Log in

View Full Version : Ethiopa: Red Terror?



RotStern
13th February 2010, 16:04
Hello Comrades, I was having a discussion with my teacher on Communist which inevitably lead to a whole debate about Stalin, after refuting all of his points he said ''Fine! Forget about Stalin what about Other countiries? Like Ethiopia!''.
I have not heard much of Ethiopia other than apparantly the mean Communists killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Is this true?
Also sorry for the spelling mistake in the title.

gorillafuck
13th February 2010, 16:13
Wasn't the majority of the Ethiopian red terror against the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Party, which was a communist party? That's what I'm reading online right now.

Dimentio
13th February 2010, 16:16
Wasn't the majority of Mengistu's red terror against the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Party, which was a communist party?

Yes. And if they had come to power, they would have massacred millions of Derg supporters...

gorillafuck
13th February 2010, 16:23
Yes. And if they had come to power, they would have massacred millions of Derg supporters...
I don't doubt it.

The Vegan Marxist
13th February 2010, 16:25
Haha, yeah. I don't think your teacher really thought through with his accusations very clearly. You should ask him, though, if he was a Mengistu supporter. If so, then there's where you start refuting him again.

Dimentio
13th February 2010, 16:27
My comment was more directed at exactly how cruel and brutal marxist-leninist parties have been historically, especially towards one another. I think that excess cruelty and authoritarianism perhaps could be understood more as the establishment of some sort of national state than any social revolution.

If one had placed the Swedish king Gustav Vasa and his reforms on the 20th century, they would look glaringly much like the statist reforms undertaken by states ruled by marxist-leninist parties.

The Vegan Marxist
13th February 2010, 17:05
My comment was more directed at exactly how cruel and brutal marxist-leninist parties have been historically, especially towards one another. I think that excess cruelty and authoritarianism perhaps could be understood more as the establishment of some sort of national state than any social revolution.

If one had placed the Swedish king Gustav Vasa and his reforms on the 20th century, they would look glaringly much like the statist reforms undertaken by states ruled by marxist-leninist parties.

No offense, but militant risings must happen. We have to be brutal to those in direct power or we will be destroyed. The majority of Marxist-led revolutionary groups were just as militant as Che Guevara was. If you're not ready to kill those of the opposition during a revolution if they stand in your way, then you'll be killed by the opposition, & more than likely through more brutal methods.

manic expression
13th February 2010, 17:12
All I know about the "Red Terror" in Ethiopia is that it was in response to the White Terror, so it wasn't a unilateral thing by any means.

Dimentio
13th February 2010, 17:30
No offense, but militant risings must happen. We have to be brutal to those in direct power or we will be destroyed. The majority of Marxist-led revolutionary groups were just as militant as Che Guevara was. If you're not ready to kill those of the opposition during a revolution if they stand in your way, then you'll be killed by the opposition, & more than likely through more brutal methods.

I am not talking about brutality against those in power. I am talking about brutality from those in power against large segments of the people.

But your quote is illustrative of the mentality amongst a lot of self-proclaimed revolutionaries. You seem to think that you need to use as much force as possible, rather than necessary. That seems to me to be very irrational, and I cannot understand the reason why entire groups of people must be suspected and put under supervision on a constant basis, or killed because they have the wrong opinions.

The Vegan Marxist
13th February 2010, 17:48
I am not talking about brutality against those in power. I am talking about brutality from those in power against large segments of the people.

But your quote is illustrative of the mentality amongst a lot of self-proclaimed revolutionaries. You seem to think that you need to use as much force as possible, rather than necessary. That seems to me to be very irrational, and I cannot understand the reason why entire groups of people must be suspected and put under supervision on a constant basis, or killed because they have the wrong opinions.

Never said to use as much force as possible, & yes, it must be used when it is necessary. But when a revolution takes form, the force must be used! That's when violence becomes necessary. And I never said to kill those that think differently, but those that get in your way through the revolution, to where it's either you kill them or they'll kill you (a necessary time for force to be brought upon).

Red Commissar
13th February 2010, 18:58
Ethiopia's "communist" groups were no more than left-wing nationalist-populist groups. They aren't representative of anything communist really.

What they would be representative of is the political strife that plagues all African nations to this day.

