|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:05 pm
I'm here to tell everyone here that the paper that we've been working on all the logistics of, mainly in the GCP (the paper is called The Revolutionary and will not be guild specific, which is what I'm here to speak about) is looking like it'll be published this month, hopefully (this is if there are no problems) on Saturday April 19.
Why I'm telling you all this is that I'd love to have articles by some of you guys in there, and I know that a lot of the regulars in this guild have ideas that they can put onto paper quite well. I want to broaden the spectrum of the paper, not only as a tool to reach our message to the rest of Gaia but also to unite the left on here, cause we're too few and too far apart. So if any of you either have or would like to write anything pm me and tell me, I'm accepting pretty much any subject at this time. The deadline for articles will be on Wednesday, April 16 (not this coming wednesday but the one after that). I think it's important for the Gaia left to be united, and a paper can do that for us, it's open to anyone who'd like to contribute. Any questions or anything?
The only type of article I will not, under any conditions accept is one putting your philosophy above any other leftist one. Nothing that trys to beat down the ideas of communist or socialist thought, we're all in this together and we all have to have solidarity. I'd love to see some articles by you guys in there.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:46 pm
If I had any knowledge about what projects, or things going on in the anarchist community are, I'd love to write.
But I'm very alienated from other anarchists irl, and I hate searching the internet for news. ]:
Good luck though.
Maybe Arson, Joykiller, and NDA, would help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Mr. Awesome! If I had any knowledge about what projects, or things going on in the anarchist community are, I'd love to write. But I'm very alienated from other anarchists irl, and I hate searching the internet for news. ]: Good luck though. Maybe Arson, Joykiller, and NDA, would help. Is NDA still active? I was going to personally pm him but I hadn't seen any posts from him in a while and wasn't sure if he was still active. It doesn't have to be about current events even, one article that'll be there is about Leftist (especially Marxist) ethics. It can be about philosophy (I may write an article on philosophy's connection to politics). It can be about anything you'd like to or are willing to write.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:34 pm
NDA, is still active, he posted earlier today, or yesterday.
Him and joykiller were moving to NC a bit ago, so that would explain their absence for a while.
I might get around to writing something for it, but I can't make promises.
I'm too busy loving my four days off from work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:56 pm
Mr. Awesome! NDA, is still active, he posted earlier today, or yesterday. Him and joykiller were moving to NC a bit ago, so that would explain their absence for a while. I might get around to writing something for it, but I can't make promises. I'm too busy loving my four days off from work. Cool, yeah I'll pm them both tomarrow if they haven't seen this thread by then. I know what you mean, enjoy your time off and if you want to write anything just pm me. Plus, this won't be the only issue, so there's always more opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:32 pm
Oh right I forgot something important! If you'd like to subscribe you can either pm me with something that says your username and email (when we pm articles it completly destroys all the formatting), or if you're a member you can just post it in the subscription thread in the GCP. If you don't want your subscription info posted in the subscription thread just say so on the email and I'll keep it private.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:21 am
perhaps I'll write something. We'll see. Haven't written anything in a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:37 am
Next Dollar After perhaps I'll write something. We'll see. Haven't written anything in a bit. You anarchists are so lazy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ignorance is Your Disease
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:51 pm
Ya know, not to spoil the feel good solidarity party here, but um...
I have a hard time associating the results of Marxist communism with the ideals of anarchism.
Hate me for this, I'm sorry, and let me preface by saying that I dispense with left and right wing concepts altogether. It's nothing against what any of you who call themselves leftists believe, because these ideas are still viable for those who want to live by them, but...
I hope we're all of the libertarian (vs. authoritarian) philosophy in here. I want to live in a cooperative society rather than one based on domination. But uh... historically, communism had to be forced on the populace, at least certain parts of it. 100% of the population uniting and being free is a fairy tale. The soviets killed anarchists. The working class killed the royal family, even those who were innocent being born into that station. By late in the regime, they were none too motivated in their "self-operated" factories. The place was cold, dirty, struggling, the faith in the Soviet ideology broken.
