19257, RE: revolution: what are you fightin' for?|
Posted by guest, Fri Jan-19-01 09:38 AM
forgive me if i come across as arrogant, but i'm even trying to understand the point of the post. is it just to challenge (for nothing but the thrill of the challenge) people who claim to be revolutionaries or is ti really to understand revolutionary theory and process? so far the tone feels like the former, which ultimately just translates into utter nonsense. more than that, the shit is counterrevolutionary.
you want to understand what revolution is then study the question. there have been many attempts at summing up what revolutionary transformations in given societies are and there have been many revolutionary movements and wars. some successful, many not. take the time to find out what failed and why. was it the theory itself? was it the ulterior motives of the folks leading the shit up? was it lack of money and support? was it underestimating the strength of the enemy? find out. then find out what succeeded. what was it about vietnam, the vietnamese people, their theory for revolution, thier collective vision for the future, that enabled them to whip the us's ass. and what lead to them having to open themselves up once again to the dictates of capititalsim? is that a failure?
in addition, where is it that anyone can find that a revoltionary transformation leads to chaos. what factors are involved for someone to put forth a revolutionary struggle and then simply assume the position of those who had once oppressed. is that really an automatic result of the people's struggle? in order to galvanize people to do that kind of work and fight those kind of battles, the people willl have to be offered more than 'replace his white face with my black face as your oppressor'. the people will be interested in the total end of any kind of oppression whatsoever and will fight anyone who stands in the way once they are clear on their position and his. case in point, while laurent kabila helped the people get rid of mobutu sese seko in zaire/democratic republic of the congo, the people claimed he was doing the same tyranical shit and began to organize against him. now the brother's dead from a coup of some sort. maybe someone who wanted his chance to do the same bullshit is responsible, maybe the people found someone who was honest and took care of business, we don't know yet. the point is he wasn't right for the goals of the people and they didn't just let it happen.
a revoltuion requires a vision of the society you want to have. it is not an arbitrary act. anything less is not revolutionary no matter what name people try to put on it.
as far as the discussions around western civilization, what makes it so dangerous is its development and sustainment of capitalism. and that shit wasn't initially a personal attack on africans or any other non-whites. if they had enough people or thought that their folks could survive the kind of labor required to build and sustain that system, they would have enslaved their damn selves. and in many instances did. (also add that they needed to clear as many people off these lands -africa, s. america, n.america - in order to have free access to the resources there). the whole northern/western v. southern/eastern dichotomy arose out of their need to justify and continue their tyranny.
one thing i am sure about revolution is that it is a science, it is a thing that can be figured out and done. and it is being studied and practiced daily by people all over the world who want an end to the madness they are forced to endure. it ain't that mysterious, and it's only made so by people who never want to see it happen.