Fired workers burn Indian executive to death

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

BHUBANESHWAR, India – Indian police detained two people after an angry mob of fired workers burned to death a senior executive of a steel factory, an official said Friday.

After learning they were laid off, about a dozen workers attacked a vehicle carrying Radhey Shyam Roy as he was leaving the factory in eastern Orissa state on Thursday, dousing the Jeep with gasoline and setting it on fire, said police Superintendent Ajay Kumar Sarangi.

Two other people in the vehicle were allowed to flee but Roy, 59, was trapped inside and later died of severe burns, Sarangi said.

Police were questioning two workers and their formal arrest on murder charges was likely, Sarangi told The Associated Press. The steel factory is in Bolangir district, nearly 250 miles (400 kilometers) west of Bhubaneshwar, the capital of Orissa state.

Incidents of industrial violence are common in India, where workers often target executives in cases of wage disputes and job losses.

In 2008, scores of dismissed employees of an Italian manufacturing company, Graziano Transmissioni India, used iron rods and wooden sticks to beat to death the company's local chief executive officer on the outskirts of New Delhi.

[#FF0000]

I'm okay with this.

[Nolan]

Shoulda thought before you axed jobs.

[red cat]

These are instances of real class struggle by Indian workers. Some happen spontaneously, some are said to be organized by Maoists. These incidents have been increasing sharply in the recent past. Almost none are reported by the mass-media.

The immense economic exploitation and the feudal social suppression leaves the working class no choice but to adopt such extreme methods right from the beginning. This is why the ruling class tries to ventilate their grievances by having them participate in fake marches and protests.

[The Red Next Door]

Sweet sweet victory, burn cappie burn.

[Nolan]

Feudal? How is this feudal?

[#FF0000]

burn cappie burn.

WE DON'T NEED NO WATER LET THAT BOUGIE PIG BURN

but seriously this is getting tasteless now

[red cat]

Feudal? How is this feudal?

The social structure is. The workers are almost always from lower castes. They are commonly treated like sub-human beings.

[Hit The North]

These are instances of real class struggle by Indian workers. Some happen spontaneously, some are said to be organized by Maoists. These incidents have been increasing sharply in the recent past. Almost none are reported by the mass-media.


Burning another human being to death is not class struggle. It's bloody murder. Class struggle is striking, blockading, occupying, contesting for control over the means of production.


The social structure is. The workers are almost always from lower castes. They are commonly treated like sub-human beings.
Are you suggesting the social structure of capitalism does not give the shit jobs to the lowest sector of the class system and does not treat workers like sub-humans?

In Victorian Britain, the first mature bourgeois society, children and adults were routinely worked to death, forced to live in squalid conditions of overcrowding and disease. The cities teemed with homeless people who were forced to lodge in over night shelters, if they were lucky, or sleep under their machinery in the factory, if they weren't. Women who displayed sexual independence were labelled as nymphomaniacs and thrown into institutions of reform where they were routinely tortured with electro-convulsive therapy and mutilated by surgeons with unnecessary hysterectomies and circumcision. The only way you could get the vote was if you were rich.

Was this, therefore, a 'feudal social structure'?

[HEAD ICE]

Burning another human being to death is not class struggle. It's bloody murder. Class struggle is striking, blockading, occupying, contesting for control over the means of production.

You can burn capitalists, but you can't burn capitalism!

woo im clever

[Obs]

Burning another human being to death is not class struggle. It's bloody murder.
Bloody murder is a tool often used in class struggle, by both sides involved. The kicker is, of course, that it's good when the oppressed class does it - and business as usual when the oppressor class does it.

[Robocommie]

Really awful way to die... but it's also pretty awful to watch your family starve to death when you get laid off.

[Robocommie]

That said, red cat, these guys aren't going to be able to feed their families any easier from inside prison.

[Blackscare]

So... who is the one who really got 'fired' after all?

[red cat]

Burning another human being to death is not class struggle. It's bloody murder. Class struggle is striking, blockading, occupying, contesting for control over the means of production.

I don't know how to respond to this ... you made an extremely reactionary statement just now. Almost as if you are on the side of the ruling class. You really need to see things from a proletarian point of view.


Are you suggesting the social structure of capitalism does not give the shit jobs to the lowest sector of the class system and does not treat workers like sub-humans?

In Victorian Britain, the first mature bourgeois society, children and adults were routinely worked to death, forced to live in squalid conditions of overcrowding and disease. The cities teemed with homeless people who were forced to lodge in over night shelters, if they were lucky, or sleep under their machinery in the factory, if they weren't. Women who displayed sexual independence were labelled as nymphomaniacs and thrown into institutions of reform where they were routinely tortured with electro-convulsive therapy and mutilated by surgeons with unnecessary hysterectomies and circumcision. The only way you could get the vote was if you were rich.

Was this, therefore, a 'feudal social structure'?Compare this to a government funded school where the lower caste students are forced to clean the toilets, because they were "born to do so" or an engineering college where a lower caste student who managed to successfully compete with well-raised upper caste student is violently ragged and refused help by authorities because "lower castes are not meant to be educated" and ultimately driven to suicide. Do you see the difference ? Also, Indian cities don't have night shelters; and the rampant rapes by hooligans employed by the ruling classes need to be stopped before working class women can manage to travel safely without a male escort, let alone displaying any sexual independence.

[red cat]

That said, red cat, these guys aren't going to be able to feed their families any easier from inside prison.

Still, it is better to fight back than to sit quietly and watch your family starve to death. Let the ruling classes get the message.

[Hit The North]

I don't know how to respond to this ... you made an extremely reactionary statement just now. Almost as if you are on the side of the ruling class. You really need to see things from a proletarian point of view.


I don't know how to respond to this... I guess we shouldn't be surprised to find a Maoist like you defending individual acts of terrorism and mistaking it for actual class struggle. After all, it is the modus operandi of Maoism.


Compare this to a government funded school where the lower caste students are forced to clean the toilets, because they were "born to do so" or an engineering college where a lower caste student who managed to successfully compete with well-raised upper caste student is violently ragged and refused help by authorities because "lower castes are not meant to be educated" and ultimately driven to suicide. Do you see the difference ? Also, Indian cities don't have night shelters; and the rampant rapes by hooligans employed by the ruling classes need to be stopped before working class women can manage to travel safely without a male escort, let alone displaying any sexual independence.


Do I see a difference? Do mean empirically? Because in terms of general philosophy and treatment there is no difference; or do you think the 19th century bourgeoisie didn't educate the children of the working class for some other reason than believing they didn't deserve it? Do you think they worked workers to death for some other reason to Indian bosses?

Instead of trying to play the "my people are more oppressed than yours" game so beloved of you third worlders - and usually employed to avoid the point - why don't you explain how any of what you detail above is "feudal". After that you can start explaining why you think a capitalist social structure is so admirable.

[red cat]

I don't know how to respond to this... I guess we shouldn't be surprised to find a Maoist like you defending individual acts of terrorism and mistaking it for actual class struggle.

I hope that other Trotskyites over here don't start thinking like you. Because your stand on this issue is essentially reactionary. Funny that you think the workers facing starvation who have reacted violently are terrorists. No wonder you denounce each radical act of self defence by the working class and oppose Maoism. Maoists believe that any act of self-defence undertaken by the working class, against the continuous structural violence by the bourgeoisie, is justified. Instead of calling them "murderers" and confining class struggle to limits set by the bourgeoisie, they stand in solidarity with the proletariat and organize them for making revolution.


After all, it is the modus operandi of Maoism.Prove your claim. I challenge you.


Do I see a difference? Do mean empirically? Because in terms of general philosophy and treatment there is no difference; or do you think the 19th century bourgeoisie didn't educate the children of the working class for some other reason than believing they didn't deserve it? Do you think they worked workers to death for some other reason to Indian bosses?

Instead of trying to play the "my people are more oppressed than yours" game so beloved of you third worlders Nice to see that your first worldism is becoming more and more prominent. What do you mean by this ? Everyone living in the third world pretends to be more oppressed than you ? This is a game for them ?



- and usually employed to avoid the point - why don't you explain how any of what you detail above is "feudal".The role of the caste system, for example. A worker in India mostly cannot have his child educated even when he can afford it.



After that you can start explaining why you think a capitalist social structure is so admirable.First you explain whether you think that you can read people's minds or you just love putting words into others' mouths.

[The Red Next Door]

WE DON'T NEED NO WATER LET THAT BOUGIE PIG BURN

but seriously this is getting tasteless now

Bougie pig burn, burn.

[red cat]

and Bob should be burn long with this bastard. traitor.

Let's not be that harsh to him, comrade. Because initially many potential communists in the imperialist countries are misled by revisionism. We should criticize them severely, but never alienate them in such a manner. Class struggle itself will weed out the reactionaries.

[DaringMehring]

Those people who are praising the individual-terrorist act, should study the Bolshevik critique of the Narodniks. The Narodniks had developed terror on a vast scale. They took down generals, officials, even "Prime Minister" Stolypin. But the Tsarists could simply replace all these people. There's always another person willing to step up and get pay and status in exchange for implementing ruling class exploitation. The Narodnik movement did not lead any revolution, so what did they really do?

So workers in India burned some boss to death who they hated. What have they accomplished? A new boss will be put in his place. Their jobs will not come back. They will go to prison if caught. The ruling class will not change its behavior, in any way other than becoming more repressive.

The Bolshevik analysis is that individual-terror acts like these are pointless. Organizing is the solution. They wanted their jobs? They needed to organize a strike, a political circle, a Party, ultimately, a revolution. Not go murder some boss. As the Bolsheviks further pointed out, individual-terror is not just pointless, but harmful, because it substitutes for real organizing.

[HEAD ICE]

and Bob should be burn long with this bastard. traitor.

I remember when you were Midwest Anarchist, you were such a different character back then. Now you are one of the most obnoxious members on this forum. Every post I see of yours has you flaming somebody or saying something really, really stupid. You are nothing but a troll now, and the moderators on this site should treat you accordingly.

[Blackscare]

and Bob should be burn long with this bastard. traitor.

I may not be a mod for this subforum, but I'm going to go ahead and give you an official warning anyway for this, since I know that this is coming.


Unacceptable. Make any more threats, or call for people on this forum to be killed, and it's either an infraction (because this site is waaaaaayy too lenient sometimes) or the banhammer.

[Thirsty Crow]

These are instances of real class struggle by Indian workers.
With all due respect, these are not instances of class struggle, but rather revenge fueled by despair. To conflate this kind of act, which only gets potential militants imprisoned and demonized, with acts of class struggle is a mistake.


That said, red cat, these guys aren't going to be able to feed their families any easier from inside prison.And that is another side to the story, one which does not pertain to class struggle directly. Once again, cheerleaders for violence in absence of a strong, well organized movement, fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

[Os Cangaceiros]

class violence class hatreeeeeeeeeeeed

[red cat]

Those people who are praising the individual-terrorist act, should study the Bolshevik critique of the Narodniks. The Narodniks had developed terror on a vast scale. They took down generals, officials, even "Prime Minister" Stolypin. But the Tsarists could simply replace all these people. There's always another person willing to step up and get pay and status in exchange for implementing ruling class exploitation. The Narodnik movement did not lead any revolution, so what did they really do?

So workers in India burned some boss to death who they hated. What have they accomplished? A new boss will be put in his place. Their jobs will not come back. They will go to prison if caught. The ruling class will not change its behavior, in any way other than becoming more repressive.

