# Just how militant are you prepared to be?



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

for the leftists- how far will you take it? I know I hate violence and find conflict quite distressing- however I have in the past been party to it by allowing people to do vengeance on my part. It is fucking grubby and reeks of complicity.

I'd like to say 'first at the shovel' but I know that large scale stuff would sicken me- to the point that I would go that pacifists route of 'oh god, we are just as bad as them now'

And yet they have the monopoly on violence. Sometimes it is necessary to wrest by force or roll over and feed the ovens. So where is the tipping point? Spontaneous uprisings have the terrible lack of planning that often sees them defeated quickly despite popular support. And yet planning or considering violent actions also troubles me- the greater good. I hear that phrase and my  face comes on.

And yet, I know the histories of crushed peoples, Arawak casualties and so forth.

If they had fought on equal terms...

Where do we draw the line and say 'no further'?


----------



## madzone (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm not comfortable with violence towards other people but as that Pankhurst quote that's doing the rounds on FB says it's property the govt care about. I'm happy to witness or particpate in the destruction of property in order to halt the violence being aimed at us by the govt.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> for the leftists- how far will you take it? I know I hate violence and find conflict quite distressing- however I have in the past been party to it by allowing people to do vengeance on my part. It is fucking grubby and reeks of complicity.
> 
> I'd like to say 'first at the shovel' but I know that large scale stuff would sicken me- to the point that I would go that pacifists route of 'oh god, we are just as bad as them now'
> 
> ...


 
yeah, to be honest although i think there is a place for violence and can agree that sometimes it's necessary, i don't think we've reached that point and i also think any kind of the large scale stuff you're talking about with "collateral damage" etc would fucking sicken me. in general i'm really troubled by it. i find any talk of planning violent actions really disturbing tbh


----------



## Looby (Nov 14, 2010)

madzone said:


> I'm not comfortable with violence towards other people but as that Pankhurst quote that's doing the rounds on FB says it's property the govt care about. I'm happy to witness or particpate in the destruction of property in order to halt the violence being aimed at us by the govt.


 
I'd agree with that. I'm comfortable with the destruction of property but I would not participate in or condone violence against others.

That isn't to say I would never fight back in anger, I've got a temper...


----------



## waylon (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm a soft cunt, me - I can talk a good one, but when the shit goes down I'll be hidin behind me mam's skirts.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

it's a tactical matter not a moral one for me.

mass working class violence and property destruction, yes.

tiny groups of hotheads engaging in substitutionist armed struggle, no, even if I can understand the motives behind it.


----------



## DRINK? (Nov 14, 2010)

i'll be making tea on the sidelines with the wheezy boys


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> *it's a tactical matter not a moral one for me.*
> 
> mass working class violence and property destruction, yes.
> 
> tiny groups of hotheads engaging in substitutionist armed struggle, no, even if I can understand the motives behind it.



The problem arises when you find that a brief tactical well executed coup does not immediately convince the populace of the validity of your cause. We don't all have miami to deport deviants and r/w terrorists to.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> The problem arises when you find that a brief tactical well executed coup does not immediately convince the populace of the validity of your cause. We don't all have miami to deport deviants and r/w terrorists to.


 
a brief tactical well executed coup has nothing to do with my politics, you seem to be mistaking me for some sort of retard Leninist.

note my comment about small substitutionist groups...


----------



## Voley (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm not comfortable in violent situations but I've abandoned the concept of non-violent direct action completely now. 'Stop The War' (lol) did it. I doubt we would've even heard about the student march if they hadn't occupied Millbank.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

oh, fair enough. Populist support from the working classes AND a small soon-to-be rendered pointless rev. group who hand the power gains back to...

oh.


----------



## ymu (Nov 14, 2010)

NVP said:


> I'm not comfortable in violent situations but I've abandoned the concept of non-violent direct action completely now. 'Stop The War' (lol) did it. I doubt we would've even heard about the student march if they hadn't occupied Millbank.


 
STWC never did any NVDA. 

Smashing windows doesn't mean it isn't non-violent. The tricky line to draw is how far you go to defend your ground when there are police shoving you around. That's an issue for those involved in the action to agree beforehand. Not really anyone else's business.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 14, 2010)

NVP pretty well sums it up for me.
I'm not sure how far I'll go, I didn't get involved in any of the property destruction in the mayday/anti-globalisation protests thinking it was counter-productive and in any case I am by nature a gentle lad.. 
I want to believe that in the face of violence from the police I will stand tall next to everyone else and take a beating, but until my resolve is tested I won't know.  I avoided any baton charges in the mayday protests, by luck rather than design.

I have no problem with destruction of property..  I have no problem with violence in self-defence either.  I wouldn't want to plan any violent actions and like revol68 have no interest in leninist style small groups of armed struggle.. 

I remember wishing that they would develop those smell based riot weapons though, cos I have no sense of smell.. I'd be well hard in those situations 

basically: I am thinking myself into a place where destruction of property and violence against the cops in self-defence is how militant I would get.  I'll see how my internet hardman survives in the face of action.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

madzone said:


> I'm not comfortable with violence towards other people but as that Pankhurst quote that's doing the rounds on FB says it's property the govt care about. I'm happy to witness or particpate in the destruction of property in order to halt the violence being aimed at us by the govt.


 
Fair enough innit.  I can't see myself getting involved with actually smashing anything up with me own hands cos that's not my bag but I will in no way condem destruction of property to prove the point.


----------



## madzone (Nov 14, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Fair enough innit.  I can't see myself getting involved with actually smashing anything up with me own hands cos that's not my bag but I will in no way condem destruction of property to prove the point.


 
When push comes to shove I probably wouldn't have the energy to smash anything up


----------



## Voley (Nov 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> STWC never did any NVDA.


 
Well just marching fro 'A' to 'B' then. Ineffective even when an estimated 2 million of you do it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, to be honest although i think there is a place for violence and can agree that sometimes it's necessary, i don't think we've reached that point and i also think any kind of the large scale stuff you're talking about with "collateral damage" etc would fucking sicken me. in general i'm really troubled by it. i find any talk of planning violent actions really disturbing tbh


 
And what do we do when the violence set in motion becomes a feeder of itself, if it does?

They will never give it up without being forced to do so. The ruling classes will and do kill to preserve the sq. The problem lies in judicious use of force. How quickly a righteous force can become a tyranny and so on.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

NVDA first, backed up by the use of force as a last resort as a defensive measure if the other side are taking the piss... I'll not sit there and get battered / watch others get battered too badly without defending myself, and those I'm protesting with. Strategic retreats to the pub are usually preferable mind, where this is an option.

Luckily I've never been in a situation where it's actually come to this yet. I've been close a few times though, and I'm fairly sure that putting obvious measures in place to show that we knew what we were about, and wouldn't take anything lying down helped persuade the police not to do anything stupid, which I'm glad about as I'd probably be inside still along with a fair few others if it had kicked off. 

In general though the power of the camera, and press (including indymedia type stuff) is a far better deterrent to police violence as the threat that they'd get violence back, so confronting police violence with blatent non-violent resistance with the press in obvious attendance is usually a far better strategy than lobbing bricks from the back if preventing police violence, and making the police/state look like the aggressors is part of the objective. eg climate campers hands in the air, 'this is not a riot' reaction to the police moving in on them last year.


----------



## ymu (Nov 14, 2010)

NVP said:


> Well just marching fro 'A' to 'B' then. Ineffective even when an estimated 2 million of you do it.


 
OK. Non-violent _direct_ action is not marching from A to B, it's doing something directly to improve the situation - occupying a school that's going to be closed down, turning up to greet the bailiffs and prevent an eviction, asserting your rights to walk over a particular piece of land, whatever. There'll always be arguments about what counts as NVDA, but no argument that A to B marches do not.

