When is the time for violent revolution?

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture
When is the time for violent revolution?

Given the lefts failure to effect any positive change in the past few decades when exactly should the left advocate for violent revolution?

The question is fairly simple, anyone able to address it?

Things have gotten so bad that its not worth just whining anymore, when is the time to take control back from people that do not have our best interests in mind?

When the great depression hit people were smart enough to protest and change things for the better, ushering in the new deal, today as things get worse those in charge, the corporations, banks and crooked government, are actually convincing the stupid populous to help destroy itself.

The failure of the left, as sad as it seems, is clear, so when are we going to actually change things?

 

wage zombie

Violent revolution seems to me like a bit of a stretch, given the inability of "the left" to motivate people to vote.

If a poll was taken asking a sample of Canadians if they felt it was time for violent revolution, what percent of people do you think would say yes?  What percentage do you think would be needed for such a violent revolution to be successful?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Well, we just saw a lot of people down here in the States advocating violent right-wing revolution.

They probably SCARED at least some people into voting Republican.

Still, that tactic wouldn't work for the left.

We have no way of getting enough guns.

The other side would always have MORE guns.

And it's almost impossible to make an effective case for violent actions, given the total inability of groups like the Weather Underground and other groups like them to make coherent cases for the things THEY did in any part of the public discourse.

Also, the majority of the people in the groups that would have to support a violent left uprising in North America are not as yet in a condition in which they feel taking up the gun is their only hope.

 

siamdave

The answer to 'when is the time' would be, in my opinion, almost never. WZ above made some good points - if you can't even get the people to vote for you, why would you think they're going to pick up a gun or pitchfork and die for you?

- almost every violent revolution in history has just been one group of those-who-want-power against another similar group - the peasants have usually not gained anything at all. Obviously the revolutionary 'leaders' are more than capable of serious violence - violence which can be used, with a large peasant army, to overthrow an existing structure - and which can then be used to subdue the peasants back into their normal state, except with a new, and more often than not more brutal, master.

We do not need violent revolution here in Canada - we simply need to awake enough people to what is really going on, so they use the actual democratic means available to them to take back what should be *their* democracy. Not an easy task, to be sure - but far, far easier and better than trying to turn them into some new peasant army.

Final short point - a violent revolution today would have almost no chance of succeeding - the rulers have massive power in every way if anyone ever did 'take up arms' against them.

Maybe in a hundred or two hundred years some critical mass of the people of Canada will be as desperate as the French peasants of the late 1700s or the Russian peasnts a hundred-odd years later - but for now, I think the idea of violent revolution is just a complete dead end street, and such talk not to be encouraged, as it just takes time and energy away from what we really need to be doing. Sure, over a few beers some night for a break from the real work - but not as anything anyone should be taking serioiusly right now.

Jacob Richter

Spontaneous violent "revolution" is not the answer.  Protracted, organized class struggle on explicitly political questions is, which requires not vote-getting machines, but mass party-movements.  With this, eventually workers won't need to storm the Bastille in bloodshed, because the state power will have collapsed right in front of them (1917-1918).

If one were to describe the solution using an adjective in front of "socialism," that adjective is not:

1) Evolutionary
2) "Democratic"
3) Revolutionary

That adjective can, however, be "participatory" and "class-strugglist."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The other thing is, if you're THINKING about starting a violent uprising, posting about it in an Internet message board might NOT be the best tactical move.

Kind of messes with that "element of surprise" thing that you need to pull off a successful armed struggle.

Fidel

I think that upheaval is inevitable due to the political and economic ideology we have followed here in the wealthiest western countries. When the fossil fuels run out and the "peak oil" phenomenon begins to occur, the consequences will be a shock to those who believed that this way of life would go on forever. They may vote for increasingly rightwing governments who will "go and get it" for them, or what the fictional character Joe Turner was told about the American people by his adversarial friend in the CIA in" Three Days of the Condor." I think we're seeing it happen now. Canada supplies only 15% of the USA's natural gas imports, but it's half of Canadian production. That can't go on forever. In fact, they barely made it through the winter in the North-East last year by what I've read. Significant change is coming in our life times. And it will be very different from the American or even Canadian dream of the 1950s and 60s era.

siamdave

Jacob Richter wrote:

Spontaneous violent "revolution" is not the answer.  Protracted, organized class struggle on explicitly political questions is, which requires not vote-getting machines, but mass party-movements.  With this, eventually workers won't need to storm the Bastille in bloodshed, because the state power will have collapsed right in front of them (1917-1918).

If one were to describe the solution using an adjective in front of "socialism," that adjective is not:

1) Evolutionary
2) "Democratic"
3) Revolutionary

That adjective can, however, be "participatory" and "class-strugglist."

- actually, I think you could make a pretty strong argument that *real* "social democracy" (as opposed to any of the various faux-kinds we have around us these days) which I work for, is evolutionary, revolutionary and democratic ... we may be running into semantical things again, as there are probably as many definitions of 'socialism' as there are of any other controversial idea - including things like 'democracy' or even 'freedom' - the latter meaning completely contradictory things when defined by a capitalist (my freedom to dominate you) or a socialist (such as myself) - my freedom to NOT be dominated by you.

