Stalin on the Use of toture.

[The Red Next Door]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/01/10.htm

I was not sure if i should of put this in the politics or science section, what is your opinion on this? Do you disagree with his points in the article?

[Tenka]

Information extracted through torture should be regarded as generally unreliable, except when it is immediately verifiable. When used on real "BLATANT ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE", however, my violence fetishism may overpower my utilitarian senses.

It's hit or miss from there, and all incriminations made by those undergoing torture must be meticulously investigated to determine their veracity.

[RED DAVE]

Information extracted through torture should be regarded as generally unreliable, except when it is immediately verifiable. When used on real "BLATANT ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE", however, my violence fetishism may overpower my utilitarian senses.Do you read what you are writing?


It's hit or miss from there, and all incriminations made by those undergoing torture must be meticulously investigated to determine their veracity.I'm sure that's why the US ruling class set up Guantanamo: to meticulously investigate.

Considering the fact that even bourgeois governments, in theory, ban torture WHAT THE FUCK IS AN ALLEGED SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT DOING USING IT?

Let's hear it, stalinists, maoists. Is is okay for a socialist government to use torture?

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that the Soviet government used torture to unmask "blatant enemies of the people" and their far-reaching conspiracies as much as they used it as a self-validation tool...ie torture for the specific purpose of illiciting a confession.

[Weezer]

Socialism is not supposed to reproduce the stupidities of capitalism.

[Tenka]

Do you read what you are writing?

Yes, do you? I just said the information should be considered unreliable except in the rare case it's immediately verifiable. The rest of that line was an example of violence fetishism regarding proven enemies of the people.


I'm sure that's why the US ruling class set up Guantanamo: to meticulously investigate.

They use it to extract bullshit confessions they can make use of. I'm not saying the Soviets always used torture differently, either.


Considering the fact that even bourgeois governments, in theory, ban torture WHAT THE FUCK IS AN ALLEGED SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT DOING USING IT?

Let's hear it, stalinists, maoists. Is is okay for a socialist government to use torture?

RED DAVE

I can't expect any state building Socialism to be devoid of all the failings of bourgeois states when such influence still exists in the world. Torture has a use--rarely is it an 'honest' use, but I find it far more acceptable in the hands of Soviets than in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

[bcbm]

just when i think people can't find new ways to disgust me with their politics.

[Lyev]

I find it far more acceptable in the hands of Soviets than in the hands of the bourgeoisie.So, because the Central Committee purports to be building socialism they are more justified to torture the Trotskyite counter-revolutionaries than the capitalists are? Way to go! If anything, stamping Marx's face on it and painting it red makes it even more repulsive.

[The Red Next Door]

People No trotsky VS Stalin BS please!

[Leo]

I was not sure if i should of put this in the politics or science section, what is your opinion on this? Do you disagree with his points in the article?

Perhaps the question is do you agree with him?


When used on real "BLATANT ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE"

I think it is important to emphasize that the "blatant enemies of the people" mostly means the majority of the militants of the Bolshevik Party of 1917, including nearly all of its leaders. I think it would certainly be good to show this text to those Stalinists who defend the Moscow Trials and the Great Purges on the grounds of the confessions, claiming that there is absolutely no evidence that the people who confessed were tortured.

More results about the depths of the Stalinist mentality can be drawn from this comment:


It is known that all bourgeois secret services use physical pressure against representatives of the socialist proletariat and rely on especially savage methods of it. We might therefore ask why a socialist secret service should be any more more humane in relation to inveterate agent of the bourgeoisie and sworn enemies of the working class and collectivized farmers.

This makes it perfectly clear that Stalin sees what his regime represents as fundamentally different from other bourgeois regimes only in name. Thinking that how humane the behavior of a capitalist state towards its enemies and how humane the behavior of a supposedly "socialist" towards its enemies should not be any different betrays only that sort of mentality. This is nothing but the individualist mentality of a vendetta, a bourgeois mentality of crime and punishment.

One can see how accurate the commentary of Bukharin about Stalin's personality is here: "He is an unprincipled intriguer who subordinates everything to his lust for power. He only knows vengeance and the stab in the back". Lenin's commentary on Stalin also points to the same direction: "Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution (...) I suggest the comrades think about a way of removing Staling from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."

This is not the perspective of the proletariat, nor is it the perspective of revolutionaries. The proletariat, being the class that will abolish classes and thus unite humanity, has an obligation to humanity, has as its philosophy the humane philosophy that will prevail in that united, classless human community, that is communism. So no, the proletariat can't be as humane as the bourgeoisie, it has to be ultimately more humane, yes even against its enemies. The idea of the revolutionaries, the proletariat torturing people was a repulsive one within the ranks of the parties of the Communist International, including of course the Bolshevik Party as well even in late twenties and early thirties. No, the proletariat does not torture human beings, it is against everything the proletariat stands for. The proletariat has to exercise class violence and class dictatorship against the bourgeoisie, but this violence has to have a fundamentally different nature from the violence the bourgeoisie exercises against the proletariat in the form of state terror.

