"Turn the other cheek" is a reactionary ethical philosophy

[Queercommie Girl]

"Turn the other cheek" is a reactionary ethical philosophy.

The so-called "philosophy of forgiveness", "to turn the other cheek", derived from Western Christianity, is an utterly reactionary ethical philosophy from a Marxist perspective.

Not all feudalisms are equal. Though both Confucianism and Christianity are feudal ideologies, in terms of ethics Confucianism is superior and more progressive, probably one reason why Chinese feudalism was more advanced than European feudalism. I don't want to sound Sinocentric and I have no desire to vernerate feudal China, but at least in Confucian ethics one cannot find the kind of weak and impotent absolute pacifist ethics that is found in religions like Christianity and Buddhism.

"Once a disciple of Confucius went to him and asked: 'Suppose another person shows resentment towards me, should I reply him with forgiving virtue?

To this Confucius replied: 'Suppose you responded to resentment with virtue. Then what would you respond to the virtue of other people with? What you should do is to respond to resentment with righteousness, and respond to virtue with virtue.'"

There is nothing wrong with quoting from Confucius here, this is not a sign of "being reactionarily feudal", since both Lenin and Mao said that socialists should absorb the positive aspects of feudal and capitalist civilisation. And on this ethical point Confucius is far ahead of Jesus and his ridiculous weak and impotent absolute pacifism.

Absolute pacifism is reactionary because it is clearly at odds with the pragmatic requirements of a socialist revolution. If Lenin were absolute pacifist like Jesus he might cry about the poor now and then, but there would be no October Revolution. If Che were absolute pacifist like Jesus then today American colonialism would still hold sway over most of Latin America. Had Chinese workers simply "turned the other cheek" to the suicides at Foxconn rather than fighting back there would certainly be even more suicides. Had black people in the US meekly accepted their fate then there would be no civil rights movement.

No. Socialists do not believe in absolute pacifism. We are pacifists in the general sense that we do not believe violence is an intrinsically good thing, but we have no reservations of using violence very explicitly if our socialist program requires us to do so. To "turn the other cheek" is an act of betrayal to the global working class and oppressed peoples at large. To show compassion to the wolf of capitalism and imperialism is to put oneself on a plate to be eaten.

Therefore in my own personal and political life, I operate by the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". If a personal insults me, I will insult back. If a person hits me, I will strike back. If capitalists try to exploit me, I will fight back through class struggle. If imperialists try to conquer me, I will fight back as a part of a national liberation movement. If sexists, racists, homophobes and transphobes are discriminatory towards me then I will not simply "tolerate it". Tolerance of social injustice is literally a crime to the oppressed.

Someone actually said that it is "soft" to complain and rather one should just "get on with it". If this is a part of the general American culture of "never complain or otherwise one is a whiner", then nothing can be further from the truth. If this ethical logic really stands, where will it take us? Is to complain about the exploitation of capitalists "whining"? Is to complain about the oppression of imperialists "whining"? Is to complain about the sexism, racism and homophobia of reactionaries "whining"? In fact, is not the whole socialist program just a big "whine"? Why don't workers just "get on with it" when their capitalist bosses exploit and oppress them!!

On the contrary, to fight back is a progressive sign of strength, and to just take it, to "turn the other cheek", to just accept it without a word is a pathetic and reactionary sign of weakness and impotence. When one has lost the ability and more importantly the will to fight back, he or she has lost his or her human soul. There was a time in history when human sacrifice was the social norm, when the slave masses did not even have the right to survive. Nothing can be taken for granted. There is no metaphysical and immutable "freedom" or "human rights". All "freedoms" and "human rights" that are in our hands now, they are there because our labouring ancestors used their own sweat and blood to fight for them. Otherwise to this very day everyone of us will still end our lives literally on a sacrificial altar for our slave-lord masters.

The "turn the other cheek" ethical philosophy represents one of the most reactionary aspects of Western Christian culture. It must be thoroughly criticised.

[Hit The North]

I'm going to move this to Religion, if only so our more religious minded contributors, who may be restricted, can have a say.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

"Turn the other cheek" is a reactionary ethical philosophy.


"Turn the other cheek" is wonderful ... provided the cheek isn't yours.:laugh:

[Coelacanth]

I agree. To "turn the other cheek" is to accept things the way they are. It allows whatever it is that you're supposed to forgive to continue to happen. "Let the problem take care of itself," basically. No no no no no. Some people might believe that 'sinners' will turn eventually to 'goodness,' but it won't happen of their own volition. A kick in the seat of the pants is necessary.

[LimitedIdeology]

You have no conception or knowledge of Christian theology, do you?

[Conquer or Die]

Turning the other cheek is sacrificing your selfishness for selflessness.

You are not to look away when your brother or the weak are being attacked. You are necessarily compelled to help him.

John Brown was proof of this Christian concept, and he was a proletarian revolutionary. Thomas Muntzer was also a Christian revolutionary. Nat Turner was a Christian revolutionary. Che Guevara was not a Christian, but in many ways identified with this concept.

Leaders who embody this maxim are in fact most fit for service. By being able to relinquish their lives for the common good they are able to be martyred and create positive examples. A revolutionary who goes out seeking power and wealth (as unfortunately many have) is not a revolutionary but a reactionary profiteer. Men such as the above are unable to act in the interest of their exploiter class or for selfish gain, they turn into a traitor of their class. Allies.

Gandhi is quoted out of context when he suggested that jews throw themselves off of the top of mountains. He is also similarly mislabeled as a pacifist in the face of danger. He plainly stated that it was in fact a moral position for the oppressed to battle with their oppressors, he merely stated as a point of higher morality that not fighting back with weapons was a higher point of sacrifice. There is no cowardice involved in pacifist resistance to evil so long as it is resistance to the death. There is no immorality in violently fighting oppressors so long as it's not for the sake of violence. He was correct in those two themes.

However, while it is arguable that pacifist resistance and sacrifice is superior to violent resistance. It is not arguable that this is a case of individuality. In the case of seeing the exploiter attack another for their prurient gain you *must* be compelled to stop that from happening. If a man breaks into your house and starts raping your wife you are *required* to fight that man until death.

"Turn the other cheek" is correct. "Eye for an eye" is incorrect.

[Conquer or Die]

"Turn the other cheek" is a reactionary ethical philosophy.

Pathetic.


There is nothing wrong with quoting from Confucius here, this is not a sign of "being reactionarily feudal", since both Lenin and Mao said that socialists should absorb the positive aspects of feudal and capitalist civilisation. And on this ethical point Confucius is far ahead of Jesus and his ridiculous weak and impotent absolute pacifism.

Jesus was crucified by his own people for suggesting salvation for all and the righteousness of defeating oppression.


Absolute pacifism is reactionary because it is clearly at odds with the pragmatic requirements of a socialist revolution. If Lenin were absolute pacifist like Jesus he might cry about the poor now and then, but there would be no October Revolution. If Che were absolute pacifist like Jesus then today American colonialism would still hold sway over most of Latin America. Had Chinese workers simply "turned the other cheek" to the suicides at Foxconn rather than fighting back there would certainly be even more suicides. Had black people in the US meekly accepted their fate then there would be no civil rights movement.

Nobody justifies absolute pacifism. There is *NO* toleration of oppression in any of the words of Christ. One cannot accept peace and security in the face of oppression. Selfish gain at the expense of others must be struggled against. This is a fundamentalist requirement for all Christians.


No. Socialists do not believe in absolute pacifism. We are pacifists in the general sense that we do not believe violence is an intrinsically good thing, but we have no reservations of using violence very explicitly if our socialist program requires us to do so. To "turn the other cheek" is an act of betrayal to the global working class and oppressed peoples at large. To show compassion to the wolf of capitalism and imperialism is to put oneself on a plate to be eaten.

You refuse to ask any deep questions about the nature of violence and its necessity or lack thereof. Violence is a means to an end or something to be channeled into a mutually beneficial prospect (like sports). We don't commit violence because "our socialist program tells us so" we commit violence only as a necessary stage for eliminating oppression.

As I've already demonstrated, pacifist resistance is a moral choice on the part of a lone individual. It is also resistance to the death. To call it weak or a betrayal is ignorance and shows your own lack of intelligence and weakness.


