitalism is inherently self destructive

I agree, but the destruction of capitalist dystems just leads to a switch of dictators and starting from scratch. The capitalism does not disappear. The first peaceful revolution might be different.

Theres no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Pacifism disarms the working class

Quote:
what has a piece of paper every four years got to do with anything?

Fuck all. This whole con of a system where we get to vote for the Eton old boy currently toadying enough to the rich and polished enough to elicit "trust" from the masses is part of the problem. A trick, an illusion of choice to keep us quiet. Our "representatives" are told how to vote by their "leader" or "party", not the people they are alleged to "represent".

this is all vert true, but it doesn't explain why you waffled on like a liberal about burmese peasants being annoyed at we vote for

Quote:
hmmm i reckon you should calm down a bit and argue rationally

Well my original point was that telling someone about how the media works to improve their awareness and improve their ability to resist it.

Look i'm sorry but pretty hard to be polite with you when you are being so fucking ridiculously arrogant.

peace

john

PhaedrusTheWolfboy
Offline
Joined: 19-09-04
Sep 19 2004 21:32
Quote:
Theres no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Pacifism disarms the working class

To overthrow the power of the State by force is asking for a bloodbath and it won't be the coppers and the sqaudies (let alone the elite power-mongers who control them) who will be taking the brunt of the casualties. As for the working class being diarmed, has anyone got a massive cache of modern military equipment and a militia capable of taking on the might of Her Maj's armed forces that I haven't been told about?

The very essence of the State is coersion backed up by brute force. I can't see how challenging this status quo with further brutality will change anything. for the better. No violent revolution in history has ever produced LASTING and RADICAL change. If any had, then we would not still be living in a world of oppressed and oppressor.

The revolution is gradual and to suceed it has to be, in essence, peaceful. Reclaiming our land, our buildings and our social spaces is revolutionary, but first we must reclaim our minds and help others to do so by provinding the facilitating the free flow of information and ideas, and by organising and socialising. Taking direct action against oppresive institutions and corporations is revolutionary, and some of the most effective ways of doing this is by disrupting their operations, and costing them money by damaging or stealing their property.

As much as it is tempting to do so, shooting Blair or Blunkett in the head is not revolutionary. The world leaders are entirely disposable to the system they serve. Even if the world's entire ruling class could be rounded up and shot, there is a strange tendency in history for the executioners to become the new ruling class (eg:France, Russia). Don't get me wrong, I am not a pacafist. If I am being attacked I will certainly fight back, but I think that the glorification of armed revolution comes from an angry adolescent mindset. There are more men in love with war than there are who ever fought in one.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 20 2004 01:02
PhaedrusTheWolfboy wrote:
Quote:
Theres no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Pacifism disarms the working class

To overthrow the power of the State by force is asking for a bloodbath and it won't be the coppers and the sqaudies (let alone the elite power-mongers who control them) who will be taking the brunt of the casualties. As for the working class being diarmed, has anyone got a massive cache of modern military equipment and a militia capable of taking on the might of Her Maj's armed forces that I haven't been told about?

The very essence of the State is coersion backed up by brute force. I can't see how challenging this status quo with further brutality will change anything. for the better. No violent revolution in history has ever produced LASTING and RADICAL change. If any had, then we would not still be living in a world of oppressed and oppressor.

So when the bourgeoisie destroyed the feudal system with a series of revolutionary wars that produced no lasting change? And please don't give me this liberal ''opressed/oppressor'' crap about how feaudalism is ''just the same'' as capitalism or some similar idealist nonsense.

There is a large cache of weapons, in our armaments factories afterall who do you think makes british tanks, rifles and military equipment?

And its not that violence is enjoyable or something i look forward to, i'm not nuts, i just want to have a house, people around me, food, a tv, simple things, but self-defence is neccessary. People are fucking wankers, you can't expect everyone to just get along or the ruling class to just give up their billions massed armies and thermonuclear weapons, these people have already probven how willing they are to sacrifce the entire human race in search for profit.