You also mention 'mass party movements' - something I have become very, very wary of - from the old Bolsheviks to various Communist parties to the Libs or Cons today - the general structure seems to be a leadership making decisions, and a large group of robotic party 'members' who fight without question for 'the cause' - adn are sacrificed without question by the leaders when they have become unproductive as workers or peasant-soldiers - there's nothing about the 'modern' demands for party-class-struggle that seems any different, to me.

Jacob Richter

Before the Comintern shit, recall from my works which you have that the Bolsheviks modelled themselves on the SPD model in Germany.

DavidLeeWilson

I was watching some videos of Noam Chomsky recently, one of his points is that if you are going to get violent then you have to make a very strong case for it ... now, I don't think you can make such a case without at  least one or two others to bounce it around, there have been some actions in the UK, the Raython-9 and the B52-2 and some others, The Decommissioners, the Kingsnorth-6, I am surprised that these groups are not more talked about because actions with a very conscious and measured degree of violence (violence only against objects mind you) which end with aquittal in the courts ... well, this seems to me to be a game changer, maybe the pattern of including the number of defendants in these names has significance, comparable Canadian groups such as the Squamish-5 and the Mississauga-17 or even the FLQ do not seem to have thought things through so well, that old carpenter's adage - measure twice, cut once.

Fidel

Social upheaval will come. Blood in the streets will probably be orchestrated by the political right as a way of justifying increased domestic security. They've been spying on the left since the 1950s. The NSA and CSIS don't care about foreign spies so much as homegrown anarchists and leftists and "reds" under their beds. I think 9/11 was just a test run. The people failed with flying colours. And I think it's an example of what's in store for the future if fascists back themselves into another corner.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Watching the degeneration of the Western world from the corporate revoloution of the past 25 years and witnessing the rapid descent of intolerance,racism,greed,selfishness,amorality and fascist tendencies,the time for direct action is NOW.

But motivating people to mobilize and take action is the trick...As it stands,you can't even get these people to a ballot box.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Perhaps the reason the ballot box isn't working is because the ballot box isn't the way to the solution. Or it's not perceived to be the way. Which I agree with.

If there is going to be mass (un)organized armed, violent or physical resistance, I highly doubt the organization of it, and the detailed discussion of it, will occur on an open, public discussion board.

My answer to the OP's question is, several years/decades ago.

siamdave

Maysie wrote:

Perhaps the reason the ballot box isn't working is because the ballot box isn't the way to the solution. Or it's not perceived to be the way. Which I agree with.

If there is going to be mass (un)organized armed, violent or physical resistance, I highly doubt the organization of it, and the detailed discussion of it, will occur on an open, public discussion board.

My answer to the OP's question is, several years/decades ago.

My my. A rabble moderator apparently suggesting approval for violent revolution - but certainly, apparently, suggesting 'democracy', as defined by a vote, is not useful.

Could you expand on exactly how we take our country back from the capitalist overlords, if it's too late for violent revolution, but the ballot box is not the answer?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Living in Quebec,I perceive that the next provincial election (in 2013) will be a right vs left campaign.

When I read a few weeks back that Quebeckers were open to a 'new' party headed by Francois Legault and Joseph Fecal and that there was a Quebec chapter of the Tea Party North taking shape,I admit I was concerned.

But Quebec has some of the strongest unions in North America and to my delight,the unions want a new LEFT party...Union heads came out and said what I have been saying for years---right wing policies were erasing the middle class and have been a proven failure to your average working person,the poor,the ill and the aging populous.

There is such a huge wedge between the left and the right,that it looks like it's all going to inevitably come to a head.

The shit will hit the fan in the next couple years if this trend continues and there may well be a class war in the near future.

Whatever ends up taking place in Quebec in 2013 will influence what will happen in the ROC.

This could be good news for progressives or the kiss of death.

But clearly,there's no room for compromise...It's these conditions continue it will drive this country into a conflict that will ultimately culminate into revolution.

Maysie Maysie's picture

siamdave wrote:
 My my. A rabble moderator apparently suggesting approval for violent revolution - but certainly, apparently, suggesting 'democracy', as defined by a vote, is not useful.

siamdave. Try to lay off the attempts at slander, okay?

Oka

Caledonia

Six Nations

Just because white men aren't directing certain movements doesn't mean that violent revolution isn't already going on in Canada right now.

And I don't speak for rabble. 

Refuge Refuge's picture

Maysie wrote:

Oka

Caledonia

Six Nations

Just because white men aren't directing certain movements doesn't mean that violent revolution isn't already going on in Canada right now.

Laughing

Unionist

I think the "violent" part of the question is a distraction. The first question to ask, I believe, is: When is the time for a revolution? Whether or not, or to what extent, it becomes "violent", depends on lots of factors - primarily, how far the rulers want to go in resisting the change.

It's pretty clear, for example, that a "revolution" took place in the Soviet Union and some of the Warsaw Pact countries over a period of years in the 1980s and 90s. There was some violence, but most of it didn't involve the "masses", but rather between cliques (like Boris Yeltsin shelling the parliament when it wasn't making the right decisions...).