Therefore in my own personal and political life, I operate by the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". If a personal insults me, I will insult back. If a person hits me, I will strike back. If capitalists try to exploit me, I will fight back through class struggle. If imperialists try to conquer me, I will fight back as a part of a national liberation movement. If sexists, racists, homophobes and transphobes are discriminatory towards me then I will not simply "tolerate it". Tolerance of social injustice is literally a crime to the oppressed.

You sound like a spoiled kid to me. When you're wielding an AK-47 in the Congo then you can start talking to me about the righteousness of your resistance. Citing vague notions of capitalist discrimination of trans gendered people in the workplace puts you nowhere near "the struggle."


Someone actually said that it is "soft" to complain and rather one should just "get on with it". If this is a part of the general American culture of "never complain or otherwise one is a whiner", then nothing can be further from the truth. If this ethical logic really stands, where will it take us? Is to complain about the exploitation of capitalists "whining"? Is to complain about the oppression of imperialists "whining"? Is to complain about the sexism, racism and homophobia of reactionaries "whining"? In fact, is not the whole socialist program just a big "whine"? Why don't workers just "get on with it" when their capitalist bosses exploit and oppress them!!

It is soft to complain. Complaints are inherently soft. Actions aimed at eliminating oppression are not soft. Individual pacifist resistance that is aimed at eliminating oppression is not soft. A complaint must be weighed according to the principle of what is right and not right. If it is not right then the complaint should turn into an analysis and a plan of action. Simply whining is pathetic, and doesn't make you a revolutionary.


On the contrary, to fight back is a progressive sign of strength, and to just take it, to "turn the other cheek", to just accept it without a word is a pathetic and reactionary sign of weakness and impotence. When one has lost the ability and more importantly the will to fight back, he or she has lost his or her human soul. There was a time in history when human sacrifice was the social norm, when the slave masses did not even have the right to survive. Nothing can be taken for granted. There is no metaphysical and immutable "freedom" or "human rights". All "freedoms" and "human rights" that are in our hands now, they are there because our labouring ancestors used their own sweat and blood to fight for them. Otherwise to this very day everyone of us will still end our lives literally on a sacrificial altar for our slave-lord masters.

Fighting back without a purpose is immoral and reactionary. The "blood and tears" is a shared human experience, and the fight for a more just order has taken many forms and is shared by many people in many different camps. Try to think outside of your closed off little world and you may learn something.


The "turn the other cheek" ethical philosophy represents one of the most reactionary aspects of Western Christian culture. It must be thoroughly criticised.

Your criticism is effete and useless. Relegate it to the dustbin of your ethical development.

[Invincible Summer]

Jesus was crucified by his own people for suggesting salvation for all and the righteousness of defeating oppression.


For all the people that believed that he was the son of god, yes.

[Conquer or Die]

For all the people that believed that he was the son of god, yes.

That the meek should inherit the earth, yes?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Jesus was crucified by his own people for suggesting salvation for all and the righteousness of defeating oppression.

Nobody justifies absolute pacifism. There is *NO* toleration of oppression in any of the words of Christ. One cannot accept peace and security in the face of oppression. Selfish gain at the expense of others must be struggled against. This is a fundamentalist requirement for all Christians.
.

This is the best post I've seen in a long while. While most kids at revleft talk bravely behind their computers, the likes of Jesus and MLK gave up their lives for the sake of humanity. Their non-violence was more potent than the reactionary violence which most leftists seem to fetishize.

[Blackscare]

How long can you stay on one extended rant for? Is someone keeping count of the threads?

[Invincible Summer]

That the meek should inherit the earth, yes?

You assume all who are "meek" are Christian? A tad arrogant and Eurocentric.


This is the best post I've seen in a long while. While most kids at revleft talk bravely behind their computers, the likes of Jesus and MLK gave up their lives for the sake of humanity. Their non-violence was more potent than the reactionary violence which most leftists seem to fetishize.

For all I care, Jesus was a crazy person. There's so much contradictory evidence as to whether he even existed. What if I called myself the second son of God that's only mentioned in a book that isn't in the conventional Bible, then got shot by cops or something? Would you hail me as some sort of awesome person? Probably not, but that's because the concept of me being the 2nd son of god hasn't been absorbed into Western culture.

And this is an Internet forum, which is why we're 'talking behind computers.'


Non-violence is only glamorized by the ruling class to quell true revolution. MLK didn't single-handedly make the gains for the Civil Rights movement; it was a combination of the Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, Young Lords, and other militant groups as well. Only spineless liberals fetishize pacifism, when in reality all it does is serve the ruling interests that subordinate you.

[Dimentio]

To the OP about "feudalism".

China gravitated between centralised despotism and feudalism. The Zhou and Han dynasties were feudal, while most other dynasties were examples of different forms of hierarchical despotisms. During the Ming and Qing dynasties for example, the land-owners - even really big ones - were considered just another brand of farmers (even if they had debt slaves). Those who wielded political powers were most often imperial bureaucrats and military figures.

A social system need to have more than an agricultural economy characterised by large land-holdings to be considered feudal. The land-owners also actually need to wield political power through a decentralised system.

Europe was feudal basically between 843 and 1648. Japan was feudal from the 15th century and onward to the 19th century. Ancient empires like the Hittites and the Parthians were also feudally organised.

Pure feudalism doesn't mean that the economy is dominated by wealthy land-owners, but that these land-owners have indiscriminate legal and political power on their property, that they have access to private armies and that the economy is tending toward large self-sufficient farms. The reason that feudalism arose in western Europe was not some sort of natural evolution from the slavery system, but a combination of events which took half a millennium, from Diocletian's establishment of guilds in the Roman Empire to the rise of Islam and the fall of the Carolingian Empire. The most important factor though was islam. The spread of islam cut off western Europe from the supply of gold and silver, forcing the Western Roman successor states to start to pay their armies in terms of land instead of monetary means, leading to a collapse of trade and a large recession in the late 9th and early 10th centuries.

[Conquer or Die]

You assume all who are "meek" are Christian? A tad arrogant and Eurocentric.


I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying look behind the superficial Christ of popular culture and read the text and understand the context. It's astounding that such important things can get relegated



For all I care, Jesus was a crazy person. There's so much contradictory evidence as to whether he even existed. What if I called myself the second son of God that's only mentioned in a book that isn't in the conventional Bible, then got shot by cops or something? Would you hail me as some sort of awesome person? Probably not, but that's because the concept of me being the 2nd son of god hasn't been absorbed into Western culture.

Well I don't really care about your personal opinion on the most influential event in western civilization. Your way too arrogant and ignorant to be speaking on this matter, to be completely frank.


Non-violence is only glamorized by the ruling class to quell true revolution. MLK didn't single-handedly make the gains for the Civil Rights movement; it was a combination of the Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, Young Lords, and other militant groups as well. Only spineless liberals fetishize pacifism, when in reality all it does is serve the ruling interests that subordinate you.

MLK Jr. was martyred in the fight against oppression and you want to use him as an excuse for your own inability to do something important?

Please. MLK Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi were not "liberals" and while they were very flawed people they were engaged in a popular resistance to oppression. Their doctrine of non-violence was an attempt at ending oppression, not letting it stand.

Only reactionaries and pussies would condemn MLK Jr. Similarly reactionaries and pussies condemn the black panthers on the opposite side. Both the man MLK Jr. and the Black Panthers were revolutionaries.

[LimitedIdeology]

Christians are called forth to be nonviolent; violence has been the method used to perpetuate oppression since the beginning of human society. By breaking with this concept, Christians serve as an example. Overthrowing capitalist regimes is not the primary concern; being faithful to Christ is, and the rest will follow.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying look behind the superficial Christ of popular culture and read the text and understand the context. It's astounding that such important things can get relegated

Well I don't really care about your personal opinion on the most influential event in western civilization. Your way too arrogant and ignorant to be speaking on this matter, to be completely frank.

Look, I was raised in a Protestant church until I was 17, I went to a Christian primary school, my family are all devout Protestant Christians. I've endured enough bullshit to know that scene, so don't tell me I'm "ignorant" or only looking at the "superficial."

The "most influential event in western civilization?" Really? What is the criteria? "Such important things?" According to whom?