The reason being, of course, because centralization of power, the institution of government, was never rendered inoperable or unnecessary by individual action. The Kremlin controlled everything, those with power lived lavishly, and to fight against greedy Capitalist opposition, it seemed that it had to be so. The authoritarian communist example, particularly the Soviets, gave the rest of the "free" (delusional capitalist) world something to be motivated to fight against. Let's not make ourselves an entity that can be fought on a battlefield.
All I'm saying is, seriously, let's dispense with the term left wing and association with past communist vanguards altogether. Be leftist, but don't make yourself vulnerable to the same patterns as the past.
...
In fact, let's go do something real rather than type a bunch about what we want to see happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Ignorance is Your Disease Ya know, not to spoil the feel good solidarity party here, but um... I have a hard time associating the results of Marxist communism with the ideals of anarchism. Hate me for this, I'm sorry, and let me preface by saying that I dispense with left and right wing concepts altogether. It's nothing against what any of you who call themselves leftists believe, because these ideas are still viable for those who want to live by them, but... I hope we're all of the libertarian (vs. authoritarian) philosophy in here. I want to live in a cooperative society rather than one based on domination. But uh... historically, communism had to be forced on the populace, at least certain parts of it. 100% of the population uniting and being free is a fairy tale. The soviets killed anarchists. The working class killed the royal family, even those who were innocent being born into that station. By late in the regime, they were none too motivated in their "self-operated" factories. The place was cold, dirty, struggling, the faith in the Soviet ideology broken. The reason being, of course, because centralization of power, the institution of government, was never rendered inoperable or unnecessary by individual action. The Kremlin controlled everything, those with power lived lavishly, and to fight against greedy Capitalist opposition, it seemed that it had to be so. The authoritarian communist example, particularly the Soviets, gave the rest of the "free" (delusional capitalist) world something to be motivated to fight against. Let's not make ourselves an entity that can be fought on a battlefield. All I'm saying is, seriously, let's dispense with the term left wing and association with past communist vanguards altogether. Be leftist, but don't make yourself vulnerable to the same patterns as the past. ... In fact, let's go do something real rather than type a bunch about what we want to see happen. The Soviet Union was state capitalism, not communism or even socialism. Also, there has, in recent history, never been a communist country. Also, you think that the left shouldn't associate with each other? The anarchists in Spain wouldn't have been able to do what they did unless they worked with the communists to do it. Also, communism and anarchist are almost the same thing, and a lot of the original anarchists (Proudhon being the biggest example) ended up calling themselves communists because the word anarchist has a very negative association. There's really not any difference besides that communists generally believe in socialism as well. Also, I'm afraid you should use a source other then US propagand for your Soviet Union info. After the 1917 revolution, which was one of the most peaceful revolutions ever, the royalty was given the option to work in the country as anyone else would, leave the country or stay and try to defend the brutal monarchy and be killed. Some left, a few went to work, and some organized a rebellion (the white Russians), which was very opposed by the people and ended up being crushed, resulting in the death of most of the royalty. What communist vanguards? You speak of the Russians? So which would you rather have- a system of equality that WAS supported by most of the people (and yes, it had many faults), or a tsarist monarchy or capitalism? By the way, the communist party is looking good in coming elections in Russia, and many people are extremly pro-communist, a group of striking miners a few years after the fall of the Soviet union were flying the hammer and sickle, because they were Leninists and believed in the possibility for something better. If you don't want unity with the rest of the left wing have fun loosing to the right, because, as much as I hate them, they are united more then the left, and they will win if a united front doesn't fight them. So, a question to you, what Marxist or even communist theory have you ever read? Have you ever looked into a non-biased history source or considered even the Soviet system is a step in the right direction? By the way, I'm extending the deadline. Turn in any articles to superduperguy778@gmail.com by the 18th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:23 pm
So when you say do something real you mean do something real without any source of theory, any media by which we can connect, or any alternative news source (talking in general, not about this specific newsletter)? That'd work. Nothing ever happens without people talking about what they want to see happen, why can't we type what we want to see and then go and fight for it? I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:42 pm
