- - -
Anarchy Debate
Zack de la Rocha Network Forum > the 'burbs > .:: Best and Worst... ::.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Radisshu
guerilla argument:
" (insert something guerilla likes) is (insert word complementing this), (insert thing guerilla dislikes) is rubbish."

then start to call people retards.


(not entirely serious, but sort of)
regilas
How is Anarchy rubbish and Socialism freedom?

Socialism is being told to have everyone get an equal share.
Anarchy is being able to do anything you want.

Understand, though, that I'm not saying we should be able to kill if we want.

You see, I have a book suggestion that should've been added to the book list at www.ratm.com and it's called K-PAX. The sequel is On A Beam Of Light, both written by Gene Brewer.

Now K-PAX, as many of you know, is a world of Anarchy, and when things need to be done, they do them because it'll never get done if nobody does it, and there's no such thing as money.

There is a perfect world of Anarchy. Read the book for more information.
Anarchy ain't a bad idea if it were tried in full effect.
Jingle
So...How will we acheive this do ya think? smile2.gif

What do you mean "if it were tried in full effect"? cool.gif

-J
regilas
QUOTE (Jingle @ Nov 12 2003, 02:20 AM)
So...How will we acheive this do ya think? smile2.gif

What do you mean "if it were tried in full effect"? cool.gif

-J

Achieve it by putting it to full effect.
What's full effect?

Look at my past comments:
Basically, let everyone try it and resist the temptation to try and take over, or else they'll be overrun. If the Anarchy community were used throughout the whole world, then there would be no world, but as that isn't possible at the moment, and Anarchist communities are already in action, the best way is to start expanding it.

To complete an Anarchist country:
Expand from the communities to cities; from cities to counties; from counties to states; from states to country; from countries to North America; and proceed the exact process with every other continent.

Small progress is the solution.
regilas
responses, people?
evilempire
QUOTE (Jingle @ Sep 17 2003, 12:35 AM)


PS-I want this to get hot man lets get aggressive zmat2.gif wink.gif

ur jus gonna get eveyone mad
regilas
that's old, evilempire
regilas
this debate sure died down
tomorrowsashes
My theory is that in order to achieve a true anarchist state, there is a series that needs to be followed. First, the workers must organize into small syndicalist groups, and form self-sufficient communities. Once this is done, there must be massive strikes and direct action campaigns against corporations, encouraging more support for these sydicalist groups. Once a sufficient level of support and solidarity has been achieved, these groups can organize more action, such as refusing to pay taxes, or do anything to forward the cause of government and capitalism. The working class will then, in effect, be completely separated from the state, and system it upholds, and the former middle class, not willing to become the new lower class, will stand up, and the state will eventually collapse. There will obviously be great hurdles along the way, and willingness to use violence will probably be neccessary. I think that a great place to start would be a poor community, such as Washington D.C., and this would have the added benefit of being in a position to launch offensive campaigns against government HQ easily.

It also might be possible to use a large Black Bloc tactic in order to secure areas, and liberate more territory more quickly, but this has the possible effect of turning public opinion completely against the anarchists, even more than usual, and would need to be done very carefully.
defiance
I don't know wether anarchy would work completely, but looking back through history I notice that the stronger governments are, the stronger they want to become. The example of Native Americans is excellent, because of their variety of cultures. For instance, the Lakotas (Souix) were very anarchistic. If a chief told you to do something, you didn't have to listen, you listened because you wanted to, not because you had to. Only in times of war or, during a tribal hunt did they have strict discepline (and that consisted mainly of holding back people who threatened the safety of the village.)If that person kept causing problems, they would use humiliation to punish them, they might break their bows or run off their horses, maby even hit or whip them back with a bow or club (these jobs were done by special warriors called Akicita.)Cheifs rose through popularity and in fact many of their most famous and important leaders were not even officialy chiefs. They excercised little authority and then only over thier village. The only people who had continued authority were the four shirt wearers of each of the seven Lakota tribes, who were chosen from the people for their wisdom, yet even these were more symbolic then real.

On the other hand the Iroquois were much more powerful politically, and were much more agressive toward other tribes (prisoners were sometimes tortured, if they were not adopted.) As a result almost every tribe around them fought against them. Although most of the tribes in their area were more politically advanced and were much more violent.

Anyway I can't spend forever typing, but if anyone wants to continue this discussion or wants to know more, please reply (especialy Geurilla.)