MLK Jr. was martyred in the fight against oppression and you want to use him as an excuse for your own inability to do something important?No, I just wanted to emphasize that it was not just MLK that brought the Civil Rights movement to a head, unlike what liberals would like you to think


Please. MLK Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi were not "liberals" and while they were very flawed people they were engaged in a popular resistance to oppression. Their doctrine of non-violence was an attempt at ending oppression, not letting it stand.I didn't mean to say that MLK and Gandhi were "liberals," but rather that the people who uphold them as the greatest revolutionaries on earth are.


Only reactionaries and pussies would condemn MLK Jr. Similarly reactionaries and pussies condemn the black panthers on the opposite side. Both the man MLK Jr. and the Black Panthers were revolutionaries.This is basically what I'm getting at. It's the work of both the more reformist groups as well as the revolutionary groups.




Christians are called forth to be nonviolent; violence has been the method used to perpetuate oppression since the beginning of human society. By breaking with this concept, Christians serve as an example. Overthrowing capitalist regimes is not the primary concern; being faithful to Christ is, and the rest will follow.

The religious right is a great example of why this doesn't work the way you want it to.

[LimitedIdeology]

The religious right is a great example of why this doesn't work the way you want it to.

The religious right isn't faithful to Christ. They are faithful to the God of American patriotism.

[Invincible Summer]

The religious right isn't faithful to Christ.

Well that's subjective isn't it?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Well that's subjective isn't it?

No, it is not. If you claim to be a Marxist and yet favor capitalism, that would make you a follower of capitalism, despite your claims to the contrary. The same logic applies here.

[Invincible Summer]

No, it is not. If you claim to be a Marxist and yet favor capitalism, that would make you a follower of capitalism, despite your claims to the contrary. The same logic applies here.

The religious right claims to be christian, favors _____, that would make them a follower of ______ ?


EDIT: The religious right is not necessarily correlated with the Prosperity Gospel

[Conquer or Die]

Look, I was raised in a Protestant church until I was 17, I went to a Christian primary school, my family are all devout Protestant Christians. I've endured enough bullshit to know that scene, so don't tell me I'm "ignorant" or only looking at the "superficial."

It's not that you know protestants, or went a protestant church, or have a protestant family. It's whether or not you can analyze what protestantism is that's important. Saying these things has confirmed that you only have a superficial understanding of Christianity.



The "most influential event in western civilization?" Really? What is the criteria? "Such important things?" According to whom?

"According to whom" is according to numbers, philosophy, culture, and laws. An objective person, IE one concerned with facts, would consider the development of Christianity monumental in human history. There is no other analysis from a person that can make this not so. Even a Marxist materialist in fundamentalist terms wouldn't commit this mistake.



No, I just wanted to emphasize that it was not just MLK that brought the Civil Rights movement to a head, unlike what liberals would like you to think

Imagine somebody saying that "Only MLK Jr. mattered in the struggle for Civil Rights in America." That absurd claim would never be made by anybody. It would suggest that a leader of a mass movement against general oppression is the only worthwhile figure and the only person oppressed. It's like saying that the Klan can only recognize his greatness.


I didn't mean to say that MLK and Gandhi were "liberals," but rather that the people who uphold them as the greatest revolutionaries on earth are.

If they like them because they get to get fat off of the profits of others and prop up horrendous regimes for personal pleasure at the expense of dignity and confuse their ability to be passive to domination with the inability for passivity to dominate others then that's their fault. It's your fault for being hurt by empty words and trying to conflate them superficially.

There is a particularly good evisceration of a liberal by Norman Finkelstein who suggested that the Palestinians adopt Gandhi's approach. The well intentioned liberal slyly stated that the loss of the palestinians was due to their inability to be passive resisters. Finkelstein, characteristic of him, destroyed her by saying that it was not the place for those in warm beds to demand passivity to oppression, and that Ghandi's suggestion for ending oppression was ultimate resistance to the death. This liberal had confused every ethical idea of resistance to oppression with self love.


This is basically what I'm getting at. It's the work of both the more reformist groups as well as the revolutionary groups.

Yeah, you're not wrong about the Black Panthers. That's all that it means, nothing more and nothing less.



The religious right is a great example of why this doesn't work the way you want it to.

Conflating politics with belief, assuming the believer's faith is politics of logical cruelty.

The logic of passive resistance:
1. You must struggle against exploitation. To do so is only what is correct and not to do so is wrong.
2. This struggle is all encompassing. You do not struggle for yourself, you struggle against all forms of exploitation, period. You do not distinguish between people who are exploited, you only struggle against exploitation.
3. You do not deny the right for anybody to fight against exploitation, you accept that this is the only ethical realm of violence.
4. When you struggle against exploitation in a passive way you inflict more damage. You are not weaker than those who crack the whip; you are on the same level of masculine bravery, stoic devotion towards duty, virtue. There is only one difference between the warrior and the passive warrior. The warrior is enchained to exploitation and bloodlust necessarily. All the virtue of the aggressive warrior is chained to the desire of seeing others suffer, of exploiting others. The aggressive warrior turns virtue on its head. The passive warrior is therefore stronger. He meets every aggressive check with a shield, he forces the aggressive warrior to understand that he is not on equal footing. The aggressive warrior is inferior to the pacifist warrior in every case, every time.

A pacifist resister is not somebody who goes to Canada. A pacifist resister goes to the biggest airforce base in Alabama and blocks every truck, throws down every gun, forces the issue of ending exploitation until he will succeed or die.

If you call that cowardice then you're simply lying to yourself.

[Invincible Summer]

It's not that you know protestants, or went a protestant church, or have a protestant family. It's whether or not you can analyze what protestantism is that's important. Saying these things has confirmed that you only have a superficial understanding of Christianity.

Why don't you tell me what constitutes a "superficial understanding" and a "deep understanding?"

I feel that I understand it enough and experienced it enough to dislike it. That is all. Tell me why it is necessary to have a deeper understanding.




"According to whom" is according to numbers, philosophy, culture, and laws. An objective person, IE one concerned with facts, would consider the development of Christianity monumental in human history. There is no other analysis from a person that can make this not so. Even a Marxist materialist in fundamentalist terms wouldn't commit this mistake.
You're so passive-aggressive.

I suppose you''ve got a point though - I automatically interpret being "important/monumental in history" to mean "it was a good thing," but upon further reflection I can agree with you that the development of Christianity was indeed pivotal in history, albeit not necessarily for the better.




Imagine somebody saying that "Only MLK Jr. mattered in the struggle for Civil Rights in America." That absurd claim would never be made by anybody.

What are you talking about? Almost anyone you ask on the street will talk about MLK Jr and how great he was. No one talks about the rest of the people or groups involved in the struggle.

He's got a cult of personality amongst mainstream liberals. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say.


If they like them because they get to get fat off of the profits of others and prop up horrendous regimes for personal pleasure at the expense of dignity and confuse their ability to be passive to domination with the inability for passivity to dominate others then that's their fault. It's your fault for being hurt by empty words and trying to conflate them superficially.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. But I sense more passive-aggressive posting.


There is a particularly good evisceration of a liberal by Norman Finkelstein who suggested that the Palestinians adopt Gandhi's approach. The well intentioned liberal slyly stated that the loss of the palestinians was due to their inability to be passive resisters. Finkelstein, characteristic of him, destroyed her by saying that it was not the place for those in warm beds to demand passivity to oppression, and that Ghandi's suggestion for ending oppression was ultimate resistance to the death. This liberal had confused every ethical idea of resistance to oppression with self love.


Okay.



Conflating politics with belief, assuming the believer's faith is politics of logical cruelty.

But the two are often intertwined. And I'm sure the right-wing Christian conservatives feel they are "following Jesus" just as much as more left-wing Christians. Just simply "following Christ" (which is what Limited Ideology was stating) is hardly enough to bring about socialism.





The logic of passive resistance:
1. You must struggle against exploitation. To do so is only what is correct and not to do so is wrong.
2. This struggle is all encompassing. You do not struggle for yourself, you struggle against all forms of exploitation, period. You do not distinguish between people who are exploited, you only struggle against exploitation.
3. You do not deny the right for anybody to fight against exploitation, you accept that this is the only ethical realm of violence.
This is no different than any other form of radical resistance.