The Bolshevik analysis is that individual-terror acts like these are pointless. Organizing is the solution. They wanted their jobs? They needed to organize a strike, a political circle, a Party, ultimately, a revolution. Not go murder some boss. As the Bolsheviks further pointed out, individual-terror is not just pointless, but harmful, because it substitutes for real organizing.

First of all, we should differentiate between instances when individual annihilation is accepted as the main method by an organization, and when it is an act of spontaneous retaliation by the working class.

Why is individual annihilation harmful ? Because it gives the ruling class excuses to retaliate violently, pass oppressive laws and paint revolutionaries as terrorists. But these will happen in the course of revolution anyways. So, a sufficiently popular revolutionary group can choose to finish off extremely reactionary individuals for rapidly winning local mass support or for military gains. Sometimes even not-so-popular revolutionary groups can engage in individual annihilation in case they estimate the gains to be more than the losses. Also, as you correctly point out, another boss will replace the one annihilated. So, until an organization can use such an annihilation to psychologically affect the ruling class or it is done before the working class takes control, such an action is largely useless. So it is a bad strategy, and the organization can use its resources for more powerful forms of struggle.

Now let's consider this particular annihilation. It was spontaneous, by workers who had seen no other alternative. However, its class character is clear and it is morally justified. But as I mentioned before, it is a bad strategy compared to some other forms of struggle. So, if any of us were there before this took place, we would surely place a better alternative before the workers. But now, this act has been done; the proletariat has fought back and risks brutal suppression by the bourgeoisie. So right now, we can either back off, call them murderers and terrorists and hence betray the working, or we can stand in their defence, justify their actions and attack the actions of the ruling class instead.

Always keep in mind, that we oppose even an insurrection if we don't find it strategically good enough, before it takes place. After it happens, there is no communist stand other than defending it. The logic is same here. Also, a group organizing such an insurrection is well experienced and can work out other options. These workers had no such chances. And neither you nor I nor anyone else was there to help them out when they needed it. So the revolutionary stand in this case should be quite clear.

[Jose Gracchus]

I'm not a Maoist, or a Stalinist or any stripe, or even a Leninist. I am close to anarchism. Nonetheless. I don't feel bad at all for this piece of shit. Good riddance.

[red cat]

With all due respect, these are not instances of class struggle, but rather revenge fueled by despair. To conflate this kind of act, which only gets potential militants imprisoned and demonized, with acts of class struggle is a mistake.


I disagree. Instances of class struggle might be acts of revenge fueled by despair. The working class learns from these and works out more powerful methods gradually.

[Jose Gracchus]

How many anarchists really wish Alexander Berkman had been executed for shooting a boss?

[Thirsty Crow]

I disagree. Instances of class struggle might be acts of revenge fueled by despair. The working class learns from these and works out more powerful methods gradually.
What is there to learn (connected to broader issues of labour organizing and class struggle) from acts like this one? The only thing that can be learnt is that prisoners cannot organize as. Neither can they support their families.
And if class struggle is compatible, in you view, with individual violent acts...in the sense that these acts are part of class struggle - then your notion of class struggle is flawed, I'm afraid.

[red cat]

What is there to learn (connected to broader issues of labour organizing and class struggle) from acts like this one? The only thing that can be learnt is that prisoners cannot organize as. Neither can they support their families.


That one boss replaces another. Generally workers target individuals because they are not very sure that this system can never be beneficial to them. So it might take several such actions for the working class to learn; and it is a very valuable lesson too.


And if class struggle is compatible, in you view, with individual violent acts...in the sense that these acts are part of class struggle - then your notion of class struggle is flawed, I'm afraid.

That is your opinion.

[Niccolò Rossi]

and Bob should be burn long with this bastard. traitor.

Why the fuck aren't you banned you stupid little shit.

Nic.

[Blackscare]

Obviously there are times when workers must physically intimidate and kill bosses.


I've been reading about the revolutionary, or pre-revolutionary situation in Italy (through the lens of a book on Gramsci). One thing that strikes me is, when the final showdown between workers and bosses came and the bosses locked out the workers for a month to break the nascent council system, the workers should have been actively assassinating the bosses. That showdown was the death, at the root if not externally for a little while longer, of the worker's movement in Italy. The owners had more power, could wait longer. The only real answer for the workers was to have started terrorizing the owners. They didn't, they lost, and they had to give up the very backbone of their movement which prevented them from meaningfully resisting again.



So to claim that violence and assassination are never on the table, or never tactically useful, is just absurd.


If this was simply vengeance, I wouldn't defend it tactically but I also wouldn't lose any sleep for the boss. It is very likely that this was done so as to prevent other bosses from being emboldened, though, so it is probably tactically a good thing for the workers there.



Violence is not always good, it does not always help, but there are times when assassination is absolutely necessary. I don't know the situation in that city/town, if there were similar plans they were trying to scare other bosses away from doing, or what.

[Blackscare]

Also, on all sides, as uncalled for as TRND's comment was, lets stop the flaming here and salvage the thread.

Consider that a warning to everyone involved.

[Jeraldi]

If we ultimately want a revolution we can not expect it to be completely non violent. While violence should not be indiscriminate we need to support workers who are willing to take this step since the revolution is theirs as well.

[Scary Monster]

With all due respect, these are not instances of class struggle, but rather revenge fueled by despair. To conflate this kind of act, which only gets potential militants imprisoned and demonized, with acts of class struggle is a mistake.

And that is another side to the story, one which does not pertain to class struggle directly. Once again, cheerleaders for violence in absence of a strong, well organized movement, fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

I second this. Why are most of you pleased about a guy being burned alive? Sick.

[Futility Personified]

On the one hand, this guy laid off a lot of people, and considering how shit India is, those people are probably monumentally scuppered if they cannot find work. He deserved punishment, and as the capitalist system is not going to do so, justice has to come into it somewhere.

However, it is difficult to call killing someone just. I'd consider this an example of class struggle, but it is taking a life. Truth be told, i'm unsure of how to deal with people like that in such a limited window of time, and if you have little time and a lot of anger you are bound to act foolishly.

Long story short, it's sad he had to die, he shouldn't have had to die, and he did die. If there is something to glean from it, then it should be actually useful for the revolutionary movement, not petty little sectarian bickering.

[Tablo]

I get a little emotional when it comes to layoffs so I don't think I am capable of a rational response to this. To be perfectly honestly, I think he fucking deserved it.

[RED DAVE]

The social structure is. The workers are almost always from lower castes. They are commonly treated like sub-human beings.Still can't figure out that using the Marxist method, the essence of class is the relationship to the means of production.

Feudalism does not produce steel factories or steel workrkers.


bourgeoisie ... proletariatFeudalism does not have a bourgeoisie or a proletariat.

RED DAVE

[L.A.P.]

I don't know how to respond to this... I guess we shouldn't be surprised to find a Maoist like you defending individual acts of terrorism and mistaking it for actual class struggle. After all, it is the modus operandi of Maoism.

That's very mature and un-sectarian of you. This definitely was a very productive response into defending your position and rebutting the positions of your antagonist.:rolleyes:

[red cat]

Still can't figure out that using the Marxist method, the essence of class is the relationship to the means of production.

Feudalism does not produce steel factories or steel workrkers.

Feudalism does not have a bourgeoisie or a proletariat.

RED DAVE

No it doesn't, and I have mentioned many times what semi-feudalism is and that we actually mean semi-feudalism when we speak of feudalism in the modern world. I have explained these things particularly to you many times in other threads. If you want to continue discussing this topic then post in those threads. Presently the discussion here involves a much more sensitive issue.

[black magick hustla]

it is part of the "class struggle", does not matter how depraved and base the act. its an act of class violence and while it is depraved and murderous it IS class violence

[Tablo]

I think I could argue that class violence is justified since violence acted out in self-defense is justified. Burning alive may have been a little harsh, but really, the bourgeoisie and class traitors are fair game in the class war.

*Disclaimer*Not that I would ever support or participate in any violent or illegal activity ever!*Disclaimer*

[NGNM85]

I don't agree with the action, but I totally sympathize with the sentiment.

[Robocommie]

The truth is, the guy they killed has probably already been replaced, and I kinda doubt this is going to send any message to the bourgeoisie other than "we need to hire more security guards."

[#FF0000]

The truth is, the guy they killed has probably already been replaced, and I kinda doubt this is going to send any message to the bourgeoisie other than "we need to hire more security guards."

If they haven't gotten that point by now....

[Robocommie]

If they haven't gotten that point by now....

Are you going to stop changing your name anytime soon, you bastard? :p

[La Comédie Noire]

it is part of the "class struggle", does not matter how depraved and base the act. its an act of class violence and while it is depraved and murderous it IS class violence


I understand what you're saying, but what about say rape? Red guards during the Russian Revolution raped middle class women. Should we just dismiss it as "class struggle" or should we have some rules of conduct?

[MarxistMan]

You are right, we need a humanist, socialist revolution. Killing a human, even killing a nazi is satanic and evil.

.


Burning another human being to death is not class struggle. It's bloody murder. Class struggle is striking, blockading, occupying, contesting for control over the means of production.

Are you suggesting the social structure of capitalism does not give the shit jobs to the lowest sector of the class system and does not treat workers like sub-humans?

In Victorian Britain, the first mature bourgeois society, children and adults were routinely worked to death, forced to live in squalid conditions of overcrowding and disease. The cities teemed with homeless people who were forced to lodge in over night shelters, if they were lucky, or sleep under their machinery in the factory, if they weren't. Women who displayed sexual independence were labelled as nymphomaniacs and thrown into institutions of reform where they were routinely tortured with electro-convulsive therapy and mutilated by surgeons with unnecessary hysterectomies and circumcision. The only way you could get the vote was if you were rich.

Was this, therefore, a 'feudal social structure'?

[red cat]

The truth is, the guy they killed has probably already been replaced, and I kinda doubt this is going to send any message to the bourgeoisie other than "we need to hire more security guards."

Given the present situation in India, this might have some other effects. In some cases, security guards, even those provided by the state, are known to have remained neutral during such attacks. Though Maoists are said to be behind each of those.

[RED DAVE]

No it doesn't, and I have mentioned many times what semi-feudalism is and that we actually mean semi-feudalism when we speak of feudalism in the modern world.What you have explained is that you Maoists have invented a new kind of society in order to justify your placing the working class in a subordinate role in revolutionary action and theory.


I have explained these things particularly to you many times in other threads.I once had a teacher who tried to esxplain god to me. He was as full of shit about god as you are about semi-feudalism.


If you want to continue discussing this topic then post in those threads. Presently the discussion here involves a much more sensitive issue.Don't preach to me about revleft protocol as what you are doing is trying to conceal the fact that your discussion has a shabby theoretical underpinning, and you go on from there.

RED DAVE

[IndependentCitizen]

Whilst I can understand their anger, I don't see how burning him would advance their struggle. A beating would have been much more powerful. But now they'll bring in another capitalist who I'll expect to be harsher because of their actions.

But hey ho, they were angry, and their anger could create a fear amongst the ruling class. But we could see them using this to bring in more draconian laws that'll punish workers more.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't know how to respond to this ... you made an extremely reactionary statement just now. Almost as if you are on the side of the ruling class. You really need to see things from a proletarian point of view.

Reactionary statement? Bullshit. Its bloody murder and no other way about it.

Explain to me...HOW this brings about social change and revolution? HOW is this going to spark popular support? HOW is this in any way furthering the goal of more workers rights? HOW is this going to change the system?

Its NOT.