STWC were pathetic, and we can't rely on CoR or the TUC to lead this fightback. But there's enough anger out there. They'll follow us, eventually.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 14, 2010)

Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> OK. Non-violent _direct_ action is not marching from A to B, it's doing something directly to improve the situation - occupying a school that's going to be closed down, turning up to greet the bailiffs and prevent an eviction, asserting your rights to walk over a particular piece of land, whatever. There'll always be arguments about what counts as NVDA, but no argument that A to B marches do not.
> 
> STWC were pathetic, and we can't rely on CoR or the TUC to lead this fightback. But there's enough anger out there. They'll follow us, eventually.


 
70% of the populace support the actions of the government.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.



so what of your favourite war criminals in Iraq. what democratic process okayed their murdering of Iraqi's?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> 70% of the populace support the actions of the government.


 
Hitler was democratically elected...


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.


the government engages in violence against both person and property all the time though to enforce policies that they have no democratic mandate for.eg trashing travellers homes and property while evicting them from their own land.

this wasn't a democratically elected government anyway though, and the policies it's enacting have zero democratic mandate, so your argument is null and void.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.


 
How does that fit with your posts on the Gaza flotilla thread?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> 70% of the populace support the actions of the government.


source?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> 70% of the populace support the actions of the government.


 
you might want to reference that


----------



## Voley (Nov 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> OK. Non-violent _direct_ action is not marching from A to B, it's doing something directly to improve the situation - occupying a school that's going to be closed down, turning up to greet the bailiffs and prevent an eviction, asserting your rights to walk over a particular piece of land, whatever. There'll always be arguments about what counts as NVDA, but no argument that A to B marches do not.
> 
> STWC were pathetic, and we can't rely on CoR or the TUC to lead this fightback. But there's enough anger out there. They'll follow us, eventually.


 
Not getting involved in a splitting-hairs argument about what constitutes what is possibly a good move, too.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> And what do we do when the violence set in motion becomes a feeder of itself, if it does?
> 
> They will never give it up without being forced to do so. The ruling classes will and do kill to preserve the sq. The problem lies in judicious use of force. How quickly a righteous force can become a tyranny and so on.


 i dont disagree in principle but on a personal level? I dunno.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> you might want to reference that


 
I'll reference him for you:



> YouGov/Sunday Times results 12th-14th Nov CON 39%, LAB 41%, LD 10%; APPROVAL -10



I did manage to get as far as adding up in school and I'd say that 39+10=49


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 14, 2010)

I think it calls for a more sleeves rolled up, trading punches and quit talking about come the glorious day now. I'll be out on my bike getting a sweat up on the canal path though when it all kicks off and hoping the youth have done the biz when i get back in from my bike ride

I can see it coming though but i think the op's right. It won't last long and they'll have no plan.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> I did manage to get as far as adding up in school and I'd say that 39+10=49


 
Nope it's no good, I just cannot make that add up to 70%.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 14, 2010)

Whatever it takes.

Tactics for winning are what matters.

However anyone who commits acts of violence against tories or liberals deserves a shake of the hand and a pat on the back imo.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

stephj said:


> Nope it's no good, I just cannot make that add up to 70%.


 
I'm sure Sas will be along in a minute with his red pen though to point that 2+2 does infact =5 and also that the moon is made of cheese


----------



## waylon (Nov 14, 2010)

No way do 70% of the population support the government, how many people don't even vote?


----------



## tbaldwin (Nov 14, 2010)

I am prepared to kill and be killed...I am not a pacifist....


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I am prepared to kill *and be killed*...I am not a pacifist....


 
That can be arranged


----------



## blowbach (Nov 14, 2010)

Well, I think now would be a good time to say that what i am about to say is a joke. eh, er that is i don't really mean what i am about
to say. That is = anyone that advocates the use of bombing - nuclear or otherwise - is just plain wrong. Erh, what was the question
again. Oh ooooh urban75 is so naughty, talking about extremism no not extremism, er talking about politics, that was it, no not politics,
talking about ah militancy? eh er ah ah oh...

You ask a question:
Just how militant am i prepared to be?
Just militant enough to answer your question.
Alright?


Btw, planting bombs is not really gonna help the cause.
If it did, I would.
Don't believe that killing innocent people helps anything.

Sorry for not answering your question.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 14, 2010)

I've got flat feet and a note from me mam.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2010)

Oh dear, blowbach appears to be malfunctioning


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> for the leftists- how far will you take it? I know I hate violence and find conflict quite distressing- however I have in the past been party to it by allowing people to do vengeance on my part. It is fucking grubby and reeks of complicity.
> 
> I'd like to say 'first at the shovel' but I know that large scale stuff would sicken me- to the point that I would go that pacifists route of 'oh god, we are just as bad as them now'


Which is why you shouldn't start the violence, merely finish it.


> And yet they have the monopoly on violence.


No, they have the monopoly on the legal use of violence, and only because we cede them that monopoly. 


> Sometimes it is necessary to wrest by force or roll over and feed the ovens. So where is the tipping point? Spontaneous uprisings have the terrible lack of planning that often sees them defeated quickly despite popular support.


Which is why the most long-lived uprisings only *seem* spontaneous, but usually have a lot of planning behind them. 


> And yet planning or considering violent actions also troubles me- the greater good. I hear that phrase and my  face comes on.


Then don't plan or consider such actions, just bear in mind that violence *may* be a necessary counter to violent behaviour by the state.


> And yet, I know the histories of crushed peoples, Arawak casualties and so forth.
> 
> If they had fought on equal terms...
> 
> Where do we draw the line and say 'no further'?


 
I don't agree with the pre-emptive use of violence.
I do, however, believe that the moment a functionary of the state raises a hand to myself or others, then I'm entitled to defend myself or others.
We now know, from what has gone on in the last few years, that the "kettle" and the riot gear-wearing ASP-wielder is the default behaviour of those who police demonstrations. We need to bear this in mind, and to act accordingly, whether that means padding up, developing protest tactics that take the advantage away from the tools of the state, flooding the media with recorded examples of poor behaviour by those tools of the state, or all of the above plus more.


----------



## blowbach (Nov 14, 2010)

Fuck (sorry am i allowed to say fuck?). Sorry 'bout the formatting.
Really. Hope you can forgive.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> I'll reference him for you:
> 
> 
> 
> I did manage to get as far as adding up in school and I'd say that 39+10=49


actually it's worse than that, largely because only half of those remaining lib dem voters actually approve of the coalition's record to date, the actual percentage of the population approving of the government's record is only 37%


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2010)

.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> it's a tactical matter not a moral one for me.
> 
> mass working class violence and property destruction, yes.


Especially if you're on their doorstep rather than your own.


----------



## ymu (Nov 14, 2010)

It's not a decision you have to make in advance of doing an action. If it's a group action, that should all be discussed beforehand. If it kicks off at a demo, you don't have to get involved.

Which reminds me, I was going to sort out some street medic training before it all kicked off lifewise. Anyone with good first aid skills is going to be good to have on the scene, and street medic training would be good for anyone who's interested in going on demos but not necessarily smashing stuff up themselves. Plus cameras and eye witnesses and just numbers. You can only control what you do, but that doesn't mean you can't play an important support role for others even if they're doing stuff you can't get involved in.


----------



## waylon (Nov 14, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I am prepared to kill and be killed...I am not a pacifist....



That's mighty big talk for a one eyed fat man.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Anyone engaging in violence against either people or property is beyond the pale. The democratic process has given the country a government. At the next election, you have the opportunity to elect another if this one doesn't please you.


 
We don't have a democratic process, we have no powers of recall, not even any mechanism (beside a 4-5 yearly vote) to ensure our elected representative bothers to actually represent us.
Even you folk north of the border, who have greater control over those of your representatives that don't sit at Westminster, still have the dead weight of the system of "parliamentary democracy" around your necks. Getting to choose 1 band of neo-liberal cock-smokers out of a selection of bands of neo-liberal cock-smokers isn't democracy, it's a circus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

waylon said:


> That's mighty big talk for a one eyed fat man.