So before talking about violence, we should talk about what "revolution" is. Your examples of FN struggles, Maysie, are certainly examples of violence - but not of "revolution", I wouldn't think. A defensive struggle against expropriation of one's land and rights could lead to a revolution, but in the instances you mentioned, I'm not sure that was even the aim of the insurgents, i.e., to change the underlying political power relationships.

Whatever revolution is, it's at least the wholesale transfer of political power (not just control or ownership of a piece of land, for instance) from one group in society to another. By "group", I don't think we can mean a party or a faction etc., because those kinds of violent coups and putsches happen in societies all the time without anyone even suggesting that a "revolution" has occurred.

 

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

Is there any historical example of citizens violently overthrowing an existing political system of a country where the people were as free to vote, as free to organize, and as free to speak as Canadians are?

Sven Sven's picture

Excellent post, Unionist.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Stopping the construction of the golf course at Oka was revolutionary for the people who live there.

 

siamdave

Maysie wrote:

siamdave wrote:
 My my. A rabble moderator apparently suggesting approval for violent revolution - but certainly, apparently, suggesting 'democracy', as defined by a vote, is not useful.

siamdave. Try to lay off the attempts at slander, okay?

Oka

Caledonia

Six Nations

Just because white men aren't directing certain movements doesn't mean that violent revolution isn't already going on in Canada right now.

And I don't speak for rabble. 

- I suppose there's more semantics going on, but I don't think random acts of protest or violence actually constitute 'revolution'.

And what was the 'attempted slander'? Did I misinterpret something you said?

And if I am mistaken that you are a Babble mod, sorry. If I did not misinterpret it, maybe you should try to be a bit more clear about when you are and are not speaking as such.

Inquiring minds like to know.

6079_Smith_W

There's a big difference between firm resistance and violent attack. They are not the same thing at all.

I think if the thought of the violent overthrow of our society makes your foot tap anxiously, your heart start racing, or gives you other similar physical reactions, you should probably find a better way to apply your talents. There is plenty of productive work not being done.

(edit)

Realizing that there are some situations where people are driven to it, I think violence equals failure.

 

absentia

There will never be an identifiable revolution in Canada. Certainly nothing orchestrated and led by anything that can be called "the left". The situation is far more complicated than A vs B.

The kind of clashes Maysie refers to will continue, as will demonstrations of various kind and size, all brutally squashed by an immense army of enforcers that we're paying for and supplying with more and more sophisticated weapons of mass control. There will be more prisons built and concentration camps; longer lists of suspects to arrest the night before anything goes down, of groups to intimidiate with home-searches, tax-audits and hard-drive-seizures. Incremental violence by the state against the citizen, long before there can be an uprising by the citizens.

We should be looking attentively to the south, where all this will happen sooner, and on a much larger scale. The gated communitied will hire more private security, and some of those communities will burn anyway. Food riots, cops-vs-homeless skirmishes, white supremacist gangs invading ethnic neighbourhoods; African and Hispanic youth forming militias of their own ... mass arrests, calling in of state and national guard; after a while, wholesale shootings in the street. No named and organized revolution, but maybe a new flare-up, or several, of the Civil War they never really stopped fighting.

However, there are at least two more factors, either of which can change the scenario in unpredictable ways.

Economic collapse. What happens when there is no viable currency to pay the mercenaries and police forces? What happens when a huge standing army is stranded in foreign lands, without money or transport? How do the soldiers who do make it home react to finding their families homeless and hungry? What happens when there are no goods produced or imported to buy with worthless paper? What happens when China calls in the loans?

Climate change. No matter how high a wall is built around Texas, when the equatorial regions turn to desert, people will migrate. No matter what or who is in the way. They will eventually be coming here, but only after fighting through a lot of Americans, and pushing a lot more Americans ahead of them. Neither their government nor ours will be prepared to deal with this problem, because they're still deep in denial.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Unionist wrote:

 

So before talking about violence, we should talk about what "revolution" is. Your examples of FN struggles, Maysie, are certainly examples of violence - but not of "revolution", I wouldn't think. A defensive struggle against expropriation of one's land and rights could lead to a revolution, but in the instances you mentioned, I'm not sure that was even the aim of the insurgents, i.e., to change the underlying political power relationships.

I can't speak about the other examples but in the case of Caledonia it was and still is based on changing the underlying political power relationships both within the particular community and outside of it. 

Unionist

What I meant, Maysie and ElizaQ, is that I'm unaware of any First Nations that are fighting, violently or peacefully, to eliminate the current state power (i.e. the federal government) as a whole over their communities and replace it by another one. That's what I think most people mean by "revolution". Of course every struggle is aimed at changing power relationships - even a struggle by workers for (e.g.) the 8-hour day or the right to unionize. Such struggles can be huge, violent, lead to governmental change, etc. - they can be called "revolutionary" by both sides and by journalists - but they rarely involve a "revolution".

I'd rather not get involved in semantics. If the OP wanted to ask, "when is the time for violent struggle and protest?", then that's an entirely different question.

Maybe we need two very different threads.