The Leninator! Ignorance is Your Disease Ya know, not to spoil the feel good solidarity party here, but um... I have a hard time associating the results of Marxist communism with the ideals of anarchism. Hate me for this, I'm sorry, and let me preface by saying that I dispense with left and right wing concepts altogether. It's nothing against what any of you who call themselves leftists believe, because these ideas are still viable for those who want to live by them, but... I hope we're all of the libertarian (vs. authoritarian) philosophy in here. I want to live in a cooperative society rather than one based on domination. But uh... historically, communism had to be forced on the populace, at least certain parts of it. 100% of the population uniting and being free is a fairy tale. The soviets killed anarchists. The working class killed the royal family, even those who were innocent being born into that station. By late in the regime, they were none too motivated in their "self-operated" factories. The place was cold, dirty, struggling, the faith in the Sovietideology broken. The reason being, of course, because centralization of power, the institution of government, was never rendered inoperable or unnecessary by individual action. The Kremlin controlled everything, those with power lived lavishly, and to fight against greedy Capitalist opposition, it seemed that it had to be so. The authoritarian communist example, particularly the Soviets, gave the rest of the "free" (delusional capitalist) world something to be motivated to fight against. Let's not make ourselves an entity that can be fought on a battlefield. All I'm saying is, seriously, let's dispense with the term left wing and association with past communist vanguards altogether. Be leftist, but don't make yourself vulnerable to the same patterns as the past. ... In fact, let's go do something real rather than type a bunch about what we want to see happen. The Soviet Union was state capitalism, not communism or even socialism. Also, there has, in recent history, never been a communist country. Also, you think that the left shouldn't associate with each other? The anarchists in Spain wouldn't have been able to do what they did unless they worked with the communists to do it. Also, communism and anarchist are almost the same thing, and a lot of the original anarchists (Proudhon being the biggest example) ended up calling themselves communists because the word anarchist has a very negative association. There's really not any difference besides that communists generally believe in socialism as well. Also, I'm afraid you should use a source other then US propagand for your Soviet Union info. After the 1917 revolution, which was one of the most peaceful revolutions ever, the royalty was given the option to work in the country as anyone else would, leave the country or stay and try to defend the brutal monarchy and be killed. Some left, a few went to work, and some organized a rebellion (the white Russians), which was very opposed by the people and ended up being crushed, resulting in the death of most of the royalty. What communist vanguards? You speak of the Russians? So which would you rather have- a system of equality that WAS supported by most of the people (and yes, it had many faults), or a tsarist monarchy or capitalism? By the way, the communist party is looking good in coming elections in Russia, and many people are extremly pro-communist, a group of striking miners a few years after the fall of the Soviet union were flying the hammer and sickle, because they were Leninists and believed in the possibility for something better. If you don't want unity with the rest of the left wing have fun loosing to the right, because, as much as I hate them, they are united more then the left, and they will win if a united front doesn't fight them. So, a question to you, what Marxist or even communist theory have you ever read? Have you ever looked into a non-biased history source or considered even the Soviet system is a step in the right direction? By the way, I'm extending the deadline. Turn in any articles to superduperguy778@gmail.com by the 18th. Please don't treat this as an assault on left wing theory, and please don't think of me acting like some ignorant wasteful stereotypical "American" who lives under the heel of consumerism. It's not as if I urge you to change your beliefs. We must fight together for the right to live our lives within our own choice of society. I'm truly neither left or right wing and I won't align with those labels. Work with those who do? Absolutely, when interests are common. Anarcho-syndicalists are nothing if not socialist in much of their self-management. And in places where industrial process will still be necessary (I personally don't propose we simply tear down cities), their contributions are invaluable. The spanish anarchists make me very happy. The real greatness at the core of communism, bringing better life to the majority of the people who make up civilization, is undeniable. It's powerful. For a brief period, that liberating energy shone through. The way it's carried out is something that must be considered with much greater scrutiny. Spanish communists and Soviets (or China, also a rather nasty 800 pound gorilla when it comes to existing communism having flaws -- for example, the overwhelming demand for doctors when almost all trained wealthy medical professionals were forced to flee) are rather different historically. You know this. I don't think there would really