 
Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!!!


----------



## blowbach (Nov 14, 2010)

No need for the Ad hominem ol' chap.
I'm sure a simple shunning would suffice.

Hit 'em where it hurts eh. Fat or not?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, to be honest although i think there is a place for violence and can agree that sometimes it's necessary, i don't think we've reached that point and i also think any kind of the large scale stuff you're talking about with "collateral damage" etc would fucking sicken me. in general i'm really troubled by it. i find any talk of planning violent actions really disturbing tbh



TBF only a handful of people will take to violence, most will watch it on TV in support or shock, some will get worked-up about it on the internet*, and life will continue without much change. 

* like some on here that think the so-called 'riot' this week is the start of the revolution.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> 70% of the populace support the actions of the government.


 
Did the _Telegraph_ have a poll, or did you read that elsewhere?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why you shouldn't start the violence, merely finish it.


were it so easy.



> No, they have the monopoly on the legal use of violence, and only because we cede them that monopoly.



Then violence would be our tool to use if necessary- outgunned and outmanned are we.



> Which is why the most long-lived uprisings only *seem* spontaneous, but usually have a lot of planning behind them.



oh aye, but a massive social imperative to freedom is not viable, not in the current set up. 



> Then don't plan or consider such actions, just bear in mind that violence *may* be a necessary counter to violent behaviour by the state.



They'll win. They do this, win when you go toe-to-toe. Hamstring, undermine and so forth. Go face to face and they have the higher ground.


> I don't agree with the pre-emptive use of violence.
> I do, however, believe that the moment a functionary of the state raises a hand to myself or others, then I'm entitled to defend myself or others.
> We now know, from what has gone on in the last few years, that the "kettle" and the riot gear-wearing ASP-wielder is the default behaviour of those who police demonstrations. We need to bear this in mind, and to act accordingly, whether that means padding up, developing protest tactics that take the advantage away from the tools of the state, flooding the media with recorded examples of poor behaviour by those tools of the state, or all of the above plus more.


 
defense and fall back stuff. I know this is what the guerrilla force has to do. But the Irregulars Handbook can be a catalyst for a sodding RAF special. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth- to become the thing you despise etc.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 14, 2010)

Any means necessary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How does that fit with your posts on the Gaza flotilla thread?


 
Didn't you know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, Blags?
You can't expect a big thinker like Sas to be consistent!


----------



## waylon (Nov 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!!!


 
Bangin


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> I'm sure Sas will be along in a minute with his red pen though to point that 2+2 does infact =5 and also that the moon is made of cheese


 
Cheese? Everyone knows that the moon is made of rock. Edinburgh rock.


----------



## blowbach (Nov 14, 2010)

Is there anyone that does not reply on here that does not have 50,000 posts under their belt?
WTF have i let myself in for? are there not the odd 56 post bod? Are you just a bunch of fucking weirdos?
;-)


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did the _Telegraph_ have a poll, or did you read that elsewhere?



TBF there was some poll suggesting 70% were in support of the cuts, and indeed over 50% of Labour supporters, but it's one of so many - you can take them all with a pinch of salt.

The fact is they are coming, they would be coming if the other lot were in, they are just coming a bit deeper & faster than the other lot would have done it, but frankly nothing is going to change that.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

blowbach said:


> Is there anyone that does not reply on here that does not have 50,000 posts under their belt?
> WTF have i let myself in for? are there not the odd 56 post bod? Are you just a bunch of fucking weirdos?
> ;-)


I'd take issue with the 'just' bit...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2010)

*you gov Sunday Times poll*

http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-121110.pdf


----------



## blowbach (Nov 14, 2010)

Jeezus, you're all obsessed.

I'm not getting caught up in this.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

RaverDrew said:


> Any means necessary.


 
And I fear those willing to carry out violence in the name of righteousness. Not least because I know I would cheer them on.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

blowbach said:


> Jeezus, you're all obsessed.
> 
> I'm not getting caught up in this.


 
No?

Try this thread.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

blowbach said:


> Jeezus, you're all obsessed.
> 
> I'm not getting caught up in this.


fiver says you've got a thousand posts within the year


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

blowbach said:


> Is there anyone that does not reply on here that does not have 50,000 posts under their belt?
> WTF have i let myself in for? are there not the odd 56 post bod? Are you just a bunch of fucking weirdos?
> ;-)


 
Pretty much.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 14, 2010)

Fuck it i'm getting tooled up. Right i've got a bike pump a d-lock and a sharp bike spanner. Where's the action?

I knew i'd flip when i had 8,888 posts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> were it so easy.


It can be that easy, especially in a controlled situation like a march, where the likelihood of oversight by public or private means is likely (which kindles another thought: overwhelming the police and other public bodies that carry out CCTV surveillance, in the immediate aftermath of a protest. with FoI requests for footage, the economic war often being as important as the physical one).
You don't initiate violence, you respond to it, or the imminent threat of it, which leaves the quasi-pacifists among us little excuse for not defending themselves.


> Then violence would be our tool to use if necessary- outgunned and outmanned are we.


It should be.
IMHO it's important to allow the state to pay out enough rope to hang themselves with, though. We know from the last couple of years how fragile a grip on public support the state has, in terms of policing protest, and allowing the state's apparatus to blunder around intimidating people engaged in legitimate protest, and be seen to do so, costs them immeasurably more than it costs the protesters.


> oh aye, but a massive social imperative to freedom is not viable, not in the current set up.


Well, maybe "freedom" isn't an immediately-achievable goal, and I suspect that people understand that, but that's not the immediate issue: The cuts and the damage they're already causing and will cause, are.



> They'll win. They do this, win when you go toe-to-toe. Hamstring, undermine and so forth. Go face to face and they have the higher ground.


Which is why I don't believe in "going toe-to-toe". As I said to a poster on another thread last week, it's very bad tactically to fight your enemy on ground of his choosing. far better to fight that enemy on your own terms.
Now, working out what terms to fight on, and what tactics and strategies best serve your goals, that's the difficult thing.



> defense and fall back stuff. I know this is what the guerrilla force has to do. But the Irregulars Handbook can be a catalyst for a sodding RAF special. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth- to become the thing you despise etc.


 
Not really. The RAF were never about self-defence, or even community defence, they were more about a direct assault on the system via those who served it. 
The great thing about "guerrilla warfare" is that you don't need to fight to win, you merely need to tie up the materiel and personnel your enemy controls, and (hopefully) make them look brutal and inept. With the state of current information technology, you don't even have to worry about the BBC doing an Orgreave with your footage of the state's apparatus being brutal and inept.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

waylon said:


> Bangin


 
Some of us are old enough to have seen that particular John Wayne film a dozen or so times.


----------



## dylans (Nov 14, 2010)

I am very comfortable with my view of the morality of revolutionary violence. It is a view I have held for most of my life.

 I was on the poll tax riot and count it as one of the most spectacular acts of resistance  I have had the privilege to have been a part of.  I took part and I am proud that I took part.

 I was once a pacifist. I was in the anti nuclear movement in my youth. I did my share of sitting in front of military vehicles and getting arrested. Then the miners strike came along and changed everything. Smacked me in the face with the open palm of reality as it were. I witnessed the open and unapologetic violence of the state. The closing of motorways, the brutal clubbing of miners. The seizure of assets. The use of the entire force of the state to defeat them. It was a lesson that I have never forgotten
. The state doesn't share the liberal squeamishness about using violence to impose its will.  If we want to win this fight we can't impose such obstacles onto ourselves either. I think we can win this. I think we can build something  historic but if we impose on ourselves the restrictions of legality or non violence we will lose. That is the start and end of it. Violence is a necessity or we should give up now. Because I have a feeling this is going to be poll tax 2

Liberal democratic regimes rule with the iron fist hidden inside a velvet glove. The state is loath to take off that glove because once done, it is hard to put it back on. If this fight really takes off and if it builds into something with a serious chance of winning have no doubt that the glove will come off. Good. Fucked if they do and fucked if they don't because if they do take the gloves off then the true face of this so called democracy will be revealed for all to see.


