Thursday, February 11, 2010

Mass strike to Armed strike

Mass strike to Armed strike
by Anya Rotstrel

Long after a major fabricated distress lies the reactions coming from the people. Day by day, protests, like flowers sprung up from small batches to big mobs, venting the anger against the everyday oppressor.

Not all mobilizations are not as "heavily militant" like the 1917 and in the middle to late decades of the 20th century. Since the days what I or rather we see today are mostly those of a "overstreamish" ones that seemed too trendy to see-to the point of joining without any reason at all, in short for an aesthetic reason.

But then,
Through countless assessment, education, and organizing, every activist hath learned their actions pretty well, especially on their actions regarding strikes. Strikes are intended to voice out the call of the majority, as well as a force to subvert the state's power back to the society, but not all strikes are "peaceful" to the eyes, for there's a possibility of getting themselves into a heay brawl against the state's armed power.

For sure we see a big mob carrying streamers and flags as well as some of their things, but behind these lies the idea, or perhaps a capacity to bring makeshift arms to defend and to cripple the state's power as possible, like Molotov and pillbox bombs, stones, or even pistols ready to fire during reprisals made by the riot police and some of its cohorts.

This insurrectionary practise may ought to consider as "goog" since having a total armed mass strike, coordinated with a couple of armed offensives outside the urban areas may undermine much of the enemy's capacity to recover. Striking around and at the same time within may hasten its downfall, regardless of number of casualties in a battle.

Before these lies the basics, of countless education and organization of oppressed peoples to become good activists, comrades, fighters against the rotten state. 1917 in Russia was more of that since the protesters, although they started as "peaceful" marches, end up restorted to armed strikes courtesy of themselves, who usually faced the guns and the blades of the enemy then followed by partisan units who also fought against them (like Stalin) as well as the striking soldiers coming from the trenches.

Or even the failed German revolution, which was set forth in the last days of world war I, most of the German workers, both Communist and Social Democrat set forth mass strikes while the soldiers and sailors started to engage in mutiny, but internal problems and mismanagement, followed by reprisals from the conservatives resorted to its defeat.

But then,
In this century, where technology became a part of human life, this kind of action will always be a part of people's struggles, and for sure we see the growth of offensives in the countryside as well as the protests in the cities, especially those in the third world; and somehow every wave may have the capacity to resort to another form with the objective to cripple enemy's power both around and within- by having coordinated "offensives" of mass strikes in the cities and armed attacks in the countryside, this continuous cycle may step-by-step cripple the ruling class, its power, its capacity and even the property despite their reprisal. Since the objective of a united front action of workers, pesants and progressive intellectuals is to grab state power from the ruling class and making state dissolve into the society all in the name of the workers.

Once, I think that peaceful demonstrations are more of a bourgeois fad. Although it shows benefits, not all peaceful demonstrations like the EDSA revolt lie struggles, and the worst is that some joined for nothing; and just like what I have said in the first part, joining it, wearing it for an aesthetic reason, for a "sake" in other words. But through organizing, education and training them makes every activist a better one than of a fad minded nothing, although they may have the "urge" to join in that kind of event.

In addition to that, every collective has its own set of plans for a major event to be given. It must not be as "pushy" or "late", but of carefully being set though. But when it comes to armed ones, lies the idea of a drastic measure in order to cripple the enemy on its weak portion-as most revolutions using mass actions are more into the front rather than encircling and surprisingly repel them. For sure in an armed mass strike also lies the lumpenproletarian-like actions being undertaken. Brawls, bomb throwing, gun firing and the like within the revolution may likely to rise, epecially out of a policeman or a soldier's naughtines and eagerness to beat them.

The possibility of an "armed strike" alongside the ones in the countryside, may likely to be considered-especially regarding the situation as well as the insight regarding about this questionable concept. Especially the involvement of any indirect action, like the use of explosives in urban areas like those of the Light a Fire Movement, the Irish Republican Army and the like, as well as politically motivaed reprisals against the police, the army, etc. like those of the ETA in Basque Herria and Hamas in Palestine.

Armed struggle, in general does not necesarilly meant to be into the countryside nor in te urbanside. Armed struggle of that is protracted, may likely to be coordinated from both countryside and the urbanside, in a way that, as what I have said earlier, to "strike" at the nes inside while the ones encircling made them "weak", all despite its so called "modernity", of having modern technology, the peoples war can become modern-for the objective, was and is to liberate the laboring people from the unending oppression of the ruling class.