Introductions and The Nature of the Revolution

[Monkey Wrench]

Hello. My name is Monkey Wrench (no, really!!) and I've been a lurker for a couple of weeks now. I am glad to finally get in on the action. I am a frequent blogger, and will put up a link at the end of my post. I am not here for advertisement, though, I'm just looking for some critiques and what not. Anyway---

I think that these boards are quite well kept, and free from a lot of the infighting that plagues many similar alternative-politics boards. You guys do a nice, stand up job (Kudos Dave) and have made this a haven for thoughts that wouldn't be well received anywhere else.

On to the poll--

By what means do you think the Revolution will come? Many Anarchists I've talked to have radically (no pun intended...) different ideas and opinions on how the Revolution will come about, if they think it is feasible at all. It's just a question I've been asking myself for awhile, so I thought I'd put it out there.


(My blog, for anyone who is interested-- www.sawdustaction.blogspot.com )

In Solidarity and Love,

Wrench

[Francois Tremblay]

Evolution, not revolution.

[|Y|]

Hey Monkey Wrench, it'd be cool if that was your real/official name.

I voted "Other" but would have voted "Economic Failure, where the proletariat returns to his/her Anarchist roots" had I felt it expressed my views.

I think we will bring about technological change which will collapse monetarist relationships, allowing the most logical system of anti-governance to take hold. I imagine there would be small states at first but I believe that anarchism would be clearly seen as the most logical, rational, and overall efficient system.

[Maggot]

I voted "Military Action" because it's the only logical way to have a revolution (an armed insurrection). All the other options will virtually collapse. As for economic failure, we're already in the middle of one.

[Guest]

Exactly right, in the middle of an economic collapse. A global economic collapse, and there has been an increased number of actions and protests directly becasue of it. Every time Capitalism wretches in its 'circular economic nature' the Anarchists gain more allies. Could this not be a viable method?

Insurrection is a very dangerous double-edged sword, but bear in mind, I see it's worth.


Wrench

[Stealth]

If we dont have a movement in place it wont happen at all.

As it stands, we dont have the numbers or the resources to pull off a violent insurrection. It just isnt realistic.

I think we need to build a popular movement, one that is based on both short and long term goals, something that the common working class can get behind because they see that it benefits them directly. As you engage them, you radicalize them. Whatever you attain, set your sights on more. Introduce them to bottom up organizational practices, and keep people informed about the crooked shit going on.

I am not a pacifist and support armed insurrection in defense against a future police state, but unless you are able to engage a large segment of the masses, like happened in Spain against Francos fascist takeover, there is absolutely no chance of a military victory.

It will always come down to a variety of tactics. We need them all. We need realistic expectations though, and we need to think strategically with our ideas grounded in reality instead of idealism.

[Monkey Wrench]

I agree with you completely, which has given rise to my next post. Votes still wanted all!! Thanks.


wrench

[Noleaders]

I reckon a little bit of all the above. Social change will come about because the state causes economic crisis and will have to one by one keep removing policies that cause this. This will lead to a decline in big corporations being the dominant business model as they are inefficient due to their size and rely on the state for subsidies. When things are handled on a smaller level people will have more power over their own lives and the neccesity and desire for a state will wither away slowly. However to overthrow it completely may require a revolution at some point against the decaying states who its likely will respond like a cornered animal to their continuing decline in power and try to take it back.

[IAmAFishFlopFlopFlop]

I doubt it'll happen at all.

IMO, the best way to set up an (oxymoronic, admittedly) 'Anarchist State' would be for a bunch of us to get together and, I dunno, buy a bit of land or something, and show the world that it can be done. And then hope that we don't strike oil

[FirePirate]

I think social change will bring it. I always felt the education system is the root that fuels everything capitalist. Free social values and free thought will better the chances for the 'evolution'. So even if people aren't anarchists we can atleast expect them to understand what the fighting is all about.

[spawn]

I am not a drugged Pythia, but I tend to believe that the road to an anarchist society is evolutionary.

I believe that what I call a "social framework" has to first be established, and then the "revolution" will merely be the symbolic destruction of the oppressive institutions.

[jack]

ITT: Blatant liberalism.

The bourgeosie will not surrender their power voluntarily, coercion must be used to oust the bourgeoisie. There is no way for us to "evolve" our way out of the state, there must be constant agitation, and revolution (which is always violent). Gradualism has been proven to be too vulnerable, and lifestylism and attempts to cut corners and remove yourself from capitalism is damaging to the movement and makes you nothing more than a parasite.

[Noleaders]

The bourgeosie will not surrender their power voluntarily, coercion must be used to oust the bourgeoisie.

Who are these bourgeosie? Could probably describe most people living in the west...

There is no way for us to "evolve" our way out of the state, there must be constant agitation, and revolution (which is always violent).

So you wouldn't "build the new society within the shell of the old", then cut off the state's life support? Instead you'd violently expropriate everything and enforce the new system?
good luck with that....

btw most "evolutionists do support constant agitation, dunno where you got that from

Gradualism has been proven to be too vulnerable

and revolution hasnt?

and lifestylism and attempts to cut corners and remove yourself from capitalism is damaging to the movement and makes you nothing more than a parasite

Only if by "cutting corners and removing yourself from capitalism" you mean doing nothing and living off welfare or private charity. But who suggested we do that?


Revolution will either mean chaotic splinter groups or a new state, there's no two ways about it.

[Francois Tremblay]

ITT: Blatant liberalism.

Please drop off your high horse and break your neck.

The bourgeosie will not surrender their power voluntarily

No one said that. No one thinks so. It's your straw man, burn in it.

There is no way for us to "evolve" our way out of the state, there must be constant agitation, and revolution (which is always violent).

Name one revolution that has led to long-term freedom.

Name one successful social movement that was violent.

Or drop off the Earth.

Gradualism has been proven to be too vulnerable

Bla bla bla. Ad hoc bullshit.

[patrickhenry]

Social change. evolution. but I do see some armed coercion and violence at the end. I wouldn't expect capitalism to go out quietly.