4. When you struggle against exploitation in a passive way you inflict more damage. You are not weaker than those who crack the whip; you are on the same level of masculine bravery, stoic devotion towards duty, virtue. There is only one difference between the warrior and the passive warrior. The warrior is enchained to exploitation and bloodlust necessarily. All the virtue of the aggressive warrior is chained to the desire of seeing others suffer, of exploiting others. The aggressive warrior turns virtue on its head. The passive warrior is therefore stronger. He meets every aggressive check with a shield, he forces the aggressive warrior to understand that he is not on equal footing. The aggressive warrior is inferior to the pacifist warrior in every case, every time.

Apart from being obviously biased towards pacifism, what is this but a caricature of non-pacifism? "Chained to the desire of seeing others suffer, of exploiting others?" Really?

There is no desire to see others suffer. The ruling classes will not give any quarter, so why should revolutionaries act like they will? There will be no romantic photo-ops of people shoving flowers into barrels of guns. To seize the means of production from the ruling class requires force.

If you had a painting worth millions of dollars (or had very high sentimental value) and someone wanted to take it from you, would you just give it to them willingly? Probably not. If they stood around and cried out constantly "I want it! I want it! I want it!" would you give it to them? You'd probably just shut them up. But if they had a gun to your head, you'd probably be willing to give it up pretty fast.



A pacifist resister is not somebody who goes to Canada. A pacifist resister goes to the biggest airforce base in Alabama and blocks every truck, throws down every gun, forces the issue of ending exploitation until he will succeed or die.

If you call that cowardice then you're simply lying to yourself.
I never said it was cowardice. I just don't think it's revolutionary. It's great for broader resistance, but when push comes to shove, these tactics will make many a human doormat.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A pacifist resister is not somebody who goes to Canada. A pacifist resister goes to the biggest airforce base in Alabama and blocks every truck, throws down every gun, forces the issue of ending exploitation until he will succeed or die.

Given the exploiters' willingness to use violence, the ratio of death to success using such tactics says you'll meet a sticky end.

That's why pacifism is shit. It doesn't work.

[Conquer or Die]

Given the exploiters' willingness to use violence, the ratio of death to success using such tactics says you'll meet a sticky end.

That's why pacifism is shit. It doesn't work.

We're talking about ethical philosophies, not crude materialism. The warrior embodies virtuosity except in the most critical way - to help others instead of destroying them. It's virtue turned on its head.

So for somebody to call it reactionary, a la the OP, is for somebody to be ignorant, childish, or damaging. The OP logically hasn't responded.

[Invincible Summer]

The OP is suspended.

[LimitedIdeology]

Well that's subjective isn't it?

Heh. Theology isn't a subjective sport.

[LimitedIdeology]

Given the exploiters' willingness to use violence, the ratio of death to success using such tactics says you'll meet a sticky end.

That's why pacifism is shit. It doesn't work.

Of course, you're presupposing a utilitarian ethics; the pacifist works outside the system of violence (wars, conflict) in order to overturn it. Utility isn't their bag, more of virtue if anything.

[Queercommie Girl]

Pathetic.

Jesus was crucified by his own people for suggesting salvation for all and the righteousness of defeating oppression.


Actually if you read what Jesus said social justice was not foremost among his principles at all. The fundies have actually got this right: the main message of Jesus is not a social one, but a theological one, that Jesus is basically God. Jesus did say some good things, but he is important not because of his social message, but due to his alleged theological status. In the Gospel Jesus said things along the lines of you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me, essentially stating that he is more important than the poor.



Nobody justifies absolute pacifism. There is *NO* toleration of oppression in any of the words of Christ. One cannot accept peace and security in the face of oppression. Selfish gain at the expense of others must be struggled against. This is a fundamentalist requirement for all Christians.
Intolerance towards injustice and oppression isn't just conveyed by words, but by deeds. If one is not prepared to use violence against severe oppression, severe oppression will not go away.



You refuse to ask any deep questions about the nature of violence and its necessity or lack thereof. Violence is a means to an end or something to be channeled into a mutually beneficial prospect (like sports). We don't commit violence because "our socialist program tells us so" we commit violence only as a necessary stage for eliminating oppression.
I never said violence is a fundamentally good thing. But yes if a socialist program is correct, I believe it is fundamentally correct to utilise violence politically.



As I've already demonstrated, pacifist resistance is a moral choice on the part of a lone individual. It is also resistance to the death. To call it weak or a betrayal is ignorance and shows your own lack of intelligence and weakness.
I'm a socialist who is very much in favour of collective action. Frankly "lone individuals" do not achieve much by themselves.

Incidentally, before you start chest-thumping about my alleged "weakness", resistance in the political sense isn't just about being strong, is also about being smart, i.e. deal more damage to the enemy while protecting yourself, just throw yourself out to your political enemy to die isn't the way to go.



You sound like a spoiled kid to me. When you're wielding an AK-47 in the Congo then you can start talking to me about the righteousness of your resistance. Citing vague notions of capitalist discrimination of trans gendered people in the workplace puts you nowhere near "the struggle."
I have to say, I think you are bordering on transphobia here. Whether or not I am a "spoiled kid" is beside the point, and for the record actually I don't come from a rich or privileged family background at all.

You claim transphobia is somehow "vague" and trans activism isn't real struggle. This is frankly very incorrect. For someone who claims to be intolerant in principle towards all forms of oppression and discrimination, I wonder why is it that you don't seem to include transgendered people. Is it because of what your divinely inspired theology tells you, I wonder?

Transphobia as it exists under capitalist society today is not vague, it is a very clear problem. You should educate yourself with this article:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgende....html?t=139511 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenderism-t139511/index.html?t=139511)

Interesting you mentioned fighting in the Congo. I don't think I will ever go to Africa, but being a Maoist to some extent, I don't actually rule out going to fight in India or Nepal. So I guess you shouldn't jump to conclusions about me.



It is soft to complain. Complaints are inherently soft. Actions aimed at eliminating oppression are not soft. Individual pacifist resistance that is aimed at eliminating oppression is not soft. A complaint must be weighed according to the principle of what is right and not right. If it is not right then the complaint should turn into an analysis and a plan of action. Simply whining is pathetic, and doesn't make you a revolutionary.
Complaints and actions aren't mutually exclusive, but are fundamentally linked. Complaints are ineffective only if people just stop at the level of complaints. But in practice all action actually begin with a complaint.

As I said, as a socialist I am very much a collectivist. I believe a single individual who is not linked to any serious political party and organisation, cannot really achieve much in practice.

Actually the American culture against "whining" is pretty much a manifestation of the so-called "individual ruggedness" of the petit-bourgeois, which is also manifest in your preference for individual over collective action.



Fighting back without a purpose is immoral and reactionary. The "blood and tears" is a shared human experience, and the fight for a more just order has taken many forms and is shared by many people in many different camps. Try to think outside of your closed off little world and you may learn something.
Wait a minute, whoever said anything about "fighting back without a purpose"??

And who is trapped in his own closed off little world here, me or someone who literally believes in divine inspiration?



Your criticism is effete and useless. Relegate it to the dustbin of your ethical development.
What is "effete" supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that it is wrong for men to demonstrate "feminine" qualities and that those people who have certain 'feminine" qualities cannot be effective fighters against oppression?

If that's what you mean, then frankly shame on you. So much for your "intolerance towards discrimination" when you show such an explicit masculinist (masculinism is the belief that in an intrinsic abstract sense, masculine qualities are intrinsically superior than feminine qualities).

Incidentally, note that I never said that Christianity is completely wrong or reactionary. Christianity like many other things play a dialectical role, it has both positive and negative aspects. But essentially I do very much criticise the notion of "passive resistance" that is present in Christian ethics.

[Queercommie Girl]

"According to whom" is according to numbers, philosophy, culture, and laws. An objective person, IE one concerned with facts, would consider the development of Christianity monumental in human history. There is no other analysis from a person that can make this not so. Even a Marxist materialist in fundamentalist terms wouldn't commit this mistake.


From a Marxist perspective, you are mistaken. Christianity is not the single most greatest influence on western civilisation, it's actually classical or Greco-Roman philosophy. If anything, Christian theology only gained a degree of rational respectfulness due to the influences of classical philosophy.