----------



## Edie (Nov 14, 2010)

I dunno. What's at the end of violence? Change for the better, like VP said in another thread? Or instability? Chaos, strikes, fuck all except people fighting and unsure? No one knows what they want other than NOT THIS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

blowbach said:


> Jeezus, you're all obsessed.
> 
> I'm not getting caught up in this.


 
Too late. MI5 already have all your details.


----------



## dylans (Nov 14, 2010)

Edie said:


> I dunno. *What's at the end of violence?* Change for the better, like VP said in another thread? Or instability? Chaos, strikes, fuck all except people fighting and unsure? No one knows what they want other than NOT THIS.


 
Winning


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

friedaweed said:


> Fuck it i'm getting tooled up. Right i've got a bike pump a d-lock and a sharp bike spanner. Where's the action?
> 
> I knew i'd flip when i had 8,888 posts


 
8,888.

The number of the loon.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

tbf, the fuel protestors in 2000(ish) showed how it should be done, with a relatively tiny number of committed people managing to nearly shut down the country and force the government into a change of policy.

I do have a sneaky suspicion that there was a fair degree of establishment and industry collusion in that mind, but the UK could be brought to the brink of being shut down pretty quickly with a fairly small number of carefully targeted but sustained actions.


----------



## Edie (Nov 14, 2010)

Winning what?


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 14, 2010)

I am quite content with damage to property and shows of force but bodily harm no,anyway that would work against protesters


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2010)

Edie said:


> I dunno. What's at the end of violence? Change for the better, like VP said in another thread? Or instability? Chaos, strikes, fuck all except people fighting and unsure? No one knows what they want other than NOT THIS.



I know what I want.  Production democratically controlled by the workers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

hit, run. Stand, hit and run again. Lure in, hit, run and run. Is it any wonder I want t34s rolling over western europe ffs. 

I am sidelined by my own morality- we'll see victory through violence and I'll wish we had another way.

This is the problem I suppose. The ROE are set. And not by us.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> tbf, the fuel protestors in 2000(ish) showed how it should be done, with a relatively tiny number of committed people managing to nearly shut down the country and force the government into a change of policy.



That was a good example of non-violent action that caused maximum confusion and disruption, but didn’t the government make some change in the law to prevent it happening again?


----------



## Edie (Nov 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> tbf, the fuel protestors in 2000(ish) showed how it should be done, with a relatively tiny number of committed people managing to nearly shut down the country and force the government into a change of policy.
> 
> I do have a sneaky suspicion that there was a fair degree of establishment and industry collusion in that mind, but the UK could be brought to the brink of being shut down pretty quickly with a fairly small number of carefully targeted but sustained actions.


But I just find that scary. No one wants to be in some desperate situation of stand still. We will all be fucked if it's not business as usual. Not the rich lol, the fuckin normal people. The rich will fuck off, it will be us left with a country in freefall if shit closes down.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

Edie said:


> Winning what?


 
The internet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

Edie said:


> Winning what?


 
The victory of socialist thinking. It is something they will kill to prevent. Are we willing to do likewise? I have to say I cannot countenance such.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

Edie said:


> I dunno. What's at the end of violence? Change for the better, like VP said in another thread? Or instability? Chaos, strikes, fuck all except people fighting and unsure? No one knows what they want other than NOT THIS.


for now, I'd be happy with drawing a line in the sand and stopping this coalition doing it's worst, either by them stepping back from the brink, or through the coalition collapsing, and a new election being called - ideally with nick clegg having been forced out in the process, and labour being given the courage to be a fuck of a lot less neoliberal in their outlook in the process.


----------



## Edie (Nov 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> for now, I'd be happy with drawing a line in the sand and stopping this coalition doing it's worst, either by them stepping back from the brink, or through the coalition collapsing, and a new election being called - ideally with nick clegg having been forced out in the process, and labour being given the courage to be a fuck of a lot less neoliberal in their outlook in the process.


Yeah well that would be a result, and I fuckin voted Liberal lol. But have Labour changed? Have they fuck. Thereis no answer, just summat worse.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> for now, I'd be happy with drawing a line in the sand and stopping this coalition doing it's worst, either by them stepping back from the brink, or *through the coalition collapsing*, and a new election being called


 
Bolded bit can only happen if the LibDems walk away, that's not going to happen with the polls as they are, they are in it for the long haul.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

Edie said:


> But I just find that scary. No one wants to be in some desperate situation of stand still. We will all be fucked if it's not business as usual. Not the rich lol, the fuckin normal people. The rich will fuck off, it will be us left with a country in freefall if shit closes down.


government's fall when the power goes off, but a carefully targeted campaign could easily result in just enough of a slowdown to cause the bigger businesses on interruptable supply contracts to have their supplies temporarily cut, which would temporarily affect their workers, but hopefully could force the government's hand / bring the coalition down before it actually had any impact on home power supplies etc. Bear in mind that there'd be a hell of a lot that would get shut down to reduce power demand before the government let it affect houses (I'm well aware how the power infrastructure of this country is set up).

I'm not talking about destroying the infrastructure, just blockading key parts of it until the lib dems kicked clegg out and the coalition collapsed.

after the militancy in part of the power industry in recent years I doubt it'd be hard to get the workers at a fair few plants onside as well.


----------



## waylon (Nov 14, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I know what I want.  Production democratically controlled by the workers.



I just wanna cig at this point, there's no cunt to get one off though. Just isn't.


----------



## dylans (Nov 14, 2010)

Edie said:


> Winning what?


 
In this case overturning the attempt to make our class pay for their crisis. Stopping the assault on the welfare state. Once won we should turn the radical energy released by this fight to demand an economy built and run for ordinary people not for those who own and control this country. A programme of public works and investment for job creation and the guarantee of real work and training for all. Nationalisation under democratic control of this countries utilities and their supply for need not profit. Investment in health and education for all our citizens.

 All of these things are possible and would create economic growth.  The people employed by expanding needed services and state sponsored investment will have money, they will spend it, it goes around and around. 
It's not rocket science. Most of all, winning means the putting to rest  this bullshit  that these things are not possible because "the country" can't afford it". While a tiny minority own and control this country for their own benefit, this remains a sick lie


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> In this case overturning the attempt to make our class pay for their crisis. Stopping the assault on the welfare state. Once won we should turn the radical energy released by this fight to demand an economy built and run for ordinary people not for those who own and control this country. A programme of public works and investment for job creation and the guarantee of real work and training for all. Nationalisation under democratic control of this countries utilities and their supply for need not profit. Investment in health and education for all our citizens.
> 
> All of these things are possible and would create economic growth.  The people employed by expanding needed services and state sponsored investment will have money, they will spend it, it goes around and around.
> It's not rocket science. Most of all, winning means the putting to rest  this bullshit  that these things are not possible because "the country" can't afford it". While a tiny minority own and control this country for their own benefit, this remains a sick lie


 
Good post


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> In this case overturning the attempt to make our class pay for their crisis. Stopping the assault on the welfare state. Once won we should turn the radical energy released by this fight to demand an economy built and run for ordinary people not for those who own and control this country. A programme of public works and investment for job creation and the guarantee of real work and training for all. Nationalisation under democratic control of this countries utilities and their supply for need not profit. Investment in health and education for all our citizens.
> 
> All of these things are possible and would create economic growth.  The people employed by expanding needed services and state sponsored investment will have money, they will spend it, it goes around and around.
> It's not rocket science. Most of all, winning means the putting to rest of this bullshit  that these things are not possible because "the country" can't afford it". While and a tiny minority own and control this country for their own benefit, this remains a sick lie



All we need is a party that can actually convince enough people to believe in that and would actually enact it and we'll all be living in utopia.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Bolded bit can only happen if the LibDems walk away, that's not going to happen with the polls as they are, they are in it for the long haul.