 

jacki-mo

I know of no violent revolution which ended up improving the lot of the populace. And no, Cuba is not an example

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Unionist wrote:

What I meant, Maysie and ElizaQ, is that I'm unaware of any First Nations that are fighting, violently or peacefully, to eliminate the current state power (i.e. the federal government) as a whole over their communities and replace it by another one. That's what I think most people mean by "revolution". Of course every struggle is aimed at changing power relationships - even a struggle by workers for (e.g.) the 8-hour day or the right to unionize. Such struggles can be huge, violent, lead to governmental change, etc. - they can be called "revolutionary" by both sides and by journalists - but they rarely involve a "revolution".

I'd rather not get involved in semantics. If the OP wanted to ask, "when is the time for violent struggle and protest?", then that's an entirely different question.

Maybe we need two very different threads.

 

  It has nothing to do with semantics.  It does have something to do with awareness though which is why I commented.   At the root of the Caledonia conflict was and is exactly as you suggest--- a struggle to over throw the current state governments power over their community both within it and without.  Internally it took the form of some very intense power struggles between the traditional governance structure of the Confederacy (and supporters) vs imposed Indian Act governance.   It was and still is a struggle related to sovereignty and in the Caledonia case, the Confederacy as a sovereign entity vs the Canadian state and it's political tenticles.    One of the main demands and reasons behind the conflict, which was actually won to a certain extent, was to force not just the wider Canadian state to recognize the Confederacy as more then just a ceremonial power but within the community as well.  It wasn't the Indian Act government that initially ended up in lead control of Six Nations side of the negotiation tables but the Confederacy.  For a time the Canadian state and many on elected council including the elected chief at the time did everything in their power to keep that from happening but it was pushed by the people who stood up and forced the issue.  While it might seem like a small thing to those on the outside or perhaps just don't know much about it this was a very big deal and sent waves throughout Turtle Island when it happened.  The state of Canada lost that battle and is currently doing everything in their power to right (from their perspective) that loss.   It was and still is quite revolutionary.   Outside sources painted the conflict mostly as just the protesters demanding something from the Canadian state.  In reality it was much more complex then that and still is. At it's heart is most definitely and conflict between traditionally derived political power and the political power imposed from the outside. 

At one point the disputed land was even declared as sovereign territory under the auspices of the wider Confederacy.  This occurred with representatives from all over Confederacy lands as well as from the Lakota territories as traditionally one sovereign nation is needed to recognize another.  Yes perhaps largely symbolic but it speaks to the heart and minds of the people involved and to reasons it started in the first place.

Whether and how those initial successes will end up playing out remains to be seen.  That's the problem with these sorts of things once you get through the initial oomph (rise up revolution part) the details of where to go next get messy and conflicted.   

 

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

wage zombie wrote:

Violent revolution seems to me like a bit of a stretch, given the inability of "the left" to motivate people to vote.

If a poll was taken asking a sample of Canadians if they felt it was time for violent revolution, what percent of people do you think would say yes?  What percentage do you think would be needed for such a violent revolution to be successful?

Almost no Canadians would say its time.

So for those that know better, should part of their responsibility be to help save the rest of Canada from itself?

Or should we be teaching our kids how to suck up to people for poor paying work, to grift and steal, seeing as their future looks rather bleak

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Well, we just saw a lot of people down here in the States advocating violent right-wing revolution.

They probably SCARED at least some people into voting Republican.

Still, that tactic wouldn't work for the left.

We have no way of getting enough guns.

The other side would always have MORE guns.

And it's almost impossible to make an effective case for violent actions, given the total inability of groups like the Weather Underground and other groups like them to make coherent cases for the things THEY did in any part of the public discourse.

Also, the majority of the people in the groups that would have to support a violent left uprising in North America are not as yet in a condition in which they feel taking up the gun is their only hope.

 

I wasent think a revolution would scare people to vote, I was wondering when it would be ok to overthrow a government, violently if need be.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

siamdave wrote:

The answer to 'when is the time' would be, in my opinion, almost never. WZ above made some good points - if you can't even get the people to vote for you, why would you think they're going to pick up a gun or pitchfork and die for you?

- almost every violent revolution in history has just been one group of those-who-want-power against another similar group - the peasants have usually not gained anything at all. Obviously the revolutionary 'leaders' are more than capable of serious violence - violence which can be used, with a large peasant army, to overthrow an existing structure - and which can then be used to subdue the peasants back into their normal state, except with a new, and more often than not more brutal, master.

We do not need violent revolution here in Canada - we simply need to awake enough people to what is really going on, so they use the actual democratic means available to them to take back what should be *their* democracy. Not an easy task, to be sure - but far, far easier and better than trying to turn them into some new peasant army.

Final short point - a violent revolution today would have almost no chance of succeeding - the rulers have massive power in every way if anyone ever did 'take up arms' against them.

Maybe in a hundred or two hundred years some critical mass of the people of Canada will be as desperate as the French peasants of the late 1700s or the Russian peasnts a hundred-odd years later - but for now, I think the idea of violent revolution is just a complete dead end street, and such talk not to be encouraged, as it just takes time and energy away from what we really need to be doing. Sure, over a few beers some night for a break from the real work - but not as anything anyone should be taking serioiusly right now.

 

How many more decades should we wait?

It appears that Canadians arent catching on, so should we suffer in silence for 30 more years? maybe a generation or three?

Dont the better people of our society have a responsibility to the stupid?