The following quote from Rosa Luxemburg in What does the Spartacus League Want? which I recently posted in another thread in my opinion does give a clear picture of what can and what can't be the perspective of the working class on this question:

The proletarian revolution has no need of terror to achieve its goals, it hates and abhors the murder of human beings. It does not need these means of struggle because it fights institutions, not individuals, because it does not enter the arena with naive illusions, whose disappointment it would have to avenge.

But the proletarian revolution is at the same time the death knell for all servitude and oppression. That is why all capitalists, Junkers, petty bourgeois, officers, all opportunists and parasites of exploitation and class rule rise up to a man to wage mortal combat against the proletarian revolution.

It is sheer insanity to believe that capitalists would goodhumoredly obey the socialist verdict of a parliament or of a national assembly, that they would calmly renounce property, profit, the right to exploit. All ruling classes fought to the end, with tenacious energy, to preserve their privileges. The Roman patricians and the medieval feudal barons alike, the English cavaliers and the American slavedealers, the Walachian boyars and the Lyonnais silk manufacturers – they all shed streams of blood, they all marched over corpses, murder, and arson, instigated civil war and treason, in order to defend their privileges and their power.

The imperialist capitalist class, as last offspring of the caste of exploiters, outdoes all its predecessors in brutality, in open cynicism and treachery. It defends its holiest of holies, its profit and its privilege of exploitation, with tooth and nail, with the methods of cold evil which it demonstrated to the world in the entire history of colonial politics and in the recent World War. It will mobilize heaven and hell against the proletariat. It will mobilize the peasants against the cities, the backward strata of the working class against the socialist vanguard; it will use officers to instigate atrocities; it will try to paralyze every socialist measure with a thousand methods of passive resistance; it will force a score of Vendées on the revolution; it will invite the foreign enemy, the murderous weapons of Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and Wilson into the country to rescue it – it will turn the country into a smoking heap of rubble rather than voluntarily give up wage slavery.

All this resistance must be broken step by step, with an iron fist and ruthless energy. The violence of the bourgeois counterrevolution must be confronted with the revolutionary violence of the proletariat. Against the attacks, insinuations, and rumors of the bourgeoisie must stand the inflexible clarity of purpose, vigilance, and ever ready activity of the proletarian mass. Against the threatened dangers of the counter-revolution, the arming of the people and disarming of the ruling classes. Against the parliamentary obstructionist maneuvers of the bourgeoisie, the active organization of the mass of workers and soldiers. Against the omnipresence, the thousand means of power of bourgeois society, the concentrated, compact, and fully developed power of the working class.

The fight for socialism is the mightiest civil war in world history, and the proletarian revolution must procure the necessary tools for this civil war; it must learn to use them – to struggle and to win.

[The Red Next Door]

Perhaps the question is do you agree with him?



I think it is important to emphasize that the "blatant enemies of the people" mostly means the majority of the militants of the Bolshevik Party of 1917, including nearly all of its leaders. I think it would certainly be good to show this text to those Stalinists who defend the Moscow Trials and the Great Purges on the grounds of the confessions, claiming that there is absolutely no evidence that the people who confessed were tortured.

More results about the depths of the Stalinist mentality can be drawn from this comment:



This makes it perfectly clear that Stalin sees what his regime represents as fundamentally different from other bourgeois regimes only in name. Thinking that how humane the behavior of a capitalist state towards its enemies and how humane the behavior of a supposedly "socialist" towards its enemies should not be any different betrays only that sort of mentality. This is nothing but the individualist mentality of a vendetta, a bourgeois mentality of crime and punishment.

One can see how accurate the commentary of Bukharin about Stalin's personality is here: "He is an unprincipled intriguer who subordinates everything to his lust for power. He only knows vengeance and the stab in the back". Lenin's commentary on Stalin also points to the same direction: "Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution (...) I suggest the comrades think about a way of removing Staling from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."

This is not the perspective of the proletariat, nor is it the perspective of revolutionaries. The proletariat, being the class that will abolish classes and thus unite humanity, has an obligation to humanity, has as its philosophy the humane philosophy that will prevail in that united, classless human community, that is communism. So no, the proletariat can't be as humane as the bourgeoisie, it has to be ultimately more humane, yes even against its enemies. The idea of the revolutionaries, the proletariat torturing people was a repulsive one within the ranks of the parties of the Communist International, including of course the Bolshevik Party as well even in late twenties and early thirties. No, the proletariat does not torture human beings, it is against everything the proletariat stands for. The proletariat has to exercise class violence and class dictatorship against the bourgeoisie, but this violence has to have a fundamentally different nature from the violence the bourgeoisie exercises against the proletariat in the form of state terror.

The following quote from Rosa Luxemburg in What does the Spartacus League Want? which I recently posted in another thread in my opinion does give a clear picture of what can and what can't be the perspective of the working class on this question:

The proletarian revolution has no need of terror to achieve its goals, it hates and abhors the murder of human beings. It does not need these means of struggle because it fights institutions, not individuals, because it does not enter the arena with naive illusions, whose disappointment it would have to avenge.

