The Armed Revolution

It's definately necessary. How do you think the ruling class will let go of their power? I mean obviously we ain't gonna do it tomorrow and what we need to do is build grassroots alternatives to capitalism and the state but eventually, once we get popular and start challenging the status quo, we will be attacked and here is where armed struggle is needed. We would have to defend our alternative structures i.e. independant unions, tenants associations, social centres etc against authoritarians (left and right) who'd try and fuck us.

I'd say it were feasable too. I mean, not tomorrow and not as some elite terrorist cell detached from the class. But as working class people organising their own defence of space. TBH, I can't see anything stronger than that.

Well, in the past, people's militias have usually come straight out of workers' organisations i.e. CNT-FAI militias in Spanish Civil War. It would probably be the same again. I've been thinking a lot about this recently coz I've been reading Anthony Beevor's The Spanish Civil War (highly recommended BTW). As part of training for joining militias, I think it would be necessary to do part practical i.e. weapons, tactics training etc and part theory i.e. what are we fighting for? what is our class' history? etc. Through this you would not only train people how to fight but also why they should. If people know what cause they're fighting then they're more likely to want to fight for it.

That's my thoughts for now. Can't be arsed to write more. I'm sure others will

Taking up arms against the state could only end up in total defeat of a revolution (if one was ever to come) to be realistic, we would have to reach a stage where the state had lost all influence in the community, lost all influence over the running of our lives.

As the state does crumble, we would have to take up arms to defend ourselves. But as soon as we enter an armed conflict with the state, the state will use everything and anything against us, they will hold the technological advantage over the revolution this can be shown with the ongoing Maoist struggle in Nepal, where even though the Maoists ahve popular support they have weapons from the napoleonic war whilst the Nepals army has nice new M16's from the united states plus plenty more hardware.

The Armed revolution will be the time where we could have total defeat aswell as total victory. Whilst i see this as a neccessary event in any revolution, I think the odds are not stacked in the revolutions favour when it comes to this, mainly because of the military capabilies of the modern western states, and the lack of ability in conflict of workers, even more so with hardware. The only solution i can see to this is occupying the weapons factories, and the soldiers revolting as they did in the 1917 october revolutions in russia and creating there own councils.

No it doesn't. It has some interesting points about guerillaism and terrorism, but is not about armed revolutionary groups in general.

From its conclusion:

The article is against indiscriminte violence and also the fetishisation of armed conflict and violence. It is not against either of these things in themselves.

I think the actual initial revolution itself might be a bit bloody but apart from a few confrontations, requiring disciplined defence would be shortlived. I mean revolution isn't likely to occur except if capitalism enters another period of crisis, which it no doubt will.

The point is that in the absense of a millenarian revolution across the whole world you then get a tide of reaction using remnants of the national bourgeoisie. Similarly to russia where after a few initial skirmishes, state power began to crumble but foreign capitalist states propped up the russian aristocracy leading to the civil war.

I think that you do need to have some sort of disciplined fighting organisation and a means of arming workers militias for self defence.

To be fair though this isn't lilkey to happen for years, and would only happen if the capitalist system reaches a crisis point. Most likely due to war, a global shift in hegemony or possibly environmental factors.

john

A revolution fueled and perpetrated by arms is no revolution at all, however the revolution will have to arm itself at some point purely in order to defend itself, for example there is little doubt that occupied and autonomous factories, schools and social spaces would be attacked by the police and army. This does not mean that the revolution will use arms as a means of fermenting social upheaval, merely to provide a source of defense for this upheaval.

Arms arent a means to an end, just a tool for protecting the means.

The most important thing to do right now is to convince people to reduce the birth rates of the entire population. We have overpopulated the planet, and we're dependent on civilization because of overpopulation. Civilization is unsustainable and riddled with inequality.

when you talk to anarchists, most believe that some sort of confrontation, self defence, or mass offence, is likely and so on. But how many of these very same people do anything to prepare themselves? Not many! Too many anarchists i know get floored just trying to run 100 metres to catch a bus

Agreed entirely.

I also think these words, from Anarchist by Ian Bone, have great resonance:

"Without violent confrontation with the forces of the state the working class will never break through the deadly, stultifying condition which enmeshes it today.

The class becomes decadent without class violence.

Without a willingness to confront and attack capitalism physically, the state, authority, institutions will flourish. This will mean the ever increasing subordination of every individual, not part of the ruling class, to every facet of the system".

Says it all for me........

Are you serious?

That's right-wing, misanthropic rubbish. That's the argument which blames highly populous areas like africa and asia for problems which are mostly caused by Western industry

Yes, I'm serious. Reducing birth rates is our dire need and should be humanity's number one priority. Until we see a day without agriculture and civilization, we'll continue to have specialization and division of labor. It's neither right-wing nor misanthropic! What right winger would want to ruin his/her profits? What misanthrope would want to improve life for him/herself, all other humans, and all other life on earth? I'm blaming densely populated areas in the UK, USA, and all over the world. We must rectify that which made our ancestors abandon tribes! Reduce birth rates!

And you reckon you're an anarchist?

Or are you a "primitivist"? Hmmm at least most of the primmies I know would think you were talking out of your arse as well.

The USA is one of the most sparsely populated places on earth.