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Jacob Richter wrote:

Spontaneous violent "revolution" is not the answer.  Protracted, organized class struggle on explicitly political questions is, which requires not vote-getting machines, but mass party-movements.  With this, eventually workers won't need to storm the Bastille in bloodshed, because the state power will have collapsed right in front of them (1917-1918).

If one were to describe the solution using an adjective in front of "socialism," that adjective is not:

1) Evolutionary
2) "Democratic"
3) Revolutionary

That adjective can, however, be "participatory" and "class-strugglist."

 

We both know class struggle can go on for hundreds of years, should we just grin and bare it? How long would be too long?

The middle class has already lost too much.

 

Jacob Richter

More or less, yes it means sucking up to the necessity of protracted political action with the explicit, non-reformist aim of transferring ruling-class political power to the worker-class, even if it means the political exclusion of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie (i.e., more than just the Bolshevik scrapping of universal suffrage).

I think I've posted here before about scrapping judges and replacing them entirely with a jury system, about combining legislative and executive-administrative power, about random selection replacing elections of persons altogether, about sovereign socioeconomic governments directly representative of ordinary people and going beyond mere Economic Parliaments, about public officials having the same living standards as the median professional or other skilled worker, and about immediate recallability from multiple avenues (popular recall, party recall, institutional recall, etc.).

This in turn is complemented by struggles for waves after waves of pro-labour structural reforms: Die Linke's "left reform projects," shorter normal workweek without loss of pay or benefits, private-sector collective bargaining as free and universal legal services from government agencies, unconditional state aid for worker coops, and the structural reform crescendos being Hyman Minsky and Rudolf Meidner on non-frictional unemployment and worker and social savings rates, respectively.

Unionist

ElizaQ wrote:

  It has nothing to do with semantics.  It does have something to do with awareness though which is why I commented. 

Thanks for that pretty amazing post, ElizaQ, which I'm still recovering from. I obviously need to go out and get myself educated about the Caledonia struggle (and maybe a lot of others). It occurs to me that I was the one guilty of semantics in trying to force-fit things into preconceived categories. Wrong again...

autoworker autoworker's picture

"When is the time for violent revolution?":  A loaded question, if ever I saw one.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

autoworker wrote:

"When is the time for violent revolution?":  A loaded question, if ever I saw one.

 

Take a peek outside and youll see why it was asked.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Jacob Richter wrote:

More or less, yes it means sucking up to the necessity of protracted political action with the explicit, non-reformist aim of transferring ruling-class political power to the worker-class, even if it means the political exclusion of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie (i.e., more than just the Bolshevik scrapping of universal suffrage).

And what would stop u from revolution? violent if necessary?

Jacob Richter

Because ad hoc organization as opposed to permanent organization doesn't work in the long term.  1968 in France was a joke.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And there's also the fact that you started a thread a few months ago entitled:

"When do we cut the heads off the rich & burn buildings?"

Which is the kind of thing that CSIS/CIA/FBI types THINK leftists say.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I really have to wonder what the motives of the person starting this thread were.  It's exactly the sort of thread that somebody working for the CIA or CSIS would start here just to make Rabble look bad.

Armed struggle couldn't possibly work.  An uprising may well be needed, but it has to be some other way.   The Bolshevik Revolution couldn't be repeated even if anyone actually wanted that.  And should we really want that, given what it led to then?

We have to find the way to take power without giving up our humanity.   Not out of any "kumbaya" bullshit, but because if we do give it  up, we won't be able to reclaim it later.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

I really have to wonder what the motives of the person starting this thread were.  It's exactly the sort of thread that somebody working for the CIA or CSIS would start here just to make Rabble look bad.

Armed struggle couldn't possibly work.  An uprising may well be needed, but it has to be some other way.   The Bolshevik Revolution couldn't be repeated even if anyone actually wanted that.  And should we really want that, given what it led to then?

We have to find the way to take power without giving up our humanity.   Not out of any "kumbaya" bullshit, but because if we do give it  up, we won't be able to reclaim it later.

 

Ya, the world is falling apart, our children have less of a future then we have, the rich are still making obscene wealth, for all the efforts of the left NOTHING has improved (gay and lesbian rights being an exception) and you have the nerve to play conspiracy theorist.

Sorry to burst your bubble, im no double agent, are u living in the real world?

How many lefties here are just clueless baby boomers? commited to a better world but overall unaware of whats going on outside their front door because their mortgage is paid, their cars are paid and they have a nice nest egg.

Only someone who is clueless of reality would think they need to jump to some conspiracy theory to explain why anyone would be so fed up with bullshit that they wonder what would be wrong with a violent revolt.

Anything is possible, the question remains, when is bad enough to allow for a violent revolt.

The reason I cant get any good straight answers is because anyone who thinks about it realizes there must be a point when it is acceptable and that point is hard to quantify, I would even go further and say that many here, like me, wonder if we havent already lost too much and apparently the left cant organize a fart properly so maybe some new tactics are needed? maybe?

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I live in the same world YOU live in, buddy.  I see all the things you see.

I also know that people who actually wanted to START an armed struggle for revolutionary change wouldn't announce it in a public Internet forum.  They'd be off somewhere trying to actually get it going.

And they wouldn't say "violent revolt".  Those terms are used by people who are PART of the power-structure to express their fears about an uprising from below. 

