close
more_vert

Supporting the need for violence in the abstract doesnt mean supporting every actof pseudo-politcal violence. The prick with the fire extinguisher was a fucking prick, end of. Violence should, must, only be used when there is no alternative. But it is woefully naive, imho, to think that that situation will not, does not, crop up even in a 'democracy' like Britain. Just take a look at the history of Ireland and the 'brits' actions there. Or even there actions against (mainly) peaceful demonstrations such as the Poll Tax or last years anti-cuts demos.

If it is acceptable to use violence in Homs, when and where else does it become acceptable? We shouldnt - indeed we would be idiotic to - jump imeediately into 'insurectionary acts to spark the revolution' (which was what the RAF & John Brown did), but we must never forget that they will never, ever ever ever, give up their power of their own free will. If we want to achieve a fundamental change in society, it will take education, patience, discipline, love, AND, sadly, probably, violence.

IanB wrote:
The goal is to engender thoughtfulness. The goal IS debate. Would you be any more impressed if they dressed up as a cross between the MC5 and something out of The Warriors?
Sorry mate, but it isnt. Their official ostensible goal is to change the financial system, it is for a Robin Hood tax and several other small changes. They havent achieved that. Thre greatest achievement (and its not a bad one at all!) has been to greatly embarass the church. Which is great, but not their ambition. As for dress sense, well, half of them do look like they've come out of the Warriors already!

And the modern International Brigade? Actually their have been quite a few, apparently. But they get thrown into Gitmo if anyone finds out.

necropolist wrote:
Supporting the need for violence in the abstract doesnt mean supporting every actof pseudo-politcal violence. The prick with the fire extinguisher was a fucking prick, end of. Violence should, must, only be used when there is no alternative. But it is woefully naive, imho, to think that that situation will not, does not, crop up even in a 'democracy' like Britain. Just take a look at the history of Ireland and the 'brits' actions there. Or even there actions against (mainly) peaceful demonstrations such as the Poll Tax or last years anti-cuts demos.
The example of Northern Ireland is not a good example either, to that of the UK mainland. Being Irish, I have a good knowledge of Ireland's complicated history, but in short, as we know, since the 12th century onwards, Ireland has been routinely colonised by England, it's native citizens and their culture despised and repressed. One obvious example is that of how it was seized for its economic importance due to its agrarian infrastructure, and importance that resulted in continued food exportation druring the Great Famine, food that could have saved the lives of countless thousands. In short, genocide. Before partition, Ireland had to endure centuries of brutal repression and as well as developing an enduring sense of injustice, it also developed a distinct loss of esteem and self worth. After partition, as we know, a religious apartheid was put in place and upheld for decades by the British, hence the appaling violence on both sides during the Troubles, as a result of deep and complex socio-political roots going back hundreds of years. The 'English' part of the UK psyche has no understanding or concept of this, and as unjust as it may be, that is the prevailing collective psyche of the UK mainland, existant in the central power structure, and this is reflected in the media and is generally accepted in England. As for our own Civil War, the resulting split in communities and families and the violence that ensued had unshakeable roots in religious belief and a sense of that combined with duty and allegiance, whichever side you took. Obviuosly, that particular context could never apply again.