Face up to war
Angry Bastard | 17.01.2002 17:37
I know I'll be shouted down for this and be told I am an agent of the state undermining IMC or stupid for considering violence, but isn't it time we armed ourselves? This murderous system isn't going to fall by singing peace songs and drinking herbal tea. If capitalism and the state are to fall and we are serious about revolution, isn't it time we organise underground resistance?
I'm more and more frustrated at the way in which informed opinions of the large numbers of those who reject this evil system of capitalism and war are being shat on. Just holding a demonstration outside the US embassy or some summit of the bastards that are destroying this world means you are filmed and beaten by the cops and intimidated so that no-one gets to hear the truth. There is more police brutality directed at peace protestors and anti-capitalists than any other group because of a few broken windows at McDonalds. I'm pissed off that me and my comrades are treated like pig-shit by the state and that we have to take it lying down for fear of appearing immoral or violent. Yet the media and the politicians they employ still make us look like lunatics out for violence. Well, I'm pissed off with this state of affairs. I don't want to take this shit lying down all the time. I don't want to come away from demonstrations feeling depressed and covered in cuts and bruises. I don't even want to demonstrate any more. I want action against the evil filth that are ruining our world and the only action is armed action.
I know that it might seem stupid to some activists, but why is it that many people worship guerrillas like Che Guevara and Subcomandante Marcos, yet reject armed combat here? Why is it you like Marx, but shy away from the one thing central to Marxist theory: class war? Why do you pontificate in your university classrooms and read Chomsky, but end up just being another minion in the system? If we are all going to hell, then we might as well try and fight against it instead of all these useless demonstrations and talking endlessly to one another. The end-point of all revolutionary thought is conflict and maye we've got to wake up and realise that.
The main problem is trying to reach one another and form a guerrilla that the state can't penetrate.
I know that it might seem stupid to some activists, but why is it that many people worship guerrillas like Che Guevara and Subcomandante Marcos, yet reject armed combat here? Why is it you like Marx, but shy away from the one thing central to Marxist theory: class war? Why do you pontificate in your university classrooms and read Chomsky, but end up just being another minion in the system? If we are all going to hell, then we might as well try and fight against it instead of all these useless demonstrations and talking endlessly to one another. The end-point of all revolutionary thought is conflict and maye we've got to wake up and realise that.
The main problem is trying to reach one another and form a guerrilla that the state can't penetrate.
Angry Bastard
Comments
Hide the following 12 comments
class, violence and power
17.01.2002 18:03
But ask yourself this; if we make it a military fight, who will win? Which side, in the end, has the bigger guns?
Violence isn't the only source of power, though. Look around the world right now; at the impact of the train strike here; the workers occupation in Colombia; the strikes and protests in Argentina; the general strike in Nigeria.
Why do these grab headlines? And why do they provoke such harsh repression? Precisely because they are expressions of a power that can overthrow rulers, that can change the world.
Capitalism rests on workers producing; as such it is vulnerable to workers organising and seizing control of production. That would be a true revolution, more than any military campaign could ever achieve.
By the way, I didn't think this up. Marx did. If you fancy reading more of his ideas, why not follow this link and see if there's a Socialist Worker forum in your area:
internationalist
Homepage:
http://www.swp.org.uk
nope
17.01.2002 18:04
- violence breeds violence.
- the establishment have more weapons and 'expendable' foot soldiers' than you ever will.
- who would you claim to represent, with what accountability?
- what would be the goal? revolution? what kind?
- if you are serious about what you say, why are you posting on a public forum where your computer and hence identity is easily noted?
- your idea seems poorly thought out, dangerous to both you the rest of us and imho it's a bloody stupid idea.
me
Brief history of the European Urban Guerrilla
17.01.2002 21:36
Underground.
Media panic.
Euphoria at self importance.
Isolation.
Fear.
Attrition.
"unfortunate casualties"
Capture.
Prison.
Splits.
Infiltrators.
Death.
Sell outs.
Green MPs.
Red Green coalitions.
The War on terrorism........
Get the picture ?
The REALLY hard and brave route is to try and change peoples minds and build a mass movement comrade.
evolutionary
Required reading
17.01.2002 21:45
jb
"You say you want a revolution, well you know
18.01.2002 10:45
If everyone were convinced then there'd be no resistance.
We'll never get the establishment on our side but if we can persuade their foot soldiers then we'll be sorted!
Think of any violent conflict with the state. Now imagine if all the police and soldiers and all the people who gave the state power by doing what they were told were brought onto the side of those who were challenging the state, then that would have been a bloodless revolution.