-Defiance
selma
testing
selma
Hi everyone, I did that test thing because I just wrote this long post and it wouldn't post and just was lost. I haven't made up my mind about all this yet but one thing I don't think you have addressed here is what is actually sustainable. It isn't just a matter of what people want; it's a question of what the planet can handle. We already know that there's no way everyone could live at the level of Americans or even western Europeans. The earth simply wouldn't be able to sustain it. So we may HAVE to go to something more primitive than this.

Guerilla, you say a lot of people wouldn't want that and society couldn't function without strong government but we are all swimming in our culture so that we can't see beyond it to know what other ways of living might be better. We only know what we have experienced so we think people need to be controlled. Yet there have been people who did fine for very long periods of time without that kind of control and were amazingly peaceful, like the Arawaks, who were on the island of Hispaniola when Columbus landed there. Our society dismisses them and stereotypes them as some kind of primitive animals but they were actually more advanced and noble than those "advanced" Europeans who exterminated them.
selma
One other thing...Radishu, wow, you live in Sweden. I've always thought that would be a great place to live. What's it like there? Why do you say the politicians are like the U.S.? I think the level of corruption here is MUCH worse than there and Sweden seems like such an enlightened country. Can you give some specific examples about the politicians?
tomorrowsashes
I believe that the way to protect the planet and the environment is to move forward in technology, not backwards. I believe that it would be futile to try to make everybody give up their cool gadgets, as well as hypocritical in an anarchist society. As stated in an earlier post, with today's technology, very little work needs to be done in order to produce all the goods necessary for the population to survive. This means that there will most likely be a large increase in the amount of scientific progress, including cleaner burning fuels, and alternative energy sources. I also believe that once capitalism is eliminated, consumerism will be too, thus the pollution caused by it is gone. I'm probably oversimplifying things, but anarchists tend to be one of the most environmentally concious groups.
defiance
Sorry if I went on to long, but my point was that you can have laws, but you don't need a complex political system to keep things in order. In fact the more power someone has the more problems you will have with them. This has been historically proven by the fact that the happiest societies have always been the least controlled ones.

Now Tomorrowsashes, you say we should go forward, that it would make more sense. I dissagree, it's a good idea but it would never work with anarchy because the more technolagy you have, the more things you have to protect and the more control you need in order to protect them. I believe in a gradual change from our current advanced system, to a simple easy way of life. This means that we wouldn'd instantly throw away all our computers and cars etc. but we would start using public transportation like buses and trains and start walking or riding bikes or even horses. We would also learn to take less and to stretch what we have. We could grow food locally instead of depending on other countries, this way all countries would have enough resources to comfortably live. Eventualy there would be no countries, no money, no corparations and no government. This can not last however, if there is going to be a high technolagy. Mass production no matter how minamal, requires strong management, and that would mean powerful buisiness leaders with more power than than they should have. And who would do the work? Somethings are easier, like growing food and trading between people or communities. But what about large scale industrial work, such as mining and factory refining. Those need management which needs regulation, that means centralized Government which we don't want. Please respond soon.
tomorrowsashes
I think that most of the wasteful inventions only exist, and prosper, because of capitalism. Society tells you that you have to have a car, because if you don't, you won't get to work as early, and make less money, therefore you won't achieve the American dream. I can see where you're coming from, and I, for the most part agree, but I think that there is no way that you can stop science from moving forward. Moving forward with technology doesn't necessarily mean figuring out more ways to fuck up the planet. The first technology was developed to do things more efficiently. That's what I would hope for.
defiance
Thank you for responding so soon. Of course some advances would be made. But most of those would happen after anarchy is established, unless they are made during the transition. I can see your point but then, which inventions aren't wasteful. Though it may be hypocritical for me to say this, even computers are pretty wastful(that doesn't mean we should throw them all away right now, that would be even more of a waste.) Like I said who's going to make everything. Unless there is some form of government, most mass production is almost impossible. What do you think.
tomorrowsashes
I would disagree with saying that computers are wasteful. Now, people don't have to get in their cars and drive to the library to do research; they can do it on the internet. We don't have to use paper sending letters, and it saves time that can be spent on more useful things. Technology today is, for the most part, much cleaner than that of, say the sixties. It is more prevelant, but if nobody's car had a catalytic converter on it nowadays, the planet would probably not be suitable for any form of advanced life. There are rumors, which actually have evidence backing them, that a man figured out how to make a fuel additive allowing his car to get 100mpg. According to what I've heard, the oil companies quickly bought his patent, and destroyed the idea. I also heard a first hand account of a person who's car was strangely getting insane gas mileage, and when he took it in for the oil change, and told them about it, they said they would fix it, and after he got the car back, it no longer got the great gas mileage. Even if these stories aren't true, it is conceivable, and perhaps even likely that things like this are happening all the time. The developement of cleaner burning fuels would be bad for capitalism. A country's GDP counts pollution three times: once to make it, once to clean it up, and once to cure the diseases it causes.
defiance
That may be true, but then again do we really need any of that. Technology is getting cleaner but it's not clean enough. Computers speed some things up, but do you want to work in a computer plant? Do you realize how many people are dying of cancer from working there, or from living near wast sites where computer garbage is dumped? What about the electricity that powers it? Most of our power sources are very harmful to the environment and to people. Do you want to work in a copper mine to supply electric wiring, do you want to get cancer from air and water pollution? What about transportation? Well do you want to work in a steel mill or a car plant? Do you want to work in an oil or petrolium field? How much money would you do it for if you could take an easier job?