Quote:

The revolution is gradual and to suceed it has to be, in essence, peaceful. Reclaiming our land, our buildings and our social spaces is revolutionary, but first we must reclaim our minds and help others to do so by provinding the facilitating the free flow of information and ideas, and by organising and socialising.

yes this is bloody OBVIOUS

Even if it is worded in such a horriffically crimthinc liberal wank style

Quote:

Taking direct action against oppresive institutions and corporations is revolutionary, and some of the most effective ways of doing this is by disrupting their operations, and costing them money by damaging or stealing their property.

No it isn't, theres nothing wrong with theft, but it isn't a revolutionary act in itself. If you want to shop lift go ahead, maybe you need to do it to survive, maybe not whatever, but companies simply decrease the wages of some worker somewhere. So while your entitlesd to do it, it has no real impact on capitalism. Its only in the workplace and in the community you can challenge the power of capital. I didn't argue that their was going to be some sort of revolution tommorrow, there probly won't be a revolution (the human race will probably just all die in the next century or two) and even if there was it wouldn't happen for over twenty years i reckon. But that doesn't stop me advocating armed struggle, considering i see it as the ONLY way that state power will actuially be truly overthrown.

I loathe bloodshed and i despise the worship of militarism, but equally i loathe the fetshisation of ''moral resistance'' to capitalism inherent in pacifism. And i'm not nuts, so i'm not going to just stand there and pretend that a sit-down protest will bring the capitalist economic system to its knees, or that those involved in any revolution in the future should just sit there and die until the bourgeoisie's armies run out of ammunition, which seems to be what you're argueing for.

Quote:

As much as it is tempting to do so, shooting Blair or Blunkett in the head is not revolutionary. The world leaders are entirely disposable to the system they serve. Even if the world's entire ruling class could be rounded up and shot, there is a strange tendency in history for the executioners to become the new ruling class (eg:France, Russia). Don't get me wrong, I am not a pacafist. If I am being attacked I will certainly fight back, but I think that the glorification of armed revolution comes from an angry adolescent mindset. There are more men in love with war than there are who ever fought in one.

1. I didn't glorify armed revolution, i simply pointed out that pacifism is bollocks.

2. The ''executioners'' of russia didn't become the new ruling class simply because they were ''violent'', they became the new ruling class because they took control of state institutions. If you actuially look at the february and october revolutions, outside moscow and st petersburg the violence was minimal. We only see the russian revolution as being so extremely violent because of the foreign intervention and leninist consolidation of power that followed in 1919-22.

3.When the hell did i say i was in love with war? Please tell me where you inferred that statement from?

4.Since when, in your head, did ''pacifism disarms the working class'' become ''i'm a nutter and want to reform the angry brigade assasinate politicians and plan attacks on NATO targets and nuclear power stations''

I mean what the hell are you going on about?

peace

john

PhaedrusTheWolfboy
Offline
Joined: 19-09-04
Sep 20 2004 03:44
Quote:
4.Since when, in your head, did ''pacifism disarms the working class'' become ''i'm a nutter and want to reform the angry brigade assasinate politicians and plan attacks on NATO targets and nuclear power stations''

I mean what the hell are you going on about?

I think you are assuming too much about my internal thought processes here. Why take it so personal? I was not addressing you as an individual, I was addressing the statement you happened to make about armed revolution. I happen to disagree with that statement. Do I deserve to be treated like a wanker for arguing against it?

I never sugested that you personally are in love with war. The fact is that there are alot of radicals who glorify armed insurgency. I strongly disagree with this position. The statement at the end of my previous post was something that came into my head, it was not aimed at you personally.

Quote:
And its not that violence is enjoyable or something i look forward to, i'm not nuts, i just want to have a house, people around me, food, a tv, simple things, but self-defence is neccessary.

I AGREE with self-defence, as I pointed out in my post. I DISARGEE with the idea that we need an armed vanguard to take the power back from the ruling class for us. WE give them their power through through our own ignorance and indifference (in the economically prosperous countries anyway). We are complicit in this system to some degree. If we can educate and organise umongst ourselves (ie: take back resposibility for our lives) then we will cease to be complicit in a system that commodifies our people and everything else on our planet. This requires the building of strong communities and local economies. The two things that the global rulers do not want because they are impossible for them to control. I happen to believe that this can be achieved through peaceful means. In fact, I believe that this can ONLY be acheived though peaceful means.