I'd not be so sure - clegg's now trying to force through policies that the party itself vetoed before the election, he only just won the leadership election in the first place, and in many eyes actually ballsed up the election resulting in less MP's than they started with, so he's actually on very thin ice with a lot of the party.

the none orange book (tory) lib dems may well also realise that their best chance of escaping from this relatively unscathed is to actually show some balls and bring the coalition down to stop the cuts etc.

it's not at that stage yet, but there's a large section of the lib dem party who're not really on board with this coalition at all, including many of the pre-cleg era senior party members, so I can easily forsee a scenario where they'd kick clegg into touch if things went too bad. Giving someone enough rope to hang themselves springs to mind.

this may be wishful thinking, but I can see it happening if things get much worse eg the UK heading back into recession combined with a big protest movement and further loss of support for the coalition and lib dems.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> In this case overturning the attempt to make our class pay for their crisis. Stopping the assault on the welfare state. Once won we should turn the radical energy released by this fight to demand an economy built and run for ordinary people not for those who own and control this country. A programme of public works and investment for job creation and the guarantee of real work and training for all. Nationalisation under democratic control of this countries utilities and their supply for need not profit. Investment in health and education for all our citizens.
> 
> All of these things are possible and would create economic growth.  The people employed by expanding needed services and state sponsored investment will have money, they will spend it, it goes around and around.
> It's not rocket science. Most of all, winning means the putting to rest  this bullshit  that these things are not possible because "the country" can't afford it". While a tiny minority own and control this country for their own benefit, this remains a sick lie


 
I'd vote for that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm all for the battle the cuts fight- but it should be recognized that the vehicle of capitalism does not begin and end with opposing these cuts. It is the right here here right now struggle but it is also standard operating procedure.


----------



## dylans (Nov 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> All we need is a party that can actually convince enough people to believe in that and would actually enact it and we'll all be living in utopia.


 5
In 1945 this country was bankrupt but because of the demands of ordinary people who insisted that the post war Britain was not going to return to the poverty of the 30s. That their struggle and suffering had to lead to something better, Churchill was swept out office and the welfare state was built. The NHS was built. Pensions were introduced. This was a massive gain and one we have enjoyed ever since. This is what is under attack. I think ordinary people still believe in this. What they need is to be broken from the lie that austerity is in the "national interest" or that "cuts must be made" No they don't. This is an ideological attack for the benefit of the rich who are intent on destroying the welfare state and creating an economy where charity replaces public services and the population is driven into shitty white collar cheap labour temping jobs with little or no security or rights or chances of mobility.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> I'd not be so sure - clegg's now trying to force through policies that the party itself vetoed before the election, he only just won the leadership election in the first place, and in many eyes actually ballsed up the election resulting in less MP's than they started with, so he's actually on very thin ice with a lot of the party.
> 
> the none orange book (tory) lib dems may well also realise that their best chance of escaping from this relatively unscathed is to actually show some balls and bring the coalition down to stop the cuts etc.
> 
> ...


 
It's wishful thinking. 

Firstly, the LibDems would be committing political suicide to go to the poll now, or in the next two or three years – they are gambling on this situation turning around in 4 or 5 years time. This is the LibDem’s first chance in power for, what, about 60 years? They aren’t walking away from it anytime soon. 

Secondly, these cuts are not written in stone, if things seriously start going tits-up there will be changes in policy, even the Tories aren’t stupid enough, having waited so long to get back in power, to totally throw their chances of winning the next election out the window.  

This coalition, whilst being uncomfortable to both parties, will last.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> 5
> In 1945 this country was bankrupt but because of the demands of ordinary people who insisted that the post war Britain was not going to return to the poverty of the 30s. That their struggle and suffering had to lead to something better, Churchill was swept out office and the welfare state was built. The NHS was built. Pensions were introduced. This was a massive gain and one we have enjoyed ever since. This is what is under attack. I think ordinary people still believe in this. What they need is to be broken from the lie that austerity is in the "national interest" or that "cuts must be made" No they don't. This is an ideological attack for the benefit of the rich who are intent on destroying the welfare state and creating an economy where charity replaces public services and the population is driven into shitty white collar cheap labour temping jobs with little or no security or rights or chances of mobility.


 
TBH I didn't need the history lesson.

The fact remains that ALL THREE main parties claim that cuts are needed, the only different is how deep and how soon.

None of them, Labour included, are suggesting any sort of socialist utopia that you were suggesting in your pervious post – have you forgotten the last 13 years?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Secondly, these cuts are not written in stone, if things seriously start going tits-up there will be changes in policy,


The real cuts for the global economy start when the new republican congress starts voting on budgets next year. Lest you believe that cutting state spending will allow the private sector to flourish instantly.

The cuts _are_ written in stone unless the tories admit that the Keynsian spending of Labour was justified and even necessary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> 5
> In 1945 this country was bankrupt but because of the demands of ordinary people who insisted that the post war Britain was not going to return to the poverty of the 30s. That their struggle and suffering had to lead to something better, Churchill was swept out office and the welfare state was built. The NHS was built. Pensions were introduced. This was a massive gain and one we have enjoyed ever since. This is what is under attack. I think ordinary people still believe in this. What they need is to be broken from the lie that austerity is in the "national interest" or that "cuts must be made" No they don't. This is an ideological attack for the benefit of the rich who are intent on destroying the welfare state and creating an economy where charity replaces public services and the population is driven into shitty white collar cheap labour temping jobs with little or no security or rights or chances of mobility.


 
And the "welfare state" is what we got because the powers-that-be knew that the people would settle for nothing less, wouldn't accept a re-run of the broken promises of the inter-war years. 
The power-elites aren't stupid. They know that if push comes to shove, they'd rather be making smaller profits than no profits at all. The entire cuts scenario so far is an exercise in attempting to socialise the costs of private Capital's mistakes, and when enough people realise that and react against it, the government (after close consultation with its' paymasters) will seemingly find the balls to to tax corporate Britain harder, and wonder of wonders, corporate Britain will go along with it until another chance to indulge in the rapine and pillage of the public sector comes along.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> TBH I didn't need the history lesson.
> 
> The fact remains that ALL THREE main parties claim that cuts are needed, the only different is how deep and how soon.
> 
> None of them, Labour included, are suggesting any sort of socialist utopia that you were suggesting in your pervious post – have you forgotten the last 13 years?


 
Where did he say that the way to achieve that would be to reinstate labour?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> Firstly, the LibDems would be committing political suicide to go to the poll now, or in the next two or three years – they are gambling on this situation turning around in 4 or 5 years time. This is the LibDem’s first chance in power for, what, about 60 years? They aren’t walking away from it anytime soon.


Closer to 80 years, unless you count participation in national governments.


> Secondly, these cuts are not written in stone, if things seriously start going tits-up there will be changes in policy, even the Tories aren’t stupid enough, having waited so long to get back in power, to totally throw their chances of winning the next election out the window.


That will depend on whether they judge it better to look tough, or to practice serious politics.


> This coalition, whilst being uncomfortable to both parties, will last.


Because the participants in it need it to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> TBH I didn't need the history lesson.
> 
> The fact remains that ALL THREE main parties claim that cuts are needed, the only different is how deep and how soon.
> 
> None of them, Labour included, are suggesting any sort of socialist utopia that you were suggesting in your pervious post – have you forgotten the last 13 years?


 
Who says we need the three main parties?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Where did he say that the way to achieve that would be to reinstate labour?


 
Which would in fact be the best way to bend over, spread our buttocks and say "please, butt-fuck me some more, and don't use any lube this time!".


