BEGIN THE REVOLUTION

by me Mon Oct 21, 2013 06:19

Violent revolutions revolve. They start at a point of oppressive society, aiming to change it. After the replacement of the old ruling elite the radical leaders gradually backtrack on the radical reforms. Finally the wheel of revolution returns to a point where the new elite lives apart from the liberated masses, in luxurious surroundings. The glamourous seaside holiday buildings and reclusive shooting lodges of Walther Ulbricht and party bosses in GDR-East Germany are a recently revealed example.

Justin Morahan may be temporarly right about a peaceful revolution in Peru, but how long will the social redistribution last before the landowner aristocrats and urban capitalists reassert themselves? Mahatma Gandhi set an imaginative, possibly heroic, example of nonviolent social agitation in pre-independence India. Today's Indian rulers pay lip service to his ideals but carry on in the interests of personal and company profit.

New generations find that they have to pick up the baton of campaigning from the tiring older runners. A lotta continua.

by Justin Morahan Sun Oct 20, 2013 17:29

I think that the Peruvian revolution of General Juan Velasco Alvarado was non-violent or intended to be such. President Belaunde was arrested by the Army, removed, making only verbal protest, from his palace and flown to Argentina. In the face of angry street protests, gas and water-cannon were deployed. One person was killed, accidentally I would say, by a gas canister. After this police were more careful in their efforts to control crowds. On the day of National Mourning for Democracy, a few days after the revolution, Velasco addressed the Peruvian people to announce that at that moment the army was marching into Talara to take over Peruvian oil fields that had been ceded to the US 100 years earlier. No shots were fired. No compensation was paid. Nixon threatened Peru with the so-called Hickenlooper amendment but Velasco stood his ground. Flags that were at half mast went up to full mast and the people came out in the streets not to protest but to celebrate.

That revolution favoured the poor over the rich.

by Mike Novack Mon Oct 07, 2013 14:54

Revolutions = violence

Well perhaps the ones that MANIFESTED and succeeded were violent. But that doesn't mean beginning a violent revolution is a way forward. Revolutions that succeeded are a miniscule fraction of those that were attempted. Unless one has some expectation that one might win the violent fight not a good idea to start one. Your own history could be misleading in this case because you should never make plans based upon one's opponent acting stupidly (the British in the aftermath of Easter 1916).

But this works TWO way. You likewise shouldn't defend against the revolutionary changes with violence if you are going to lose that way. What THAT means is that perhaps the reason that you don't see REVOLUTIONS without violence is that the changes were introduced without a revolution manifesting. If the side in power concedes without fighting the "revolution" might not be very visible.

Organizing support non-violently

Actually, you don't know how that support will end up being used as the opponent gets to make choices too, So violent revolution advocates, listen to what these people are saying about organizing. AT THIS STAGE that is what is needed no matter whether there will eventually be a violent revolution or a comparatively peaceful transition (not just you who gets a say in this; the opponent does too). But without support, massive support, you can't have a successful revolution.

REMEMBER -- advocates of violence, it takes MUCH more social support to replace a power structure with you own rule than to disrupt (and perhaps bring down) the one currently in power. Starting with violence when you lack that social support might bring down the existing order but YOU will not be the winners to replace that order. Some group that that enough social power will end up in charge,.

by fred Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:56

Going off half cocked is not going to change things. Thats just an excuse for a bit of mindless violence. All it will change is the level of policing of subsequent protests by the state.

Violence at protests gets spread over the papers. You end up looking like a bunch of violent thugs. Nobody will touch your movement with a barge pole after that.

You sound exactly like a provocateur!

by dave Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:10

Name at least five revolutions that were peaceful,successful revolutions are never peaceful,thats the point of a revolution to over throw a government by the force of the people.

I can tell the will just isn't here,people are afraid to have a revolution as it means their standard of living will not be good ,people do not want to be part of a revolution for as far as i can see - shallow reasons.

This is why we will never , ever get change.

by VictorVictoria Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:49

If there was a revolution we would likely end up with so much uncertainty in all areas of life that everyday life would be miserable for most.

Best is to change ourselves and support others, clubs, organisations and business.... that are leading towards, what we consider, a better way of life.

Life is to be enjoyed responsibly, that's what makes it fun. There has got to be 'moral hazard' and to some extent that is what we are now living in ........ the consequences of our mistakes.

Failing to accept our mistakes, and our biggest mistake is demanding Government make us or our children special cases. Move us up the housing list, help us with our lack of entitlement to farm subsidy, protect our health (fluoridation, vaccination etc.), legislate against cowboy builders, shrink our class sizes, collect our rubbish for free, help us get a medical card cause we are special........ on and on and on.

