So....it seems most forms of socialism for many years have been associated with violent uprisings, property destruction, loud protests, propaganda...young punks who have not yet even demonstrated a capacity for anarchy themselves raising a ruckus.... Well, isn't it more logical to draw as little attention to yourself as possible whilst you and others investigate various ways to cut your ties with the government? Thats my plan anyway, of course there is a rule for every circumstance. I won't deny that we have considerable freedoms in the west and I would consider it advantageous to use it to create the framework quietly, before we start the movements.
Socialist movements are violent? Really? Where? Maybe I'm misinformed. Not up to date on the current political reform attempts. I know Europe is for the most part socialist, and has been operating as such rather peacefully (more so in Western Europe). Modern Europe that is. I don't think it matters what form of government is attempting to take over, it's the individuals who wave its flag that determine whether it is violent or not.
You're not thinking. You know what i'm actually talking about. Punk kids in capitalist nations who think property destruction solves anything.
Free yourself first and the rest will follow. As Jim Morrison said: "There's got to be a personal revolution on an individual level before there's a large-scale revolution on an external level". I dunno if this really belongs here but oh well... I have nothing better to say.
I'm not thinking? Maybe, but I don't like to think about idiots, so spare me. Cool quote. Alot of individuals have said that. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for instance, wrote a book called "The Only Revolution". Not an external, but an internal. Psychological revolution is the only thing that will transform our society, because society is the outward expression of our inward state.
The socialist (both marxist and anarchist) movements of the early part of the 20th century in America was hardly a movement of punk kids with a hard on for property destruction. Though there were a handful of the propaganda by deed variety, as a whole it was a mass workers movements. But the government didn't take too kindly to wildcat strikes and collectives. Read about the Palmer raids man. They got violent. We didn't. Chomsky said something about violence in radical politics that if you're making a difference, they'll get violent before you will, and everything else is self defence from there. I agree with that. If you're truly revolutionary, you don't have to be seeking a confrontation. The act of trying to radically transform life for the better will bring oppression upon you, whether it's the United States or North Korea we're talking about.
Exactly. You're not thinking or just not reading. Because everything you just said backs up my point beautifully. Thanks.
Thats pretty much what i mean. To explain the whole punk kid thing...is sort of an observation of a trend among young anarchists and communists. They tend to get all fundamental, wave their flags, beat their drums, get all aggressive and idolise the great "victories" of the past. But we're living in a different era. Idolise marx, and/or proudhon for all I care....but make it relevent to today!
the real socialism, what i was taught socialism was, hopefully still is, had nothing to do with marx or anarchy or 'libertarianism' either, but was what kept western europe a place people wanted to visit and the trains running there when the western hemisphere was throwing them out with the bathwater. (from the late 1940s to well into the 1980s, and to the degree europe remains viable, even today) this bussiness of bluring the distinction between socialism and marxism is pure economic fanatacism propiganda. capitolism bennifits no one without being tempered by socialism. marx did not invent the concept, neither the christ, it has been arround as long as the human species and is the natural state of decency and compassion, as opposed to the unnatural state of objectified corruption. i'm not saying there is anything intrinsicly wrong with any idiology, only that NO idiology can or will prevent tyranny, nor fail to become one itself when prioritised ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in. =^^= .../\...
europe for the most part is capitalist. You could argue Sweden is 'socialist' i suppose, but, eurpe is far from socialist. Now latin america, thats where socialism is happening.
