Revolution

[Section 8]

Alright, me and Rebel have been discussing this in an unrelated topic, and I thought that it is time that it deserves its own. If you're for revolution then please state how you would go about it. If you aren't then state why.

Why there should be a revolution: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_24.html

The Idea: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_25.html

Preparation: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_26.html

Organization of Labor: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_27.html

Priciples and Practice: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_28.html

Consumption and Exchange: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_29.html

Production: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_30.html

Defense of the Revolution: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_31.html

Okay this is one perspective on the whole revolution, I know it's alot of reading but that's ok.

Here's some Kropotin for you:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...revstudies.html

and some more:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...itofrevolt.html

Here's some stuff on the Anarchist Revolution:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...akhnoanrev.html

Okay, I know that was alot of reading, but it's good to be educated. Well enjoy!

Have Fun
Shalom

[indierockboy]

the situationists almost created a revolution; they had all the key ingredients, massive uprising of people, disillusionment with the state, a yearning for change. but when they had the world's attention - they didn't know what to say. so it became a very short passage in history books.

you can give us all the links you want on the subject. i read most of them. disjointed sources and ideas that you've failed to tie together yourself. why should there be a revolution? to what end? once you bring down the system, how to you intend to erect a new one? on what grounds?

you need to answer a great many questions before you can ask us any.

[G. Adams]

I believe that revolution can be a positive thing (oddly enough for a communist), and is a neccesary part of historical evolution. However I no longer believe that a revolution could be succesful now, over the course of history. Before we have a socialist revolution, we must finish our capitalist course. There are still a great many countries that have not been 'proletarianised'. In fact, it has dwindelled. The transferal of labour to third world countries has turned the western proleteriat into a giant middle class. If the countries in which labour is now situated were properly capitalist, with proper education systems, I believe that they would become a new proleteriat, and a world wide, socialist revolution would be possible.

So, it is now the duty of communists to spread capitalism and democracy, rather than pre-empt the revolution.

[Section 8]

Uhhhhhhh, Indierockboy did you read the links. The answers are in their.

Adams: As the wise Berkman put it, Revolution is like a boiling pot of water. The fire is the ideas, if you educate people the fire will increase thus furthering revolution. If you take the pot off the stove to early then you will fail miserably.

Have Fun
Shalom

[RebelWithanAK]

Sounds like propoganda. And you've really only linked one source, Sec 8. Albeit eleven times, but one source.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

If society is based off of the peoples sweat, why do you need a revolution. A simple a strike would be suffiencent. Otherwise your whole thoery is simply BS.

[Section 8]

Rebel, the different links are over the different steps in a revolution. They are from the same site yes, but there are many steps and perspectives to revolution.

GWB, a simple mass strike is not exactly simple. Can you imagine all the millions of people that would have to go on strike. Also a mass strike is revolution, but just a step.

Have Fun
Shalom

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Then you invest in the strike, and I will invest in reality. ;)

[Section 8]

GWB, revolution is a very natural change. Humans are destined to revolt, we are endless on the quest for improvement. Eventually we'll move out of the current system, and into a new one, that will be better. This step will most likely repeat itself until we're dead. As I said before the question is not if, but when.

People aren't expendable, government is
Shalom

[fedfem]

And so it begins....

Thought some of you may be interested in this article.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/562/1/27

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

We will still be human regardless of the revolution, and non-government systems still will not function...

[Section 8]

Why won't they function. That statement offors no factual evidence to back up your claim.

[indierockboy]

my point was that you could source as many outside links as you want, but you still haven't answered your own questions.

i want to hear what you think, not what your sources think.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Section 8
Here is my proof, disprove it you think you can:

#1 Man started out in small groups that got along just fine.
#2 When population pressure increased he stopped getting along and had to invent government.
#3 Population is currently higher than it was when we had to invent government.

Go right ahead and prove it wrong.......................

[Fallen Angel]

Section 8 and G Adams, the majority of people in Western nations are pretty happy with the status quo, unlike deluded lefties such as yourself, we can see that what we have is quite fine, and offers alot more than these ridiculous Socialist fantasy lands you would like to impose on us.
Funnily enough you would probably feel pretty intimidated living under a socialist government, you would be very intimidated by the brute and ugly force used by the State on its own people to keep those plastic smiles where they shoud be.
Or maybe there's some twisted streak of character in you, that would embrace the secret police under these type of living conditions, joining them even to keep socialist dissenters in a web of fear, power tripping every day of your life, that would have alot of appeal to you I can imagine.

[G. Adams]

1. Yes, we in the west get a pretty sweet deal currently. People in other countries do the backbreaking labour for 50 cents an hour, just so that my country can afford to have workers rights and welfare state.

2. Your idea of a socialist government has nothing to do with an actual socialist government.

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by G. Adams@10-04-2003 06:42 AM 1. Yes, we in the west get a pretty sweet deal currently. People in other countries do the backbreaking labour for 50 cents an hour, just so that my country can afford to have workers rights and welfare state. 2. Your idea of a socialist government has nothing to do with an actual socialist government.

And what actual socialist government is this?
That money they earn in the backward countries you talk about goes a long way in their country, as their currency is a lot weaker than yours, paying them the same salary as an average American worker, and they probably would retire for life after two months of working, not to mention how this would absolutely flood their own dollar making it worthless, guess these minor details are unimportant to you.

[G. Adams]

Fuck that bullshit man, that 50 cents an hour is latin america, where it aint as unbelievably cheap as you'd like to imagine. If were going to the real hell holes of the world that pump out labour were talking, on average, $1.02 a day. And thats not handed out in US currency, its local, so its still subject to the rise and falls and their countries currency, so once they've earned it its still at risk.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Now there is a good example of keeping a level head. Really now, this is the lamest attempt at reason I have seen yet...

Actually the only way to guage a wage is to compare it to the wage of the average citizen. On the other hand do you really think that they would work there if they did not like the pay. Or do you think they are being forced to work at gun point??? Unless they are, the pay must be good or they would be without work otherwise, either way it is good for the worker, even if it merely keeps him from starving.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@10-04-2003 05:29 PM Now there is a good example of keeping a level head. Really now, this is the lamest attempt at reason I have seen yet... Actually the only way to guage a wage is to compare it to the wage of the average citizen. On the other hand do you really think that they would work there if they did not like the pay. Or do you think they are being forced to work at gun point??? Unless they are, the pay must be good or they would be without work otherwise, either way it is good for the worker, even if it merely keeps him from starving.

Okay, they don't want to work there, are you suggesting to allow all these people into america and europe, cause thats were good wages are?