----------



## waylon (Nov 14, 2010)

Bit of spit though? And as long as the clown who's rumpin us has a _bit_ of a beard, just so we get a tickle when he rims us, what can be objectionable about that?


----------



## ymu (Nov 15, 2010)

Edie said:


> Yeah well that would be a result, and I fuckin voted Liberal lol. But have Labour changed? Have they fuck. Thereis no answer, just summat worse.


 
It's not about which bums are in the seats of power - without a revolution, we have no control over that (and we'd not have any control _with_ a revolution, either). It's about drawing lines in the sand which no party can afford to cross. I have no truck with any of them. These cuts are not necessary, not the Tories' cuts, not Labour's cuts. This is our time to make it clear what the limits on our tolerance are. Doesn't matter how you choose to express it - just make sure you do.


----------



## Backatcha Bandit (Nov 15, 2010)

free spirit said:


> tbf, the fuel protestors in 2000(ish) showed how it should be done, with a relatively tiny number of committed people managing to nearly shut down the country and force the government into a change of policy.
> 
> I do have a sneaky suspicion that there was a fair degree of establishment and industry collusion in that mind, but the UK could be brought to the brink of being shut down pretty quickly with a fairly small number of carefully targeted but sustained actions.


 


claphamboy said:


> That was a good example of non-violent action that caused maximum confusion and disruption, but didn’t the government make some change in the law to prevent it happening again?



Yes...

But probably not in the way you would imagine.


----------



## dylans (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Where did he say that the way to achieve that would be to reinstate labour?


 
I didn't, he has invented a straw man and proceeded to knock it down.  I have no faith in Labour. I didn't vote for any of the bastards. I have faith in the power of  ordinary standing up and fighting for what we need.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

_feet or knees_ basically innit?

but i'll punch out the lights of any bastard straw man that gets in my way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> I didn't, he has invented a straw man and proceeded to knock it down.  I have no faith in Labour. I didn't vote for any of the bastards. I have faith in the power of  ordinary standing up and fighting for what we need.


 
And it really *is* going to be about people standing up for what they *need*, whether that be an end to the cuts, or lasting political change, not (as I'm sure the media will be quick to paint any resistance to oppression) because we're violent, misguided or mad, but because the current system wishes to deprive people of their livelihoods, their self-respect and their innate right to tell the government that *they* elected that *that* government is no longer worthy of exercising the power they hold at *the peoples'* consent.


----------



## blowbach (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which would in fact be the best way to bend over, spread our buttocks and say "please, butt-fuck me some more, and don't use any lube this time!".



No need to be so crude about it ;-)




What the hell. MI5 already have my details. They had them a looong time ago.

It's going to get bloody, whether we like it or not.
There is a reason why they have been engineering society in this direction,
for so long. The propaganda, the weaponry, the paid thugs.

Most of us realise that most of us are good decent loving giving caring
people. And those of the most of us realise that it doesn't matter about
the 'most' of us. It only takes a coupla cunts coming together to piss
in the toybox.

Well tough tittie. It's here. It's now. You didn't choose to be part of this
history, no more or less than those in the French Revolution.
What good that one did is debatable as well. It doesn't matter. It will
be messy this time as well, but it will solve nothing, bring no long term
gains. That is why I don't believe in violence. It brings nothing in the end.
But in the end it is inevitable.

But I am the last person you should listen to. I am an avowed nihilist.
But only because I see not alternative mind you.

Shit, I wish we could all just get along.
But we can't.
You know what is going to happen eventually don't you?

I envy my Uncle Jo Walters traipsing happily off to WW1 to fight the 
Gerry. Never to return at the age of 19. I often wonder how he met
his end. Was it quick? Was it painful? Did the fear really get to sink in?
Or was it fast, like a drunk falling down the stairs and bashing his head?
Goodnight Vienna. Anyhow. He knew who the enemy was. Hell they even
had the funny accents and uniforms to match. He KNEW what needed to
be done. He had little choice in his time. To be a man. To hold his head
up high. One thing I know is, that he WAS scared. I would have been too.
And so would you. Still, he did the RIGHT thing. I want to do the right thing.
But society has been so fragmented that most people don't know who
the enemy is any more. They don't have funny accents...

The reason I gabble on about this is this:
There is a war on every day.
We know what is happening.
But the big strong MEN that would have once defended us have all
gone AWOL. Playing cops and robbers, getting to wear a uniform, getting
to play with a REAL gun.

These are the men that should be fighting our war for us. But they have
lost their minds. I know they are real people. I have a few mates that are
in the PARA's. Yep, fierce fighting men. I love them as brothers and wish
no harm on them. I hope to fuck they don't come home in a separate box
to the one their legs are contained in. 

As for the police. Well, you only had to read their blogs over the holborn
Scumoween rave to see how pissed off they were. It is on record that
they wanted to break bones and skulls and teach those 'hippies' a lesson.
They feel let down by their masters in not having carte blanche to do
as they see fit. I saw quite a bit of spite on those blogs that shocked me.
Remember WE are watching YOU! Too.

Again. They have lost touch with reality.
Reality is that that does not disappear when you stop closing your eyes.
The reality is that the people want to congregate. They want to dance.
They want to get loaded and have a good time!

We have done this for thousands of years. But now they think that it is
a good time for us to stop? I don't think so.

The mates that I know in the SAS (Sonic Assault System) would be
parachuting into A'stan not with SA80s but with Fender Stratocasters.

I wanted to join the army when I was a child. I couldn't wait to sign up.
But then I grew up. I couldn't believe in it. I was fucked if i was going
to be a 'legitimate target'. And fight the rich man's war instead of the
'average' man's war. I'm getting old now. Never was a fighter. I tried,
but I kept getting beat up. I would have loved to settle an argument
with my fists, but i couldn't so words had to suffice. Maybe no great loss.

My family fought and sometimes died for my (and your) right to set up
a sound system and listen to some 'repetitive beats'. Not for us to be
told by some jack-booted prick 'No, you can't do that, and I'm going to 
smash your skull to prove it'. I don't give a FUCK what you 'think'.
I don't give a fuck how tall you are. I don't give a fuck what 'laws' you
have on your side. I will teach you reality. And if you are lucky, all it will
be is a headache in the morning....

It is called Asymmetric warfare. They know all about it. But have no
defense against it. I led a pack of Wombles once. I was hunted down
like a dog. I sniffed out the 'pigs' in the crowd. They had to give their
game away to get me. And they had dreadlocks and tattoos etc...
True to form they didn't know I was coming, But when I led that charge
from the front, they followed (well it was kinda the direction they were 
going in anyway ;-).... I couldn't beat the helicopters, the dogs...
that is another story for another day. Point is, you just don't know
who is gonna materialise out of where, and what they are going to have
in their bag o' tricks. I was clean. Always was, always will be.
But fuck you should have seen their faces....

I didn't make my point and the ones I tried to make are vague and half-
arsed. Tear them to shreds. Like the millions before. And the millions after
to come...

Seeing as i have rambled for so long, indulge me a little further:

A Song in Storm 

Be well assured that on our side
The abiding oceans fight,
Though headlong wind and heaping tide
Make us their sport to-night.
By force of weather, not of war,
In jeopardy we steer.
Then welcome Fate's discourtesy
Whereby it shall appear
How in all time of our distress,
And our deliverance too,
The game is more than the player of the game,
And the ship is more than the crew!

Out of the mist into the mirk
The glimmering combers roll.
Almost these mindless waters work
As though they had a soul --
Almost as though they leagued to whelm
Our flag beneath their green:
Then welcome Fate's discourtesy
Whereby it shall be seen, etc.

Be well assured, though wave and wind
Have mightier blows in store,
That we who keep the watch assigned
Must stand to it the more;
And as our streaming bows rebuke
Each billow's baulked career,
Sing, welcome Fate's discourtesy
Whereby it is made clear, etc.