Because the company is NOT going to change its decision. The company will simply replace the executive with somebody else. The company is namely not loosing anything but a pawn in their system. The syste is NOT going to loose a war of attrition because the system is simply all encompassing....the system will only lose if you aqcuire their assets and make it lose money.


You use violence as a last resort to defend a revolution. You do not use indiscriminate acts of violence and murder.



Compare this to a government funded school where the lower caste students are forced to clean the toilets, because they were "born to do so" or an engineering college where a lower caste student who managed to successfully compete with well-raised upper caste student is violently ragged and refused help by authorities because "lower castes are not meant to be educated" and ultimately driven to suicide. Do you see the difference ? Also, Indian cities don't have night shelters; and the rampant rapes by hooligans employed by the ruling classes need to be stopped before working class women can manage to travel safely without a male escort, let alone displaying any sexual independence.

And this somehow validates and justifies acts of the same?

[Robespierre Richard]

Yeah communists don't kill bosses communists send bosses to the gulags am I right? ;)

[Obs]

You use violence as a last resort to defend a revolution. You do not use indiscriminate acts of violence and murder.
Funny that, coming from an anarchist

[PhoenixAsh]

Funny that, coming from an anarchist

Funny that you think anarchists are automatically pro-violence and indiscriminate murder.

[Obs]

Funny that you think anarchists are automatically pro-violence and indiscriminate murder.
Is it an intrinsic part of anarchist theory that smashing shop windows and burning people's cars is a direct attack on capitalism, but killing the boss that fired you is "indiscriminate murder", or has the movement just stopped caring as a whole?

[Reznov]

Jesus, that is fucking horrible (Burning someone alive?)

Things like that will be used against workers movements.

[red cat]

What you have explained is that you Maoists have invented a new kind of society in order to justify your placing the working class in a subordinate role in revolutionary action and theory.

I once had a teacher who tried to esxplain god to me. He was as full of shit about god as you are about semi-feudalism.

Don't preach to me about revleft protocol as what you are doing is trying to conceal the fact that your discussion has a shabby theoretical underpinning, and you go on from there.

RED DAVE

Why are you so hell-bent on derailing this thread ? It seems as if you are very desperate to divert attention from a spontaneous act of class struggle.

[red cat]

Reactionary statement? Bullshit. Its bloody murder and no other way about it.

Explain to me...HOW this brings about social change and revolution? HOW is this going to spark popular support? HOW is this in any way furthering the goal of more workers rights? HOW is this going to change the system?

Its NOT.

Because the company is NOT going to change its decision. The company will simply replace the executive with somebody else. The company is namely not loosing anything but a pawn in their system. The syste is NOT going to loose a war of attrition because the system is simply all encompassing....the system will only lose if you aqcuire their assets and make it lose money.


You use violence as a last resort to defend a revolution. You do not use indiscriminate acts of violence and murder.



And this somehow validates and justifies acts of the same?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fired-workers-burn-t151012/index.html?p=2039015#post2039015

[PhoenixAsh]

Is it an intrinsic part of anarchist theory that smashing shop windows and burning people's cars is a direct attack on capitalism, but killing the boss that fired you is "indiscriminate murder", or has the movement just stopped caring as a whole?

No it really isn't. But nice attempt to debase anarchy as some form of mindless destruction theory. Its what some anarchist practice...which has been later theorized in some effort to somehow justify it....but anarchy as a whole is concerned with effective class action against the system. Even the main anarchist article on murderous and terrorist violence only propagates understanding and not a condonation of the act...comparing it to the strategies the state and burgeoisie use.

Nevertheless...as much as I dislike ineffective and pointless actions of vandalisation I find them a whole different category opposed to rape, murder and torture...you really do not see a distinction between destruction of property and burning someone alive, don't you?

[Robespierre Richard]

I think this is a fine example of the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations enacting punishment against class traitors and AmeriKKKa. Although it is rather unfortunate that they harmed the patriotic national bourgeoisie, the message to Amerikkkans is clear: third world rebellion is inevitable and the oppressed proletariat will no longer wait.

[IndependentCitizen]

Is it an intrinsic part of anarchist theory that smashing shop windows and burning people's cars is a direct attack on capitalism, but killing the boss that fired you is "indiscriminate murder", or has the movement just stopped caring as a whole?


Jesus christ, dude. If I'm intepreting this properly. You're saying vandalism and violence are the same thing?

The British media made sure that vandalism was called violence...

There's a huge difference between destroying property and attacking people.

[Obs]

Nevertheless...as much as I dislike ineffective and pointless actions of vandalisation I find them a whole different category opposed to rape, murder and torture...you really do not see a distinction between destruction of property and burning someone alive, don't you?


Jesus christ, dude. If I'm intepreting this properly. You're saying vandalism and violence are the same thing?

The British media made sure that vandalism was called violence...

There's a huge difference between destroying property and attacking people.
There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what I was directing my hostility towards. I don't give a fuck about vandalism as long as it's not directed against workers. What I was objecting to was the idea that a spontaneous act of class struggle is somehow "indiscriminate" when it appears the workers responsible for this act had a very clear target. I found it hilarious that an anarchist, of all people, was decrying the perceived indiscriminate nature of the act, when 1) it was not indiscriminate, and 2) anarchist action for the past 40-50 years has been nothing but indiscriminate idiocy that often hurts workers much more than it hurts the bourgeoisie - burning workers' cars and throwing stones through their windows and setting fire to apartment blocks and so on, for instance, all of which are standard fare at anarchist "protests".


Also, why do you people care about this bourgeois fuck being burned? It seems counter-intuitive that we perceive class enemies as human beings instead of, y'know, class enemies. Burn the prick for all I care - and his wife and his kids and his pet dog and its puppies too. Fuck him.

[Wanted Man]

Weird responses. I didn't see anyone who had a problem with this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/policeman-tries-escape-t150624/index.html) for instance. Of course it's not some great progressive act, but rather a logical consequence of the misery that this particular boss probably inflicted on a daily basis.

Also, how come that this kind of thing can't be discussed without some guy going on about "Narodniks" and "individual terrorism"? Probably because everything that happens in the world is incomprehensible to these people if it isn't translated back into a 1900s framework.

In this brilliant analysis:

-Masses of workers killing their boss
-People's war in Asia
-The 9/11 attacks
-Riots at a G8 summit involving thousands of people
-The Irish Republican campaigns
-A conspiracy to kill the czar

...are all the exact same thing, namely "individual terrorism" and "Narodniks". :confused: Who needs analysis when you've got buzzwords instead?

[NGNM85]

Is it an intrinsic part of anarchist theory that smashing shop windows and burning people's cars is a direct attack on capitalism,...

This is utter nonsense.

[Obs]

This is utter nonsense.
You're right, I forgot, some anarchist tendencies only consider voting Democrat an act of class consciousness.

[black magick hustla]

I understand what you're saying, but what about say rape? Red guards during the Russian Revolution raped middle class women. Should we just dismiss it as "class struggle" or should we have some rules of conduct?
im not arguing for it or saying i would personally support it. in the late 18th century black slaves in haiti as part of their insurrections raped some of there white masters. idk if i would be down for that shit. it was still part of the class struggle of the time though. tbh rape is not fucking worse than being sold around and rooted out of your community and enslaved and being told you are dirt so i can see why someone would be self righteous about it.

[DaringMehring]

Of course it's not some great progressive act, but rather a logical consequence of the misery that this particular boss probably inflicted on a daily basis.


CEOs all over the world inflict misery on a daily basis.



Also, how come that this kind of thing can't be discussed without some guy going on about "Narodniks" and "individual terrorism"? Probably because everything that happens in the world is incomprehensible to these people if it isn't translated back into a 1900s framework.


I pointed out the reasons why this type of act is analogous to Narodnik terror in my post. I gave a list of problems that applied to both then and now.



In this brilliant analysis:

-Masses of workers killing their boss
-People's war in Asia
-The 9/11 attacks
-Riots at a G8 summit involving thousands of people
-The Irish Republican campaigns
-A conspiracy to kill the czar

...are all the exact same


I never said that.

I didn't raise "People's war in Asia," (or any of the rest) much less say it was "the same," much less say it was "exactly the same."

That is your own fantasy.


Who needs analysis when you've got buzzwords instead?

I presented a historical analogy and argued that it applied to the boss burning, based on a list of criteria. You present nothing, only made up claims.

So apparently, it is you who doesn't need analysis.

[black magick hustla]

narodnik terror is a dumb analogy. for one the narodniki were the equivalent of today's college activists but with guns and blood thirst. it was pure voluntarism. a bunch of angry proles beating up their boss with sticks to death is not the best ethical or strategic thing to do but it is organic class violence. its along the same veins of black insurrectionary slaves raping their white female masters. is the latter a good thing to do? probably not. is it an inevitable side effect of a fight between classes. of course

[Kuppo Shakur]

Holy shit, this thread...
This whole fucking thread...
I need to go lay down.:ohmy:

[DaringMehring]

narodnik terror is a dumb analogy. for one the narodniki were the equivalent of today's college activists but with guns and blood thirst. it was pure voluntarism. a bunch of angry proles beating up their boss with sticks to death is not the best ethical or strategic thing to do but it is organic class violence. its along the same veins of black insurrectionary slaves raping their white female masters. is the latter a good thing to do? probably not. is it an inevitable side effect of a fight between classes. of course

I don't contest that it was class violence, meaning that it was violence in retribution for being socially subordinated.

I do contest whether it was violence that advances the proletarian side of the class struggle. Based on the available evidence and the lessons of history, I see no reason to believe that this advances the proletarian side of the class struggle. If anything, it retards it, by substituting for organizing.

So yes as you say "is it a good thing to do?" -- No.

[black magick hustla]

it doesn't advance anything. class violence is not necessarily positive. the early luddites were part of the class struggle doesnt mean the shit they did was necessarily constructive, or advanced anything.

[DaringMehring]

it doesn't advance anything. class violence is not necessarily positive. the early luddites were part of the class struggle doesnt mean the shit they did was necessarily constructive, or advanced anything.

Ok, well then we're agreed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's bizarre that somehow posters find the Narodniks worth mentioning here...:blink:

The Narodniks (as previously mentioned) were plucked mostly from the "middle classes", although there were some who came from lower class/poor backgrounds (such as Nechaev, the most famous of the nihilists). They were influenced by Herzen, Bakunin and Chernyshvsky. They actually did try fervently to organize peasants and the lower classes of Russia during the 1870's and onward through education...the problem was the peasantry in that time were illiterate, and it's hard to spread radicalism amoungst the illiterate. Also, peasants felt that the tsar was generally a good guy, and it was just the landlords who were tyrants. So eventually the idea was popularized that the way to spread revolt was to commit violent acts, to lead by example.

I don't see how any of that relates to genuine "grass-roots" violence against bosses, or police, or landlords, etc.

I also think that part of the reason that people are uneasy about this is because the act was just so bestial (death by burning)...if someone had simply shot the boss I don't think the act would've gotten as much criticism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

BTW, does anyone remember that story involving Chinese bosses shooting at workers in Zambia after a wage dispute? For some reason this story reminded me of that. They just recently went to trial.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576131921582037738.html

[Exakt]

Ages ago when I worked in a fast-food joint, a manager threw a bag of garbage down at my feet, rather than walk his fat ass to the bin and throw it in himself.

I picked it up, and I threw it at his face.

The bag exploded, and he was covered in shake & sundae mix and just stood their spluttering.

It was so satisfying.

From that day on I supported individual acts of terror lol.

[Exakt]

Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of freedom!