No one looks at the labour behind these things, and thats exactly what these governments and corporations want. People take a look and think that it's always been here and it always will be. They forget that once a long time ago there was something else, there was a world where people lived from the earth, where in order to survive you had to get along with one another and with the earth. But when things got easier they forgot, they thought they had to conquer it, conquer each other. It's no wonder they forget because it's been so long that it seems like it's always been that, but it hasn't. The only way to change it is to start over, to begin again.
tomorrowsashes
Well, the technology is out there to almost completely convert to solar and wind power. Things like making computers can be made in a clean way, but it just costs more, and takes longer, but, with the elimination of the waste caused by the accumulation of capital, labor will be very prevalant. People, of course, wouldn't be forced to do it, but some people have to enjoy it. I agree that there are some technologies that should just be eliminated, though.
defiance
The technology is out there for a lot of things, wind power, solar power, even electric (hybrid) cars, but do they solve the problem? Like I said, do you want to do the work required to make these things? For that kind of power to supply a whole city would take enormous amounts of steel or copper. That means a lot of people would have to work in mines and factories. Maybe a few wouldn't mind but most would. Once again you would need a government to keep things going, so you wouldn't have anarchy. During the change those might be good, but they also might slow it down

What I'm saying is you don't need these things to live comfortably, we're just so addicted to them that we make ourselves think that and it becomes true. I understand it and I understand what you're saying. I sometimes think that myself, but it's not true, you can't have those with anarchy and without a more anarchistic society freedom will never be assured.
tomorrowsashes
If somebody is willing, or knows somebody willing to help work in a steel mill, or something like that, they should be able to use the technologies. I agree that a lot of technology use isn't necessary, but there is really no moving backward, or stopping people from moving forward. I believe that through science most of the pollution caused by technology can be eliminated, as well as the negative impacts on people. People get cancer and other disease when working in factories and mines because of the low standards set upon their employers. I too see your point, but don't think that the Earth's population could be kept from suffering without technology, and that it would be hard to completely give it up.
defiance
Very few are willing to work in factories for our technology. But you're probably right that it would be very hard to go back. Not only because of peoples resistance to it, but also because it would be almost impossible to remove all of the factories, mines, cities and other products of western technology without causing more damage. Also air and water pollution are so bad in some areas that it would take decades or centuries before they are clean again. I wonder if we can really solve these problems at all right now. Maybe we should focus instead on individual issues. Of course there's nothing wrong with talking about it. Anyway all I'm saying is that I don't think that the world can take much more technology growth without a serious change in its people.

By the way do you think this debate has died down. No one else is responding.
tomorrowsashes
Yeah, the debate dies down periodically. I pretty much agree with you that technology growth as a trend has tended to harm the environment, but I have at least some hope that we can curve it in somewhat of a better direction. Regardless of the political system, though, something needs to change really quickly, or else the planet will be made uninhabitable for many, many years.
defiance
I guess we both agree that technology is at least misused, though not on what to do about it. We need to come up with a much simpler way of living or this planet is doomed. Well it looks like our discussion is about to die, can you think of anything else relating to anarchy.
Jingle
QUOTE
...can you think of anything else relating to anarchy.