be a quarrel between us in person. I'm just dragging up dead horses long ago beaten... perhaps simply so that you'll enlighten me and release me from my anxiety. If I'm misinformed about the disaster that became of the Soviet Union (which, as you mentioned, was not even communist but a sort of... Marxist state-communism power circus) then please please inform me what went right with it. I'm inviting your directed supply of examples rather than potentially biased crap the internet will turn up. What I was trying to point out (or perhaps simply nag at) is that there IS a strong association with Marxist theory and the corrupted version which arose in the Soviet Union. The choice there is to share the truth about what did and did not happen, or deliver the beliefs in a way designed to dispel the connotations in the media today. When I see someone displaying communist support (with the exception of perhaps Che T-shirts), I don't automatically think KGB and Kremlin oppression. That isn't what I'm saying. Anarchism has a very bad label at the hands of capitalist media and popular culture in the United States, this goes without saying. I used to support communism almost exclusively, and only when my theories evolved into libertarian municipalism did I dispense with that descriptor. I am still a left wing anarchist, were you to completely analyze all of my beliefs. International solidarity is important, if the people of Russia want a return to communism and they can get it at least through some symblance of democratic process then that's great. I personally haven't heard anything of the sort really, most information that has come my way speaks of religious fervor and conservatism led by Putin. I hope against all hope that such a turn does not spark a geopolitical explosion from the rest of the globalist economic world. The US and NATO are opportunists who provoked the worst from the Soviets in order to find an excuse to fight them. The issue of vanguardism is a concern I gained when reading The Zapatista Reader, edited by Tom Hayden (a collaboration of many other first hand accounts), which I think you will find to be, if not unbiased, then at least very strongly supportive of that movement. Real things. In that example, the anonymous hero Marcos is everyone and no one to the EZLN and the indiginous people of Central America (keeping in mind that the Zapatistas and EZLN are not 100% the same thing.) Almost... the Tao of their fight for autonomy. I'm warning against making a named centralized organization which can be targeted. And by the way, do any of you really believe that what we post on Gaia is safe from investigative scrutiny? Read: Big Brother. This diverges very very far from the topic of the left wing publication, doesn't belong here, and for that I apologize. Perhaps this energy would be better spent writing constructive criticism of such things for the publication? As far as practicality and going out and doing things, anonymity must be preserved, which stresses the need for decentralization. I think people need to be able to act autonomously without being dependent on or consulting a publication for their motivation -- however, at the same time, such a publication is a wonderful way to share ideas and keep abreast of our fellow subverts. A valuable tool. If I'm saying anything on this forum to this effect it's a voice of caution. I would love to read the finished product. I'm starving for such literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ignorance is Your Disease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:14 pm
Yeah I was fairly sleep deprived at the time of my first post. Anyway, on the issue of doctors there are some examples of this not being true. For instance, there was a Chinese program called the Barefoot doctors during Mao's time, where they trained thousands of doctors and sent them to the poorest regions in the nation. During Mao's time he brought up the percent of health insured people from 1% to 99%, gave women full rights and ran campains to destroy sexism long before the US, and doubled the life expectancy as well as providing increased education to almost all people. Also in Cuba the first thing done after the revolution was building schools in poor nations, and these days most every neighborhood has a pharmacy and a hospital in near proximity (ever seen "Sicko"?), and there's so many doctors that they're sending them to other countries to help poor nations as much as possible. The Soviet Union was ******** after Lenin died, and just went downhill from there, but I still hold that it was better the when the Tsar was in power, and the revolution was great. There were just a lot of problems afterwards from attacks by the US and other nations by way of supporting the White Russian counter revolution as well as through Lenin getting quite sick and dying shortly after the USSR's formation.
Basically I can sum up my views of the USSR like this- did bad things happen? Absolutly, many of them, and a lot of mistakes were made. Was keeping it together neccesary? Yes, although the tactics again, were wrong. Is it worse now? Very much so. Here's something interesting providing some Russian views on it- http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0, , 2213277, 00.html
It may not sound like a huge lead, but they're the second largest party in Russia now. The huge problem there is the amount of nazis, the AFA or SHARP or someone really needs to get in there to combat it, but anti-Putin sentiment is growing quickly.