No matter though our decks be swept
And mast and timber crack --
We can make good all loss except
The loss of turning back.
So, 'twixt these Devils and our deep
Let courteous trumpets sound,
To welcome Fate's discourtesy
Whereby it will be found, etc.

Be well assured, though in our power
Is nothing left to give
But chance and place to meet the hour,
And leave to strive to live.
Till these dissolve our Order holds,
Our Service binds us here.
Then welcome Fate's discourtesy
Whereby it is made clear
How in all time of our distress,
As in our triumph too,
The game is more than the player of the game
And the ship is more than the crew!


----------



## Edie (Nov 15, 2010)

Phew! A little tl:dr but nicely written at the start!


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 15, 2010)

A viable strategy would be to infiltrate/open sado masochist venues dotted around kensington and Westminster. Then, when the inevitable Tories slither through the doors you can't be held accountable for the ultra violence as they volunteered themselves to be in that position. Actually its better still as they pay good money for it. And they're hardly likely to go to the police to complain, are they?

Should be good for photo opportunities too.


----------



## ericjarvis (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who says we need the three main parties?


 
I'd say they all three need to be completely routed at the earliest opportunity. We have to utterly destroy party politics as it currently exists in the UK. Which means ALL OF YOU being willing to stand for election as, or to fund and campaign for, independent councillors, MEPs and MPs. Doesn't matter all that much what they believe in so long as they are prepared to set up legislation that strictly limits political party spending and thus funding.

There's nothing wrong with party politics in principle. The problem is that we have three main political parties all in hock to the same vested interests.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> A viable strategy would be to infiltrate/open sado masochist venues dotted around kensington and Westminster.
> Should be good for photo opportunities too.


 
This idea I am liking...


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Where did he say that the way to achieve that would be to reinstate labour?



He didn't, but did post about how 'old' Labour made changes after the war, I was just pointing out ‘new’ Labour isn’t likely to be the answer this time around.



ViolentPanda said:


> Who says we need the three main parties?



We don't, if you want the big changes suggested by dylans, because none of the three main parties seem interested in delivering that, hence my earlier post -



claphamboy said:


> All we need is a party that can actually convince enough people to believe in that and would actually enact it and we'll all be living in utopia.


 
The trouble is I don't see one on the horizon.


----------



## dylans (Nov 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> He didn't, but did post about how 'old' Labour made changes after the war, I was just pointing out ‘new’ Labour isn’t likely to be the answer this time around.
> 
> .


 
No. I stated an historical fact, that the welfare state was created as a result of the demands of a population who were simply not prepared to see  their suffering squandered by a return to to the Laissez faire economy of pre war times. It was indeed Labour that implemented the statutes that became the welfare state (and almost immediately began to water it down) but the thanks for the welfare state belongs to the British people not the government they forced into reform. As Violentpanda pointed out, reform came because the ruling class knew that social reform was the only way to save them from widespread revolt. In the face of a radicalised population the bosses will accept less profits rather than lose them all.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> No. I stated an historical fact, that the welfare state was created as a result of the demands of a population who were simply not prepared to see  their suffering squandered by a return to to the Laissez faire economy of pre war times. It was indeed Labour that implemented the statutes that became the welfare state (and almost immediately began to water it down) but the thanks for the welfare state belongs to the British people not the government they forced into reform. As Violentpanda pointed out, reform came because the ruling class knew that social reform was the only way to save them from widespread revolt. In the face of a radicalised population the bosses will accept less profits rather than lose them all.


_ "everything must change so that everything can stay the same" _


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

Edie said:


> I dunno. What's at the end of violence? Change for the better, like VP said in another thread? Or instability? Chaos, strikes, fuck all except people fighting and unsure? No one knows what they want other than NOT THIS.


I _do_ know what _I_ want; a) massive redistribution and social justice, so the power and the wealth of this rich nation is in the hands of ordinary working people


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 15, 2010)

Anyone know any organisations running NVDA training, please? 
Edit: by PM if necessary ...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I _do_ know what _I_ want; a) massive redistribution and social justice, so the power and the wealth of this rich nation is in the hands of ordinary working people


 
yep


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Anyone know any organisations running NVDA training, please?
> Edit: by PM if necessary ...


 
misread that as NKVD and did this face:


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> misread that as NKVD and did this face:


 
As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ???


----------



## likesfish (Nov 15, 2010)

fine have your rave but don't piss all over other peoples rights to have a decent kip or look after thier livestock

Its a degree of tactics trashing the offices fine chucking shit off the roof that could have killed someone when the police are not battering you counter productive.
 meinhoff style bollocks wank fantasys proved german state could crack down hard it did rolled over the wankers and carried on.
  9 times out of 10 the state will win any violent confrontation until such time that the police/squaddies start switching sides.
 which most of the time they won't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> A viable strategy would be to infiltrate/open sado masochist venues dotted around kensington and Westminster. Then, when the inevitable Tories slither through the doors you can't be held accountable for the ultra violence as they volunteered themselves to be in that position. Actually its better still as they pay good money for it. And they're hardly likely to go to the police to complain, are they?
> 
> Should be good for photo opportunities too.


 
You're a deeply deviant individual.

I like that!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> I'd say they all three need to be completely routed at the earliest opportunity. We have to utterly destroy party politics as it currently exists in the UK. Which means ALL OF YOU being willing to stand for election as, or to fund and campaign for, independent councillors, MEPs and MPs. Doesn't matter all that much what they believe in so long as they are prepared to set up legislation that strictly limits political party spending and thus funding.


The problem being that spending/funding isn't the only route to manipulating politicians. Ideology serves that purpose too.
Perhaps we'd be better, if we're taking the democratic election route, seeking a cap on the powers that can be exercised in our name, with some kind of system of referenda for "big asks"?


> There's nothing wrong with party politics in principle. The problem is that we have three main political parties all in hock to the same vested interests.


And that party politics are particularly susceptible to infiltration.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> We don't, if you want the big changes suggested by dylans, because none of the three main parties seem interested in delivering that, hence my earlier post -
> 
> The trouble is I don't see one on the horizon.



Why is a party required at all?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> _ "everything must change so that everything can stay the same" _


 
Only if we let it. 
The point is that we can be fairly sure the boss class will act that way. It's whether we're dumb enough to accept a new _status quo_ that reflects the old, that's the real question.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ???


 
alas yes- did a double take. Could have been a worse misread though.


----------



## ymu (Nov 15, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Anyone know any organisations running NVDA training, please?
> Edit: by PM if necessary ...


Seeds for Change are good.


----------



## friedaweed (Nov 15, 2010)

YUP  can't wait for 9,999 then i can cross dress apparently


----------



## ericjarvis (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why is a party required at all?


 
In the short term they aren't. In the longer term they are inevitable. The problem isn't political parties, it's political parties that are so desperate for cash to campaign with that they sell out to the highest bidder.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> In the short term they aren't. In the longer term they are inevitable. The problem isn't political parties, it's political parties that are so desperate for cash to campaign with that they sell out to the highest bidder.


 
Or so desperate for power that they'll do so.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 16, 2010)

*"Only those who are prepared to go too far can possibly know how far they can go".*


----------



## BlackArab (Nov 16, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> for the leftists- how far will you take it? I know I hate violence and find conflict quite distressing- however I have in the past been party to it by allowing people to do vengeance on my part. It is fucking grubby and reeks of complicity.
> 
> I'd like to say 'first at the shovel' but I know that large scale stuff would sicken me- to the point that I would go that pacifists route of 'oh god, we are just as bad as them now'
> 
> ...