Let's fuck shit up! cool.gif

Thanks for the wonderful thread!!!!! wink.gif wink.gif grin.gif grin.gif wink.gif wink.gif

-J
regilas
Anarchy:

No Law = No Order
No Order = No Electricity
No Electricity = Energy Savings
Energy Savings = Happy World


I could go on forever.
tomorrowsashes
"Anarchy is order"

-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

It's kinda hard to argue about, but is more of a realization of the way interactions work in the order.

What do people think of the debate between Kropotkin and Darwin, that being Kropotkin (anarchist) arguing that evolution was the result of cooperation within and between species, and Darwin arguing that evolution came from competition? I would tend to agree with Kropotkin, which would lead to the conclusion that humans have evolved have the largest capacity for cooperation of any species, and that an anarchist society would work.
defiance
Well I've never understood how Darwin could've come up with the idea that nature is a battle for survival. He must not have studied it very closely, or he would've found that nature is in fact a very complex system of co-existence. Darwins way of thinking is what results in chaos, which is what we have right now, a world where people are trying to conquer nature and eachother instead of live with them. And now that they have almost succeded the planet is becoming a great wast. It is that way of thinking that makes people so afraid of anarchy, because they beleive that without rule people become savages who only care about themselves. And it is that way of thinking that almost makes them right.

Actually I don't really believe in evolution, it just doesn't make sense. How could a whole complex system of life just evolve out of nothing. It seams impossible, there has to be some begining or there wouldn't be anything at all. Maybe we sould make this a topic, what do you think?
tomorrowsashes
Well, whether or not you understand it, evolution did happen, and we have plenty of proof for it. I get kinda lost when I think about how life began, and what having a soul really is. It makes me see why so many people turn to religion. It's the easiest thing to accept, as it requires no more thinking. This does not mean, however, that it follows Occam's Razor, because when you apply it to other things, it completely doesn't make sense, unless you take into account millions of impossible events. When you get this deep into science it does become kinda spiritual. I believe that one day scientists will prove that the universe doesn't really exist, and at that point in time, it will cease to, but that is just some crazy theory of mine. I'll quit rambling now.
defiance
It's funny how you say that there's so much proof of it, when as a matter of fact there is very little solid evidence. Keep talking though, it's intersting. In fact let's start another debate on evolution.
defiance
Back to anarchy, now that we've settled our our opinions on technology, how do you think we could get anarchy. You already said what you thought and I thought it sounded very good except for one thing. I disagree with what you said about using violence. I believe that violence would be a setback, because it would inspire stronger resistence to the movement and would convince people that anarchy is exactly what they think it is, chaos. And thats probably what it would be, if it even succeded in defeating the government, which seems impossible to me. I think it's important to note that some of our greatest acheivments came from non-violence, especialy cival rights, which would've never happened with violence.
tomorrowsashes
I don't think that the civil rights movement would have gotten anywhere without the threat of violence. The government likes to encourage the idea that Martin Luther King was the only effective leader, but in truth, he wouldn't have gotten far if Malcom X and black organizations hadn't scared the government. I don't think that any violence should be targeted at ordinary citizens, but only at the politicians who actively oppose, and deter freedom. I think that violence should only be used in self-defense, but that includes attacks on your spirit, and rights. Violence should only be used if the alternative has a worse outcome. I can honestly see a 1984esque world in the future.