Quote:
So when the bourgeoisie destroyed the feudal system with a series of revolutionary wars that produced no lasting change? And please don't give me this liberal ''opressed/oppressor'' crap about how feaudalism is ''just the same'' as capitalism or some similar idealist nonsense.

The move from feudalism to capitalism in my opinion did not produce any RADICAL change. Both systems are built on a class heirachy, based on exploitation of the majority enforced by the threat of violence. In fact, for the majority of people, the industrial revolution was a setback in terms of health, diet and living conditions.

Am I a 'liberal' for pointing out the fact that we live in a world where some people exploit and oppress, at the expense of those they exploit and oppress? If you disagree with this fact, then what exactly are you struggling against or fighting for?

Quote:
There is a large cache of weapons, in our armaments factories afterall who do you think makes british tanks, rifles and military equipment?

As if the arms companies leave their latest killing merchandise stacked up in crates by the back door of the factory. Have you ever tried to steal a tank? I abhor the arms industry. We should be campaining harder to get it shut down. What I was saying in my last post was that the British working class is disarmed anyway. Don't know about you, but I don't fancy violent confrontation with the full force of the state armed only with molotov coctails and baseball bats.

In your envisioned armed revolution, who exactly are the armed revolutionaries going to be fighting, assuming that the overwhelming majority of the population are going to be on their side? The royal family backed up by a handful of silly-looking geezers with red coats and furry hats?

I'm sorry for appearing an 'idealist' or a 'liberal' in your view, but I don't believe you can overthow a system based on brutality, intimidation and fear by using their violent tactics against them. The only way out of this mess is to rebuild our communities, as I have said above. This will not happen through the barrel of a gun.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 20 2004 17:22
PhaedrusTheWolfboy wrote:
Quote:
4.Since when, in your head, did ''pacifism disarms the working class'' become ''i'm a nutter and want to reform the angry brigade assasinate politicians and plan attacks on NATO targets and nuclear power stations''

I mean what the hell are you going on about?

I think you are assuming too much about my internal thought processes here. Why take it so personal? I was not addressing you as an individual, I was addressing the statement you happened to make about armed revolution. I happen to disagree with that statement. Do I deserve to be treated like a wanker for arguing against it?

I never sugested that you personally are in love with war. The fact is that there are alot of radicals who glorify armed insurgency. I strongly disagree with this position. The statement at the end of my previous post was something that came into my head, it was not aimed at you personally.

Sorry mate i thought you were lumping me with the nutters.

Quote:
And its not that violence is enjoyable or something i look forward to, i'm not nuts, i just want to have a house, people around me, food, a tv, simple things, but self-defence is neccessary.

I AGREE with self-defence, as I pointed out in my post. I DISARGEE with the idea that we need an armed vanguard to take the power back from the ruling class for us.

This has nothing to do with vaguardism. Durrutis column was not a vanguard, it had no ties to state institutions and none of the specific structure of a Vanguard Party. Yet durruitis column was a disciplined armed organisation for fightinmg fascism.

Quote:
So when the bourgeoisie destroyed the feudal system with a series of revolutionary wars that produced no lasting change? And please don't give me this liberal ''opressed/oppressor'' crap about how feaudalism is ''just the same'' as capitalism or some similar idealist nonsense.

The move from feudalism to capitalism in my opinion did not produce any RADICAL change. Both systems are built on a class heirachy, based on exploitation of the majority enforced by the threat of violence. In fact, for the majority of people, the industrial revolution was a setback in terms of health, diet and living conditions.

Am I a 'liberal' for pointing out the fact that we live in a world where some people exploit and oppress, at the expense of those they exploit and oppress? If you disagree with this fact, then what exactly are you struggling against or fighting for?

Yes you are being a liberal, but for other reasons.