All that needs to be done is to convince everyone it's a good idea.
Tony Blair is powerless if all his loyal servants who do his bidding are persuaded no longer to listen to him.
John Lennon
Angry Brigade
18.01.2002 10:55
They were a bunch of pro-Situationist/anarchist/revolutionary socialist "urban guerrillas" (that's "terrorists" in today's paralance) who, among other things, tried to blow up a Spanish airliner, bombed the Home Secretary's private residence and machine-gunned the American Embassy. After being nailed by the Special Branch, four members of the Angry Brigade were sent down for ten years, and another four were acquitted (one went on to a prominent role in a leading gay rights organisation).
The point is that violence in the Third World is an intrinsic part of daily life. Cops kill people, and people kill cops. Peaceful protest is not an option. However, we in the West have some important freedoms. Peaceful protest should never be a substitute for effective action. But effective action need not be violent. The animal rights movement has turned away many potential supporters because it has become identified with a fundamentalist mindset. The "anti globalisation" movement, on the other hand, is characterised by an extreme diversity of opinion on matters of organisation and tactics.
The answer is to respect a diversity of approaches; from total pacifism on the one hand to armed resistance in the Third World on the other. Zapatista-type campaigns might be very inspirational to Western anti-capitalist activists, but the Mexican military and political elites are comparatively weak, which is why Marcos keeps getting away with it. Launch an insurrection in Surbiton if you dare, but it won't last ten minutes!
Anarchist Rioter
and whats more...
18.01.2002 10:56
There's a martial art (me no expert - dunno which one) that uses the strength of your opponent to turn it against him/her. We live in a very contradictory system - one that depends on working people for it's wealth and one that exploits working people to hold the few in luxury. There's a contradiction we can exploit. Strikes, disobedience and non-compliance with the demands and requirements of our rulers is far more favourable to our side than weaponry.
Put it another way - tackling a military parliamentary 'democracy' is best done on OUR terms - that is NOT military NOT through parliament and NOT in what they call the ';democratic process'. They wouldn't recognise real democracy if it came dancing into the room with a big neon sign reading 'democracy' and singing 'Hello, I'm democracy'. That leaves us with our strengths - numbers (for certainly), where they depend on us - at work, and where we can get a mass hearig for such arguments - on the streets.
Guy Taylor
e-mail:
office@resist.org.uk
Homepage:
http://www.resist.org.uk
Remember Portugal
18.01.2002 12:05
A peaceful revolution is a prerequisite (or foundation) for what we want to build, but sadly enough, there will be a violent response from some people that do not agree with us (usually those who loose their priviliges).
Midbnight Moron
Not yet
18.01.2002 12:53
Maybe...
Disillusioned kid
e-mail:
s30party@hotmail.com
No such thing as peaceful revolution
18.01.2002 14:14
Peaceful protest is not going to happen, no matter the intentions of the protestors are. And I don't really want a revolutionary movement to be appealing to the good nature of soldiers and policemen, the agents of state violence, in order to make change. That's a really stupid idea.
I think the time to arm ourselves is now, regardless of what country we're in. Of course, the more support there is, the stronger our numbers and the more likely we are to destroy the military and police. The state is the same everywhere and serves similar masters. You can cover your eyes and pretend that a peaceful revolution is possible, but this just means you're ill-prepared. But a successful revolution would be a lot less violent than the pernicious genocidal violence of the state.
Anyway, I just don't see how you're going to effect change through marching up and down streets and getting beaten by the police. No-one's come up with an alternative.
Angry Bastard
erm, excuse me!
18.01.2002 14:24
internationalist
Homepage:
http://www.swp.org.uk
Ho Hum
18.01.2002 14:30
In Columbia, on the other hand, a major civil war is going on. This is much more than a few rioters taking on a bunch of policemen. Every night, right-wing paramilitary death squads massacre their political opponents (often unarmed civilians), aided and abetted by the US administration.
The political culture of Latin America has been perverted by decades of "left wing" insurgency - which is precisely the kind of strategy you seem to be advocating. These insurgencies have never led to anything resembling a functioning democracy, but instead, invite military counter-revolution and ethno-cultural liquidation. It goes without saying that "left wing" insurgents (be they Columbian guerrillas or anti-capitalist groupuscles such as the Symbianese Liberation Army and the Baader Meinhof Gang) may well be motivated by lofty ideals, but in time they appear little better than cut-throats.
What we need is a viable strategy that produces a society that everyone regardless of social status actually wants to live in. Social change cannot be coercive . . . if you believe in coercive change, then really your opinions are just the flip-side of capitalist exploitation.
Anarchist Rioter