To simplify my opinion, when you isolate the killing of somebody from other issues, it is obvious than it is morally wrong. What if that killing stops another from dying, though? What if killing that one person stops them from killing two more, five more, 100 more, or thousands more? The morality becomes a little bit fuzzy, but I think at some point, it is morally justifiable to use violence.
defiance
The threat of violence is not what scares the U.S. government, they have no reason to be scared of that. In 1919 their was a general strike in Seattle. It was totally peaceful and it was very succesful for the short time while it lasted. Unfortunatly some powerful unions, that claimed to support workers rights, turned against them and in barely five days they called it off. The result was that basically all of the labor leaders in that area were arrested. But during the strike there had been no major problems, if things got out of hand, then the "police" force of the strikers would peacefuly urge them to calm down. In fact one police or army officer said that the city was quieter then, than he had ever seen it. The mayor had fled from the city and was assembling an army to suppress the strike, but he never needed to use it. After it was over someone wrote a poem. I don't remember all of the words, but it talked about how peaceful it had been. It said that what the authorities were worried about was not the threat of violence, but rather when nothing happened, because if they weren't doing anything wrong, then they had no excuse to attack. If they couldn't use force then what could they do. All they knew how to do was fight. They're used to fighting enemies, but when the strikers aren't doing anything, then there is nothing the police can do either, if they want to be justified. During the civil rights movement, it was not the threat of violence that they were scared of, it was the threat of non-violence. That's why they brutally attacked innoccent people, because they wanted them to fight back, they wanted a reason to arrest or kill them. But when the protesters stayed peaceful, white people began to realize that they were in the right. Mass dissention appeared within the racists ranks. Soon the government itself began to split between those who were for civil rights and those who were against it. Finally the government had no choice but to give them what they wanted. The same thing is true with the anti-war protests and the independence movement in India. In all of these cases the threat of violence only brought retaliation and slowed down the success of of the main movement.
noone_wellknown
The positives that could be gained from anarchism would, no doubt be great, the freedom from consumerism, democracy- truly ruling ourselves, as well as the many other positives...however, correct me if im wrong, but the theory of anarchism is the ability to live without rules. Now as we can see in the world today to live in total anarchism seems absurd. The world is full of evil, although anarchism may be feasible in small communities, to live it worldwide seems simply impossible...controls and parameters must be used...Many humans ARE immoral, ARE Selfish and quite simply will look out for themselves. the chance on anarchism working on a global scale with both the power of the current system and the inherant floors present in humans seems to be zero!
defiance
Actually anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no ruler. The idea is that no one can tell you what to do, only you have that right. But it's more complex than that. Alot of this debate has been about how that can be achieved without causing more damage. What you've said has been told to anarchists many times, but it's not true. Yes the world is full of evil, yes people are selfish, yes they can be immoral. But is that really all you see in people? I can understand why, if you do believe that. It seems like the world is full of problems and they keep on coming but very little is ever solved. However, people continue to try to find a better way to live and that is what anarchy is, life without fear, life without someone who you have probably never met in you're life telling you what to do. Their are many reasons why I believe in anarchy and i can't say them all right now, but tell me some reasons why you don't think it can work and i'll try to respond.
tomorrowsashes
I don't exactly believe in the concepts of good and evil, there is simply the truth, and the lie. You either stay true to your morals, or you don't. There is no universal good, or evil, but it is true to say that someones killing most often causes suffering. In that sense, the idea that violence is bad or evil is innacurate. If it is true that an act of violence causes more suffering than otherwise would have happened, most people would determine that to be against their morals. If an act of violence prevents more suffering than it causes, it would be considered, at least by me, to be moral. The point is that everybody has different morals, and problems are caused when an authorities morals differ from your own. Of course, some might argue that there are some people who simply have no morals, or morals which are incompatible with the wishes of the vast majority of the people, and in that case, it may be necessary for the people to come together, and impose the authority of the majority in a moral way upon this person. This may be as simple as asking the person to move to a different place. I honestly don't believe that there are plain bad people, but that they are simply misinformed, and can be rehabilitated. Mental disabilities are a different issue, but I believe that the people can come up with ways to do it in ways that are generally considered moral.
noone_wellknown
Capitalism has been grown and developed over thousands of years, from trade and heckling in its primitive times to the creation of huge complex markets of today. As much as i would love to believe there is potential to change to an effective society of equality as well as high living standards etc it seems, looking at the world today that the hole that has been dug is far to deep to climb out of. The capitalist, corporate leaders, head companies which are larger in size then many first world economies. The masses of people have been grinded into an apathetic stupour, ignorant and careless of the world and the huge amount of suffering obvious to anyone with a basic idea of the world. This has resulted in the majority of the western population believing this system works and is a fair one, they will sit on there arses and are unwilling to provoke any change.....people are in a comfort zone...this surely means that a cause against this tyrannical and brutal system is worthless...as long as the masses are quiet no major change can be assumed. I cant see there being a likely change anytime soon....it seems impossibl!! negative i no! tell me im rong im v pessimistic!
tomorrowsashes
Personally, I'm privileged enough to have the choice between benefiting from an unjust system and fighting it. I have chosen the latter because with what I have learned, I could not live with myself if I chose the former. I really hope that change is possible, but regardless, it is necessary for the good of a society for there to always be resistance towards authority and questioning of popular beliefs. I would rather give my life fighting against the system, even if the chances were remote, than to submit to it. Of course, the more people adopt this attitude, the higher the probability of change. Even if we cannot change the system, we must keep people from becoming comfortable with it.
defiance
Noone_wellknown, please say something original. You already said the same thing on you're capitalism thread. I have already told you,
if you have any specific problems with anarchism, tell me and i'll give you my opinion.