But the proletarian revolution is at the same time the death knell for all servitude and oppression. That is why all capitalists, Junkers, petty bourgeois, officers, all opportunists and parasites of exploitation and class rule rise up to a man to wage mortal combat against the proletarian revolution.

It is sheer insanity to believe that capitalists would goodhumoredly obey the socialist verdict of a parliament or of a national assembly, that they would calmly renounce property, profit, the right to exploit. All ruling classes fought to the end, with tenacious energy, to preserve their privileges. The Roman patricians and the medieval feudal barons alike, the English cavaliers and the American slavedealers, the Walachian boyars and the Lyonnais silk manufacturers – they all shed streams of blood, they all marched over corpses, murder, and arson, instigated civil war and treason, in order to defend their privileges and their power.

The imperialist capitalist class, as last offspring of the caste of exploiters, outdoes all its predecessors in brutality, in open cynicism and treachery. It defends its holiest of holies, its profit and its privilege of exploitation, with tooth and nail, with the methods of cold evil which it demonstrated to the world in the entire history of colonial politics and in the recent World War. It will mobilize heaven and hell against the proletariat. It will mobilize the peasants against the cities, the backward strata of the working class against the socialist vanguard; it will use officers to instigate atrocities; it will try to paralyze every socialist measure with a thousand methods of passive resistance; it will force a score of Vendées on the revolution; it will invite the foreign enemy, the murderous weapons of Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and Wilson into the country to rescue it – it will turn the country into a smoking heap of rubble rather than voluntarily give up wage slavery.

All this resistance must be broken step by step, with an iron fist and ruthless energy. The violence of the bourgeois counterrevolution must be confronted with the revolutionary violence of the proletariat. Against the attacks, insinuations, and rumors of the bourgeoisie must stand the inflexible clarity of purpose, vigilance, and ever ready activity of the proletarian mass. Against the threatened dangers of the counter-revolution, the arming of the people and disarming of the ruling classes. Against the parliamentary obstructionist maneuvers of the bourgeoisie, the active organization of the mass of workers and soldiers. Against the omnipresence, the thousand means of power of bourgeois society, the concentrated, compact, and fully developed power of the working class.

The fight for socialism is the mightiest civil war in world history, and the proletarian revolution must procure the necessary tools for this civil war; it must learn to use them – to struggle and to win.


I have no opinion really.

[enrici]

Torture is never justified. Never. That's what capitalists do in their war on terror.

[BogdanV]

Like others have said, torture is "good" when you want the victim to admit
anything you invent.
This tactic has been used extensively by the Inquisition and the so-called "Communist" regimes from the last century to "manufacture" proof, so that they may convict anyone that stands in their way.

I admit. It may seem childish taking references from a game, but I believe these two commentaries make some good points regarding torture :

The already mentioned idea that torture brings unreliable information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYJGl9KVv8

And another.. interesting point, I'd say, that no one brought into discussion; the fact that torturing someone adversely affects both the torturer and its victim. Torturing people severely damages you psychically and degrades you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAzmwigsosI



Torture should never be considered a option, not only from a victim's perspective, but also for the mental integrity of the torturer.
The thought that such individuals uphold the law in some countries (and you are supposed to trust them!) disgusts me.

[Reznov]

"BLATANT ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE", however, my violence fetishism may overpower my utilitarian senses.



And exactly how do you determine who is a "BLATANT ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE"?

(And careful using words like violence fetishism, you might excite some of us :laugh:)

[gorillafuck]

Torture has uses: to get phony confessions and frequently incorrect information, and to instill fear into prisoners and POWs. Neither of those justify it's use at all.

And I don't give a shit if it's liberal or whatever to be opposed to torture. I acknowledge that revolution involves killing and blood, but torture is not acceptable. Enemies need to be defeated, not kept alive with as much excruciating pain being inflicted onto them as possible. Some people are too much into movie violence fantasies.

[9]

Torture has a use--rarely is it an 'honest' use, but I find it far more acceptable in the hands of Soviets than in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

I don't consider this to be fundamentally any different from suggesting that "rape has a use - rarely is it an 'honest' use, but I find it far more acceptable in the hands of Soviets than in the hands of the bourgeoisie." It's completely despicable.

[Dimentio]

I would have written "In before flame war", but that is unfortunately too late :laugh:

[AK]

People No trotsky VS Stalin BS please!
You started a thread containing "Stalin" and "the use of torture" in the title...

What kind of responses did you expect? Detailed, neutral analysis taking evidence from things Stalin said/wrote and also any reports on incidents of torture that were personally authorised by Stalin? Hello, this is Revleft.

[Ocean Seal]

Quite frankly torture is disgusting when used by anyone. Just because it is a dictatorship does not mean that torture should be legitimized. All nations should have basic human rights. Or else we are not an improvement over the capitalists. We are here to protect the interests of the people, not torture them.

[RED DAVE]

Old Russian joke:

One afternoon, Stalin got back to his apartment in the Kremlin and noticed that he didn't have his briefcase. He called the head of the KGB and told him to investigate the matter.