You've tipped your hand.

siamdave

ArghMonkey wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I live in the same world YOU live in, buddy.  I see all the things you see.

I also know that people who actually wanted to START an armed struggle for revolutionary change wouldn't announce it in a public Internet forum.  They'd be off somewhere trying to actually get it going.

And they wouldn't say "violent revolt".  Those terms are used by people who are PART of the power-structure to express their fears about an uprising from below. 

You've tipped your hand.

Im not announcing shit *L* im wondering why the left, despite being right, cant fix anything these days.

If you cant get ur head out of ur ass who is going to save the middle class? rob ford? *LOL* stephen harper? *LOL* fuck sake man!

Im being honest and frank, when is violent revolt necessary? thats the question.

And ya, I did that other thread too, crafty me, I even used the same login, thats how tricky I am.

The right is trash, the left has the responsibility to solve things but I have to deal with turd burgers like yourself who are so dense you want to think theres a conspiracy.

The people I care about and any future kids I might have will have to live with the actions/inactions I do.

Your ok with doing nothing, your in good company, the left has done nothing for the past 30 years as things went to shit and apparently talking asking when is a good time to take control is beyond ur ability to handle, just tell me ur ok with right wingers running things and spare me the time it takes to post back to you.

We could also call the thread 'how to win friends and influence people', I guess.

The thing is, you're getting the cart way ahead of the horse here. Look around you - most Canadians are pretty well off - and most of them understand that they could be a whole lot worse off if they throw all the cards up in the air and see what happens. Tough times are not as good as easy times, but they are a lot better than living in Rwanda, for example. Having a higher debt load than ever before is not quite comparable to having armed gangs roaming the streets and killing at will. Most people understand this.

You shouldn't be screaming at people and name-calling because they don't want to get their guns and tag along behind you doing whatever half-witted thing you have in mind loosely called 'REVOLUTION!!!!!' - most people understand that whatever that would entail would very quickly make this country a lot worse, not a lot, not even a bit, better. And if people with your attitude are planning to be our new "leaders", well, you're going to have trouble raising enough support to pay for your own "Let's have a revolution!' website, let alone raise a revolutionary army. Much as I dislike our current leaders, at least they still more or less follow the laws we have in Canada, which you apparently don't feel obliged to do. And given your predeliction to get out the guns, I for one am pretty sure I don't want you and your buds running things here. (somewhat ironcially, I suppose, I suspect a lot more Canadians would be thinking about revolution if people with your attitude were running things here ...)

You really need to calm down - you should be trying to figure out ways to talk to Canadians, to let them know that things are going downhill, and why you think they are going downhill, and what an engaged, informed citizenry might do to take back our country. It might be a bit less glamorous, but it would be at least realistic. And if most Canadians don't agree with you - well, isn't that kind of what Democracy is all about? I am pretty unhappy myself about the apparent inability of most people to see what is going on here - but I recognize that most Cdns are reasonably intelligent, and certainly able to make decisions for themselves - and if they want to listen to lies and turn the country over to the neocons, as they apparently do - then I guess they're going to do that.

If you're really gungho about getting out the guns, there's places in the world that kind of thing is needed much more than here. Of course, you're going to have some pretty bad dudes with their own guns looking back at you,  unlike here. Burma, maybe, or Mexico, or Columbia, various African countries - they all need some good revolutionary leaders, willing to get out the guns and do some serious bad-guy killing. Makes you think a bit, since in such places the bad guys are pretty good at taking care of wannabe revolutionaries - but hey, it would be some good practice. You might even learn some stuff.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Btw, without sounding annoyed I just want to point out that invoking conspiracy theorys when you dont like someones question is about as pointless/dumb as just calling someone hitler.

Its not designed to answer anything or prove anything, its designed solely to dismiss someone.

Dismiss my questions at your own peril, theres lots of people out there wondering the same thing, if u lack the ability to come up with an intelligent answer then u would be better off not posting, if you have a good answer I wish ud tell me, even tell me why u think theres never a good reason to (violently or not) fight back.

Bacchus

 

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

siamdave wrote:

We could also call the thread 'how to win friends and influence people', I guess.

The thing is, you're getting the cart way ahead of the horse here. Look around you - most Canadians are pretty well off - and most of them understand that they could be a whole lot worse off if they throw all the cards up in the air and see what happens. Tough times are not as good as easy times, but they are a lot better than living in Rwanda, for example. Having a higher debt load than ever before is not quite comparable to having armed gangs roaming the streets and killing at will. Most people understand this.

How do you judge that most Canadians are well off?

Would we have to be living on the streets before that was "too far"?

Wages are stagnant, benefits are all but gone, pensions are few and small, the blood of thousands of afghanis are on Canadian hands (for no good reason), we work too long and dont get enough free time, our rights are chipped away and disappearing, sure we can say were better then our sickening neighbours to the south, but why dont we just go ahead and compare ourselves to some facist third world then?