On Vanguardism, I think it's important to have a front people can recognize with, and it seems to have worked fairly well for the Zapatistas, who I've been able to talk to (I live in Texas so it's not far to Mexico and I've spoken with some Zapatista comrades there and here before). I think a vanguard is the best way of securing revolutionary victory, it's worked in the past with groups from the Bolshevicks to the IRA. On scrutiny, nothing is safe from it, when I go to marches I'm being watched, but I don't care. I'm very collectivist and I know that I don't matter, if something were to happen to me, someone else would take my place. Plus, they won't arrest me, they have to have some real hate of you first. A good example of this would be my dad- a draft dodger (he got drafted and told them if he was sent to Vietnam the first one he'd shoot would be his commander), an open distributer of communist literature with contact to China and a union organizer in West Virginia in the '70s and '80s, with a record of multiple arrests and of inciting and organizing strikes, picket lines, etc. He was arrested, but not for politics (although they hated him more for it) quite a few times, and the only political thing done against him was he had an FBI agent planted in his house by COINTELPRO for a while before he discovered it. Unless you post anything illegal or are a large enough threat, they really can't do anything (assuming you're a US citizen).
Yeah, I'd agree, again, almost all articles are accepted and it's not a Marxist publication, it's a left wing publication, so any view point generally considered to be from that side of things is welcome.
Yeah I agree, I think a paper is a forum for sharing ideas and raising awareness, not for people to follow. I'm thinking I may actually want to release the first issue on May day which is coming up. Might be an idea. Anyway, if you want to write anything just email or pm me and if you want to subscribe just send me your email, if you don't want it to be publically displayed (in a thread in the GCP) let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:26 pm
This thread started scaring me when you two started debating.
redface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ignorance is Your Disease
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:42 am
The Leninator! Yeah I was fairly sleep deprived at the time of my first post. Anyway, on the issue of doctors there are some examples of this not being true. For instance, there was a Chinese program called the Barefoot doctors during Mao's time, where they trained thousands of doctors and sent them to the poorest regions in the nation. During Mao's time he brought up the percent of health insured people from 1% to 99%, gave women full rights and ran campains to destroy sexism long before the US, and doubled the life expectancy as well as providing increased education to almost all people. Also in Cuba the first thing done after the revolution was building schools in poor nations, and these days most every neighborhood has a pharmacy and a hospital in near proximity (ever seen "Sicko"?), and there's so many doctors that they're sending them to other countries to help poor nations as much as possible. The Soviet Union was ******** after Lenin died, and just went downhill from there, but I still hold that it was better the when the Tsar was in power, and the revolution was great. There were just a lot of problems afterwards from attacks by the US and other nations by way of supporting the White Russian counter revolution as well as through Lenin getting quite sick and dying shortly after the USSR's formation. Basically I can sum up my views of the USSR like this- did bad things happen? Absolutly, many of them, and a lot of mistakes were made. Was keeping it together neccesary? Yes, although the tactics again, were wrong. Is it worse now? Very much so. Here's something interesting providing some Russian views on it- http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0, , 2213277, 00.html It may not sound like a huge lead, but they're the second largest party in Russia now. The huge problem there is the amount of nazis, the AFA or SHARP or someone really needs to get in there to combat it, but anti-Putin sentiment is growing quickly. On Vanguardism, I think it's important to have a front people can recognize with, and it seems to have worked fairly well for the Zapatistas, who I've been able to talk to (I live in Texas so it's not far to Mexico and I've spoken with some Zapatista comrades there and here before). I think a vanguard is the best way of securing revolutionary victory, it's worked in the past with groups from the Bolshevicks to the IRA. On scrutiny, nothing is safe from it, when I go to marches I'm being watched, but I don't care. I'm very collectivist and I know that I don't matter, if something were to happen to me, someone else would take my place. Plus, they won't arrest me, they have to have some real hate of you first. A good example of this would be my dad- a draft dodger (he got drafted and told them if he was sent to Vietnam