[gorillafuck]

The social structure is. The workers are almost always from lower castes. They are commonly treated like sub-human beings.It's feudalism because the workers are treated like subhumans?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think world capitalism looks like?

[red cat]

It's feudalism because the workers are treated like subhumans?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think world capitalism looks like?

This is off-topic, but since you are curious, you should do some research on the caste system. That should make things a bit clearer.

[PhoenixAsh]

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what I was directing my hostility towards. I don't give a fuck about vandalism as long as it's not directed against workers. What I was objecting to was the idea that a spontaneous act of class struggle is somehow "indiscriminate" when it appears the workers responsible for this act had a very clear target.

Murder has a specific target because it is always premeditated.

Indiscriminate because it does not serve a clear goal towards revolution or workers power....it does not bring about any changes and it does not damage the system in the least. Instead it brings about the exact opposite and only serves to vent anger and as an act of vengeance as a short term solution to personal and subjective emotional anger.

Indiscriminate has several meanings and the meanings chosen here are wanton (cruel) and not made on careful distinction (between effective and counter productive/ineffective).

A spontaneous act of class struggle...which incidentally is completely contradicted by the fact that it was premeditated and had a specific target...can still be incredibly wrong on any level, counter productive and abject in its nature. Not everything done in the name of revolution or workers struggle is condonable, justified or defendable....even if the anger is understandable and legitimate.

In essence following the line of reasoning to its extreme...any murder committed by someone from the working class against someone from the burgeoisie can be then described and justified as part of the class struggle...to name a few examples: murder committed in the act of robbery; murder committed during a bank robbery; murder committed during a home invasion; murder committed by any motivation of misgiving; attempt to acquire and appropriate wealth or material possessions; murder committed out of hatred, anger and jealousy over ones position in life in the largests sense....etc. etc.

Defending outright acts of murder as a logical and valid part of class struggle because somehow the victim of it belongs to a group we disagree with or object to validates any form of murder committed with the same motivations by groups we do not agree with but have the same sense of "warfare" as we do.

This act is completely ineffective and subjective in nature....and that clearly distinguishes it from any form of justified violence that legitimately is part of class struggle.

To adress an other statement made by another poster...the one about assassination sometimes being necessary and is sometimes justified is true. But only when it serves a clear and objective goal within the larger context of class struggle. It must serve a in the case when not doing so would threaten the revolution; threaten the continued control or taking of control of the workers or directly prevent the loss of lives of workers. In other words: premptive selfdefence or outright self defence.
This is also the case when violence is justified.

This case does not fit those criteria on any level.





I found it hilarious that an anarchist, of all people, was decrying the perceived indiscriminate nature of the act, when 1) it was not indiscriminate, and 2) anarchist action for the past 40-50 years has been nothing but indiscriminate idiocy that often hurts workers much more than it hurts the bourgeoisie - burning workers' cars and throwing stones through their windows and setting fire to apartment blocks and so on, for instance, all of which are standard fare at anarchist "protests".


I would find it hilarious that you have no idea what anarchist theory is...since that was your original position...if it weren't for the fact that its so thoroughly depressing that someone who has been a member of RevLeft for a year now does not know better. You seem to have taken to the burgeoisie definition and propaganda of Anarchists being mindless vandals and violent thugs and Anarchy being a political theory of destruction and murder.

And your tactic of all of the sudden switching from your statement about theory to acts of anarchists on the street...wow! you are offcourse fully aware that theorty and practive are two completely different things. Are you not? Or are we to conclude from the practice of communist parties to sent each other to camps and execute one another as intrinsic part of the theory? I think not.

Its deplorable that you drag into this debate the behaviour of groups of hooligans, many of which know nothing about the theory of Anarchy but like to dress up and call themselves Anarchists and draw cricle-A's on everything because they think it means that somehow gives legitimacy to their indiscriminate acts of destruction and puts it under a banner of advancing class struggle...but instead only results in complete loss of sympathy and furthers repression of the working class and protesters in general. As you indeed have stated this often causes more harm to the working class than to the burgeoisie.

Now...vandalism and destruction as part of a reaction to police intervention; police brutality or as a result from attacks and charges by the police is a whole different cup of tea. Destruction then is part of a battle and in my opinion completely justified.

That in no way warrants a comparison between vandalism and outright murder. There is a distinct difference between property damage and killling a human being.



Also, why do you people care about this bourgeois fuck being burned? .

Why do you not? I will give you several objective reasons:

1). It furthers and legitimises repressions. "After all...workers are clearly out to kill the ruling class so kill before you can be killed is now in effect and we need to protect lives"; the ruling class will point out.

2). It does not solve the immediate problem of losing jobs.

3). It does not get the workers any closer to gaining control of the factory/company

4). It does not hurt the system in the slightest

5). But more important of all is the fact that it hurts the workers struggle completely and will be used as propaganda against workers by pointing out that they pose a threat to personal safety; that their intentions are murderous; that nobody is safe and that any form of revolution or change somehow gives in to terrorists and murderers....and that position has proven itself to work time and time again.

To name a few.


It seems counter-intuitive that we perceive class enemies as human beings instead of, y'know, class enemies.

Yes...exactly the position the ruling class takes on workers....you know...they are mere resources to be disposed when so needed. The fatc that we pretend to have a system that actually humanizes work and work relationships should be a clear sign why we should not give in to the same base urges.



Burn the prick for all I care - and his wife and his kids and his pet dog and its puppies too. Fuck him

Yeah....this statement is showing your true colours...and why these kind of acts are so completely wrong. Because where does one draw the line?. You are calling for muder of kids and women who have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand....but simply are in your opinion a justifyable target because they are married too or kids of someone who works for the ruling class????? Do you even comprehend what you are saying??? That has NOTHING to do with class struggle.

[pranabjyoti]

It's feudalism because the workers are treated like subhumans?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think world capitalism looks like?
Just for your information. If an worker in your country (most probably from first world) climbs up the social ladder, he/she begins to got well treatment. While in India in contrary, upper-cast people always point out a lower caste even in comparatively higher position that he/she is from a lower caste i.e. don't expect much respect from the upper-caste.
THAT'S REMAINS OF FEUDALISM AND IS STILL VERY MUCH PROMINENT IN INDIAN SOCIETY.

[pranabjyoti]

Murder has a specific target because it is always premeditated.

Indiscriminate because it does not serve a clear goal towards revolution or workers power....it does not bring about any changes and it does not damage the system in the least. Instead it brings about the exact opposite and only serves to vent anger and as an act of vengeance as a short term solution to personal and subjective emotional anger.

Indiscriminate has several meanings and the meanings chosen here are wanton (cruel) and not made on careful distinction (between effective and counter productive/ineffective).

A spontaneous act of class struggle...which incidentally is completely contradicted by the fact that it was premeditated and had a specific target...can still be incredibly wrong on any level, counter productive and abject in its nature. Not everything done in the name of revolution or workers struggle is condonable, justified or defendable....even if the anger is understandable and legitimate.

In essence following the line of reasoning to its extreme...any murder committed by someone from the working class against someone from the burgeoisie can be then described and justified as part of the class struggle...to name a few examples: murder committed in the act of robbery; murder committed during a bank robbery; murder committed during a home invasion; murder committed by any motivation of misgiving; attempt to acquire and appropriate wealth or material possessions; murder committed out of hatred, anger and jealousy over ones position in life in the largests sense....etc. etc.

Defending outright acts of murder as a logical and valid part of class struggle because somehow the victim of it belongs to a group we disagree with or object to validates any form of murder committed with the same motivations by groups we do not agree with but have the same sense of "warfare" as we do.

This act is completely ineffective and subjective in nature....and that clearly distinguishes it from any form of justified violence that legitimately is part of class struggle.

To adress an other statement made by another poster...the one about assassination sometimes being necessary and is sometimes justified is true. But only when it serves a clear and objective goal within the larger context of class struggle. It must serve a in the case when not doing so would threaten the revolution; threaten the continued control or taking of control of the workers or directly prevent the loss of lives of workers. In other words: premptive selfdefence or outright self defence.
This is also the case when violence is justified.

This case does not fit those criteria on any level.






I would find it hilarious that you have no idea what anarchist theory is...since that was your original position...if it weren't for the fact that its so thoroughly depressing that someone who has been a member of RevLeft for a year now does not know better. You seem to have taken to the burgeoisie definition and propaganda of Anarchists being mindless vandals and violent thugs and Anarchy being a political theory of destruction and murder.

And your tactic of all of the sudden switching from your statement about theory to acts of anarchists on the street...wow! you are offcourse fully aware that theorty and practive are two completely different things. Are you not? Or are we to conclude from the practice of communist parties to sent each other to camps and execute one another as intrinsic part of the theory? I think not.

Its deplorable that you drag into this debate the behaviour of groups of hooligans, many of which know nothing about the theory of Anarchy but like to dress up and call themselves Anarchists and draw cricle-A's on everything because they think it means that somehow gives legitimacy to their indiscriminate acts of destruction and puts it under a banner of advancing class struggle...but instead only results in complete loss of sympathy and furthers repression of the working class and protesters in general. As you indeed have stated this often causes more harm to the working class than to the burgeoisie.

Now...vandalism and destruction as part of a reaction to police intervention; police brutality or as a result from attacks and charges by the police is a whole different cup of tea. Destruction then is part of a battle and in my opinion completely justified.

That in no way warrants a comparison between vandalism and outright murder. There is a distinct difference between property damage and killling a human being.



Why do you not? I will give you several objective reasons:

1). It furthers and legitimises repressions. "After all...workers are clearly out to kill the ruling class so kill before you can be killed is now in effect and we need to protect lives"; the ruling class will point out.

2). It does not solve the immediate problem of losing jobs.

3). It does not get the workers any closer to gaining control of the factory/company

4). It does not hurt the system in the slightest

5). But more important of all is the fact that it hurts the workers struggle completely and will be used as propaganda against workers by pointing out that they pose a threat to personal safety; that their intentions are murderous; that nobody is safe and that any form of revolution or change somehow gives in to terrorists and murderers....and that position has proven itself to work time and time again.

To name a few.



Yes...exactly the position the ruling class takes on workers....you know...they are mere resources to be disposed when so needed. The fatc that we pretend to have a system that actually humanizes work and work relationships should be a clear sign why we should not give in to the same base urges.




Yeah....this statement is showing your true colours...and why these kind of acts are so completely wrong. Because where does one draw the line?. You are calling for muder of kids and women who have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand....but simply are in your opinion a justifyable target because they are married too or kids of someone who works for the ruling class????? Do you even comprehend what you are saying??? That has NOTHING to do with class struggle.
Probably this is the only post for which I have thanked you.

[pranabjyoti]

I think this is a fine example of the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations enacting punishment against class traitors and AmeriKKKa.Although it is rather unfortunate that they harmed the patriotic national bourgeoisie, the message to Amerikkkans is clear: third world rebellion is inevitable and the oppressed proletariat will no longer wait.
National bourgeoisie is non-existent in India. Basically all are "imperialist bustards", a result of impregnation of "mature" feudalism by imperialism. In Marxist-Maoist terminology, they are compradors.\
Please, read Mao and Maoist books before making sarcastic remarks.

[RED DAVE]

National bourgeoisie is non-existent in India.Well, I guess the bloc of four classes is down to three.


Basically all are "imperialist bustards"Unlike the national bourgeoisie of other countries, who are just bubbling over with enthusiasm for socialism.


a result of impregnation of "mature" feudalism by imperialism.Wow! First we have "semi-feudalism," and now we have "mature feudalism." I guess next comes "senile feudualism."