An hour later, Stalin called back.

"Well," said the KGB man, "We haven't found your briefcase yet, but we've arrested 8 people: two have committed suicide; two died under questioning; two confessed; and we're still working on the last two."

"Never mind," Stalin said. "I left it in my office."

RED DAVE

[Jazzhands]

Everything has already been said. Unless those "Combat Liberalism" nuts want to take a crack at it. I guess they just aren't up yet.:rolleyes:

If killing and torture are illegal for the proletariat, why would a proletarian state have this right? if we want to keep the dictatorship proletarian, that entails not using brutal methods against the proletariat and turning them against us.

[Tenka]

if we want to keep the dictatorship proletarian, that entails not using brutal methods against the proletariat and turning them against us.

Who was advocating torturing the proletariat? Enemies of the people are those who work against the interests of the proletariat...

[al8]

I don't consider this to be fundamentally any different from suggesting that "rape has a use - rarely is it an 'honest' use, but I find it far more acceptable in the hands of Soviets than in the hands of the bourgeoisie." It's completely despicable.

Well thats neither here nor there because rape is a legitmate use of force in the propper context. The enemies enemy population deserves every last bit of it for instigating and sustaining the war that so threatens and immiserates the lives of the rightious. It's a lame ludicrous unrealistic fantasy to advocate an "above this lowly stuff" tea party decorum in a war setting. It shows a fundamental disconnect with the realities and pressures of war.
German women for example deserved to be raped by soviet soldiers at the time.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They see me trollin'/They haaaaytin...

[Tenka]

Well thats neither here nor there because rape is a legitmate use of force in the propper context. The enemies enemy population deserves every last bit of it for instigating and sustaining the war that so threatens and immiserates the lives of the rightious. It's a lame ludicrous unrealistic fantasy to advocate an "above this lowly stuff" tea party decorum in a war setting. It shows a fundamental disconnect with the realities and pressures of war.
German women for example deserved to be raped by soviet soldiers at the time.

It's frightening that the only one who appears to appreciate my posts here may, in fact, be a troll. I do not agree that general populations 'deserve to be raped'; but such things happen in war time, and it's impossible to stop without thorough education of all soldiers on the evils of such hurtful--but most importantly hedonistic--revelry. Just how such thorough education might realistically take place is not something those who feel most strongly against the rapes would be entirely comfortable with, but that's neither here nor there.

[al8]

Karinpon, it would depend upon how the battle lines have been drawn. And I don't think rapes are that hedonistic. War rapes are not so much for plesure, which is unrealistic, but more a tedium to demoralize and inflict damage on the enemy. It's horrible and that what is great about it in that context.

I take sides in wars, and am sympathetic to the seething anger of the rightious side. The level of hostility and the practicalities of war must not be forgotten. Every trotskyist and ultra-leftist here, are easily pronouncing plans and high and haughty ethical guidlines, in the safty of their own non-war zone - without having had their homes bombed or their neighbors and family massacred.

[Tenka]

al8: I see your reasoning now, but I still regard those rapes as mostly superfluous even in a war time context. They should not be met with open approval.

We should stop derailing the thread with talk of rape.

[al8]

al8: I see your reasoning now, but I still regard those rapes as mostly superfluous even in a war time context. They should not be met with open approval.

We should stop derailing the thread with talk of rape.

Sure, ok, sorry.

[Dimentio]

Well thats neither here nor there because rape is a legitmate use of force in the propper context. The enemies enemy population deserves every last bit of it for instigating and sustaining the war that so threatens and immiserates the lives of the rightious. It's a lame ludicrous unrealistic fantasy to advocate an "above this lowly stuff" tea party decorum in a war setting. It shows a fundamental disconnect with the realities and pressures of war.
German women for example deserved to be raped by soviet soldiers at the time.

Frankly, this is creepy.

Proportionality of the "eye for an eye" variety is sooo Old Testament. If it is a direct threat, kill it with a shot between the eyes. If it is an indirect threat, keep it locked in. If it isn't a threat ignore it.

To rape, torture or inflict pain on the enemy for the goal of inflicting pain itself is quite unnecessary and inhumane. Of course, in some situations bloodshed is justified - but that should be as swift and humane as the situation is allowing.

Like, if you have an ax and your enemy has a knife, use the ax to for example sever his arm or head, in the second case killing him.

If you have an ax and he doesn't have anything, just use it to threaten him into submission. Don't cut off his fingers and toes just for the fun of it.

An advanced society of the future should never regress back to Old Testament stuff.

[Blackscare]

Wow al8.

Used to think you were intelligent.


And how can you be so sure that the random german women being raped supported and instigated the war effort?

It's not holding up some unrealistic lofty ethical standard to suggest that, at the very least, soldiers shouldn't be encouraged to act like animals.

It really serves no purpose, since you're sexually torturing people who have already been defeated. Random people who's culpability are unknown.


I hope you get raped.

[al8]

Wow al8.

Used to think you were intelligent.


And how can you be so sure that the random german women being raped supported and instigated the war effort?