Dimentio
13th February 2010, 19:13
Never said to use as much force as possible, & yes, it must be used when it is necessary. But when a revolution takes form, the force must be used! That's when violence becomes necessary. And I never said to kill those that think differently, but those that get in your way through the revolution, to where it's either you kill them or they'll kill you (a necessary time for force to be brought upon).

You do not need to kill them, just make them inefficient. Killing is counter-productive since it is creating martyrs. Martyrs are evoking sympathy since humans in general abhor killing. Sympathy evokes more opposition. In short, killing would permit more killing which would permit more killing.

The Vegan Marxist
13th February 2010, 19:22
You do not need to kill them, just make them inefficient. Killing is counter-productive since it is creating martyrs. Martyrs are evoking sympathy since humans in general abhor killing. Sympathy evokes more opposition. In short, killing would permit more killing which would permit more killing.

During a revolution, if the opposition has a gun pointed to your head, it would either be kill him first or let them kill you. Being sympathetic to the opposition is something that should be thought about after the revolution is won, for they are no longer a threat to you & don't have a gun barrel pointed towards your face.

Dimentio
13th February 2010, 19:27
During a revolution, if the opposition has a gun pointed to your head, it would either be kill him first or let them kill you. Being sympathetic to the opposition is something that should be thought about after the revolution is won, for they are no longer a threat to you & don't have a gun barrel pointed towards your face.

How long is the revolution supposed to be?

The Vegan Marxist
13th February 2010, 19:32
How long is the revolution supposed to be?

That couldn't be determined overnight. There are different factors that play into a revolution. How long will the resistance remain resisting? How long will the opposition remain in control?, etc., etc.

Dimentio
13th February 2010, 19:50
That couldn't be determined overnight. There are different factors that play into a revolution. How long will the resistance remain resisting? How long will the opposition remain in control?, etc., etc.

And most importantly, when will the Central Committee think the Revolution is over?

Its sometimes very convenient to get rid of your competitors and the enemies within the party.

I'll hope you're joking.

:lol:

The Vegan Marxist
14th February 2010, 13:38
And most importantly, when will the Central Committee think the Revolution is over?

Its sometimes very convenient to get rid of your competitors and the enemies within the party.

I'll hope you're joking.

:lol:

And it's apparent that you refuse to think critically when it comes to what will be needed through a revolution. If you feel like we should just let them go or not do anything when they stick a gun to our face then you'll either get yourself killed, or your comrades that are fighting beside you killed as well. So good luck with that.

Dimentio
14th February 2010, 13:48
And it's apparent that you refuse to think critically when it comes to what will be needed through a revolution. If you feel like we should just let them go or not do anything when they stick a gun to our face then you'll either get yourself killed, or your comrades that are fighting beside you killed as well. So good luck with that.

And if your comrades after they're coming into power have come to the conclusion that you are an enemy of the people and need to be killed simply because you happen to have a minority opinion within the party?

The Vegan Marxist
14th February 2010, 13:51
And if your comrades after they're coming into power have come to the conclusion that you are an enemy of the people and need to be killed simply because you happen to have a minority opinion within the party?

Well if I had a negative opinion, then they'd go through a course to determine whether that was true or not. And I never said to kill those that have different opinions. I said that earlier, weren't you listening? I merely said that if the opposition got in your way & it was an either 'kill or be killed' situation, then you kill them. Not because of different opinions. So don't try & put words in my mouth.

Dimentio
14th February 2010, 15:53
Well if I had a negative opinion, then they'd go through a course to determine whether that was true or not. And I never said to kill those that have different opinions. I said that earlier, weren't you listening? I merely said that if the opposition got in your way & it was an either 'kill or be killed' situation, then you kill them. Not because of different opinions. So don't try & put words in my mouth.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I was neither speaking about violence during revolutions, but violence after so-called socialist regimes have been established.

The Vegan Marxist
14th February 2010, 18:29
I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I was neither speaking about violence during revolutions, but violence after so-called socialist regimes have been established.

Then that would be a matter would we have to talk about together, because it would be a matter of what is needed by the entire community. Me personally, I believe we could allow to keep them alive & let them have a choice then, since they would no longer be a threat to us.