In Marxist-Maoist terminology, they are compradors.So I guess the Naxalites are repudiating a key element of "mature Maoism." Can we call this "senile Maoism."


Please, read Mao and Maoist books before making sarcastic remarks.As soon as I take them out from the bottom of the bird cage.

RED DAVE

[Pavlov's House Party]

This is off-topic, but since you are curious, you should do some research on the caste system. That should make things a bit clearer.

Ok? India has remnants of a feudal mode of production and its workers are oppressed, therefore it is still feudalist. Canada has a queen and Britain has a house of lords, and both oppress their workers, are they still feudal too?

[Hit The North]

Ok? India has remnants of a feudal mode of production and its workers are oppressed, therefore it is still feudalist. Canada has a queen and Britain has a house of lords, and both oppress their workers, are they still feudal too?

Well, according to comrade red cat, a mode of production is determined by the cultural norms and the survival of archaic forms of social organisation. This is where he departs from historical materialism, in favour of third world culturalism.

But if we were to take his point seriously we would be forced to confess that his own ethical advice that setting fire to a guy who's laid you off is "morally justifiable" (and that by extension, raping a woman, as long as she is a ruling class woman and the rapist is a worker, is also morally justified), we would have to confess that he expresses some very backward, some would say, semi-feudal, ideas himself.

[Hit The North]

Just for your information. If an worker in your country (most probably from first world) climbs up the social ladder, he/she begins to got well treatment. While in India in contrary, upper-cast people always point out a lower caste even in comparatively higher position that he/she is from a lower caste i.e. don't expect much respect from the upper-caste.
THAT'S REMAINS OF FEUDALISM AND IS STILL VERY MUCH PROMINENT IN INDIAN SOCIETY.

Not sure where Zeekloid is from, but here in dear old Blighty, where the Queen (God Bless Her!) can often be found distributing hot buttered crumpets to the hungry and the poor of a winters morn, we take a man for the cut of his cloth, on the basis of his innate qualities, and do not judge him on the basis of his upbringing, or creed or colour!

Which is, of course, bullshit. Social class is scrupulously policed in British society. The cultural entrapments of privilege circulate between elite groups, which exclude 98% of the population, and anyone who manages to elbow their way from the bottom to the top (which hardly ever happens) is openly or secretly despised by the custodians of elite privilege.

If the class system of India is riddled with snobbery and if privilege is monopolised through the observance of cultural distinctions of upbringing and accent (not to mention colour of skin), this only goes to show how similar it is to Britain.

[red cat]

Ok? India has remnants of a feudal mode of production and its workers are oppressed, therefore it is still feudalist. Canada has a queen and Britain has a house of lords, and both oppress their workers, are they still feudal too?

The situations are not comparable. The queen is just a symbol of the past monarchy, while what India has is a powerful system that affects the society from top to bottom.

[red cat]

Well, according to comrade red cat, a mode of production is determined by the cultural norms and the survival of archaic forms of social organisation. This is where he departs from historical materialism, in favour of third world culturalism.

But if we were to take his point seriously we would be forced to confess that his own ethical advice that setting fire to a guy who's laid you off is "morally justifiable" (and that by extension, raping a woman, as long as she is a ruling class woman and the rapist is a worker, is also morally justified), we would have to confess that he expresses some very backward, some would say, semi-feudal, ideas himself.

Apart from you inventing extensions of my statements, you go wrong again in taking sides. Notice that many comrades from different tendencies are sympathizing with this action, and not all of them think that India is semi-feudal. This action would have been justified even if India was capitalist. Everyone supporting or sympathizing with the workers who engaged in the annihilation is viewing the whole incident from a proletarian point of view. Call that backward or semi-feudal if you want to, but the proletariat does not always go by the rules of "ethics" that the bourgeois system today has taught you to believe in.

[Hit The North]

Call that backward or semi-feudal if you want to, but the proletariat does not always go by the rules of "ethics" that the bourgeois system today has taught you to believe in.

And this is why Maoism always results in brutal regimes. They believe it is revolutionary to be less humane than the bourgeoisie.

And you are mistaken if you think the proletariat inhabit the same moral cesspit as yourself.

[Obs]

And this is why Maoism always results in brutal regimes. They believe it is revolutionary to be less humane than the bourgeoisie.

And you are mistaken if you think the proletariat inhabit the same moral cesspit as yourself.
Remind us again how morals and ethics figure into a materialist worldview.

[red cat]

And this is why Maoism always results in brutal regimes. They believe it is revolutionary to be less humane than the bourgeoisie.

And this is why Trotskyism today is failing to result in anything. They have recruited some people who believe that an act of military violence by workers is less humane than the continuous structural violence of capitalists.


And you are mistaken if you think the proletariat inhabit the same moral cesspit as yourself.The action proves me right.

[Thirsty Crow]

Remind us again how morals and ethics figure into a materialist worldview.
Isn't ethics, in any of its variants and no matter the way it is codified, a means of establishing rules or guidelines for individual behaviour?

All in all, it seems to me that you're creating a false dichotomy here, with ethics, along with idealism on one side, and materialism on the other.



The action proves me right.
Wow, it is quite pathetic to see someone (ab)using an example of desperate act of murder for his/her own ideological ends.

[PhoenixAsh]

Apart from you inventing extensions of my statements, you go wrong again in taking sides. Notice that many comrades from different tendencies are sympathizing with this action, and not all of them think that India is semi-feudal. This action would have been justified even if India was capitalist.

Bullshit...its not justified...its understandable but as has been irrefutably shown its actually condemnable because it detriments the situation of the workers; revolution and class struggle and it serves NO other reason than to vent emotional anger.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between understadable and justified....which is worrying on many, many levels. And it leads me to conclude that you see revolution and class stuggle as somehow a justification of mindless violence, showing that you have no clue as to what is strategically sound and wat a socialist revolution actually is.




Everyone supporting or sympathizing with the workers who engaged in the annihilation is viewing the whole incident from a proletarian point of view.

Yes...just like the Holocaust got mayor support amongst the German population; just like the discrimination against Muslims in the western world gets mayor popular support....and these are not justfied at all.

Reminding us that support does NOT equate "justifiable".

Nor does it mean that disproving and denouncing such mindless and unjustfiable acts means that you do NOT view something from a proletarian view.



Call that backward or semi-feudal if you want to, but the proletariat does not always go by the rules of "ethics" that the bourgeois system today has taught you to believe in.

Those ethics are pretty much independent of class struggle or from proletarian class...

But you seem hell bend of painting the proletariat as being murderous mobs in whose ethics it is perfectly ok to burn people to death, rape, torture and mutilate as long as the victim is from an opposing class.....all in the name of class struggle

I call that position reactionary, criminal and detrimental to class struggle. It stems from a complete misconception of what revolutionary is. Understanding hatred and anger and the actions in which this result in no way equates to revolutionary work or class struggle....or justifies is

[red cat]

Wow, it is quite pathetic to see someone (ab)using an example of desperate act of murder for his/her own ideological ends.

It is even more pathetic to see people adhering to bourgeois ideas of ethics and denouncing an act of proletarian class struggle.

[PhoenixAsh]

And this is why Trotskyism today is failing to result in anything. They have recruited some people who believe that an act of military violence by workers is less humane than the continuous structural violence of capitalists.

The action proves me right.

Ah...you now degenrate to the tactic of burning people to death, torture and mutilation as being somehow military?

Actually saying a socialist revolution should match morals and tactics used by the ruling class....completely negating the fact that socialist and workers revolution are trying to advance the exact opposite society....in which work, inter human relationships are humanized and based on the ideology that humanity is better than the economic dehumanization inherretit in capitalism.

But hell...yeah...you are such a revolutionary socialist...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleye s:

[red cat]

Bullshit...its not justified...its understandable but as has been irrefutably shown its actually condemnable because it detriments the situation of the workers; revolution and class struggle and it serves NO other reason than to vent emotional anger.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between understadable and justified....which is worrying on many, many levels. And it leads me to conclude that you see revolution and class stuggle as somehow a justification of mindless violence, showing that you have no clue as to what is strategically sound and wat a socialist revolution actually is.




Yes...just like the Holocaust got mayor support amongst the German population; just like the discrimination against Muslims in the western world gets mayor popular support....and these are not justfied at all.

Reminding us that support does NOT equate "justifiable".

Nor does it mean that disproving and denouncing such mindless and unjustfiable acts means that you do NOT view something from a proletarian view.



Those ethics are pretty much independent of class struggle or from proletarian class...

But you seem hell bend of painting the proletariat as being murderous mobs in whose ethics it is perfectly ok to burn people to death, rape, torture and mutilate as long as the victim is from an opposing class.....all in the name of class struggle

I call that position reactionary, criminal and detrimental to class struggle. It stems from a complete misconception of what revolutionary is. Understanding hatred and anger and the actions in which this result in no way equates to revolutionary work or class struggle....or justifies is

I explained everything in an earlier post, which you apparently did not read, despite me linking you to it once. So here you go again :

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fired-work...15#post2039015 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fired-workers-burn-t151012/index.html?p=2039015#post2039015)

[red cat]

Ah...you now degenrate to the tactic of burning people to death, torture and mutilation as being somehow military?

Actually saying a socialist revolution should match morals and tactics used by the ruling class....completely negating the fact that socialist and workers revolution are trying to advance the exact opposite society....in which work, inter human relationships are humanized and based on the ideology that humanity is better than the economic dehumanization inherretit in capitalism.

But hell...yeah...you are such a revolutionary socialist...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleye s:

Okay, let's have a non-violent revolution then. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

It is even more pathetic to see people adhering to bourgeois ideas of ethics and denouncing an act of proletarian class struggle.

are you serious?

do you not see the complety idiocy of your argument? Yo are basing your whole position of justifiable unethical behaviour on a system and philosophy which is deeply concerned with ethics and actually basis its entire existence on righting the unethical situation created...and you have the guts to espouse and actively condone and call for the exact same tactics being used? thereby debasing the whole ideology we hold?

sorry...but your sorry excuse for somehow trying to justify these kinds of acts as integral parts of class struggle are completely pathetic, abject, counter productive and dispicable...

[Thirsty Crow]

It is even more pathetic to see people adhering to bourgeois ideas of ethics and denouncing an act of proletarian class struggle.
Okay, please provide evidence for your argument that an ethical proposition such as "it is not justifiable to burn a man to death given the fact that he was not directly putting your life of physical well being at risk" is or bourgeois class origin.

And do notice that I did not make such a proposition. I only made a proposition that this kind of action is not conducive to class struggle, and that it isn't even aimed at such goals (and that it is detrimental to workers' position with regard to the repressive state apparatus). You can argue all day and all night that this is an act of class struggle. But it isn't and you failed to provide valid arguments.

Or are you even implying that any notion of ethics, of acceptable and non-acceptable, when it comes to violent acts, is invalid? How about that hypothetical example of rape and mutilation when it comes to women from the upper class? Would you find that act - an act of class struggle?

[Obs]

Ah...you now degenrate to the tactic of burning people to death, torture and mutilation as being somehow military?

Actually saying a socialist revolution should match morals and tactics used by the ruling class....completely negating the fact that socialist and workers revolution are trying to advance the exact opposite society....in which work, inter human relationships are humanized and based on the ideology that humanity is better than the economic dehumanization inherretit in capitalism.

But hell...yeah...you are such a revolutionary socialist...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleye s:
Feel free to continue being an idealist while the rest of us pursue revolutionary goals.