It's not holding up some unrealistic lofty ethical standard to suggest that, at the very least, soldiers shouldn't be encouraged to act like animals.

It really serves no purpose, since you're sexually torturing people who have already been defeated. Random people who's culpability are unknown.


I hope you get raped.

Well then you don't know the first thing about payback. It's supposed to be a *****. They were not already defeated, it was only after the war that germans where humanized again. So culpability was on every german while victory was not yet assured. Its nothing random, it was proved by the war, that the german people achieved collective guilt. You should learn to take sides and stop sympathizing with nazies. This is not about intelligence, it is about were you stand morally.

But lets not dwell on the this side issue.

[Dimentio]

Well then you don't know the first thing about payback. It's supposed to be a *****. They were not already defeated, it was only after the war that germans where humanized again. So culpability was on every german while victory was not yet assured. Its nothing random, it was proved by the war, that the german people achieved collective guilt. You should learn to take sides and stop sympathizing with nazies. This is not about intelligence, it is about were you stand morally.

But lets not dwell on the this side issue.

Its actually a very essential issue. I must say that this is the first time I've heard that argument in a long time, and never before from a progressive.

Those who usually want "payback is a *****" are often ultranationalists or nazis. The nazis viewed themselves as justified in killing the Jews because according to their beliefs the Jews controlled the world and wanted to destroy Germany. You view the rapes which happened in Germany in 1945 - rapes which weren't endorsed by the STAVKA and actually had an official death penalty as a consequence - as justified due to some form of uniquely German evil. Following that logic, the Germans would then be justified in revenge on the Soviets, even more gruesome than their original invasion. Thus, the Soviets would have been justified in annihilating the Germans.

It was quite usual that nations attempted to annihilate one another during the iron age. One example is how the Assyrian kings bragged about flaying civilian prisoners and then building pyramids of decomposing bodies. Another example is how the Israelites killed - according to themselves - not only the men but also the females and the children and the animals of their enemies.

It is also quite usual that Chimpanzee packs are raping one another's females, kidnapping one another's kids to eat them and are attacking the scrotum, faces, eyes and limbs of their fallen adversaries with their teeth and hands.

The only thing you would have proven with such behaviour is that you if you were in the situation of your enemy would have acted as deplorable as they did.

If you were a Soviet soldier, would you have raped German women?

[al8]

Its actually a very essential issue. I must say that this is the first time I've heard that argument in a long time, and never before from a progressive.

Those who usually want "payback is a *****" are often ultranationalists or nazis. The nazis viewed themselves as justified in killing the Jews because according to their beliefs the Jews controlled the world and wanted to destroy Germany. You view the rapes which happened in Germany in 1945 - rapes which weren't endorsed by the STAVKA and actually had an official death penalty as a consequence - as justified due to some form of uniquely German evil. Following that logic, the Germans would then be justified in revenge on the Soviets, even more gruesome than their original invasion. Thus, the Soviets would have been justified in annihilating the Germans.

It was quite usual that nations attempted to annihilate one another during the iron age. One example is how the Assyrian kings bragged about flaying civilian prisoners and then building pyramids of decomposing bodies. Another example is how the Israelites killed - according to themselves - not only the men but also the females and the children and the animals of their enemies.

It is also quite usual that Chimpanzee packs are raping one another's females, kidnapping one another's kids to eat them and are attacking the scrotum, faces, eyes and limbs of their fallen adversaries with their teeth and hands.

The only thing you would have proven with such behaviour is that you if you were in the situation of your enemy would have acted as deplorable as they did.

If you were a Soviet soldier, would you have raped German women?

I am not of that composure. But as I know what the madding pressure of war can entail I can't say for sure how it would affect me in that kind of situation. But I certainly wouldn't fault others doing it. It would over all be legitimate but of low priority.
The national impulse was of course utilized since it was a battle line the enemy offered. It served it's rallying purpose.

[Jazzratt]

In a revolutionary conflict I think it would be more important to execute looters, torturers and rapist (possibly even "violence fetishists") than to torture "BLATANT ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE". Even in situations where one can glean information of impeccable veracity from torture it's still rarely, if ever, the only available option. Certainly it's fucking stupid to use torture as a matter of course on the off chance such situations arise.

Furthermore it's obvious that both of the supporters of the line on torture here have the concept of retributive justice driving their ideas. This is fucking stupid as retributive justice is, and always has been, the ideology of ruling classes that wish to maintain power indefinately; it is a simple way to excuse the most depraved abuses against people identified as threats to the ruling class (the US bourgeoisies' actions against "terrorists" is just one of a long list of examples of this). The talk of "payback" betrays a poor understanding of basic communist ideas, the aim of "the left" is, and should be, to swiftly and efficiently destroy the ruling class and remove the systems it has in place - it is not anything to do with meteing out "justice" or "vegence", that is stunted thinking.