Quote:
You shouldn't be screaming at people and name-calling because they don't want to get their guns and tag along behind you doing whatever half-witted thing you have in mind loosely called 'REVOLUTION!!!!!' - most people understand that whatever that would entail would very quickly make this country a lot worse, not a lot, not even a bit, better. And if people with your attitude are planning to be our new "leaders", well, you're going to have trouble raising enough support to pay for your own "Let's have a revolution!' website, let alone raise a revolutionary army. Much as I dislike our current leaders, at least they still more or less follow the laws we have in Canada, which you apparently don't feel obliged to do. And given your predeliction to get out the guns, I for one am pretty sure I don't want you and your buds running things here. (somewhat ironcially, I suppose, I suspect a lot more Canadians would be thinking about revolution if people with your attitude were running things here ...)

I wish you and others would READ what I said and not answer what u think I said.

I want to know what you think is the breaking point, of course I tend to think we have seen too much bullshit to take anymore, but I want to see why this is acceptable to the rest of us. Most of you fail in simply understanding the question, not to mention most of u seem to struggle to come close to an intelliget answer, I apologize if I come off as rough but dammit some people are dense and its annoying to have to repeat myself because some people assume I mean something other than what I asked.

FYI i never once said gun, never once and you called it a predeliction *LOL*

If I had to distill this paragraph down you basically say your ok with leaders as long as they follow the rules, Harper doesnt follow the rules, so then what? or maybe u mean only mostly follow the rules, ok, to what point then? where is the breaking point?

Am I getting through to you?

Quote:

You really need to calm down - you should be trying to figure out ways to talk to Canadians,

*LOL* i AM a Canadian, im just not "OK" with how screwed things are.

This is insane! I am a guy standing in a house thats burning to the ground, minutes away from killing us all and im running around trying to tell u to get out of the house and you turn to me and say "woah woah woah, wheres the fire man?" *LMAO*

AAAAARRRRGGGHHHH !!!!!

Quote:
to let them know that things are going downhill, and why you think they are going downhill, and what an engaged, informed citizenry might do to take back our country. It might be a bit less glamorous, but it would be at least realistic.

Realistic like facism?

Quote:
And if most Canadians don't agree with you - well, isn't that kind of what Democracy is all about?

If everyone agreed that blacks should be slaves would that make it any more correct?

Democracy is one thing, ethics are another.

Fox news in the states has the sheeple thinking that right wingers will bring back the middle class, they are wrong and itll be the rest of us that suffer because ppl are stupid, does that seem right?

The black man should have told his son "well were slaves because most americans want us to be slaves and we are a democracy so ..."

Yes yes, tell me that slavery was abolished but thepoint stands, just because the masses want it doesnt mean its correct or ethical.

If its unethical than we should fight it!

Quote:
I am pretty unhappy myself about the apparent inability of most people to see what is going on here - but I recognize that most Cdns are reasonably intelligent, and certainly able to make decisions for themselves - and if they want to listen to lies and turn the country over to the neocons, as they apparently do - then I guess they're going to do that.

So why try to do anything?

Ok, u cast ur lot with the "grin and bare it" crowd, remember that when u see those u care about suffering.

Quote:
If you're really gungho about getting out the guns,

*sigh* ...

Quote:
there's places in the world that kind of thing is needed much more than here. Of course, you're going to have some pretty bad dudes with their own guns looking back at you,  unlike here. Burma, maybe, or Mexico, or Columbia, various African countries - they all need some good revolutionary leaders, willing to get out the guns and do some serious bad-guy killing. Makes you think a bit, since in such places the bad guys are pretty good at taking care of wannabe revolutionaries - but hey, it would be some good practice. You might even learn some stuff.

What does what any other country needs have to do with what Canada needs?

and for the last _ _ _ _ _ _ _ time ...

1. Im not looking to start a revolution

2. Im not a revolutionary, though putting up with you makes me see why leadership is so necessary sometimes.

3. I hate guns and have never brought them into the conversation

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

"I hate guns and have never brought them into the conversation"

Uh...dude...once you start talking about "violent revolution", guns pretty much ARE part of the conversation.  You're not gonna do it with creme pies.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

OH, and would you PLEASE let go of the idea that those who might question the idea of violence aren't just as outraged by the injustices of life as you are?

1) You don't have to kill people to be a revolutionary.

2) Most violent people AREN'T actually revolutionaries.

siamdave

ArghMonkey wrote:

.......

and for the last _ _ _ _ _ _ _ time ...

1. Im not looking to start a revolution

2. Im not a revolutionary, though putting up with you makes me see why leadership is so necessary sometimes.

3. I hate guns and have never brought them into the conversation

 

????? You have me puzzled - what exactly was your point then in opening this thread? If you really don't want to start a revolution, what is the point in asking when it's time to start one? Can you understand at all where people might have misunderstood you? You certainly did not make this clear in your OP - oh, by the way, just asking you know, I certainly don't want no revoultion haha!

Anyway - I think you have your answer - seems to be pretty much the consensus that right now is not it, nor the near future.

