Discussion in 'Overtime: Off-Topic Discussion' started by Geedorah, Feb 1, 2013.
what can you do though?
Blow shit up until they stop.
This is truly the question. To use violence to achieve goals for change or not to use violence to achieve goals for change?
This question is actually one that this very same individual addresses in another video. In that video he states that violence does not work as a method of achieving change, but I'm not sure that is entirely correct.
Violence may not be sustainable as a method for achieving change, but history dictates that it is a necessary component of change.
No drastic social change has ever been accomplished without the pre-existing looming threat of violence close at hand. The civil rights movement of the '60's here in the states....backdrop of violence.....Gandhi's Ahimsa movement....backdrop of violence....
Negotiations typically and historically have never become possible without the ominous presence of violence as a less desireable alternative....
Although, civil war is anarchical in nature and anarchy is hell....and so the possibility must also be entertained that civil war is precisely what the ruling class wants because the "livestock", (as the narrator of this video refers to us all), will realize that it is not a better utopia that they have created by engaging in civil war, but a hellish anarchical environment in which nothing can survive, and this will precipitate them into begging for law and order in any form in which they can get it, even if it is one hundered times more totalitarianistic than it was before civil war began...
There is no question.
Violence is necessary.
Without organization, yes violence is necessary.
The only alternative to violence would be an expertly organized nation-wide strike coupled with a mass departure from the pervasive consumerism and materialism that we are all born into as citizens of Western nation-states.
Since most of the labor force driving the cogs of major Western corporations is now based in newly developing nations, citizens of Western nation-states primarily serve the ruling class by consuming the goods their companies produce, so I'd venture to say that the departure from consumerism holds priority.
This seems altogether implausible to me, however, because people are so indoctrinated with the rhetoric of mass media, that such an act would be deemed as "extremist" by the majority of society, and most would be unwilling to participate.
This leaves the alternative, which is violence....but if one were to say, form a "militia", and engage in violence in order to achieve change, who would the targets of the milita be?
The standing police force which controls the "monoply of violence" upon the populace? The National Guard? Military bases?
Engaging in acts of violence against such targets as these would result in nothing more than anarchy....violence in the streets, the death of innocents, and meanwhile the ruling class would remain largely unaffected. They would sit it out in their ivory towers chuckling to themselves and fornicating as the masses burn their own habitat to the ground.
Violence in inevitable in these types of revolutions. We have no foreign occupiers were trying to kick out, this is a war between ourselves and the people intent on ruling us, no amount of peaceful demonstration will convince families who have been a part of this nation for longer than most of us to actively concede power and economic privilege.
You can go ahead and continue to ponder what non-violent methods there are for change, but there's no point.
The ruling class would be greatly affected by anarchy. Who do you think the targets of the discontent would be? Not each other. Even the selfish and greedy would go to steal from where there is the most to reap, i.e. the ruling class.
Anarchy begets order, when used properly, we'd only have to make sure it wasn't used against us.
Okay...again....you're missing the point. The true ruling class is a very small group of robber barons. Violence in the street will not affect these people. If you form a "militia" or any other sort of group and engage in mob violence, you will only succeed in doing harm to your fellow man. If you organized a group intent upon openly engaging in violence, you would be forced into combat with the standing police and military forces of the ruling elite.
However, the police are not the enemy. They are nothing more than poor schmucks who get paid a paltry salary to risk their lives every day for a system that cares nothing for them. People in the military are the same. They are nothing more than poor simple schmucks who have been brainwashed, indoctrinated, or economically drafted into an obsequious state of nationalism.
Anarchy can beget order, but it begets the order of the lowest common denominator.
History has proven that conditions do not improve following an anarchical period in a nation-state. In fact, they worsen.
Look at the Arab Spring. Look at Libya. Look at Egypt.
The "farmers" will remain unaffected by your low level attempts at violence, and after you and your "enemies" have finished killing each other in the street, the "farmers" will simply sweep in unseen via economic subversion, and fund whichever warlord appears to hold the most credibility with the populace, thereby reasserting their control.
And what's more, their control will be all the more potent, because you will have handed them the opportunity to start from scratch and rebuild the country's laws in exactly the format that is most beneficial for them.