[al8]

Furthermore it's obvious that both of the supporters of the line on torture here have the concept of retributive justice driving their ideas. This is fucking stupid as retributive justice is, and always has been, the ideology of ruling classes that wish to maintain power indefinately; it is a simple way to excuse the most depraved abuses against people identified as threats to the ruling class (the US bourgeoisies' actions against "terrorists" is just one of a long list of examples of this). The talk of "payback" betrays a poor understanding of basic communist ideas, the aim of "the left" is, and should be, to swiftly and efficiently destroy the ruling class and remove the systems it has in place - it is not anything to do with meteing out "justice" or "vegence", that is stunted thinking.

But Jazzratt, justice and vegnence are a motivating force. It is important to utilize what moves people to action. They don't have to detract from the larger goal root change.

After there are victories against the capitalist ruling class, power must be preserved by the working class as a ruling class against the old ones encrouchments. It is telling that societies, such as Albania and the SU, that have persisted, survived independent are the ones that counter the rule of the ruling class by utilizing the same successful mesures of the old ruling class, which is of course all manner of unscrupulous rutheless violence; Army, prisons complexes, sabotage, espionage, torture, bribes etc.

[Jazzratt]

But Jazzratt, justice and vegnence are a motivating force. It is important to utilize what moves people to action. They don't have to detract from the larger goal root change. If you propel a revolution using the ideo- and methodologies of the former ruling class as motivators then it shouldn't come as a surprise that what results quickly degrades back to the class character of the people you want to destroy.


After there are victories against the capitalist ruling class, power must be preserved by the working class as a ruling class against the old ones encrouchments. It is telling that societies, such as Albania and the SU, that have persisted, survived independent are the ones that counter the rule of the ruling class by utilizing the same successful mesures of the old ruling class, which is of course all manner of unscrupulous rutheless violence; Army, prisons complexes, sabotage, espionage, torture, bribes etc. What is the soviet union now? It's an ultra-capitalist free market hellhole. This is the glorious promise you have for the working class? You can keep it.

[al8]

If you propel a revolution using the ideo- and methodologies of the former ruling class as motivators then it shouldn't come as a surprise that what results quickly degrades back to the class character of the people you want to destroy.

What is the soviet union now? It's an ultra-capitalist free market hellhole. This is the glorious promise you have for the working class? You can keep it.

Effective and timely mesures were not the downfall of the Soviet Union nor socialist Albania. We all know it lasted for a time, but for the longest duration hither to. It was a combination of softening ("revising") these succesful securing mesures and the concerted attack by the capitalist block that ultimately lead to defeat.

The anarchist streak of abhoring successful countering of capitalist rule shines through what your write and how you assess and interpret the practical grunt tasks revolutionaries have had to contend with the actual implementation of historically existing socialism.

[Livid]

Well thats neither here nor there because rape is a legitmate use of force in the propper context.time.

I am glad the vikings published a infantry manual :blink:

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Karinpon, it would depend upon how the battle lines have been drawn. And I don't think rapes are that hedonistic. War rapes are not so much for plesure, which is unrealistic, but more a tedium to demoralize and inflict damage on the enemy. It's horrible and that what is great about it in that context.

I take sides in wars, and am sympathetic to the seething anger of the rightious side. The level of hostility and the practicalities of war must not be forgotten. Every trotskyist and ultra-leftist here, are easily pronouncing plans and high and haughty ethical guidlines, in the safty of their own non-war zone - without having had their homes bombed or their neighbors and family massacred.

I'm already seeing the next poll that's going to be in the Politics subforum on RevLeft:

"Would you rape people for the sake of the Revolution?"

[BogdanV]

Well, there's a problem indeed here.
While it seems that there's a minority that sees executing/torturing/raping counterrevolutionary elements as necessary, what about the risk of turning them into martyrs ?

Close friends, due to sentimental bias, might turn actively against the revolution, while misguided people would see them as martyrs, like I've already said.

In the end, I believe that excessive violence, in order to "protect and maintain" the revolution is what lead to the downfall of so many revolutions before since it paves the way for dictatorship.



PS: There's also the "little-well-known" problem that Stormfront can view our discussions. Let's not give them reason to ROFL in their posts and look stupid.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, there's a problem indeed here.
While it seems that there's a minority that sees executing/torturing/raping counterrevolutionary elements as necessary, what about the risk of turning them into martyrs ?

Close friends, due to sentimental bias, might turn actively against the revolution, while misguided people would see them as martyrs, like I've already said.

LOL yeah, imagine feeling sorry for a rape victim.

oh the internet

[BogdanV]

So.. you wouldn't mind your father/mother/<insert relative/close friend here> to be raped then ?

Please, pay attention before jumping to conclusions.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd probably feel a little bad initially, due to my silly sentimental biases and all, but I think I'd manage to push through it once I realized that all of the raping was being done in the name of righteous proletarian vengeance against the enemies of the people

[Dimentio]

Why would anyone rape people who are against the transition? Is it so they would give birth to people who are for the transition? Or is it just a male chauvinist chimpanzee statement of supremacy?

Ugh ugh WUAAARGHHHhhhh! Og have club! Og beat enemy of revolution with club! Og insert his thing into enemy of revolution, dominating enemy of revolution! Ugh! Ugh! Bugh!