This is why Engels, for instance, talks about the "genius" of the ancient Greeks but was very explicitly critical of medieval religion.

Confucianism is in many ways closer to classical philosophy than Christianity is due to its rationalistic and humanist rather than divinely inspired and superstitious basis.

[Queercommie Girl]

Only reactionaries and pussies would condemn MLK Jr. Similarly reactionaries and pussies condemn the black panthers on the opposite side. Both the man MLK Jr. and the Black Panthers were revolutionaries.


LOL. It's funny how someone who denigrates others for being "childish" uses such adolescent-style playground-derived terms himself. I certainly have not heard this word being thrown around as an insult for quite a while.

You are a sexist and a masculinist. You believe that somehow the phallus is intrinsically superior so that you use a slang term for the female reproductive system as an insult. Shame on you.

Incidentally, your own "hero" Gandhi wouldn't have agreed with you on this point. Being influenced by Hinduism Gandhi was actually of the opinion that intrinsically femininity is just as good as masculinity, which is something you don't seem to be able to grasp. Well, what can I expect, when the God you worship is interpreted to be "all-male"? :rolleyes:

[Conquer or Die]

Actually if you read what Jesus said social justice was not foremost among his principles at all. The fundies have actually got this right: the main message of Jesus is not a social one, but a theological one, that Jesus is basically God. Jesus did say some good things, but he is important not because of his social message, but due to his alleged theological status. In the Gospel Jesus said things along the lines of you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me, essentially stating that he is more important than the poor.

Jesus proved his "theological status" by fighting against oppression.

Only a person removed from reality would suggest that Jesus was a narcissist. Because Jesus is God, and is therefore Love, attaining Christ-dom is the most important thing for anybody to do because it is love.

There will always be poor, always, in every society everywhere. Are you to suggest that severely mentally retarded children be shot? Are you saying that crazy people can be locked away?

Don't be a complete idiot. You know nothing about the Gospels, you know nothing about ethics.


Intolerance towards injustice and oppression isn't just conveyed by words, but by deeds. If one is not prepared to use violence against severe oppression, severe oppression will not go away.


I never said violence is a fundamentally good thing. But yes if a socialist program is correct, I believe it is fundamentally correct to utilise violence politically.

What the hell is "if a socialist program is correct." Would that be the Great Leap Forward or what Monkey Smashes Heaven writes?

Let's be honest, this whole exercise of whining on your part was to make yourself, personally, individually, feel better emotionally. You are no fighter against oppression you are a poster on a forum board.

Since you are so removed from reality you don't understand that violence and killing is not an abstract form of dialogue where X + X = 2X. It's a very complicated action. It's difficult and damaging to the soul. You get your ass on the religion forum to cry foul on Judeo Christian ethics when you don't understand their purpose. Instead of apologizing or backing up you proceed to know everything, to suggest that "if a socialist program is correct" or "violence is the only way to end oppression" when those are simply empty words by an empty person.

Your enemy is not satan. Your enemy is a human being making the wrong decision. Pacifist resistance is meant to cure your enemy of their suffering by your own sacrifice.

Such love, such unselfish love, to be criticized as "weak" by you is laughable. LAUGHABLE.


I'm a socialist who is very much in favour of collective action. Frankly "lone individuals" do not achieve much by themselves.

Incidentally, before you start chest-thumping about my alleged "weakness", resistance in the political sense isn't just about being strong, is also about being smart, i.e. deal more damage to the enemy while protecting yourself, just throw yourself out to your political enemy to die isn't the way to go.

You're probably in favor of collective action because you're a bit of a weak individual. Collective action only works so as to unite individuals with a common purpose to end oppression.

"Being smart." You don't talk to me, you don't flap your fucking lips to me, about being smart in combat if you haven't touched a goddamn weapon in your entire life.

Pacifist resistance, under the conditions that have already been laid out. Is meant to force the punisher to understand his weakness.

Somewhat ironically it seems that true pacifist resistance rings throughout the world. Think of the tank man in Tianenmen square. Tell me that is weakness. Have the audacity to suggest that pacifist resistance is weakness.


I have to say, I think you are bordering on transphobia here. Whether or not I am a "spoiled kid" is beside the point, and for the record actually I don't come from a rich or privileged family background at all.

I'm just trying to figure out how you could be so selfish and stupid. I think spoiled was the correct label.

Politically correct warning shots bounce off any rational person. I'm not transphobic.


You claim transphobia is somehow "vague" and trans activism isn't real struggle. This is frankly very incorrect. For someone who claims to be intolerant in principle towards all forms of oppression and discrimination, I wonder why is it that you don't seem to include transgendered people. Is it because of what your divinely inspired theology tells you, I wonder?

Transphobia as it exists under capitalist society today is not vague, it is a very clear problem. You should educate yourself with this article:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgende....html?t=139511 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenderism-t139511/index.html?t=139511)

Excuse me, but there is an appropriate difference between oppression in the Congo and oppression in the workplace of transgendered people. A true revolutionary should be able to point this out. A true socialist would understand this as well.

The struggle of transgendered people in America is not the same as people in the Congo. That's not to say it's not important, but it's a different level.


Interesting you mentioned fighting in the Congo. I don't think I will ever go to Africa, but being a Maoist to some extent, I don't actually rule out going to fight in India or Nepal. So I guess you shouldn't jump to conclusions about me.

I guess you talking about what you're going to do (maybe) while misunderstanding ethics isn't too goddamn important in the context of this thread, is it?

Shut the fuck up and go to India, then.


Complaints and actions aren't mutually exclusive, but are fundamentally linked. Complaints are ineffective only if people just stop at the level of complaints. But in practice all action actually begin with a complaint.

You explicitly defended whining. Whining is complaint based on prurient emotion. A logical complaint is systemic exploitation, and the logical course of action is to proceed with action.

Typical of your childish ways, you seem to want to defend the former.


As I said, as a socialist I am very much a collectivist. I believe a single individual who is not linked to any serious political party and organisation, cannot really achieve much in practice.

This is just sad. You're saying that need a boss to help you feel better about something. This is why you mention vague "socialist programs."

You also seem to think that I'm in support of individuals fighting against oppression. Which in fact I am, as any ethical person (not you, because you don't understand ethics or reject them) would be. You might try to inflate individual action with individual oppression but that's not what anybody with ethics supports at all.


Actually the American culture against "whining" is pretty much a manifestation of the so-called "individual ruggedness" of the petit-bourgeois, which is also manifest in your preference for individual over collective action.

Where the fuck did I say that? Where did I say I have a preference for individual over collective action? Nowhere. I said that under the conditions that somebody is oppressing only you and nobody else may you partake in pacifist resistance to the death.

You could at least not lie to yourself about what I said. Although it seems clear that your original post was so pathetic it's the only way for you to save face.


Wait a minute, whoever said anything about "fighting back without a purpose"??

And who is trapped in his own closed off little world here, me or someone who literally believes in divine inspiration?
[QUOTE=Iseul;1822678]
What is "effete" supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that it is wrong for men to demonstrate "feminine" qualities and that those people who have certain 'feminine" qualities cannot be effective fighters against oppression?


having lost character, vitality, or strength <the effete monarchies…of feudal Europe — G. M. Trevelyan> b : marked by weakness or decadence <the effete East> c : soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence

Leave it to the effete people to suggest that I'm insulting women or effeminate men. I'm insulting "weak" people. Weakness is bowing to a master. Weakness is selling yourself into slavery.


If that's what you mean, then frankly shame on you. So much for your "intolerance towards discrimination" when you show such an explicit masculinist (masculinism is the belief that in an intrinsic abstract sense, masculine qualities are intrinsically superior than feminine qualities).

I never said that "masculine" was superior to "feminine." Nowhere did I say anything of the sort.

You think that by being politically correct you can gain some pity points. It won't work with me or anybody with a rational mind.


Incidentally, note that I never said that Christianity is completely wrong or reactionary. Christianity like many other things play a dialectical role, it has both positive and negative aspects. But essentially I do very much criticise the notion of "passive resistance" that is present in Christian ethics.

I already explained to you what "passive resistance" means. It's a personal choice, and something which doesn't prevent you from helping others. You can't possibly deny the superiority of virtue within that context.