Actually do you have any kind of logic whatsoever in your thinking? Any evidence to back it up?

[oh god]

Italy's birth rate is way down -- about 1.9 last I looked. Is Italy moving towards a tribal society?

'tribes' can be pretty bad too -- look at Ghengiz Khan

I'm not sure whether this is an anti-primmie wind up or not

Yes, I "reckon" I'm an anarchist, bloody sod! Yes, I'm an anarcho-primitivist. I don't know why you had to put that in quotes. There are some different types of primitivists. Some want to blow up stuff, some hope for death and destruction, and I may be the only one who's calling for birth rate reduction. The USA is sparsely populated only in certain areas. My town only, over 60,000 people, is why too crowded to live without farming. Everyone would eat up the wild plants and animals too quick, and then, lots of people would die; and some people may become cannibals! I'm sure you've heard of NYC, Philly, etc. Certainly these aren't sparsely populated areas! Ask anybody who knows when specialization and division of labor started, and they'll confirm that it didn't exist before agriculture and the rise of civilization! Plato basically said it is the cornerstone of the state!

I don't know. Is it? I doubt it!

look at aboriginees. they have a more sustainable and fair way of life than any of us in industrial society! btw, that's Mr. T, not Ghengiz Khan!

i'm not anti-primmie if that's what you're confused about.

stop trying to co-opt our language, fucking americans

I didn't think "asshole" would affect you

Yes, Italy's birthrate is less than 2, so their population is decreasing. There are something like about 10 countries in the world where that's happening. Not that it really matters either way. People starve because of economic relations, not overpopulation. There is crowding in certain areas, but the earth is sparsely populated overall and could support a much lager population than it already has.

Ah fuck it I can't be bothered. Primitivism isn't to be debated, it is to be smashed.

lol, I assume you'll be complaining to the mods about this thread then, Red?

Like it or not, you have to accept that primitivism and green anarchism are a significant tendency -- just like individualism and tostoyanism were in the past century. You can't'smash' them but have to understand why they aris. In both cases, it's because of real tensions in the world.

Username -- simply because the state developed after agriculture, does that mean no agriculture=no state? It certainly doesn't mean no authority, does it? Patriarchal 'tribal' power is just as bad as bureaucratic state power.

in there here and now, a reduction of birth rates is a distraction. Birth rates are highest where infant mortality is highest -- making people more secure will casue them to need less children.

Are you one of those 'ecologists' who oppose immigration into the USA/Europe because it increases the amount of consumer?

To be honest, in an equal, communist/anarchist/call it what you will society, populations the world over would probably just stabilise. It's pretty obvious that there's no overpopulation in "developed" countries, and with the end of poverty in third world countries they would eventually end up the same way.

I can see that the stuff about 'overpopulation' is balls, but I don't want the state to ban fascists, so why should we want them to get involved with this issue?

You're wrong. Famine is inherent with an unsustainable system like agriculture. Wow, you're crazy. Who the hell thinks the world could hold more people?! Nobody, that's who. Everybody knows there are too many people on earth. Everybody just doesn't know there were too many people in 10,000 BC.

No farming is close to if not = no state. I'm not really worried about patri/matriarchs. I don't think they'll happen. We're anarchists. We're against such things. No way, reducing birth rates is top priority, not a distraction. Why do people need children anyway? No, I'm not one of those "ecologists".

what's up with this misonmer? i've already addressed this. i haven't said anything that expresses a hatred of mankind. in fact, i've explained how this is all about making life on earth better for everyone, including us humans. please, keep your strawmen if you take anarchism seriously, okay? thanks.

right, there are no ghettos/barrios. have you seen how crowded china is? i don't believe communism will replace capitalism with anarchy/equality. i believe it will inject another state/whatever. i'm a nihilist. i just believe in removing the problem, and the best way to do that is to remove the reason why we have the problem. we have this problem to feed everybody. that's how it's been for 12,000 years. for 2-4 million years before that, our ancestors lived in anarchy. this last 12,000 years were just a distraction from what we want. we'll have to stop adding people to the planet in order to get rid of civilization, which is inherently unfair and unmanageable.

How is overpopulation balls, and how am I a fascist if that's what you're saying?

Who else is there? Pixies?

Look its obvious that western societies are sustaining themselves. In fact there's an excess of food production - tons goes to waste. We have the technology to produce with maximum efficiency and widespread distribution. So really, no problems for the human race there.

As for population reduction, family planning is something which everyone should have the ability to do, and like I said in a society where everyone has access to it, the population probably would decrease and level out in more densely populated countries in a generation or two. But any actual program of drastic population reduction (like you would need if you wanted to go back to hunter/gatherer tribes) is proper anti-humanism. You can't stop people wanting to have children, or wanting to cure diseases.

Fascism is extreme anti-humanism.

"Yo, kettle!"

"Yeah pot?"

"You're black, man"

Well, The Pixies are a good band, but I was showing I wasn't a misanthrope 'cause I wasn't saying something like, "humans are the bane of life. if we wiped ourselves out, then all other life would prosper."

No, it isn't. That's like saying not drinking beer is anti-humanism because it spoils people's good time when it's really all about the livers. Stopping people from making children wouldn't be anti-authoritarian, but I can show them it would be in their best interests.

Fascism is total state control.