:bored:

:blink:

:lol:

[BogdanV]

Generally, you'd have to.. let's just say, be in a certain mental disposition to go and rape someone.
This is no excuse not to enforce strict military discipline. It might be a popular uprising, but a crime's a crime nonetheless.
Violating a human's rights is not funny, regardless even of class and political orientation.


<off-topic : Why can't we leave Stalin to rot in fucking peace ? Even after his death, he's still a pita on this forum>

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Violating a human's rights is not funny, regardless even of class and political orientation.

I don't actually defend rape, but you're really beginning to sound like a liberal. Marxism denies the abstract human rights of the oppressor, in the very same way that somebody who threatens you with a gun actively forfeits his "human rights" by doing so.

[BogdanV]

Well, if he's harmless (as in "keeps his shit to himself"), leave him be. But if he's hostile, do whatever it takes to stop him.

Oh, if it was a misinterpretation, I was referring to the common-sense notion of "humane", not some mystical, far-away dogmatic crap that the bourgeoisie love to talk about.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Well, if he's harmless (as in "keeps his shit to himself"), leave him be. But if he's hostile, do whatever it takes to stop him.

Oh, if it was a misinterpretation, I was referring to the common-sense notion of "humane", not some mystical, far-away dogmatic crap that the bourgeoisie love to talk about.

Perfect: you were merely saying that violence can only be justified as a necessary means to an end, and I agree. There's never a reason to be unreasonably violent or senselessly inhumane.

My guess is that al8 was just trolling around for the lulz.

[Dimentio]

I don't actually defend rape, but you're really beginning to sound like a liberal. Marxism denies the abstract human rights of the oppressor, in the very same way that somebody who threatens you with a gun actively forfeits his "human rights" by doing so.

Ultimately rights are nothing else than what the population is agreeing on. If somehow the population of the United States thought that cannibalism was OK, it would also be so.

[BogdanV]

.. as long as the one serving as "food" is ok with, its his life. Just don't turn this into some cult/religion.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Ultimately rights are nothing else than what the population is agreeing on. If somehow the population of the United States thought that cannibalism was OK, it would also be so.

Yes: Marxism seeks to abolish all forms of oppression by banishing the oppressors, but it's important to grasp that "rights" only exist so far as they are recognized by the express permission of the powers that be. (Since they are neither "God-given" nor "inalienable", any political or human rights can always revised or revoked at the will of the ruling class.)

Even America has never seriously accepted its own argument for natural rights. (Of course, the first such notions arose in Britain and America -- as an intellectual defense of property. Fighting oppression and working towards freedom is the crucial thing, but rights are a mere tool.)

[#FF0000]

Hahahahahahahahaha peopel are literally saying rape can be a good and justifiable thing ahhahahahahahahahahaha

[gorillafuck]

German women for example deserved to be raped by soviet soldiers at the time.
I have never seen anyone, not even fascists and the most hardcore right wing militarists, argue that women from a certain country all deserve to be raped. This is so horribly disgusting.

Fuck you.

[#FF0000]

German women for example deserved to be raped by soviet soldiers at the time.

LOL OKAY CAUSE WE KNOW EVERY GERMAN IN BERLIN SUPPORTED THE NAZIS 100%

oh lolololol

[BogdanV]

I wonder how many of these butheads are WN in disguise...

[#FF0000]

I wonder how many of these butheads are WN in disguise...

Probs none actually.

[Jazzratt]

Effective and timely mesures were not the downfall of the Soviet Union nor socialist Albania. We all know it lasted for a time, but for the longest duration hither to. It was a combination of softening ("revising") these succesful securing mesures and the concerted attack by the capitalist block that ultimately lead to defeat.

The anarchist streak of abhoring successful countering of capitalist rule shines through what your write and how you assess and interpret the practical grunt tasks revolutionaries have had to contend with the actual implementation of historically existing socialism. You are honsestly either a massive troll or a middle calss kid wanking himself silly over the authoritarianism of the regimes you mention. You're basically saying that the one and only reason marxism-leninism failed is because of foriegn capitalists. I think you're wrong. It was, undeniably, a major factor in the downfall of the SU (and others) that capitalism was attacking from the outside but I think you're not giving enough credit to the material rot within.


Probs none actually. That's what really depresses me about this whole thing.

[GPDP]

I was gonna chime in about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of torture, but it seems most people, save a couple who are absolutely fucked in the head and have the NERVE to call those who disagree "ultra-leftists," are already in agreement.

Still, it shocks me to see there are so-called leftists who approve of torture and even fucking rape. It's assholes like you that give credence to the idea that communism is so far-left it actually meets up with the far-right alongside fascism.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

And exactly how do you determine who is a "BLATANT ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE"?
Someone who disagrees of course!

(And careful using words like violence fetishism, you might excite some of us :laugh:)
Oh so kinky!!!

[BogdanV]

With the risk of starting a flame war, shouldn't stalinists and trolls be moved to OI ?
I mean, newcomers might get a bad impression about what we actually represent, and what are our goals and methods.