Yea,I never understood people who go on street and then wreck everything on their path.
You are just destroying property of people just like you,you need to target politicians and bankers,they love it when stupid people go on streets and destroy something they couldn't care less.
Precisely. I've been holding off on making such a statement, but imo, if violence were to be used to catalyze change, it would have to be expertly calculated and finely targeted.
It would have to involve the participation of trained professionals, and by "trained professionals", I don't mean run of the mill ex-marines or army rangers. I mean those who have been trained at the highest levels.
I would also like to add that once a group intent upon engaging in such endeavors becomes visible, they've already lost. Such a group or organization would have to remain completely invisible.
Unfortunately, the majority of the people capable of engaging in such action are employed by the "farmers".
My apologies for taking so long to reply.
Wha.....What? I'm not sure your first sentence makes much sense. Who is "them"?
You think the police and standing military are the only ones who will sustain casualties during the course of a violent revolt/uprising? If so, you're sadly mistaken.
In fact, it will be the recalcitrant forces that will bear the brunt of the casualties. The police and military have access to advanced weaponry and superior armor. Make no mistake. The majority of the lives lost will be on the side of those attempting to usurp the current regime.
Greece has accomplished nothing. The "austerity measures" implemented there have sparked violence because the poor and lowest strata of the socioeconomic ladder are the ones taking the financial hit in order to make up for the mismanagement of the elite. Now there is simply violence in the street, and the majority of the people being hurt are ordinary citizens.
As for America's revolution, yes the United States grew as a result of its revolutionary war against the yolk of Great Britain which made way for the industrial revolution and for corporatism, but our revolutionary war was not fought for the benefit of the people. It was fought for the benefit of already wealthy land owners.
India has grown, yes, but is subervient to the West, and depends on Western contractors for the building of infrastructure.
Growth is not positive if it only benefits a small circle of wealthy capitalists.
You're still missing the point. Engaging in mob violence will not assist the citizenry to insert a "new class" in the driver's seat of the country. The people who are in power now will still be in power when the smoke clears.
The above paragraph denotes another failure on your part to observe and heed the lessons of history. In the past, whenever a charismatic leader has emerged as the head of a counter-culture or anti-establishment movement, he/she has been assassinated or convicted of a crime, (thereby assassinating his/her character).
This is why I have stated in a previous comment that any action taken must be expertly calculated and finely targeted, and it must be invisible. When I say invisible, I mean no youtube interviews or videos with people wearing stupid masks, and no one coming forward taking credit for action taken.
This is precisely why there was so much rhetoric on the part of media organizations such as Fox news regarding the Occupy movement pressuring it to "state its demands and name its leaders". That's all you heard on the news. Even from supposed "left wing" news organizations such as CNN. "Why doesn't Occupy have a leader? Who is leading this movement? What are the demands of Occupy?" etc, etc, etc....
The ruling class was trying to pressure Occupy to expose its head so that head could be chopped off....
Balance comes from chaos.
If you think mob violence will get you somewhere, why don't you set it off, Queen Latifah. Take your gun and go shoot it out with your local police department, because you're sure as shit not going to be able to find any Bilderberg Group or Paris Club members to shoot at.
Good luck with that and remember....I'll be right behind you.
Btw, if you want me to respond to you properly, stop putting a quote box around your entire post, unless of course you're purposely trying to make it difficult for me to respond. If that's the case, then you're doing a great job.
I'm only trying to help you understand.
I respond in the quote box because it's the easiest and most effective way to respond to the various points you make.
If you keep up your blatant disregard of understanding, you won't be in front or behind of anything, just in the way...
I understand. I understand that you're out of your depth.
Also, the proper etiquette of forum post arguments is to put quote boxes around each individual paragraph typed by your opposition and rebuttal thusly so that your opposition can do the same. Putting a quote box around your entire post forces anyone attempting to rebut an individual paragraph of yours to actually open a second window and copy and paste, etc.
The fact that you're too dense to realize this means that you're too dense to argue with. Good night.
In what way?
I've countered most of your points. At least the ones that lack validity.
Label me what you will, I speak the truth.
Separate names with a comma.