On killing

[Dimentio]

Do you think it is acceptable to kill civilians during any stage of a revolution? With citizens, I mean for example farmers, local villagers, local townspeople, bystanders, community leaders and any group from the civil society.

During what conditions and how is killing acceptable?

[Burn A Flag]

Only if there is a specific reason... Obviously it's a terrible idea in the guerrilla warfare stage because we will be relying on support of the masses. Wouldn't make the people love communists if they're being killed by them.

[bcbm]

no one is innocent

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have a feeling that this is gonna be another one of those "god these people make me ashamed to be a communist" topics, a la the Stalin torture thread.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

My view on killing is that I will only kill someone who is equal or greater to me. Hence I won't eat meat as it is below me to take part in killing a defenseless animal. They also have to be a threat to me.
People who are a fair match for me and are in direct conflict with me are always fair game. If I'm armed they have to be armed. Hand to hand I will not fight someone who I see as weaker than me.
Does that answer what circumstances I would kill civilians?

[FreeFocus]

It's never acceptable to purposely target civilians and innocent people. That's terrorism. The only acceptable targets in a revolutionary situation are the state's arms of physical enforcement and violence - the military and the police - state officials, and business leaders.

[Burn A Flag]

Unless of course civilians become enemy combatants.

[mosfeld]

If the "civilians" are agents of the ruling classes, then it's acceptable.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think a much better question would be "what is a civilian?" Would you count active reactionary sections of the populus among the innocent? Vocal members of the Tea Party movement, the EDL/BNP, active Zionist Jews who terrorise Palestinians? I wouldn't.

[HEAD ICE]

If the "civilians" are agents of the ruling classes, then it's acceptable.

What a bizarre and dangerously vague statement. Who do you regard as a "civilian" and in what way would a civilian act as an agent? This sounds similar to arguments I've heard that the bombings of Dresden were OK because Germans didn't try to resist the Nazi's (technically, any member of the proletariat would be an "agent" given the necessity of the industrial reserve army in a time of war).


I think a much better question would be "what is a civilian?" Would you count active reactionary sections of the populus among the innocent? Vocal members of the Tea Party movement, the EDL/BNP, active Zionist Jews who terrorise Palestinians? I wouldn't.

Are Tea Partiers and EDLers "agents" (lmao) of the ruling classes, or are they rather people (often workers) manipulated by the bourgeoisie? The violence fetish on this site is ludicrous, 99% of you guys would freeze like a snow cone if you had a knife pulled on you.

[Jazzhands]

Unless of course civilians become enemy combatants.

At which point, they're not civilians anymore, because they're combatants. Obviously.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

99% of you guys would freeze like a snow cone if you had a knife pulled on you.
I know you probably aren't referring to me since I don't have a violence fetish, but I think I'd offer my arm considering I'm a habitual cutter. Cutting is an addiction.

[red cat]

What a bizarre and dangerously vague statement. Who do you regard as a "civilian" and in what way would a civilian act as an agent?

There are various ways. A civilian can be a soldier, a policeman or an informer for the police. He can also do such things as offering poisoned food to revolutionaries etc in exchange of money and favours.

[Jazzhands]

There are various ways. A civilian can be a soldier,

Then how the fuck is he a civilian? A civilian is by definition NOT a soldier.


a policeman

same as above, unless there's some kind of special circumstance such as him being a police officer in a country under military occupation. Depends on circumstances, more so than the above.


or an informer for the police

Ok, POSSIBLY. But you have still not answered the vital question: What is a civilian? You've already given examples of "bad" civilians who aren't at all civilians under any definition.

[red cat]

Then how the fuck is he a civilian? A civilian is by definition NOT a soldier.



same as above, unless there's some kind of special circumstance such as him being a police officer in a country under military occupation. Depends on circumstances, more so than the above.



Ok, POSSIBLY. But you have still not answered the vital question: What is a civilian? You've already given examples of "bad" civilians who aren't at all civilians under any definition.

Do you consider an informer or a saboteur to be a civilian ?

[28350]

I have a feeling that this is gonna be another one of those "god these people make me ashamed to be a communist" topics, a la the Stalin torture thread.

I think it's acceptable to torture Stalin if it furthers the 'cause'

[Spawn of Stalin]

Are Tea Partiers and EDLers "agents" (lmao) of the ruling classes, or are they rather people (often workers) manipulated by the bourgeoisie?
There are the ignorant and there are the dangerous.

The violence fetish on this site is ludicrous
There is no violence fetish, but while ultra-reactionaries have the means to influence people there can be no velvet revolution. I see things for how they really are, that doesn't mean I like it. I'd love nothing more than everyone simultaniously walking out of work, and for the state to surrender power, but science and history tells me that this can not happen.

99% of you guys would freeze like a snow cone if you had a knife pulled on you.
Don't profess to know any of us violence fetishists, regardless of what I personally would do in such a situation, I am not suggesting we take them on in a knife fight. Ideal situation: We outnumber them, arrest them, take them somewhere secluded and shoot them.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I was actually discussing this with my mum not long ago, she seems to think that 9 out of 10 people my age who do not believe in shedding blood in the name of revolution, will have dropped out of the revolutionary socialism movement in the near future, for example when they buy a house, finish university, etc. She told me that the only anarchists and Communists she knew in the 70s and 80s who are still anarchists or Communists today are the ones who really genuinely supported armed struggle. Now I know that armed struggle generally means taking up arms against the state, not civilians. But I think it is safe to say that a large number of people who take the idealistic view that no civilians whatsoever will have to die during a revolution are not actually all that serious about revolution. This certainly corresponds correctly with what I have experienced, and the people I have met and spoken to during my time as an active revolutionary.