This also distracts us from having decent and constructive conversations, not to mention the volatile atmosphere we have to face.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Hahahahahahahahaha peopel are literally saying rape can be a good and justifiable thing ahhahahahahahahahahaha

I don't find it funny. I personally find it disgusting.

[GPDP]

Any word on whether support of torture and rape constitutes an OI?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Any word on whether support of torture and rape constitutes an OI?

It should. Especially with rape.

[BogdanV]

As I've mentioned before (taking full responsibility for any problems that my statement could generate), shouldn't stalinism also belong to OI ?

[Kléber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkQmyCCNn_8

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

gkQmyCCNn_8
Yeah that video was creepy and disturbing.

[BogdanV]

So, if I'm a white male revolutionary, do I first kill every other white trash in sight and afterwards report to the nearest patrol for immediate execution,
or just turn myself in and get killed ?

[The Red Next Door]

gkQmyCCNn_8

you got to be shiting me!

[Il Medico]

Wtf al8?!

[khad]

Where the fuck has this thread gone? Really, now, al8. You're advocating something that was punishable and was punished by death in the Soviet Army. There were soldiers made into examples for looting and raping, and some 4000 officers were tried for crimes against civilians after the war. Just because it happened does not mean it was ever condoned by the authorities.

Any word on whether support of torture and rape constitutes an OI?
I'm bringing it up.

[#FF0000]

With the risk of starting a flame war, shouldn't stalinists and trolls be moved to OI ?
I mean, newcomers might get a bad impression about what we actually represent, and what are our goals and methods.

Not all Stalninists/Marxist-Leninists think wartime rape is a good thing, so.

[synthesis]

I realize I'm treading dangerous ground here, but I think this is a question that deserves discussion.

What is it about rape that makes it qualitatively different in terms of our feelings of repulsion about it?

What al8 said was fucked up, definitely; I'm just trying to look at this issue scientifically, or at least as best I can.

I'm just interested in why we tend to have stronger reactions about Soviet soldiers raping German women than about soldiers killing them.

Killing civilians is often regarded as an unfortunate consequence of war, at least if we support, to some extent, the side doing the killing; but nobody ever makes the same argument about rape, except trolls like al8. Why?

Again, I am by no means supporting or justifying what he said. I'm just interested in what people have to say about it.

[Adi Shankara]

Lot o' people sure got banned for sexism today...

[Adi Shankara]

I realize I'm treading dangerous ground here, but I think this is a question that deserves discussion.

What is it about rape that makes it qualitatively different in terms of our feelings of repulsion about it?

What al8 said was fucked up, definitely; I'm just trying to look at this issue scientifically, or at least as best I can.

I'm just interested in why we tend to have stronger reactions about Soviet soldiers raping German women than about soldiers killing them.

Killing civilians is often regarded as an unfortunate consequence of war, at least if we support, to some extent, the side doing the killing; but nobody ever makes the same argument about rape, except trolls like al8. Why?

Again, I am by no means supporting or justifying what he said. I'm just interested in what people have to say about it.

Good question, but there is a simple answer: Whereas one can kill for the good of all (I'm an anti-pacifist, in case you notice) or to defend ones self, one can NEVER justify rape in a similiar context, seeing as rape doesn't advance any causes except those of subordinating people for one's sick pleasure or strictly for the cause of instigating fear.

One can kill for similar purposes, yes, but killing is not always used for that, whereas rape 99% of the time is.

[AK]

<off-topic : Why can't we leave Stalin to rot in fucking peace ? Even after his death, he's still a pita on this forum>
In peace? No.

[Blackscare]

lol did al8 get banned?

[Adi Shankara]

lol did al8 get banned?

Yep he got

http://galerie.antonindanek.cz/obrazky/owned.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fucking hell, that should teach me not to ignore threads because the title doesn't interest me.

[anticap]

The question, as always, is who is making the decision. If its a Stalin, then of course it's illegitimate, because who the fuck is this person? Why does this ape get to make the decision rather than that ape?

If its a consensus agreement among informed workers, then that's the societal norm and you can accept it or reject it. If you reject it (as I would), then you seek out others like yourself and attempt to alter or abolish that norm. (Just because it's a workers' democracy doesn't mean it's going to be a place you'd want to live -- it just means that decisions are being made by those who have the only legitimate claim to make them.)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

In peace? No.
Can I piss on his grave yet?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Can I piss on his grave yet?

Why give him the honour of being burried, do it right on his corps, im sure others will join.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Why give him the honour of being burried, do it right on his corps, im sure others will join.
Seeing his face would be too creepy.

[Adi Shankara]

Why give him the honour of being burried, do it right on his corps, im sure others will join.

But if you did it on his corps...you'd be doing it on the Soviet Army <.<

[BogdanV]

I don't think there's anything left of him that might resemble a face.
Then again, if it really disturbs you, cover his face with feces.

Anyway, I wonder what would the next thread be ?
"Stalin and the use of child molestation" ?

That's what happens when you learn about Communism from Fox News or Hollywood...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This thread is an embarassment, I'm terminating it for mercy's sake.