Urban Warfare Cells

[SpyKiller007]

Is armed struggle by US citizens a justifiable form of protest against policies and procedures of the US Government? Armed Struggle Made Easy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Depends on what your goal is.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Depends on what your goal is.

What would be an accpetable goal when using violence?

[tinybear]

Revolution overthrowing an evil regime is an acceptable goal . Hey, I'm not giving you guys any ideas, am I? *Chuckle*

[Catch 22]

I don't beleive it's acceptable cuase it's an invitation to be decimated by the well armed us military/paramilitary.

[castille]

But all revolutions end up with the revolutions becoming dictators.

[tinybear]

Not all. Look at America.

[G. Adams]

Well the disenfranchisement of women for 130 years and many blacks for 170 isn't quite a working democracy either.

[castille]

Quote by: tinybear Not all. Look at America.

America was a revolution for independence, not an ideological revolution.

Russia brings to mind a failed example - the communist revolutionaries, with all their ideals, simply took over the Imperial Throne and become the new Tsars of Russia.


The problem is simple.

Revolutions (especially violent ideological revolutions) are led by ambitious leaders. These leaders have great ideals, strong passion, and are willing to fight.

The revolution is successful, and the leaders are in power. Sometimes, the people even elect them to power. So here they are, these ambitious young men (and women), with almost unlimited power in their hands. What do they do?

In most cases, they keep it. By force - if necessary.


Power has an amazing pull on the human mind.

[G. Adams]

I don't think it's revolution specifically, but a power vacuum. Look at modern Russia, a peaceful movement, no revolution (technically). Yet it's as bad as it ever was, except now there's no attempt to at least provide for it's poor.

[castille]

Yes, but in Russia the government is still run by powermongers. Not to mention a huge amount of corruption and behind-the-door scenes.

In a total revolution, the leaders become the new emperors.

In a partial revolution (ie. Russia today), the trash are simply swept underneath the bed, hoping nobody notices.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: castille Yes, but in Russia the government is still run by powermongers. Not to mention a huge amount of corruption and behind-the-door scenes. In a total revolution, the leaders become the new emperors. In a partial revolution (ie. Russia today), the trash are simply swept underneath the bed, hoping nobody notices.

My point exactly, it doesn't require an entire revolution for a state to be dominated by power mongers.

Nothing changed in Russia except that it stopped giving welfare, turned the streets over to the mafia and gave all the public works to the friends of Yeltsin. Of course now Putin is in power, he is trying to take it back so he can then give it to his friends.

And this they deem progress?

[Catch 22]

Indeed they do g adams because it effectively neutered Russian economic power for several decades to come. In the greater economic/political context the Us elite have achieved massive boon with russia’s privatization and economic ruin.

[RickSp]

Quote by: SpyKiller007 Is armed struggle by US citizens a justifiable form of protest against policies and procedures of the US Government? Armed Struggle Made Easy

Only as the absolutely last possible alternative.

[castille]

Russia's economic woes aren't simply because "they went capitalist". They've been experiencing economic difficulties since the 1970s. Not to mention a very uncompetitive economy....when was the last time you saw a consumer good that said "Made in the USSR"? (excludes weapons of war, since they're not effectively consumer goods)

A planned economy, especially for such a large country, will never work. I remember in the late 80s, the Soviet Union ran out of toothbrushes because their great beaucracy hadn't planned for so many people to require a new toothbrush that year.

[G. Adams]

My International Relations lecturer told us of the time he realised that the USSR was no threat, and was likely on the verge of collapse. In 1981 he went to Moscow and stayed at it's infamous hotel that is bugged all over the place. He went to a resteraunt one evening, and as he was entering there was a soldier in full dress holding an old copy of Pravda, the party's paper. As he passed the soldier tore a sheet of paper from the newspaper and handed it to him. Off he went a little bemused to be given a week old piece of newspaper. It was only when he went to the toilets that he realised what it was for. The Soviet Union had ran out of toilet paper.

Really, if a planned state can't provide toilet paper and toothbrushes it lacks, well, planning. Perhaps if the state had been designed to be responsive as well as authoritative, rather than aloof from it's population, they could have told it what was needed, and, possibly given time, it could find out how to provide for it's people.

[castille]

No matter how much a state plans, it can't address the needs of the people.

Let's consider a country has 500 million people. All of those people have needs, of which change in a matter of microseconds. How do you determine how many toothbrushes need to be produced this year? What if your prediction is wrong, or people end up breaking more toothbrushes this year than usual? How will a planned economy deal with sudden changes?

Yes, it is possible for a national government to keep track of the needs of every single individual, but that would blow administration and beaucracy costs through the roof. You'd have to employ millions of beaucrats just to make sure everyone has the basic essentials.

And remember, toothbrushes are not the only thing to keep track of. Under a planned economy you'd need to keep track of wheat, beef, rice, bread, computer components, pig iron, and thousands of different goods on a daily basis.


(Of course you could just screw the people and just letting them starve during shortages, but that'd be a bit inhumane)

[G. Adams]

You break the 500 million into regions, regions into districts and districts into cities, so and so forth. Any problem that cannot be sufficiently dealt with by the lowest level of administration passes it to the layer above to organise. This way the problems on a day to day basis can be dealt with as close to the individual as possible. As for the unbelievable number of bureaucrats involved, just give these jobs to the over 55's (that arn't in jobs that last beyond, obviously). It's an easy job on the body while still challenging the mind. And they get to contribute to society, so they arn't getting a pension till much later, while still helping out in the community.

This is all theory mind, I accept that to actually achieve the position above would be a miracle.

[castille]

Even if the regions were broken up, you still need an overarching government to coordinate everything. What if one region claims they need more resources than they actually do? (this happened a lot in China during the 1950s, causing massive resource shortages in other regions)

Also, would you really trust a government with so much control over their people? Even if they were elected democratically, a planned economy literally gives the government total control. If they decide that people don't need to have toothbrushes next year, nothing can stop them from implementing it. Hell, even on a micro-level, would you trust ME to regulate your life, and tell you what you can and can't do/eat/wear?

There's also the concept of corruption. In a system where the government has so much control over the people, opportunities for corruption are abundant. The only way to prevent corruption in such a system is to employ secret police and hidden survelliance, but of course that steps into the realms of Stalin and Hitler...

As for the unbelievable number of bureaucrats involved, just give these jobs to the over 55's (that arn't in jobs that last beyond, obviously). It's an easy job on the body while still challenging the mind.

Watching trillions of economic statistics isn't my idea of fun. C'mon, you dont want the lifespan to decrease because the oldies are getting bored to death.

[G. Adams]

I did say that pulling it off would be a miracle. besides, the oldies lives are boring without a job anyway, at least they'll be doing something.