[HEAD ICE]

There are the ignorant and there are the dangerous.

Can you please respond with a less vague reply?

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Killing civilians just for having a different ideology(without them getting violent themselves) would not fix anything, but if they become violent they are no longer citizens. They're fighting against the workers(even if they are workers themselves).

Average people who have fucked up views are certainly not that way because they are well-informed. If we killed everyone who opposed Socialism out of ignorance, there would be hardly any more workers to fight for in the US. However, if they are using violent methods to harm the revolutionaries, we don't have much of a choice. They would then be FIGHTING for the ruling classes rather than just agreeing and protesting for them.

Killing because you like to kill people with backwards views is just going to hurt us. We must educate before shooting if it is possible.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Can you please respond with a less vague reply?
To be ignorant is to be scared of free thought.

To be dangerous is to think for yourself.

Being dangerous is to be a threat to hierarchy everywhere. I would hope to be dangerous.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Can you please respond with a less vague reply?
It was a pretty vague question, you asked if they were manipulated by, or if they were agents of the ruling class, I answered a little bit of both. I will use the Tea Party movement as an example: I would not condone the mass slaughter of every teabagger in America, a lot of these people could benefit from a socialist revolution. But should a socialist revolution occur there will be small sections of these movements who will make their voices heard, and encourage resistance and counter revolution, these are the civilians which need to be identified and gotten rid of as early as possible, because they can mean the difference between victory and defeat. So in my opinion anyone who believes that someone like Rand Paul or Nick Griffin should be allowed to live is an idiot and will probably have no part in a future socialist revolution, I would even go as far to say that they might oppose a socialist revolution.

[bcbm]

let the rivers run red with the blood of our enemies

[the last donut of the night]

only if these civilians are on forklifts.

then by all means kill them

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

let the rivers run red with the blood of our enemies
Better yet, kamakazi it! Take out ourselves and them and everyone in the world! Mwahahahahaha! *does Dr. Evil pinky thing*

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Magón]

You gotta shoot 'em in the head. That's my motto. If they give you shit, "You gotta shoot 'em in the head!"

[Jazzhands]

Do you consider an informer or a saboteur to be a civilian ?

Yes. But he's also a criminal, and he should be punished using a fair, impartial system like any other civilian, PROPORTIONAL TO THE CRIME HE HAS COMMITTED. Unless he picks up a gun and shoots someone, he is a civilian.

It also depends on what your definition of "informer or saboteur" is. If by "inform" you mean "advocates leadership not exactly similar to our own" then no, there's no punishment because there is no crime. But if you mean "passes along specific information used to carry out attacks against specific targets" then yes.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If by "inform" you mean "advocates leadership not exactly similar to our own" then no, there's no punishment because there is no crime.

That's a problem, though, as all revolutionary parties and sects view themselves as the only "true" revolutionaries. Thus making any opposition to them inherently counter-revolutionary, and possibly (more like probably) criminal.

[Hit The North]

Do you consider an informer or a saboteur to be a civilian ?

Roughly translated into Stalinist speak as, "If we can label our political opponents as "informers" or "saboteurs", we can kill them."

[black magick hustla]

i dont really like this threads because sometimes i think that in order to be able to answer them you need to have had a fucking gun put in your temple

[Dimentio]

And if 90% of the civilian population are against the revolution?

[Palingenisis]

And if 90% of the civilian population are against the revolution?

Than there isnt gonna be a revolution....:rolleyes:

[bcbm]

And if 90% of the civilian population are against the revolution?

thin the herd

[bricolage]

dinner party dinner party dinner party dinner party
[repeat to fade]

[La Comédie Noire]

I won't kill anybody. I'll just get that leftist mercenary who was offering his services a few months back to do it.

Then we'll watch his dvd copy of Cats together. :)

[Palingenisis]

thin the herd

Are you doing a Boyd Rice impression or are you being serious?

[FreeFocus]

If you support committing terrorism and killing civilians, aside from your moral and ethical bankruptcy, you're also endorsing a counterproductive strategy that will cause any support a movement may have to completely evaporate. Take al-Qaeda as an example of political violence: after September 11, they had considerable popularity in the Muslim world (especially bin Laden, as a figure). Then, they started blowing up markets and intimidating Iraqis and Afghans after the US/West invaded these countries. Now, they are reviled in the Muslim world.

[Tablo]

I swear the day Glenn Beck quotes stuff from this site that he will choose the stupid comments from this thread.

[bcbm]

Are you doing a Boyd Rice impression or are you being serious?

what do you think?

[Palingenisis]

what do you think?

Well judging by the posts you have thanked....But Im often crap at telling if people are joking or not.

[NKVD]

Well judging by the posts you have thanked....But Im often crap at telling if people are joking or not.

He's joking.

[Ravachol]

What the hell are civilians? Being a civilian means belonging to the non-military, non-police subject-base of the state. It's a completely irrelevant category for Communists. Almost all if not all members of the bourgeoisie are considered 'civilians'.

Also: I love how some people here seem think that revolution is some weird moment of blanquist warfare with armies standing on barricades, imposing 'the revolution' on 'civilians' (lolwtf) in some kind of sponteneous singular moment. Revolution is an emergent, continuous process that propagates through the social and spatial terrain, it is not something that 'happens' at any privileged moment.

There is no question of 'civilians' or 'imposing revolution' as far as Communism is concerned.