How militant? How violent? Depends on the situation, I do not believe a national uprising can ever be achieved in this country but on a localised level can and has been done to varying degrees of success. I'm talking riots here, saw it in St Pauls in 1980 with my own eyes.  On a another level it's my personal belief that violence can be a very effective tool in certain situations but one has to be careful that it is the _most_ effective.  I've opposed racism with mind and fist on different occasions, I'd prefer mind but if I'm in a situation where I am threatened, what's the point in non-violence?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 16, 2010)

"Total assault on the culture by any means necessary, including rock and roll, dope, and fucking in the streets."


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 16, 2010)

Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2010)

BigTom said:


> "Total assault on the culture by any means necessary, including rock and roll, dope, and fucking in the streets."


 
Thank you for that, Mr. Sinclair!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2010)

The one that was not sired by hewitt is due to marry a very good looking woman who he definetly didn't visit in a helicopter. I'm feeling the cellar/automatic weapons vibe.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 16, 2010)

yeah, sorry, should have included the attributation for that, not just put it in quotes. not sure why i didn't to be honest. I love that quote though, wish I could find the footage of sinclair saying it that was in the documentary about detroit music (can't remember the title of the doco either)


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 16, 2010)

"nothing short ov a total war"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

BigTom said:


> yeah, sorry, should have included the attributation for that, not just put it in quotes. not sure why i didn't to be honest. I love that quote though, wish I could find the footage of sinclair saying it that was in the documentary about detroit music (can't remember the title of the doco either)


 
"A True Testimonial"?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm pretty militant, I mean I wouldn't allow the FITwatch advice that is across thousands of other websites be posted on my forums by another poster, but I'm pretty militant, probably shout at the tv when Clegg and Cameron are on.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I'm pretty militant, I mean I wouldn't allow the FITwatch advice that is across thousands of other websites be posted on my forums by another poster, but I'm pretty militant, probably shout at the tv when Clegg and Cameron are on.


Still in your cosy armchair, pathetically ranting away as usual, then? It seems that politics is like football for you: something best enjoyed from afar. Very, very afar.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Still in your cosy armchair, pathetically ranting away as usual, then? It seems that politics is like football for you: something best enjoyed from afar. Very, very afar.


 
Yep, never left my armchair, unlike you whose ex girlfriend once had some trouble with the peelers.

I think pissing contests are pathetic but you're barking up the wrong tree here.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 18, 2010)

editor said:


> Still in your cosy armchair, pathetically ranting away as usual, then? It seems that politics is like football for you: something best enjoyed from afar. Very, very afar.


 


revol68 said:


> Yep, never left my armchair, unlike you whose ex girlfriend once had some trouble with the peelers.
> 
> I think pissing contests are pathetic but you're barking up the wrong tree here.


 
I don't think so Revol - you and the rest of Libcom do nothing.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 19, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> I don't think so Revol - you and the rest of Libcom do nothing.


 
well for a start libcom happily kept the fitwatch stuff and many of them are involved in plenty of campaigns and struggles and the vast majority have incurred some form of legal sanction.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 19, 2010)

Libcom have computer shock! 

Plenty of 'campaigns and struggles'? Putting a sticker up and impotently chatting. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and they never get beyond that - they just don't cut the mustard and never have.

'Legal sanction' - did the poor boys get a caution for draw? You'll have to do better than that... Just likle goody 2 shoes who so desperately want to do well, but are parasitic on the working class movement rather than authentic participants within it...



revol68 said:


> well for a start libcom happily kept the fitwatch stuff and many of them are involved in plenty of campaigns and struggles and the vast majority have incurred some form of legal sanction.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 22, 2010)

felling pretty bloody militant at the moment.
 not really up for chucking stuff at coppers.
 hunting lib dem mps though
 anyone want to sub me the price of a mosin


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 22, 2010)

I'd separate "How militant?" from "how active?" from "how sympathetic?"

*How militant?* Not very - unless I really had got to the point where I and those around me had next to nothing to lose. 

*How active?* Very - but the nature of that activity does not necessarily mean taking to the streets with a loud speaker shouting slogans. 

*How sympathetic?* This is more a "what is the mood of society?" question regarding how it views the impact of the cuts, the rationale behind them and the nature of resistance from those either on the receiving end of them and/or those who, although may not be significantly impacted by them are prepared to stick their necks out for others.
_
On "militancy"_

Most people would probably panic if they came face-to-face with a phalanx of riot cops for the first time. I certainly did and have no intention of repeating that experience. 

In terms of how militant, I guess the attitudes of broad groups (who are against the cuts) can be identified as:
1) Those who are prepared for violent confrontation/smashing up stuff and have no inhibitions about doing so - and are maybe even actively seeking this out;
2) Those who don't particularly want violent confrontation but will stand up for themselves if attacked/happy to encourage those who fall into 1)
3) Those who would want to steer clear of violence, but are glad that other people are doing it while watching from a safe distance and hope that something positive will come from it - without risk to themselves
4) Those who would want to steer clear of violence, and are disappointed that things turned out violent (for whatever reason)
5) Those who want nothing to do with violence and believe that the entire anti-cuts movement is undermined by it (a la Telegraph Student Tottie - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/i...ermined-a-perfectly-reasonable-student-cause/ ) but are prepared to leave it at that
6) Those who want nothing to do with violence and believe that the entire anti-cuts movement is undermined by it and are prepared to take active steps to bring perpetrators of violence before the courts. 

_
On "being active"_

As mentioned earlier, being active will manifest itself in different ways for different people - and I think it is essential that those at the vanguard taking part in street protests acknowledge that: There is a huge logistical and co-ordination effort that will require the talents and skills of those taking part to be "deployed" in a manner that makes best use of what each of us has to give while at the same time not compelling people to do stuff that is way outside of what people are comfortable with to the extent that it drives them away. Think of it like this:

- Some people will have a natural talent in public speaking
- Some people will have a natural talent for being a face in the local media
- Some people will have a natural talent for maintaining and running websites
- Some people will have a natural talent for organising the logistics for meetings
- Some people will have a natural talent for communicating with lots of people face-to-face
- Some people will have a natural talent for communicating with lots of people online/electronically via FB, Twitter etc
- Some people will have a natural talent for making imaginative and colourful banners and outfits
- Some people will have a natural talent for engaging with the mainstream political system, making use of things like Freedom of Information, lobbying elected politicians, writing to departments and councils through their MPs and Councillors
- Some people will have a natural talent for music/theatre and organising creative events
- Some people will have a natural talent for putting on such events
- Some people will have a natural talent managing the finances of any local group
- Some people will have a natural talent for writing up discussions and debates that take place in meetings
- Some people will have a natural talent for unpicking the arguments put forward by those pushing the cuts
- Some people will have a natural talent for investigative reporting
- Some people will have a natural talent for using the legal levers available to challenge central and local government on the decisions that they take. (e.g. Judicial reviews)
- Some people will have a natural talent for interrogating and analysing the documents and information put out by those delivering the cuts
- Some people will have a natural talent for getting lots of local organisations to get together, communicate and co-operate.

What I think is vital for all local groups is that they get a feel for who has what skills that they can contribute - and in particular what they need but are currently missing.

As mentioned on another thread, in Cambridge we're in the process of doing precisely that. The trades union/local based movement identified needing more energy, ideas and general "dynamism" within the local movement. The students based movement on education identified  stronger links outside the university and a shortage of funding as issues. On the union/local side, we have links with the local community and we have access to funding through the various union branch committees. On the student side, they have the energy, ideas and the dynamism.

The next thing on my list is to try and arrange something that can bring the two groups together. 

What the result is of bringing the two sides together I don't know - but for me that is what makes it all the more exciting. At the same time, I'm also of the view that most of the people there will be old enough to take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 22, 2010)

Sorry for the long post above.

There is *a lot of fear out *here in the public sector - in particular with people who are petrified about losing their jobs. (That's to say nothing for those poor souls dependent on public services.) We need to acknowledge that. Part of the movement I think is about providing reassurance to those of us out there - myself included - that we're not alone in this.


----------

