American embassy bombing in Turkey blamed on communists, NOT Islamic terrorists

[ewitwins]

[QUOTE=Roof;39468066]ready to get persecuted?![/QUOTE]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu9ZxzsWchg[/media]

[[Seed Eater]]

[QUOTE=Zambiesv2;39468041]A ballot won't and a bullet sure as hell won't. A revolution with extremists from the proletariat leading it is not a good way to have equality and fairness, because we've seen what happens.[/QUOTE]

They're only extremists if they are extreme- if the proletariat itself is radical, then the vanguard would not be extreme in comparison.

That being said, I'm not keen on the merits of a vanguard and lean heavily towards radical militant unions and perhaps also platformism, depending on whether I eventually decide that I fall closer towards anarchism or not. I can understand the necessity of a vanguard in a society like this, but I wouldn't be willing to support a revolutionary vanguard party without seeing any other option fail first.

If the revolution can be made from counter-power or economic seizure before armed revolt or militarized conflict, I'd rather see that. But given the situation of appeasement to worker and capitalist, what choices are there? Given the lack of class consciousness? I agree with you, that the vanguard is not the way, and neither is the bullet, but I think that violence would be inevitable. Hell, when the Wal-Mart strike commenced- one of the first strikes in the company's history- they brought in SWAT for a picket line. I don't believe that there would be any way to make the revolution peaceful, but I don't believe that armed revolution or insurrection is the answer, either.

That being said- put yourself in the place of a radical leftist, and assume the end goal of workers' liberation is just. Where do you draw the line between justified and unjustified violence? What is a threat or an oppressor, and what is not? And how do you counter that force? Many western leftists today are apologetic towards reform or sucking it up and accepting the democratic process, even though leftism is weaker than ever before in North America and Britain. Is that alone not evidence that the use of the democratic process alone does not do anything for the working class? Even the moderate trade unions are crumbling. The party I voted for- the Socialist Party- had less votes than the Third Position Party, a fascist party. Every American leftist party did except for the Peace and Freedom Party.

So, what is to be done for the leftist? Do we choose the obviously ineffective method of remaining content with exploitation and alienation, or do we choose the dangerously radical path of armed violence? What is the middle ground, and why do we chastise those for choosing some hybrid? Reformist! Extremist! Revisionist! Terrorist!

[cecilbdemodded]

[QUOTE=Zambiesv2;39468041]A ballot won't and a bullet sure as hell won't. A revolution with extremists from the proletariat leading it is not a good way to have equality and fairness, because we've seen what happens.[/QUOTE]

That's the only kind of revolution you can have. From the point of view of the status quo, the only people leading a revolution are extremists, the only people who WANT a revolution are extremists.

This is why the 'change things from within' approach is doomed to fail. Any system is designed to prevent real change to the system itself. The people involved in the system can be changed, but not the nature of the system. Hence the need for violent revolution as the only means to change the system.

This does not excuse criminal or terrorist behavior. Random murders and bombings aren't anything other than pointless crimes.