[Conquer or Die]

LOL. It's funny how someone who denigrates others for being "childish" uses such adolescent-style playground-derived terms himself. I certainly have not heard this word being thrown around as an insult for quite a while.

You are a sexist and a masculinist. You believe that somehow the phallus is intrinsically superior so that you use a slang term for the female reproductive system as an insult. Shame on you.

Incidentally, your own "hero" Gandhi wouldn't have agreed with you on this point. Being influenced by Hinduism Gandhi was actually of the opinion that intrinsically femininity is just as good as masculinity, which is something you don't seem to be able to grasp. Well, what can I expect, when the God you worship is interpreted to be "all-male"? :rolleyes:

"Butthurt! Butthurt! Butthurt! Butthurt!"

"Look people my butt is hurt!"

I don't think that having a penis makes one a better human being or a superior human being. I think there are differences between penises and vaginas (too shocking to hear!) but that doesn't mean that identity can confuse equality.

You're stupid, politically correct, going nowhere. Please fuck off back to pitiable self love.

[Queercommie Girl]

Jesus proved his "theological status" by fighting against oppression.


By this logic, since thousands of other people have all fought against oppression, do they also have some kind of "theological status"?



Only a person removed from reality would suggest that Jesus was a narcissist. Because Jesus is God, and is therefore Love, attaining Christ-dom is the most important thing for anybody to do because it is love.


I didn't say Jesus is a narcissist. I don't really care whether he is or not. That's not my point. My point is that even Jesus' own message shows that social justice wasn't the primary element in his ideology.



There will always be poor, always, in every society everywhere. Are you to suggest that severely mentally retarded children be shot? Are you saying that crazy people can be locked away?

Don't be a complete idiot. You know nothing about the Gospels, you know nothing about ethics.


Whether or not there will always be "poor people" around is beside the point. The point is that Jesus thought his own theological status is more important than the multitudes of the poor and therefore his message is not primarily about social justice.



What the hell is "if a socialist program is correct." Would that be the Great Leap Forward or what Monkey Smashes Heaven writes?


Only an idiot would not understand a simple statement such as "if a socialist program is correct".

The Great Leap Forward had its problems, but Western capitalist sources tend to exaggerate its failures.

You know nothing about Chinese literature, so don't throw denigrating semi-racist rubbish around, you Eurocentric scum.



Let's be honest, this whole exercise of whining on your part was to make yourself, personally, individually, feel better emotionally. You are no fighter against oppression you are a poster on a forum board.


You are also a poster on a forum board, does this mean you are also no fighter against oppression?

You are just resorting to ad hominem attack methods now.



Since you are so removed from reality you don't understand that violence and killing is not an abstract form of dialogue where X + X = 2X. It's a very complicated action. It's difficult and damaging to the soul. You get your ass on the religion forum to cry foul on Judeo Christian ethics when you don't understand their purpose. Instead of apologizing or backing up you proceed to know everything, to suggest that "if a socialist program is correct" or "violence is the only way to end oppression" when those are simply empty words by an empty person.

Your enemy is not satan. Your enemy is a human being making the wrong decision. Pacifist resistance is meant to cure your enemy of their suffering by your own sacrifice.

Such love, such unselfish love, to be criticized as "weak" by you is laughable. LAUGHABLE.


You understand nothing about violence. I'm a pragmatist, I examine things by their results. Objectively "passive resistance" has yet to achieve much in practice.

You can follow your divinely inspired theology of god and satan, I will go by Mao's maxim "political power originates from the barrel of a gun" and Chen Duxiu's "without overcoming the military force of the bourgeois, there can never be socialism in China".



You're probably in favor of collective action because you're a bit of a weak individual. Collective action only works so as to unite individuals with a common purpose to end oppression.


Then by definition all socialists are weak by your logic.



"Being smart." You don't talk to me, you don't flap your fucking lips to me, about being smart in combat if you haven't touched a goddamn weapon in your entire life.


Why are you getting so agitated? I don't think I've even said that much. I thought you are a practioner of "passive resistance", how come you use guns now? Is it not hypocritical to shout about "passive resistance" on the one hand and on the other hand be an expert in weapons use?

It seems your words here would violate the ethical principles of Jesus which you believe in so much. Jesus would teach that you should be patient and use kind words even against an enemy, it's part of the "passive resistance" you believe in, isn't it? I don't think I've even said much to you, and yet you are here throwing all sorts of personal insults at me? So much for "passive resistance", LOL. If you can't even remain "passive" in front of a war of words, how are you going to remain 'passive" in front of a war of action? Your words are just a sign of your agitation and sense of insecurity.



Somewhat ironically it seems that true pacifist resistance rings throughout the world. Think of the tank man in Tianenmen square. Tell me that is weakness. Have the audacity to suggest that pacifist resistance is weakness.


That guy was certainly courageous, but objectively speaking he was just a symbol. The real serious work is often behind the scenes, not strutting out on an oil painting.



I'm just trying to figure out how you could be so selfish and stupid. I think spoiled was the correct label.


You think I am "selfish and stupid" just because I reject "passive resistance". I never even said that violence is a good thing intrinsically, or that I am an anti-pacifist in principle. I only said that I reject absolute pacifism and passive resistance. I mean don't you think you are violating your own principles of having considerations for others?



Politically correct warning shots bounce off any rational person. I'm not transphobic.

Excuse me, but there is an appropriate difference between oppression in the Congo and oppression in the workplace of transgendered people. A true revolutionary should be able to point this out. A true socialist would understand this as well.

The struggle of transgendered people in America is not the same as people in the Congo. That's not to say it's not important, but it's a different level.

I guess you talking about what you're going to do (maybe) while misunderstanding ethics isn't too goddamn important in the context of this thread, is it?

Shut the fuck up and go to India, then.


Transgenderism is not the topic of their thread, I only brought it up because you did.

The key here is that in both Congo and Nepal, those who fight against oppression do not rely on "passive resistance".



You explicitly defended whining. Whining is complaint based on prurient emotion. A logical complaint is systemic exploitation, and the logical course of action is to proceed with action.

Typical of your childish ways, you seem to want to defend the former.


I put "whining" in inverted commas, as you seem to think that all forms of verbal complaints are "whining".



This is just sad. You're saying that need a boss to help you feel better about something. This is why you mention vague "socialist programs."

You also seem to think that I'm in support of individuals fighting against oppression. Which in fact I am, as any ethical person (not you, because you don't understand ethics or reject them) would be. You might try to inflate individual action with individual oppression but that's not what anybody with ethics supports at all.


A genuine socialist party isn't like a capitalist boss. It's sad you don't understand such a basic point.



Where the fuck did I say that? Where did I say I have a preference for individual over collective action? Nowhere. I said that under the conditions that somebody is oppressing only you and nobody else may you partake in pacifist resistance to the death.

You could at least not lie to yourself about what I said. Although it seems clear that your original post was so pathetic it's the only way for you to save face.


Well actually even in your reply to me here you stated that my reliance on collective action is a sign of "weakness".



Leave it to the effete people to suggest that I'm insulting women or effeminate men. I'm insulting "weak" people. Weakness is bowing to a master. Weakness is selling yourself into slavery.


How am I weak? How am I selling myself into slavery? Just because I don't agree with "passive resistance"? WTF? You surely have a great imagination.

[Queercommie Girl]

"Butthurt! Butthurt! Butthurt! Butthurt!"

"Look people my butt is hurt!"

I don't think that having a penis makes one a better human being or a superior human being. I think there are differences between penises and vaginas (too shocking to hear!) but that doesn't mean that identity can confuse equality.

You're stupid, politically correct, going nowhere. Please fuck off back to pitiable self love.

For someone who always has "love" floating on his lips, you surely like to insult people a lot.

For the sake of "love", stop this childish kind of crap. You used childish insults first, not me.

[Barry Lyndon]

"The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one's adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative."-George Jackson.

Pretty much sums up my attitude about pacifism, and should be the same for any Marxist.

I have a lot of respect for pacifists who put their personal safety at risk in order to stand up for the poor and oppressed, but I have no respect for people who use pacifism as a cover for cowardice.

[Queercommie Girl]

Pacifism (not absolute pacifism) is correct in the sense that violence in general is not a good thing. As Mao said, the ultimate purpose of revolutionary war is to end all wars.