Tomorrowsashes, I don't know how you can think that there's no such thing as evil. Isn't it evil for me to walk into somebodys house and rape and kill them for no reason other than "I was misinformed". Are you going to tell me that Hitler was just misinformed. He may not have started the ideas that he had, but he is still responsible for what he did. Of course people have their own morals, what do think morals are though, because they're obviously more than just peoples opinions. Anyway there are some things that are simply beyond debate, like what I said.
noone_wellknown
Defiance-
anarchism is surely the idea that there is no ruler and therefore no authority?? correct me if im wrong. although u can understand anarchism would work in small communities and perhaps less developed systems such as that present in Timor before the massacres. However, what i am trying to argue is that people have become so enfactuated with personal wealth and self gain that they are no longer 'able' to work in harmony for communal gain. To just start an anarchic system would suggest to me that you are living in a dream world! Many people a re living comfortably, the rich and powerful minority...what makes you believe that anyone can bring about the no doubt massive jump between capitalism and anarchy...i have no doubt that it has potential to be a fair and good system but what is the point in raising the question when there seems next to no chance of its occurence???
regilas
QUOTE
correct me if im wrong


Put that on your signature
noone_wellknown
its a good one isnt it.......sounds posh! lol
defiance
If you would read the thread you would see that I don't believe we can instantly change to anarchy. It would take years of change for it to work well. Socialism is also very good and is already working very well in some countries. But
since you think that's also corrupt, why don't you do some studying and then decide what you believe.

Please stop sounding so depressed. If you don't believe anything can work, than don't come on here.
noone_wellknown
you are right i should b more positive, its just hard thats all! anyways i think that socialism has great potential, i think it will take a revolution for tru socialism to occur in countries such as the US and UK, but as we have seen it is more then possible through out history.
defiance
That's much better. Yes socialism does have great potential, but I still think anarchy would be the best way to live, once it got fully enstated. History also shows that it has great potential.
tomorrowsashes
If you want to look farther than the US for examples of violence applied effectively, you can look at the ANC, and other groups in the South African liberation movement. The ANC was classified by the US as a terrorist organization, but they, without any help from Uncle Sam, played a crucial role in ending apartheid. Some of their violence wasn't targeted in the best way possible, but without it, there might be a different situation there today. Nelson Mandela even admits in his autobiography that violence is sometimes necessary. I can provide the exact quote if necessary, but don't have time to look it up now.
defiance
Violence does succeed sometimes, but it rarely creates a permanently good system. It has worked sometimes, it worked in Ireland, but it didn't completly succeed. Northern Ireland still belongs to britain, and the british government itself would have never been overthrown, if the rebels had tried. So it might work in a colony, but not in the sovereign state. It would take incredible effort to work in the United States, much more than a non-violent movement. And in the end, is this new government any better than the one it overthrew. Do you want to live in South Africa. Now India was freed through non-violence and it's not a very good place to live in either. But that's not because of the non-violence, it's cause some people were determined to cause violence. Also many innoccent people will be killed in a violent revolution, no matter how careful you are. Do you want to be responsible for murdering innoccent people. I think you should note that the soviet union won its revolution through violence and it turned out to be a terrible place to live. I'm not saying that you can't have a successful revolution with violence. And I'm not saying non-violence will always work. But it fact is violence will always cause violence and non-violence will almost always inspire a peaceful solution, it just takes a long time.
regilas
Whatever happened to Raddishu?
tomorrowsashes
I'm not saying that we should go into an all out war, but merely suggesting that violence is merely a tactic which shouldn't be completely ruled out. Nonviolence should always be used whenever it will suffice, but if combine this with carefully targeted violence (assasinations, self defense, etc.) you can create a movement more powerful than either tactic alone. Demonstations are great, but add a little property destruction (of course, only towards the mega-corporations that exploit their workers), and you've got people's attention, and at this point, any publicity is good publicity. What do you do when the cops come with their riot sticks? Defend yourself, it's a basic human right. Now, to counter those who say that you are just a group of hooligans trying to cause trouble, you must distribute propaganda (call it what you will, but this is essentially what it is) detailing your opinions, and work to achieve positive things. Their is no recipe for revolution, but it does require small amounts of many tactics, violence included.
.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.