Pleading! The whole world is at it and Governments love it.

That's the revolution, stop that in your own life and in those lives you might have an influence in.......... a big start.

Bless us all

by fred Mon Sep 30, 2013 01:14

violence only plays into the hands of the state. It gives them the excuse they need for a crackdown and to fund and beef up policing and monitoring activities, and furthermore, it causes a loss of support among the general public, as it gives the servile media plenty of material with which to discredit a fledgling movement. The factor that matters most in the success of revolutionary action is the overall state of revolutionary consciousness in the revolutionaries.

Even if numbers are large, the anger of an unfocussed body of people is easily commandeered, and misdirected by a few provocateurs, or a small but focussed group of people with a clear agenda.

Witness the recent "revolution" in Egypt. Sure, the revolutionaries were angry and wanted "change" but they were not very clear as to what their goals were and their revolutionary consciousness was shallow and rather naive to say the least.

The result of this was A small but focussed group, the muslim brotherhood, with a very definite agenda was able to steer the revolution to serve their interests. When they realised what had happened, the angry people were out in the streets again en masse, but this time it resulted in a military "coup" by a military largely financed by washington. These revolutionaries are even now still trying to figure out what exactly happened to their "revolution".

If you want a revolution to succeed, you need to build up revolutionary consciousness as widely as possible throughout your society, and you need to have some very clear aims and objectives. Eventually when something takes place, it is not just a confused angry unfocussed rabble, easily manipulated, but a lot of people whose eyes have been opened and understand their relationship with the state and will not be so easily fooled, manipulated or commandeered, or divided, and will see provocateurs for what they really are. They will not just blindly destroy their society and it's infrastructure in their anger and confusion (another mistake!) but instead they will target and co-ordinate their efforts with a view to usurping the current ruling structure, and replacing it with something that actually serves the interests of the people. Something better.

Keep your powder dry and don't go off half cocked friend. Leave that for the provocateurs.

by dave Sun Sep 29, 2013 20:57

Did you know a law was passed recently that makes it illegal for a group of protesters to congregate a certain distance outside the dail. That is why invaribly you will see a garda presence as a wall between the crowd of protesters and the dail..

The law is set against us,it is set up by the state,not us,as we have seen laws in recent years passed over our heads without our sayso,this is not a democracy do not fool yourself into thinking peaceful means will bring change.

They even passed a law to empower revenue to take the property tax fee out of your wages or even dole if you refuse to pay,so as you can see they have it all sewn up against us,we no longer have the choice.

The fight has to be by the pen and the sword,if we are to win this fight,there needs to be organisation on both sides of the coin..

The only way we will get revolution is if we plan to get down and dirty.Peaceful means and idle protests will do nothing to change.

There needs to be an arab style revolution.

by Concerned Sun Sep 29, 2013 19:04

Your anger is fully understandable by decent folk.

A revolution doesn't need to be violent. Let everyone able to come out onto the streets and say enough is enough.

Boycott the Seanad and Criminal Justice referendums.

Refuse to pay property taxes, water charges, broadcasting fee insanity. Are they going to put the whole country in jail ?

As long as the people do not practise violence, protest is lawful. If in response, the forces of 'law and order' use violence on the people - then those people have every right to defend themselves from such.

Lets have some organisers get heads together and pick a date for Ireland's Autumn of Discontent to begin.

by dave Sun Sep 29, 2013 16:48

I am in 100% agreement with what you are saying.

This is one of the most important articles on indymedia.ie right now. As it deals with the crux of the issue complacency on our part,which will perpetuate the situation and set the rules in stone if we don't budge and do something about these injustices.

Didn't the two-face lying shitbag enda kenny say in 1994, ''it is morally wrong,and unfair,and unjust to tax a persons own home''.?

This was apparently one of his principles in fine gael,this man does not show true leadership skills whatsoever,a leader is supposed to be brave,moral ,strong, and truthful in the face of adversity.

He is grovelling,spineless,and licks the boots of the EU union at the expense of ordinary struggling irish people.

He has cut the poor,unemployed,the working poor,ie nurses and min wage types,yet he hasn't looked around himself at his own collegues and thought of the expense that could be saved by cutting a few ministerial pensions.

Did you know that politicians are entitled to a pension payout after a long 2 years work??

I woudlnt even get that after 30 years work!

These bastards (excuse me if this was an arab country) - they would be swinging from a lampost beaten to pulp and burned alive if there was any real justice..!

If there was a crowd with that intent on the streets i would gladly do my bit and join them!