But if one is not willing to use violence to fight against severe oppression, then frankly it is a problem. This is not a moral critique, I'm not saying they are cowards or whatever. It's a strategic critique, because it doesn't get the job done. Philosophically I'm a pragmatist and if something doesn't get the job done, it is a failure.

Those who rely on passive resistance can be very courageous, but so what? If it doesn't remove oppression in the end then it is a failure, no matter how good it looks. Socialist work is not just doing something seemingly heroic to impress your mates.

[Conquer or Die]

Pacifism (not absolute pacifism) is correct in the sense that violence in general is not a good thing. As Mao said, the ultimate purpose of revolutionary war is to end all wars.

But if one is not willing to use violence to fight against severe oppression, then frankly it is a problem. This is not a moral critique, I'm not saying they are cowards or whatever. It's a strategic critique, because it doesn't get the job done. Philosophically I'm a pragmatist and if something doesn't get the job done, it is a failure.

Those who rely on passive resistance can be very courageous, but so what? If it doesn't remove oppression in the end then it is a failure, no matter how good it looks. Socialist work is not just doing something seemingly heroic to impress your mates.

Because you are removed from the real world you can use terms like "pacifism is weak strategically." You don't engage in struggle so you freely break down the math.

Let me say this again: You have no ethics. Nobody said that absolute pacifism to save your own skin is a noble ideal. Nobody.

[Queercommie Girl]

Because you are removed from the real world you can use terms like "pacifism is weak strategically." You don't engage in struggle so you freely break down the math.

Let me say this again: You have no ethics. Nobody said that absolute pacifism to save your own skin is a noble ideal. Nobody.

Yes, if absolute pacifism is your definition of "ethics", then I couldn't care less to have any "ethics". Marx never had any respect for "idealistic ethics" detached from the real world.

It's rather hypocritical of you to say that I'm removed from the read world. Of all the feudal, capitalist and socialist revolution that have occurred on this planet over the last 3000 years, from the Zhou dynasty's overthrow of the Shang in 1046 BCE to the Maoist revolution in Nepal today, has there ever been a single revolution that was carried out using the strategies of absolute pacifism?

[Conquer or Die]

Yes, if absolute pacifism is your definition of "ethics", then I couldn't care less to have any "ethics". Marx never had any respect for "idealistic ethics" detached from the real world.

Ethics are objective. You said that your understanding of Ethics refuted Judeo-Christian ethics. You were embarrassed miserably in this thread.


It's rather hypocritical of you to say that I'm removed from the read world. Of all the feudal, capitalist and socialist revolution that have occurred on this planet over the last 3000 years, from the Zhou dynasty's overthrow of the Shang in 1046 BCE to the Maoist revolution in Nepal today, has there ever been a single revolution that was carried out using the strategies of absolute pacifism?

Well, there's that whole Jesus thing, which people still seem to talk about.

The fact is this, in terms of ethics, pacifism is unassailable. It is ethically superior to violence. If you're a moral relativist and believe in raw strength, that's no appeal to ethics, that's an appeal to strength. That is saying there is no truth but that which I make.

Since you do not understand that Ethics are objective, and you're too stupid to understand Pacifist resistance, you bring up "real-world" examples and math. You do this because you've probably never lifted a finger against oppression in your life and you don't understand that reading Mao isn't the same thing as battling in Central China.

I have no need to carry on this conversation. Your appeals are emotional. There is no intelligence in any of your posts. I was hoping I'd receive someone willing to debate Ethics, but you're only interested in crying to get your way on these forums.

Pathetic.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ethics are objective. You said that your understanding of Ethics refuted Judeo-Christian ethics. You were embarrassed miserably in this thread.


"Embarrassed" in what way? Are you kidding me? Look at how many "thank yous" I've got in this thread from other members and how "lonely" you are. Fact of the matter is, people here don't really like Christian preachers.

I've shown that objective materialist ethics is superior to idealistic ethics. You've still not countered it. All you seem to be able of doing is to come up with ridiculously childish insults that pass for "arguments" for you, not to mention doing things this way would violate the very "Judeo-Christian" ethics you seem to care about so much, you hypocrite. Wait, didn't Jesus make a point of hypocrites being sent to the lowest layers of hell for their sins?



Well, there's that whole Jesus thing, which people still seem to talk about.

The fact is this, in terms of ethics, pacifism is unassailable. It is ethically superior to violence. If you're a moral relativist and believe in raw strength, that's no appeal to ethics, that's an appeal to strength. That is saying there is no truth but that which I make.


You are just talking about abstract idealisms and principles, as if it is useful to talk about anything in a manner that is detached from the real world. Debate about ethics isn't an exercise in mathematical logic.



Since you do not understand that Ethics are objective, and you're too stupid to understand Pacifist resistance, you bring up "real-world" examples and math. You do this because you've probably never lifted a finger against oppression in your life and you don't understand that reading Mao isn't the same thing as battling in Central China.


Funny you say "ethics are objective" and then use inverted commas for "real-world". How is a thing "objective" if not directly of "the real world"?

Frankly, your constant attempt to try to counter my arguments by saying things like I have "no revolutionary credentials" is very lame indeed. It's a completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It also actually contradicts your own position: if you value absolute pacifism so much, why use violent revolutionary scenarios as elements in your own argument? In fact, all of these "revolutionary scenarios" you keep on bringing up, whether they be in Congo or Nepal, all directly refutes you own absolute pacifist position. Talk about hitting one's own foot with a rock indeed.



I have no need to carry on this conversation. Your appeals are emotional. There is no intelligence in any of your posts. I was hoping I'd receive someone willing to debate Ethics, but you're only interested in crying to get your way on these forums.

Pathetic.

Emotional? I think that word better describes you with your constant use of personal insults and childish slurs when you don't really have much of an argument. I on the other hand, always used clear and straight language and concrete historical examples.

[Conquer or Die]

I can't let sleeping dogs lie. I promise this is my last go.


"Embarrassed" in what way? Are you kidding me? Look at how many "thank yous" I've got in this thread from other members and how "lonely" you are. Fact of the matter is, people here don't really like Christian preachers.

It doesn't matter that you got more thank yous. It also doesn't matter that you or others think I'm a Christian Preacher and you don't "like" that. Laughably, these are both examples of logical fallacies. I wonder if you have the capacity to appreciate that fact.


I've shown that objective materialist ethics is superior to idealistic ethics.

You've made no such argument.


You've still not countered it. All you seem to be able of doing is to come up with ridiculously childish insults that pass for "arguments" for you, not to mention doing things this way would violate the very "Judeo-Christian" ethics you seem to care about so much, you hypocrite. Wait, didn't Jesus make a point of hypocrites being sent to the lowest layers of hell for their sins?

More fallacy on your part. I never once claimed to be a pacifist resister or A Christian or a representative of Christendom. Ironically it was you who was claiming to be a "true" fighter against oppression and I was calling you out on your obvious deviation from reality in this regard. I merely defended the concept which you straw manned and abused for personal pleasure purposes. When you were questioned on an ethical basis you reverted to materialism as a justification.

The content of your argument is thus: "If you don't kill other people to achieve your ends then they will win." This is purely an appeal to force and not to ethics. Ethics is not the position of the strong, it is the position in total. It does not apply to you or to me exclusively, it applies in all cases.

Granted, your case does make sense in this way: Pacifism is reactionary to crude, unrefined materialism. It is not reactionary to ethics, as I've pretty much demonstrated, but it is reactionary to the understanding of human beings as without complexity.




You are just talking about abstract idealisms and principles, as if it is useful to talk about anything in a manner that is detached from the real world. Debate about ethics isn't an exercise in mathematical logic.

You are purely talking about ideology - purely - in your defense of violence. Ethics are a set of objective principles that exist eternally, unchanging. Debates about Ethics are about the realization or approximation of these ideals applied in every circumstance.

Ethics are applied to the real world under this ideology. You said you would use violence "if the socialist program is correct" therefore that is an application to the real world. It is a realization of the real world.

