You picked a fight
I pick dynamite
I raise my flag and dye my clothes
It's a revolution, I suppose
We're painted red to fit right in
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know, we all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction,
Don't you know that you can count me out
You talk of overthrowing power with violence as your tool
You speak of liberation and when the people rule
Well ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?
Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on me
—Bloody Revolutions lyrics, by Crass.
In war, ideals can be corrupted.
We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal
. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go.
There's one hole in every revolution, large or small Ö people. No matter how big the idea they all stand under, people are small and weak and cheap and frightened. It's people that kill every revolution.
: You think this is my work?! This is never my work! Spalatin in Mob
: No...it's the people's work! Martin
people's work? Mob
: (falls silent
: I meant what I said on Goth, Avon. We are not going to use Star One to rule the federation. We are going to destroy it. Avon
: I never doubted that. I never doubted your fanaticism. As far as I am concerned, you can destroy whatever you like. You can stir up a thousand revolutions. You can wade in blood up to your armpits. Oh, and you can lead the rabble to victory, whatever that might mean. Just so long as there is an end to it.
It's easy to know what you are against, but quite another to know what you are for.
The passions of a revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excesses
The Frenchman came to remove our fetters. But he took our boots
—Polish peasants in the path of Napoleon Bonaparte
, from 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow
by Adam Zamoyski.
To destroy that enemy, by some means or other, the force opposed to it should be made to bear some analogy and resemblance
to the force and spirit which that system exerts.
—Edmund Burke on the Jacobins
The vessel of Revolution can arrive at port only on a sea reddened by torrents of blood.
— Louis Antoine de Saint-Just
If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself
A few years from now, I told him, perhaps others would be killing each other for anti-nationalist ideals. Then they would laugh at our own killings just as we had laughed at the Byzantines. These others would indulge in mutual slaughter with the same enthusiasm, though their ideals were new
. Warfare under the entirely fresh banners would be just as disgraceful as always. They might even rip each others' guts out then with religious zeal, claiming that they were 'fighting to end all fighting.
' But they took would be followed by still others who would laugh at them with the same gusto.
—Stratis Myrivilis, Life in the Tomb
Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Che did indeed kill people. He killed enemy soldiers on the battlefield, like any professional soldier of any nation. He killed undisciplined guerillas who would abuse their power and terrorize the populace, raping and killing peasant women and children. Che also killed soldiers of Batistaís army for heinous war crimes, and members of the hated secret police, the Bureau of Repression of Communist Activities, who were known for their brutality and use of torture....Usually, what happens is that, in the case of the Russian Civil War and the Cuban Revolution, the reactionary faction in power is brutal and uses atrocious methods to eliminate the rebel threat like torture. The rebels are then forced to become just as bad if they want to secure victory. Violence breeds violence. Batistaís pro-US puppet regime was paradise for mafia kingpins and Unitedstatian businessmen, and hell for Cubans and those in extreme poverty. Revolutions like these, demanding immediate and specific changes, donít happen without a reason.
Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom
fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?
According to official North Korean
mythology, Kim Il Sung, the 'Great Leader,' is immortal, arose from the grave to be with us forever, and lives in the hearts of every Korean, who all bubble over with intense love and adoration toward Him, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera
. According to everyone else, he was a failed guerrilla leader who spent much of WWII unsuccessfully attempting to free Korea from the iron fist of the Japanese so it could be seized by the iron fist of Kim Il Sung instead.
Take these guys in what are called the 'militias' — I mean, obviously they're not militias in the Second Amendment sense: 'militias' are things raised by states, these are just paramilitary organizations.... They don't read the "Fortune 500
" and put together an analysis of what's really going on
in the world, all they've had rammed to their heads is, 'The Federal Government's your enemy.' If you come to them with a political framework that could lead to some kind of productive change, it's all just another power-play as far as they're concerned — and with some justice: everything else they've been told is a crock, so why should they believe you?
The conservatives are now tending toward fascism ó crack down on dissent
, support your local police
, disobey the Supreme Court
ó while the New Left wants to destroy the entire system. Emotionally, Iím drawn to the New Left. I would certainly go to the barricades for any movement that wants to sweep away the Pentagon, Time
interviews, and frozen French fried potatoes
. But what is to take its place? The New Left not only have no blueprint, they donít want a blueprint. Letís just see what happens
, they say. Well, I can tell them what will happen: first anarchy, then dictatorship. They are rich in Tom Paines
, but they have no Thomas Jefferson
Certainly the riots were tremendously self-defeating. There is no reasonable way to claim that they were not in part, indeed, in a substantial part motivated by little more than outright anger and destructiveness. Many, indeed the overwhelming majority of people directly harmed by the riots were by any sensible standard innocent victims. And no sensible theory of political activism can really conclude that indiscriminate smashing of stuff is going to get you much of anywhere.
All of which said, in practice there is something grimly inevitable about riots — a toxic mixture of poverty, degradation, and summer heat that periodically and predictably combusts.
58% of those arrested in connection with the riots came from the poorest 20% of areas of England. This fact speaks volumes about the causes of the riots. And perhaps more to the point, it is not necessarily reasonable to expect peopleís howl of outrage at the apparent and hopeless dead end that is their life to be orderly and productive.