Or are you even implying that any notion of ethics, of acceptable and non-acceptable, when it comes to violent acts, is invalid? How about that hypothetical example of rape and mutilation when it comes to women from the upper class? Would you find that act - an act of class struggle?

Bottom line is that we should support any act that causes suffering for and incapacitates members of the bourgeoisie, and oppose all acts that cause suffering for and/or incapacitates members of the proletariat. This is class war 101.

[Thirsty Crow]

.
Bottom line is that we should support any act that causes suffering for and incapacitates members of the bourgeoisie, and oppose all acts that cause suffering for and/or incapacitates members of the proletariat. This is class war 101.
So, the outline of the strategy of class struggle according to ths view would be - kill them all 'til there's no bourgeois left to command capital?

On a path to imminent ruin. Nice one.

[red cat]

Okay, please provide evidence for your argument that an ethical proposition such as "it is not justifiable to burn a man to death given the fact that he was not directly putting your life of physical well being at risk" is or bourgeois class origin.

It is bourgeois because it defends the life of the bourgeoisie.


And do notice that I did not make such a proposition. I only made a proposition that this kind of action is not conducive to class struggle, and that it isn't even aimed at such goals (and that it is detrimental to workers' position with regard to the repressive state apparatus). You can argue all day and all night that this is an act of class struggle. But it isn't and you failed to provide valid arguments.

Or are you even implying that any notion of ethics, of acceptable and non-acceptable, when it comes to violent acts, is invalid? How about that hypothetical example of rape and mutilation when it comes to women from the upper class? Would you find that act - an act of class struggle?

Violating a woman sexually is an offence against every proletarian woman who is fighting to do away with patriarchy. This is why you will mostly not come across cases of rapes in such spontaneous actions.

[PhoenixAsh]

I explained everything in an earlier post, which you apparently did not read, despite me linking you to it once. So here you go again :

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fired-work...15#post2039015 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fired-workers-burn-t151012/index.html?p=2039015#post2039015)

Yes I read it...and as you may have missed my other post and my post on this page: you seem to be unable to distinguish between understandable and justifyable.

One does not mean the other and the act is useless, mindless and indiscriminate...and just because it took place by workers against burgeoisie and can be understood as an act of justifyable anger and emotions does not in itself make the act justifyable...or defendable.

As I have explained before there are many acts that can so be justified by people we do not agree with and its nor should be justfied and blanketet under the guise of class struggle. Instead it should be condemned as tactics which should not be used and should be prosecuted and punished, preferrably by the workers themselves, as examples of misdirected, criminal and counter productive acts of violence to revent them from occuring again.

To call to justify the act is condoning the act as a legitimate part of class stuggle instead of just a mindless and criminal venting of emotions which actually harm the workers struggle. That runs counter opposed to denouncing the act but explaining why it is understandable and still defend the collective strikes and actions taken by the workers.

Something you seem to think impossible.

[PhoenixAsh]

Okay, let's have a non-violent revolution then. :rolleyes:

no...lets have a revolution which is non-violent utill self defence is needed and than prove our supruiority both theoretically and in actions by using direct and effective violence that actually advances our goals....instead of...you know....running around and burning people in cars and killing wives and kids and friends of people.

But perhaps you have missed that argument in my posts as well...

[RED DAVE]

Bottom line is that we should support any act that causes suffering for and incapacitates members of the bourgeoisieWould you advocate the torture and murder or children of the upper class? This would, doubtless, cause suffering to their parents. (Not forgetting, of course, that one of the reasons why we want their overthrow is their responsibility for the torture and murder of other people's children.)

RED DAVE

[PhoenixAsh]

Feel free to continue being an idealist while the rest of us pursue revolutionary goals.



Bottom line is that we should support any act that causes suffering for and incapacitates members of the bourgeoisie, and oppose all acts that cause suffering for and/or incapacitates members of the proletariat. This is class war 101.


Yes as you have clearly stated your revolutionary goals are killing women, kids and puppies:


Burn the prick for all I care - and his wife and his kids and his pet dog and its puppies too.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

Would you advocate the torture and murder or children of the upper class? This would, doubtless, cause suffering to their parents. (Not forgetting, of course, that one of the reasons why we want their overthrow is their responsibility for the torture and murder of other people's children.)

RED DAVE


yes...yes he does:


Burn the prick for all I care - and his wife and his kids and his pet dog and its puppies too.

[red cat]

Yes I read it...and as you may have missed my other post and my post on this page: you seem to be unable to distinguish between understandable and justifyable.

One does not mean the other and the act is useless, mindless and indiscriminate...and just because it took place by workers against burgeoisie and can be understood as an act of justifyable anger and emotions does not in itself make the act justifyable...or defendable.

As I have explained before there are many acts that can so be justified by people we do not agree with and its nor should be justfied and blanketet under the guise of class struggle. Instead it should be condemned as tactics which should not be used and should be prosecuted and punished, preferrably by the workers themselves, as examples of misdirected, criminal and counter productive acts of violence to revent them from occuring again.

To call to justify the act is condoning the act as a legitimate part of class stuggle instead of just a mindless and criminal venting of emotions which actually harm the workers struggle. That runs counter opposed to denouncing the act but explaining why it is understandable and still defend the collective strikes and actions taken by the workers.

Something you seem to think impossible.

I think you have not read my post properly. First of all, this act should not be called a "criminal" one because at least to revolutionaries who oppose the bourgeoisie, killing a capitalist is not a crime. You can at most question the tactical validity of the annihilation. And were you there to help those workers or direct them towards some more effective method so that you condemn the annihilation now ? What will be the consequences if we do not defend the workers ? Will that help in class struggle in any way ?

[red cat]

no...lets have a revolution which is non-violent utill self defence is needed and than prove our supruiority both theoretically and in actions by using direct and effective violence that actually advances our goals....instead of...you know....running around and burning people in cars and killing wives and kids and friends of people.

But perhaps you have missed that argument in my posts as well...

Try explaining that to starving workers whom you have never organized or even met before they engaged in such an action.

[PhoenixAsh]

It is bourgeois because it defends the life of the bourgeoisie.

No...it really isn't.




Violating a woman sexually is an offence against every proletarian woman who is fighting to do away with patriarchy. This is why you will mostly not come across cases of rapes in such spontaneous actions.No...its offensive to each and every woman....regardless of class and of active involvement in the struggle against patriarchy or not. raping a submissive WASP wife is still rape and an offense agaist women everywhere.

And yet it has been defended as justifiable acts of proletarian struggle in several high profile cases...such as the Russian revolution, Cuba, FARC and other instances....much by the same arguments which serve to dehumanize the burgeoisie as class enemies instead of human beings and non differentiated use of violence.

That is one of my main concerns why we should not justify such acts of violence which serve no clear goal than to vent anger and that is why I think we should not confuse understandable anger being vented in horrible acts with justifyable acts.

[Thirsty Crow]

It is bourgeois because it defends the life of the bourgeoisie.

Okay, at this point we cannot engage in any kind of dialogue whatsoever. Your grasp of the class background of certain ideological phenomena is severely flawed. But what is more disturbing is that you seem to view capitalist relations as entirely dependant on the existence of individual capitalists - therefore ushering in the possibility of systemic murder of anyone who may be classified so, which would retroactively be rationalized as "doing away with capitalism".
Not only is it morally repugnant, it is also strategically idiotic.


Try explaining that to starving workers whom you have never organized or even met before they engaged in such an action.
Maybe the gist of your argument comes down to this.
I assure you, I'm not loosing any sleep over the guy. I think that the act itself is perfectly understandable. But, to repeat myself, the act is not a meaningful one, it was not premeditated or aimed at an empowerment of workers as a class. That alone is enough to claim that the act is not justifiable, which is NOT to demonize the workers who did it precisely because we should take their conditions into consideration, which in turn makes their act completely understandable.

[Robocommie]

I've always seen revolutionary violence as a necessary evil, something that sometimes is necessary to secure gains or defend them from reaction. The truth is though, I've always seen it as a necessary evil because at the end of the day, I value human life, all human life. It was my value of human life and compassion for human suffering that made me angry enough to see the truth about capitalism, over time.

Sometimes though, I'm really quite frustrated and saddened when I see leftists exhibit such incredibly cavalier attitudes towards brutality and violence. Some people seem far too eager to accept acts of violence as necessary, and in such a way as to seem wholly alienated from the humanity of it all.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think you have not read my post properly. First of all, this act should not be called a "criminal" one because at least to revolutionaries who oppose the bourgeoisie, killing a capitalist is not a crime. You can at most question the tactical validity of the annihilation. And were you there to help those workers or direct them towards some more effective method so that you condemn the annihilation now ? What will be the consequences if we do not defend the workers ? Will that help in class struggle in any way ?

I tink it should be called criminal. On several levels...the first one being the fact that it runs counter productive to workers struggle actually harming it. Which in itself is a crime.

Second its murder. No other way about it. Its not committed in self defence; it serves no greater goal and it does not solve the problem. The fact that this board is utterly devided on such acts means it is NOT revolutionary to kill capitalists when it serves no other purpose than to vent anger.

There is also a complete unequal equation here. Defending the workers protests does not equate defending each and every act. And one can easilly support the workers struggle without giving in to the pitt traps of condoning and hustifying each and every act....in fact I think these acts uderline the need for workers to denounce such acts and punish them to prfeent them from happening and to distinguish counter productive crimes from the productive crimes.

Not doing so will take such acts to its logical extreme where it is suddenly ok to use torture, rape, killing children and dissidents and oter indiscriminate and useless acts of violence. Its the instrument behind all such crimes anywhere in any social group.....many of which we denounce and many of which we oppose...that is reason enough to denounce the exact same acts and even gives us a moral and ethical obligation to see to it that we denounce such acts committed by workers and revolutionaries everywhere

[PhoenixAsh]

Try explaining that to starving workers whom you have never organized or even met before they engaged in such an action.

THAT has nothing to do with it. Not knwoing how to act and what is right and wrong does NOT justify the action. I can't believe you are arguing that.

Nice try though...but busted

[Hit The North]

Feel free to continue being an idealist while the rest of us pursue revolutionary goals.


Ha, ha, coming from someone who posted this the other day:


On the brink of being thrown out of school but I'm too high to do much about it.

I'd like to know what revolutionary goals you are pursuing between getting high and playing Morrowind? Not doing your homework, perhaps?

[red cat]

No...it really isn't.

Why ?


No...its offensive to each and every woman....regardless of class and of active involvement in the struggle against patriarchy or not. raping a submissive WASP wife is still rape and an offense agaist women everywhere.

I don't know what a "submissive WASP wife" is, but I mentioned specifically proletarian women because that class leads every revolution today.


And yet it has been defended as justifyable acts of proletarian struggle in several high profile cases...such as the Russian revolution, Cuba, FARC and other instances....much by the same arguments which serve to dehumanize the burgeoisie as class enemies instead of human beings and non differentiated use of violence.

The Cuban revolution cannot be classified as a people's war, so I am not sure whether every instance of it can be identified as a proletarian struggle. The Russian revolution had taken place when the direct involvement of women in the revolution was not enough, and anti-patriarchal ideas were not very widespread among revolutionaries. As for the FARC, I doubt how many of the accusations against it are true, because of the participation of large number of women in its combat units. I am familiar with false accusations of rape against revolutionaries, and I know how the voices exposing these falsehoods are silenced by the ruling class.


That is one of my main concerns why we should not justify such acts of violence which serve no clear goal than to vent anger and that is why I think we should not confuse understandable anger being vented in horrible acts with justifyable acts.