Sophistry, lies, and self love on your part aren't going to confuse the basic points with which you initiated this thread. You attacked Pacifist resistance as being unethical, when in fact these ideas understood properly are on a superior ethical level to violence. You then removed "ethics" with base materialism, and then I attacked your confusion. You either need to make the case that humanity has no point, or it does have a point. You can't say that it doesn't matter




Funny you say "ethics are objective" and then use inverted commas for "real-world". How is a thing "objective" if not directly of "the real world"?

How does your primitive materialist math add up when it's no more than type on a website?

If you need to understand what "objective" can mean outside of "the real world" then you need to read Plato's Republic. If I'll take a guess as to judge your character, you would have that book burned, but you lack any strength to influence your decisions on anybody else, so you'll just remain ignorant.


Frankly, your constant attempt to try to counter my arguments by saying things like I have "no revolutionary credentials" is very lame indeed. It's a completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It also actually contradicts your own position: if you value absolute pacifism so much, why use violent revolutionary scenarios as elements in your own argument? In fact, all of these "revolutionary scenarios" you keep on bringing up, whether they be in Congo or Nepal, all directly refutes you own absolute pacifist position. Talk about hitting one's own foot with a rock indeed.

Once again, I never said that this was my position. I said it was an ethically higher position. I also said that it defended those fighting against oppression, but rather that it was a higher form of resistance when correctly applied. You're simply lying about me.




Emotional? I think that word better describes you with your constant use of personal insults and childish slurs when you don't really have much of an argument. I on the other hand, always used clear and straight language and concrete historical examples.

The irony being that historical examples such as MLK Jr., Ghandi, and Jesus Christ are far more historically important than your understanding of conflict.

[Queercommie Girl]

It doesn't matter that you got more thank yous. It also doesn't matter that you or others think I'm a Christian Preacher and you don't "like" that. Laughably, these are both examples of logical fallacies. I wonder if you have the capacity to appreciate that fact.


Popularity is important in a democratic society. If most people thinks someone is dodgy, he/she probably is.

Don't forget you are a restricted member. I'd be careful around here if I were you.



You've made no such argument.


I've shown that as far as the work of socialist revolution and activism is concerned, non-absolute pacifism has achieved far more than absolute pacifism ever will, and the latter in some situations could actually play an objectively reactionary role.



More fallacy on your part. I never once claimed to be a pacifist resister or A Christian or a representative of Christendom.


I don't care what you really are. But here in this thread you certainly behaved like a strong Christian apologist for Jesus etc. Never mind whether or not you really are such, you played such a social role.



Ironically it was you who was claiming to be a "true" fighter against oppression and I was calling you out on your obvious deviation from reality in this regard.


"Deviation from reality" in what way? As I said most revolutions are not conducted through absolute pacifism. It is you who is detached from reality since you've been trapped in that little Platonic metaphysical bubble of yours.



I merely defended the concept which you straw manned and abused for personal pleasure purposes. When you were questioned on an ethical basis you reverted to materialism as a justification.


Ethics is based on materialism, that is Marxism 101.



The content of your argument is thus: "If you don't kill other people to achieve your ends then they will win." This is purely an appeal to force and not to ethics. Ethics is not the position of the strong, it is the position in total. It does not apply to you or to me exclusively, it applies in all cases.


Depends on what the end is. Sometimes the end does justify the means, especially when the "means" only kill a few people. If the political end is to end oppression all over the world, I think a few deaths is quite justifiable.



Granted, your case does make sense in this way: Pacifism is reactionary to crude, unrefined materialism. It is not reactionary to ethics, as I've pretty much demonstrated, but it is reactionary to the understanding of human beings as without complexity.


No, more like "absolute pacifism is reactionary relative to materialism". I never said I reject pacifism in general, I've always remarked that violence is not a good thing intrinsically, but I reject absolute pacifism. Why is it so difficult to get your head around this point, I wonder? And to say that ultimately all superstructure, including ethical philosophy, must necessarily have a materialistic basis, is certainly not "crude materialism". It's just the basic premise of all materialism.

Your other fallacy is to assume that there can exist an ethics independent of materialism. Your third fallacy is to think that within the materialist paradigm, we must assume that human beings have little complexity.



You are purely talking about ideology - purely - in your defense of violence. Ethics are a set of objective principles that exist eternally, unchanging. Debates about Ethics are about the realization or approximation of these ideals applied in every circumstance.


Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously think there exists anything in this universe which can never be changed in an absolute sense? This is why I cannot get through to you, because your entire philosophical framework lies on a reactionary metaphysical foundation. Marxist materialism calls us to smash metaphysics, just as it calls on workers to smash the capitalist state. Historically metaphysical philosophies are largely associated with the oppressing classes, not the oppressed.



Ethics are applied to the real world under this ideology. You said you would use violence "if the socialist program is correct" therefore that is an application to the real world. It is a realization of the real world.


A general kind of ethics that can be applied to different situations in the real world is not necessarily your kind of metaphysical general ethics. General principles of ethics can also change with time and with different circumstances.



Sophistry, lies, and self love on your part


What the fuck is that supposed to mean?



aren't going to confuse the basic points with which you initiated this thread. You attacked Pacifist resistance as being unethical,


I attacked absolute pacifism, not pacifism, there is a fundamental difference between the two.



when in fact these ideas understood properly are on a superior ethical level to violence. You then removed "ethics" with base materialism, and then I attacked your confusion. You either need to make the case that humanity has no point, or it does have a point. You can't say that it doesn't matter


Yeah right, "superior" only in your own little metaphysical paradigm in which absolute pacifism is already assumed to be "superior". Sounds like circular logic to me.

Fallacy again. You can't say "humanity has no point" just because the correct world-view is materialism and not metaphysics. Materialism is real. The so-called "purpose of life" given to humanity by metaphysics may sound noble and grand and high, but it has little concrete substance.



How does your primitive materialist math add up when it's no more than type on a website?


Sometimes the "primitives" have got it right, like "primitive communism". Engels says the communism of the future is a return to the primitive communism of the ancients on a higher level. The "primitives" were more materialistic in some ways because they didn't have an oppressive class society. Metaphysics and theology are products of class society.



If you need to understand what "objective" can mean outside of "the real world" then you need to read Plato's Republic. If I'll take a guess as to judge your character, you would have that book burned, but you lack any strength to influence your decisions on anybody else, so you'll just remain ignorant.


More metaphysical idealist crap. Outside the material universe there is no such thing as "objective".

You are an explicit idealist and that makes you a philosophical reactionary. The fact that you like to promote the ideology of the slave-lord class (of which Plato is a member) doesn't help your case either.



Once again, I never said that this was my position. I said it was an ethically higher position. I also said that it defended those fighting against oppression, but rather that it was a higher form of resistance when correctly applied. You're simply lying about me.


I'm not lying about you. I'm attacking your position, not your intrinsic being. I don't care how you are like in general, only what you say in this thread.

Again, "ethically higher" only in your own little idealistic metaphysical paradigm. In fact, you need to assume the existence of a Platonic reality beyond the cave in order to justify your kind of absolute pacifist ethics.



The irony being that historical examples such as MLK Jr., Ghandi, and Jesus Christ are far more historically important than your understanding of conflict.

MLK, Ghandi and Jesus did some good things, but objectively they never had as much effect as the likes of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Compleatly agree that "Turning the other cheeck" is a reactionary philosophy.

Though still they,as christians,need to work on it (So called "Holy War" and divinly commanded murder really set things back for their belief).

[Comrade Anarchist]

The idea of turning the other cheek is the strongest pronouncement of peace. Violence breeds violence and it will continually escalate until it encompasses every aspect of ones being. To have a true revolution and to overthrow the powers that be we cannot rely on the gun but must instead rely on our ability to rise above what constitutes authority, force. If authority relies on force to secure its existence then how are we any better if we use violence to secure our existence.

[Queercommie Girl]

You have no conception or knowledge of Christian theology, do you?

I am a Marxist, a LGBT activist and a Chinese person, why the fuck would I want to have any interest in an idealistic "theology" that has a reactionary history of demonising LGBT people and collaborating with colonialist forces?

To the hell with reactionary apologists of idealism and religion.

Mao Zedong: if the political line is wrong, the more knowledge one has, the more reactionary one becomes.

Better to have an ignorant retard than an expert in Christian theology. The former has more intrinsic social worth in my eyes, because at least he/she does no explicit harm to society.