the first one he'd shoot would be his commander), an open distributer of communist literature with contact to China and a union organizer in West Virginia in the '70s and '80s, with a record of multiple arrests and of inciting and organizing strikes, picket lines, etc. He was arrested, but not for politics (although they hated him more for it) quite a few times, and the only political thing done against him was he had an FBI agent planted in his house by COINTELPRO for a while before he discovered it. Unless you post anything illegal or are a large enough threat, they really can't do anything (assuming you're a US citizen). Yeah, I'd agree, again, almost all articles are accepted and it's not a Marxist publication, it's a left wing publication, so any view point generally considered to be from that side of things is welcome. Yeah I agree, I think a paper is a forum for sharing ideas and raising awareness, not for people to follow. I'm thinking I may actually want to release the first issue on May day which is coming up. Might be an idea. Anyway, if you want to write anything just email or pm me and if you want to subscribe just send me your email, if you don't want it to be publically displayed (in a thread in the GCP) let me know. Ha ha I have a fever as my excuse tonight, comrade. Can I call you that? I'd feel better if I could. I think sometimes all friends really need to have a deep seated argument before bonds can be formed. Breaking things down to find common ground. I won't deny the spirit of solidarity and mutual respect for other "groups" anymore. I think I get it now. I won't deny how valuable in practice (better in theory) the state institution of equality can be (state funded/socialist education... socialism in general). It's the transition to true self-management on smaller scale I think that has been a problem. And you have to understand that, of course, my philosophy stresses a shift to autonomy and not a centralized state. Corporations are so centralized, in that they have a pyramidal structure. Where there is hierarchy there is domination. But again, the benefits to the populace (the poor, in almost all cases) are undeniable. The IRA was exceptional and I respect them to no end. I ought to look into more current Zapatista news, honestly. And I don't doubt that you have much better first hand knowledge from your communication with Mexican revolutionaries. Perhaps it was simply a timid observer's opinion that I parroted when Marcos said something to the effect that they "were not a Vanguard" and that this was a relief. No one reporting on the Zapatistas in that book was globalist from what I could gather so it must have been an individual's opinion on the practice of revolution or resistance. Looking more critically, who can deny that they are indeed an entity. But I don't think "Vanguard" quite fits. They seem very conscious of the need for an autonomous socialism, they keep their goals and means practical to what they need and what they're defending. Sure there must be a great urge to spread revolution elsewhere but that almost always seems to attract the attention of hostile foreign powers with the resources to fight the revolution on the battlefield and not their own streets. The revolution must come from inside, this isn't something I think any of us will dispute. But can it be implanted by revolutionaries from other countries in the same way that Che spread revolution? The other problem within anarcho theory regarding Vanguardism is the fear that the vanguard then assumes power once the revolution is over, and result in cyclical improvement followed by repeated domination by a new ruling system. There's some strong sentiment among anarchists that "commies and nazis only want to use you". It's a song. Vanguards are a means but never an end I suppose is what needs saying, and judicious use of united named and identifiable identities have certain context. There are some situations where "us versus them" is unnavoidable. I just find it risky. Alienation is not the end we should seek is it? In some cases this result was avoided, the barefoot doctors for example. Provided that those we would alienate do not continue to attempt domination or subversion of a new class-flat synergistic paradigm. Because subversion of such a thing would mean the re-establishment of a hierarchy. (Anarcho ramblings perhaps, but relevant.) The White Revolution is such an example... counter revolutionaries always seem to end up meeting the same persecution that the original revolutionaries did. And they always seem to be the ones to gain foreign aid of the... opportunistic exploitive variety. "You just had a revolution? Oh look, by our screwed up standards, you don't have a "democracy"! We're gonna bomb the hell out of your new revolutionary regime because we didn't put it there!" The bullied=prosecuted type thing... When I was in school, whenever a bully attempted to dominate me it went without any outside reprimand. But as soon as I raised a hand in self-defense I became the culprit. Same idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