Justifiable in what sense ? Tactically or morally ?

[red cat]

THAT has nothing to do with it. Not knwoing how to act and what is right and wrong does NOT justify the action. I can't believe you are arguing that.

It does. They had no one to guide them to a better method.


Nice try though...but busted

:rolleyes:

[Robocommie]

I'd like to know what revolutionary goals you are pursuing between getting high and playing Morrowind? Not doing your homework, perhaps?

That's a low blow, dude. Argue against him but don't make it personal.

[red cat]

Okay, at this point we cannot engage in any kind of dialogue whatsoever. Your grasp of the class background of certain ideological phenomena is severely flawed. But what is more disturbing is that you seem to view capitalist relations as entirely dependant on the existence of individual capitalists - therefore ushering in the possibility of systemic murder of anyone who may be classified so, which would retroactively be rationalized as "doing away with capitalism".
Not only is it morally repugnant, it is also strategically idiotic.


Maybe the gist of your argument comes down to this.
I assure you, I'm not loosing any sleep over the guy. I think that the act itself is perfectly understandable. But, to repeat myself, the act is not a meaningful one, it was not premeditated or aimed at an empowerment of workers as a class. That alone is enough to claim that the act is not justifiable, which is NOT to demonize the workers who did it precisely because we should take their conditions into consideration, which in turn makes their act completely understandable.

Most of your arguments boil down to the action being tactically harmful to the workers' movement. I agree with this, but I don't see why it ceases to be justifiable even when there was no organization to guide the workers. Also, the "morally repugnant" argument is bourgeois. There is nothing immoral in killing a capitalist.

[PhoenixAsh]

It does. They had no one to guide them to a better method.



:rolleyes:

But that does not justify the act, don't you see?

Look...if yo are being brought up in a thoroughly sexist society and women are viswed as things who have to serve haigher classes and casts in every way possible...does it make it a justifiable act to rape one? After all they do not know any better. Because...and bear with me here...that is what Dalits do to women from the lower subclasses in Dalit caste....just as much as higher casts do to women from the Dalit caste.

[red cat]

I tink it should be called criminal. On several levels...the first one being the fact that it runs counter productive to workers struggle actually harming it. Which in itself is a crime.

The action was not committed with the workers being even remotely conscious of its results, or even knowing what a workers' movement or a revolution is. So it does not qualify as a crime in this way.


Second its murder. No other way about it. Its not committed in self defence; it serves no greater goal and it does not solve the problem. The fact that this board is utterly devided on such acts means it is NOT revolutionary to kill capitalists when it serves no other purpose than to vent anger.

By this logic, mass-murderers and serial rapists should be forgiven.


There is also a complete unequal equation here. Defending the workers protests does not equate defending each and every act. And one can easilly support the workers struggle without giving in to the pitt traps of condoning and hustifying each and every act....in fact I think these acts uderline the need for workers to denounce such acts and punish them to prfeent them from happening and to distinguish counter productive crimes from the productive crimes.

Not doing so will take such acts to its logical extreme where it is suddenly ok to use torture, rape, killing children and dissidents and oter indiscriminate and useless acts of violence. Its the instrument behind all such crimes anywhere in any social group.....many of which we denounce and many of which we oppose...that is reason enough to denounce the exact same acts and even gives us a moral and ethical obligation to see to it that we denounce such acts committed by workers and revolutionaries everywhere

Very true, but we are defending this particular act which is not an act of raping a woman or killing an innocent child.


THAT has nothing to do with it. Not knwoing how to act and what is right and wrong does NOT justify the action. I can't believe you are arguing that.

Why not ? How can you accuse a worker who does not know what a revolution is of harming it ?


Nice try though...but busted

:lol:

[red cat]

But that does not justify the act, don't you see?

No.

[Thirsty Crow]

Most of your arguments boil down to the action being tactically harmful to the workers' movement. I agree with this, but I don't see why it ceases to be justifiable even when there was no organization to guide the workers. Also, the "morally repugnant" argument is bourgeois. There is nothing immoral in killing a capitalist.
There is nothing immoral in stripping away the social privilege from the capitalist. There is nothing immoral in a workers' takeover of his/her productive facility. It is perfectly acceptable to do away with the social relation of capital, thereby "condemning" the capitalist to hard work ...or something more if necessary.

But pointless killings, which are also harmful to the workers' movement (sic!), cannot be considered as a righteous act. At best, I wouldn't pass judgement, but I cannot agree with the proposition that it is a perfectly justifiable act.

[red cat]

There is nothing immoral in stripping away the social privilege from the capitalist. There is nothing immoral in a workers' takeover of his/her productive facility. It is perfectly acceptable to do away with the social relation of capital, thereby "condemning" the capitalist to hard work ...or something more if necessary.

But pointless killings, which are also harmful to the workers' movement (sic!), cannot be considered as a righteous act. At best, I wouldn't pass judgement, but I cannot agree with the proposition that it is a perfectly justifiable act.

Are unorganized workers within a bourgeois system capable of taking away social privileges or productive facilities from a capitalist ? Or making him do hard work ?

[Thirsty Crow]

Are unorganized workers within a bourgeois system capable of taking away social privileges or productive facilities from a capitalist ? Or making him do hard work ?
Then it is the task of revolutionaries to help workers in their attempts to build and expand on such capacities.
Random revenge killings do not fit into this picture. Or will you argue that such acts build these capacities?

[PhoenixAsh]

Why ?

But defending life is not necessarilly burgeoisie or related to class nor does it have to be.

Now...I would agree with your statement when the initial claim would be you have to prevent burgeoisie life because it is burgeoisie...but that is not the case here.




I don't know what a "submissive WASP wife" is, but I mentioned specifically proletarian women because that class leads every revolution today.


WASP means: White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Its a sub-cultural group in the US which generally speaking adhers to strict conservative and gender roles in which women are mostly submissive to men.

I used it to show that rape is a crime independent of class struggle and class of the victim.



The Cuban revolution cannot be classified as a people's war, so I am not sure whether every instance of it can be identified as a proletarian struggle. The Russian revolution had taken place when the direct involvement of women in the revolution was not enough, and anti-patriarchal ideas were not very widespread among revolutionaries. As for the FARC, I doubt how many of the accusations against it are true, because of the participation of large number of women in its combat units. I am familiar with false accusations of rape against revolutionaries, and I know how the voices exposing these falsehoods are silenced by the ruling class.

I would like to refer back to your earlier claim that if nobody is there to direct action it is justifiable none the less. So any argument you put here that somehow not knowing better makes a different is shifting away from that earlier argument you made....which is my point.





Justifiable in what sense ? Tactically or morally ?

Both....

[red cat]

Then it is the task of revolutionaries to help workers in their attempts to build and expand on such capacities.

Yes. So the workers are not to be accused.


Random revenge killings do not fit into this picture. Or will you argue that such acts build these capacities?

I think that the proletariat learns from these acts of class struggle.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think that the proletariat learns from these acts of class struggle.
What do workers learn from such an act?
That capitalism offers only misery? I would be willing to bet that they have found that out already.
So what do they learn?

[PhoenixAsh]

The action was not committed with the workers being even remotely conscious of its results, or even knowing what a workers' movement or a revolution is. So it does not qualify as a crime in this way.

then you are arguing that it was just an emotional venting of anger and not part of the class struggle....since it has been argued that it had a specific target in mind it is murder and since it is not part of the class struggle and the outcome of the action was intended on ending a life its not a revolutionary act...now is it?




By this logic, mass-murderers and serial rapists should be forgiven.
No, no...it really doesnt. In fact I am claiming the exact opposite...



Very true, but we are defending this particular act which is not an act of raping a woman or killing an innocent child.
Wel...you are defending it. I am not.

But the point stands. My position is that its an understandable but still punishable act....and not justified. Justifying (sp?) it opens the door to introducing such acts as legitimate part of revolutionary struggle.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the reasons why the act was comitted, there is nothig wrong to argue that its a logical outcome of repression and treatment of these people...but it is still condemnable as being ignorant and morally wrong and detrimental to revolution.





Why not ? How can you accuse a worker who does not know what a revolution is of harming it ?



:lol:

If they do not knwo what revolution is and they intend to kill someone as form of revenge this si still murder...obviously you can not punish them for harming the revoltuion...but you can for murder....and use it as an example to others of what acts deter and counter revolution.

[red cat]

What do workers learn from such an act?
That capitalism offers only misery? I would be willing to bet that they have found that out already.
So what do they learn?

We have been through this before.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fired-workers-burn-t151012/index.html?p=2039035#post2039035

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes. So the workers are not to be accused.


The workers as a whole not...the specific culprits: yes. Because they committed murder.

It, as you yourselve have argued, did not serve any revolutionary goal, did not serve class struggle, but was an individual act of hatred and premeditated murder to vent anger.



I think that the proletariat learns from these acts of class struggle.They do not learn if they do not distinguish what is right and what is wrong in class struggle...if you do not correct errors and if wrong actions have no consequences...nobody will learn.

[Thirsty Crow]

So, the point of this justifiable (according to you) action is to learn that such actions are futile? Trial and error?
Forgive me for saying, but this sounds horribly condescending, in that the basic assumption of your argument is that workers do not, in fact, know that nothing can be accomplished by individual violent acts. I think this argument is counter-intuitive because it misrepresents the act - instead of violence fueled by rage and despair, it sees it as part of a prior mistake in cognition.

[Obs]

Ha, ha, coming from someone who posted this the other day:



I'd like to know what revolutionary goals you are pursuing between getting high and playing Morrowind? Not doing your homework, perhaps?
Well, not that this is a platform for comparing revolutionary credentials, but occasionally I do find the time to get drunk and masturbate, too. I'm also rather active in Party activities and recruitment, which tend to take priority over other things in my life.

I have yet to see a convincing defence of reconciling ideals like morals and ethics with materialist analysis of the world - and yes, Mennochio, those two are irreconcilable. We need to analyse all actions according to the class basis they spring from - a destructive action by proletarians against the bourgeoisie should, therefore, be seen as an act of class war (or, if you will, class terrorism), even if it is spontaneous and poorly planned.

It'd be interesting to learn what the Indian Left in general thinks of this incident.


The workers as a whole not...the specific culprits: yes. Because they committed murder.
Let me ask you this: what do you think the working class should regard as a greater crime? Killing a class enemy, or exploiting workers for profit? To me, the answer seems pretty clear.

[KC]

This thread sucks.



I have yet to see a convincing defence of reconciling ideals like morals and ethics with materialist analysis of the world - and yes, Mennochio, those two are irreconcilable. We need to analyse all actions according to the class basis they spring from - a destructive action by proletarians against the bourgeoisie should, therefore, be seen as an act of class war (or, if you will, class terrorism), even if it is spontaneous and poorly planned.

Actually I think, from an objective standpoint, it's quite clear that this isn't class war, but rather portrays the undeveloped nature of the class struggle in India. The entire point of class struggle is struggle as a class. This would mean collective mass action on the part of workers to defend and further their own interests. This action was the result of an extremely low level of consciousness, the lack of class solidarity and the isolation of these workers in this factory. The first similar thing that came to mind as being comparable to this would be Luddism (although Luddites destroyed equipment and not capitalists, though the point is the same).

Condemning such an action on moral grounds is silly. We should be recognizing that, while this was a poor act in itself, that it represents a very serious anti-capitalist development in consciousness, and therefore the way to move forward and nurture this development in consciousness is to side with the workers, but explain to them why this wasn't a productive thing to do and also where to go from here. Consciousness always develops from being consciousness against capital to consciousness for class.

