On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:36:13PM -0700, sartesian wrote: > Then you don't agree. Vietnam was outgunned. So was Cuba. This is a > social struggle, not technical, not simply military.
That was then, this is now. They have more guns. We have less. > Sound promising? I'm not advocating surender by any means, in fact I agree with your premise that it is the opresseors who chose conflict. > The bourgeoisie rarely have a moment's hesitation about deploying deadly > force, and when they do it's only because they are afraid of losing, or > have already lost, control of the battlefield. That's the hard cold fact. Yes, I argee. > Modest, relatively, struggles for union organization have been, are met > almost everywhere everytime by deadly force-- in the advanced countries as > well as less-developed. That's another fact. > > Outgunned? so was Robert Williams. Big deal. > > We neither glorify nor reject armed struggle. It's a tactic. All this is true. The hardest hitting of all the facts though is that despite the bravery of the ressistance the rich are getting richer and the poor are gettng poorer. That's the hard cold fact. > But armed struggle shouldn't be the issue here-- it's an issue of power-- of > seizing control of the social machinery-- not gently easing it out, or > sending the bourgeoisie out to greener pastures. It's about class vs. > class-- rulers vs. ruled. And the rulers, as a class, are not bought out > by golden parachutes. If the workers out-accumulate them. They will have no choice. By the time the Venture Communist Reorganisation is over it will be very hard to tell who are the rulers and who are the ruled. Regards,