Lets put it simply

communism-population say 8 billion, life expectancy 75

capitalism-population 6.3 billion, life expectancy 50

feudalism-somewhere less than 1 billion, life expectancy 30

stone age-population roughly 50 million, life expectancy 20

Lower technology, scarcity, disease, higher infant mortality and starvation combine to make feudalism more shit to live under than capitalism on average.

Quote:
There is a large cache of weapons, in our armaments factories afterall who do you think makes british tanks, rifles and military equipment?

As if the arms companies leave their latest killing merchandise stacked up in crates by the back door of the factory.

Have you ever tried to steal a tank? I abhor the arms industry. We should be campaining harder to get it shut down. What I was saying in my last post was that the British working class is disarmed anyway. Don't know about you, but I don't fancy violent confrontation with the full force of the state armed only with molotov coctails and baseball bats.

How do you think they make tanks? Theres an assembly line. Do you want to go to leeds (i think) to see the factory where they make challenger 2's. Where do you think they keep weaponary, floating on clouds?

In your envisioned armed revolution, who exactly are the armed revolutionaries going to be fighting, assuming that the overwhelming majority of the population are going to be on their side? The royal family backed up by a handful of silly-looking geezers with red coats and furry hats?

Sorry man but what planet are you living on?

We have inthe UK 200,000 regular infantry and 50,000 odd elite troops, and a hundred thousand odd police officers. Considering say a 50% desertion rate in regulars and uniformed police due to the nature of the situation. At best you'd be facing 80-100k thats say 20,000 elite troops, 20,000 regulars and say 40,000 police officers. With rapid deployment technology, air, missile and tank support GPS and militay intelligence with assasination, surveilance and sabotage capabilities and gas/chemical weaponary.

Mutinies would already have broken out, and maybe the regulars wouldn't see much action but its nutty to assume thred be no reaction, the army has thousands of people trained for counter -revolutionary warfare.

Thats is the most optimistic capability i can think of, and simply takes into account the militay power of our own state and doesn't take account of an attempted fascist counter revolution or the actions of other states, (no don't pretend that theres going to one global revolution all in one day because thats bullshit, it would be staggered over months or even years).

Ok this is all a bit extreme but if you think all the proletariat of 2020/30/40/whenever would be facing is a bunch of beefeaters than you're barmy.

Yes this is twenty or more years in the furture and has no relevance to todays political arena and i'm not going to go about screaming for armed inssurection, but i'm not going to hide what i pereceive to be the reality of social change under some stagist agenda, that is what i think will happen, i am yet to be convinced that a revolution could ever be carried out without armed struggle.

I'm sorry for appearing an 'idealist' or a 'liberal' in your view, but I don't believe you can overthow a system based on brutality, intimidation and fear by using their violent tactics against them. The only way out of this mess is to rebuild our communities, as I have said above. This will not happen through the barrel of a gun.

Ok situation, you're a union 800 strong youre families are at home, you just seized control of a factory in part of a reginal mobilisation, 150 riot police arrive some armed, to remove you from the premises by force.

What do you do?

peace

john

PhaedrusTheWolfboy
Offline
Joined: 19-09-04
Sep 20 2004 20:44
Quote:
How do you think they make tanks? Theres an assembly line. Do you want to go to leeds (i think) to see the factory where they make challenger 2's. Where do you think they keep weaponary, floating on clouds?

The arms companies do not store the weapons they make. By their very nature, they are one of the most politically conservative industries around (after state espionage, or maybe the military itself). I have been involved in a campaign against an arms company for some time now, and we have yet to establish any meaningful contact with any of their workers. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that the arms industry can be sucessfully infiltrated and subverted. They probably refused to employ Labour Party voters until Tony Blair took over.

Quote:
Yes this is twenty or more years in the furture and has no relevance to todays political arena

I agree that arguing over something that may or may not face us in twenty years time is a bit futile.

Quote:
Ok situation, you're a union 800 strong youre families are at home, you just seized control of a factory in part of a reginal mobilisation, 150 riot police arrive some armed, to remove you from the premises by force.

What do you do?