If you want to know why I think Cdns have it pretty good right now, then obviously your education is pretty shallow - not an unusual trait in people advocating violence. Read some history, and some current events. In terms of socieities of the last 2000 or 10000 years, we're pretty close to the top in terms of the general wellbeing of our citizens, and it would not be a bright idea to throw that all away because we are in some hard times. Check out any human development or wellbeing scale, and Canada is always near the top. You may or may not have noticed, we are still better off than most countries - which is not because of our great leadership, I am not saying that, but because our ancestors built a very good country which has been stolen from us - and yes, our job is to take the country back and get the usurpers out of our government, but most of us do not see violent revolution as the means of doing that. At least yet. Yes, things are currently going downhill, and I am very well aware of that and have been fighting it much longer, I expect, than you (if you are at all open-minded and might be able to learn a bit, you could have a read of this if you have not seen it already What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html to see where I am ) - but building a democracy takes a long, long time, and destroying it can be done very quickly. A violent revolution is a very uncertain thing, but one thing it would be is very, very destructive - and who knows how many decades we would be set back, for no guarantee at all of something better (as I said, with your attitude towards those who disagree with you, I wouldn't want you or those you would find agreeable anywhere near any government I was subject to .. you should probably consider that if you do get around to actually advocating the revolution)

- and as with ken and no doubt others who have nothing better to do than follow this I find myself again puzzled - perhaps if this carries on, the conversation might be informed by learning how is it you see a violent revolution happening without guns?

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:

  It has nothing to do with semantics.  It does have something to do with awareness though which is why I commented. 

Thanks for that pretty amazing post, ElizaQ, which I'm still recovering from. I obviously need to go out and get myself educated about the Caledonia struggle (and maybe a lot of others). It occurs to me that I was the one guilty of semantics in trying to force-fit things into preconceived categories. Wrong again...

NDPP

Gustafsen Lake and before that the struggles around Lil'wat were also about the reassertion of Indigenous sovereignty. What makes these struggles especially difficult is the collaborating class of Canada imposed delegated administration - also fights against this reassertion since it endangers their privilege. The traditional sovereigntists are thus doubly beleagured.

In these cases, it must also be remembered that as a settled and binding matter of international and constitutional law, Canada is supposedly bound to respect the integrity of Indigenous sovereign traditional leadership systems on their lands, until and only if a treaty of informed consent between Canada and that sovereign indigenous nation occurs. What actually happened, is that the lands were invaded, occupied and despoiled, foreign puppet systems were imposed, and then a negotiation process began to elevate these imposed, administrative units, into 'First Nation Governments'.

The present negotiations between Canada and Indigenous peoples are largely a continuation of this same process - There is actually quite a bit of good material buried in the multiple threads and discussions of this. But the germane point is that, not only indeed,  are there struggles where nations are seeking the return of full sovereign control and independence outside the 'infested blanket' of Canadian state control, but that there is a huge body of very solid law that commits Canada and the 'maritime Countries of Europe' to honour and respect those sovereignties. The two row wampum is, I believe one example of the legal and constitutional principles enshrined.

Unfortunately, the usurpation process, comes because in the realpolitic world, you only truly have jurisidiction if you can enforce it.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

It must be Sunday morning.

Where to start.

Mod Hat On.

ArghMonkey wrote:
 How many lefties here are just clueless baby boomers? commited to a better world but overall unaware of whats going on outside their front door because their mortgage is paid, their cars are paid and they have a nice nest egg.

Only someone who is clueless of reality would think they need to jump to some conspiracy theory to explain why anyone would be so fed up with bullshit that they wonder what would be wrong with a violent revolt.

ArghMonkey wrote:
 but I have to deal with turd burgers like yourself who are so dense you want to think theres a conspiracy.

These are just two examples of quotes in which you insult the left in general, and babblers specifically. While I agree with your point about achieving class security and losing interest in political and activist struggles, this isn't the way to frame it. And personal attacks are not allowed.

When I first read the OP I saw, and ignored, your clear blaming of the left for not fixing the various ills brought about by the capitalists and their friends in big government (Libs and Cons, Repubs and Dems). 

But this is clearly a sticking point for you.

A reminder that those who have structural power (Hint, that's not the organized left or even the unorganized left, and in the North American context, HAS NEVER BEEN) are the ones in positions to effect social change. And hey, look! They don't do it! Hence my comment above about the ballot box. That's not where I see change happening, or more specifically, compelling the power-makers to change. Unless someone revolutionary is voted in to power, and I just don't see that happening either. 

And you just leap-frogged over the reality, which is armed struggle that is not accessible to white men that's going on in Canada RIGHT NOW. It's being fought for some things that, perhaps, you don't have any interest in, Argh, but nonetheless, there it is. To learn from, hell, to join, they're always looking for allies.

But no, it has to be on your terms, so you just go back to the white guys who are engaging you at your level. Okay. That's your prerogative. But it reveals what kind of actual discussion you want to have.

And.

If you continue to insult babblers and "the left" you will be banned.

....

siamdave, we've already had a lovely exchange already, but with my mod hat on I would ask you to reflect on:

siamdave wrote:
 

but because our ancestors built a very good country which has been stolen from us - and yes, our job is to take the country back and get the usurpers out of our government, but most of us do not see violent revolution as the means of doing that. At least yet.  


*holds my head.

Where to start?

Um, "our" ancestors? Who do you think reads babble? WASPs only? Come on! "built this country"? Really? Stole, yes. Built after stealing, pillaging and destroying, yes. You're making a lot of assumptions, siamdave.

Aside from that, your quote reads like the Tea Party's manifesto. And people wonder why folks of colour don't join the "organized" left in Canada.

Pages

Topic locked