Make some peppermint tea and sing 'Give Peace A Chance' at them? wink

As I have said twice before, I have no problem with self-defence, which I perceive to be different to armed revolution. When I hear the words 'armed strugle/revolution/insurgency' I imagine armed vanguardist militias attempting to smash the power of the state by force on the behalf of the masses. I don't believe that this is ultimately necessary or even desirable. Anyway, I think we that we are diverting the thread here, but it's been interesting so I'll start a new thread re: armed revolution. See you there.

As to my tuppence worth on whether people like authority...

There is an aspect of our nature that wants security and ready-made world views. This is one of the things I think that make people appeal to authority. It is much easier to let the authoritarian father-figure do your thinking for you than it is to take resposibility for you own thoughts and actions. Both govenment, media and organised religion take full advantage of this in order to control us.

Aside from this, there is also a lot of deliberate fear-mongering in the mainstream media, such as the contant hysteria around terrorism, crime, paedophillia, immigration, etc. The perception of the scale of these problems becomes massively inflated in relation to the actual scale of the problem in the cultural consciousness, and people start to demand that 'something must be done', ie: the government must do something about it, usually by introducing ever more draconian laws that curtail our freedoms and that further centralise the power structure.

It is interesting that ten years ago there were many high-profile stalking cases being given attention in the media. It is even more interesing to note how effective the Harassment Act 1997 (particually section 5) has been in stifling protests. I have seen people been threatened with arrest for filming the outside of a building under these measures.

The 'War On Terror' (a.k.a Operation TWAT) is a classic example of this manipulation based on fear tactics.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 20 2004 21:14
PhaedrusTheWolfboy wrote:

The arms companies do not store the weapons they make. By their very nature, they are one of the most politically conservative industries around (after state espionage, or maybe the military itself). I have been involved in a campaign against an arms company for some time now, and we have yet to establish any meaningful contact with any of their workers. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that the arms industry can be sucessfully infiltrated and subverted. They probably refused to employ Labour Party voters until Tony Blair took over.

Class consciousness though in't it? Walk into any industrial workplace in Britain and you'll find it full of people who think the government gives cushy treatment to asylum seekers, women are only good for childcaring and homemaking and that our children are in constant danger from hordes of raping and murdering paedophiles. In working class revolutions the skewed view of the world that capitalism gives us gets overcome. Don't dismiss the workers in munitions plants just cos none of them had a friendly chat with you when you were protesting outside their workplace.

Quote:

As I have said twice before, I have no problem with self-defence, which I perceive to be different to armed revolution. When I hear the words 'armed strugle/revolution/insurgency' I imagine armed vanguardist militias attempting to smash the power of the state by force on the behalf of the masses. I don't believe that this is ultimately necessary or even desirable.

You might imagine vanguardist militias smashing the state by force on behalf of the masses, but you could never have a succesful revolution without the participation of those masses. I mean, how long is a bunch of middle class Marxists going to last against trained and equipped soldiers? No, the ruling class is going to surround defend itself to the last and cling to any shred of power it has. It wouldn't be by any means the be all and end all of the revolution, but a part of it would have to be a violent siezing of power.

But yeah, if you like we can keep this up on a new thread.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 21 2004 01:15
PhaedrusTheWolfboy wrote:
Quote:
Yes this is twenty or more years in the furture and has no relevance to todays political arena

I agree that arguing over something that may or may not face us in twenty years time is a bit futile.

yeah i agree, but we're anarchists, so we're supposed to argue about utterly pointless shit

Quote:
Ok situation, you're a union 800 strong youre families are at home, you just seized control of a factory in part of a reginal mobilisation, 150 riot police arrive some armed, to remove you from the premises by force.

What do you do?

Make some peppermint tea and sing 'Give Peace A Chance' at them? wink

chemical warfare!?

peace

john

PhaedrusTheWolfboy
Offline
Joined: 19-09-04
Sep 21 2004 13:41

If we had a PA in the factory we could get an anally-retentive Marxist to bore the police into submission.

Or we could play them some gabba at high volume.

Or we could distract them with pictures of Jordan's breasts.

You see? There are loads of ways to avoid violent confrontation. tongue