Both those heavily condemning this act on moral grounds as well as those supporting it on its "anti-capitalist" basis are taking incredibly strange and wrong positions.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, not that this is a platform for comparing revolutionary credentials, but occasionally I do find the time to get drunk and masturbate, too. I'm also rather active in Party activities and recruitment, which tend to take priority over other things in my life.

O my god...you are allowed to recruit people? you are actually allowed to be active? does yo party know you hold the view proletarians should be killing burgeoisie women and children and house pets and their puppies?


I have yet to see a convincing defence of reconciling ideals like morals and ethics with materialist analysis of the world - and yes, Mennochio, those two are irreconcilable. We need to analyse all actions according to the class basis they spring from - a destructive action by proletarians against the bourgeoisie should, therefore, be seen as an act of class war (or, if you will, class terrorism), even if it is spontaneous and poorly planned.

To paraphrase Lenin here: communisist do not reject morality and ethics but reject the religious basis for them which he claims is the basis of burgeoisie morality. This clearly disputes that the class struggle is not compattible with ethics and morallity....

Marx claimed that was moraly right and ethical was that which was necessary to further the revolution. Again...disproving that class struggle and ethics and morals do not go hand in hand....and incidentaly rejecting justification for the senseless crime committed by the workers as amoral and unethical since it clearly does not further the revolution.

Marx and Lenin also both claimed that the code of ethics and morality would change but some aspects would remain the same after the revolution. Again...refuting its irreconsiblility with materialism and dialectics.






It'd be interesting to learn what the Indian Left in general thinks of this incident.



Let me ask you this: what do you think the working class should regard as a greater crime? Killing a class enemy, or exploiting workers for profit? To me, the answer seems pretty clear.


I agree that exploiting workers is the greater crime.

I think deciding what the greater crime is does not mean the other one is not a crime...

[PhoenixAsh]

Condemning such an action on moral grounds is silly. We should be recognizing that, while this was a poor act in itself, that it represents a very serious anti-capitalist development in consciousness, and therefore the way to move forward and nurture this development in consciousness is to side with the workers, but explain to them why this wasn't a productive thing to do and also where to go from here. Consciousness always develops from being consciousness against capital to consciousness for class.

Both those heavily condemning this act on moral grounds as well as those supporting it on its "anti-capitalist" basis are taking incredibly strange and wrong positions.

I think denouncing it is completely logical within a Marxist/Socialist/Leninist morality and ethics. Morality and ethics are an irrefutable basis of class struggle.

Denouncing the act in no way means you do not support the workers....it however means you adopt a code of conduct which is beneficial instead of detrimental towards the class struggle and revolution.

[KC]

I think denouncing it is completely logical within a Marxist/Socialist/Leninist morality and ethics. Morality and ethics are an irrefutable basis of class struggle.

Condemning it along moral grounds is silly because it doesn't have anything to do with the objective situation. We aren't against this action just because it's wrong, but rather we are against it because the outcome will be detrimental to our goals. When speaking of materialist analysis, one cannot speak of morals because morals don't factor into such an analysis.

And I am completely against denouncing the act. Like I said before, this is a promising development, our job is to point out where to go from here as revolutionary socialists.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Okay, let's have a non-violent revolution then. :rolleyes:
Really? I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks seized power in a semi-feudal country without burning anyone alive... the violence only happened after they took power, when the capitalists engaged in counter-revolution.

In any revolutionary situation, there will be bourgeois counter-revolutionaries who cannot be persuaded or shamed to give up, who can only be crushed. Violence should be used to suppress counter-revolution, not as a platform to attain power.

[Amphictyonis]

Quote of the day-

"The revolution; sometimes you just have to burn people alive?"

-Me-

Or this one is good

"Communism; built on the dead bones of children"

-Me-

Seriously, I don't think this is a revolution going on in that region- I'd overlook extreme brutal violence if it were but just burning people alive seems to be setting the foundations for an angry violent society if socialism were to take hold. I'm not a pacifist by any means but.....this just doesn't sit well with me. I won't condone or condemn the act.

[PhoenixAsh]

Condemning it along moral grounds is silly because it doesn't have anything to do with the objective situation. We aren't against this action just because it's wrong, but rather we are against it because the outcome will be detrimental to our goals. When speaking of materialist analysis, one cannot speak of morals because morals don't factor into such an analysis.

As argued Marx and Lenin both do not agree with that position.

But lets objectivy it: ...people who are part of the working class poured gasoline over a car with the intended aim to kill the person who fired them and succeeded after the person died from the mayor burn wounds he sustained after prolonged exposure to fire which in all objectivity is both painful and agonizing. They did not get their job back, they did not appropriate the company, they did not hurt the system, it did not further class struggle and the act serves now as an excuse for large scale repression and anti workers propaganda.

All it served...objectively...is to inflict pain and vent anger in an act of rage and desperation.

Now to adress you moral and ethic-less materialism...would you likewise argue that rape of both men and women can not be denounced since it is not part of the materialist analysis?

So why again are we against rape? On what grounds?

Or does the fact that we DO denounce that imply that class struggle does not only function in a materialist theoretical analysis devoid of humanity and ethic and morals but in fact functions in a larger context of the real world?




And I am completely against denouncing the act. Like I said before, this is a promising development, our job is to point out where to go from here as revolutionary socialists.No...it is a devedlopment which shows that without a code of conduct we are completely willing to accept acts which we denounce in others....functioning as a good example that if we do not the moral and ethical man and woman Marx was talking about can get away with anything as long as he/she is able to define it within the context of class struggle.

[red cat]

Really? I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks seized power in a semi-feudal country without burning anyone alive... the violence only happened after they took power, when the capitalists engaged in counter-revolution.

As if suppressing a counter-revolution is not a part of the revolution itself.


In any revolutionary situation, there will be bourgeois counter-revolutionaries who cannot be persuaded or shamed to give up, who can only be crushed. Violence should be used to suppress counter-revolution, not as a platform to attain power.

Why ? What if there are elite forces defending the ruling class ?

[red cat]

So, the point of this justifiable (according to you) action is to learn that such actions are futile? Trial and error?

It is justifiable mainly because it is class violence against the bourgeoisie.


Forgive me for saying, but this sounds horribly condescending, in that the basic assumption of your argument is that workers do not, in fact, know that nothing can be accomplished by individual violent acts. I think this argument is counter-intuitive because it misrepresents the act - instead of violence fueled by rage and despair, it sees it as part of a prior mistake in cognition.

Unorganized workers not experienced in class struggle naturally know nothing about it. So they apply different tactics and learn both about the system and the most powerful methods of class struggle through direct experience, until they become a part of a larger movement and can learn from the experience of the whole working class.

[PhoenixAsh]

As if suppressing a counter-revolution is not a part of the revolution itself.

Nobody is arguing that it isn't. But there is a world of difference between initiating the violence and defending against it. Note that defence can definately be proactive.

Nobody here has a problem with killing in self defence (meaning either personal or defending the revolution)...as long as it is directed towards the goal of perserving the revolution and in human lives.

But when killing starts to be not directed towards that goal and takes the form of vengeance, emotional agression directed to civilians or transgresses into bodily violence against those who really do not directly and actively oppose the revolution (by which I mean using force and violence), or deteriorates in sexual assault...I think workers should punish the culprits and denounce the act.



Why ? What if there are elite forces defending the ruling class ?

Then obviously we are completely justified to counter act to forces with the appropriate levels of violence towards these forces. Its clearly a case of self defence as stated above.

[red cat]

But defending life is not necessarilly burgeoisie or related to class nor does it have to be.

Now...I would agree with your statement when the initial claim would be you have to prevent burgeoisie life because it is burgeoisie...but that is not the case here.

I think that is the case. That individual was acted specifically due to the role he played as a bourgeois.



WASP means: White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Its a sub-cultural group in the US which generally speaking adhers to strict conservative and gender roles in which women are mostly submissive to men.

I used it to show that rape is a crime independent of class struggle and class of the victim.

Okay.


I would like to refer back to your earlier claim that if nobody is there to direct action it is justifiable none the less. So any argument you put here that somehow not knowing better makes a different is shifting away from that earlier argument you made....which is my point.

I made that argument keeping the present situation in mind. During the Russian revolution, the ideas that prevent the working class from attacking women in such a manner were largely absent at an overall basis.


Both....

I can't agree to this. There is nothing immoral about annihilating a capitalist.


then you are arguing that it was just an emotional venting of anger and not part of the class struggle....since it has been argued that it had a specific target in mind it is murder and since it is not part of the class struggle and the outcome of the action was intended on ending a life its not a revolutionary act...now is it?

Even though the workers were not conscious of the results, it was an act of class struggle.


No, no...it really doesnt. In fact I am claiming the exact opposite...

Are deaths due to starvation not murders ? How many workers was this capitalist trying to murder before the workers annihilated him ?


Wel...you are defending it. I am not.

But the point stands. My position is that its an understandable but still punishable act....and not justified. Justifying (sp?) it opens the door to introducing such acts as legitimate part of revolutionary struggle.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the reasons why the act was comitted, there is nothig wrong to argue that its a logical outcome of repression and treatment of these people...but it is still condemnable as being ignorant and morally wrong and detrimental to revolution.

If they do not knwo what revolution is and they intend to kill someone as form of revenge this si still murder...obviously you can not punish them for harming the revoltuion...but you can for murder....and use it as an example to others of what acts deter and counter revolution.


The workers as a whole not...the specific culprits: yes. Because they committed murder.

It, as you yourselve have argued, did not serve any revolutionary goal, did not serve class struggle, but was an individual act of hatred and premeditated murder to vent anger.

Again, killing such an agent of capitalism is not a crime.


They do not learn if they do not distinguish what is right and what is wrong in class struggle...if you do not correct errors and if wrong actions have no consequences...nobody will learn.

But none of us are there to help them. So they have to learn through the trial and error method.


Nobody is arguing that it isn't. But there is a world of difference between initiating the violence and defending against it. Note that defence can definately be proactive.

Nobody here has a problem with killing in self defence (meaning either personal or defending the revolution)...as long as it is directed towards the goal of perserving the revolution and in human lives.

But when killing starts to be not directed towards that goal and takes the form of vengeance, emotional agression directed to civilians or transgresses into bodily violence against those who really do not directly and actively oppose the revolution (by which I mean using force and violence), or deteriorates in sexual assault...I think workers should punish the culprits and denounce the act.

The workers did not initiate the violence. Structural economic violence is no better than direct military violence. The capitalist had initiated the violence by laying the workers off. The workers just responded to violence with violence.


Then obviously we are completely justified to counter act to forces with the appropriate levels of violence towards these forces. Its clearly a case of self defence as stated above.

Agreed.

[RED DAVE]

There is nothing immoral about annihilating a capitalist.Also, would it be okay to annihilate (Got to love that word; sounds so much better than "murder"; and it's the successor to "liquidate" or the Orwellian "vaporize.") his/her spouse and children?

And is it okay to annihilate members of the national bourgeoisie or do we only get to kill compradors?

RED DAVE

[PhoenixAsh]

I think that is the case. That individual was acted specifically due to the role he played as a bourgeois.

yes...but he is still a human being. Denouncing his murder is not because he is burgeoisie...but because he is a human being and because his murder served no practical purpose.


I made that argument keeping the present situation in mind. During the Russian revolution, the ideas that prevent the working class from attacking women in such a manner were largely absent at an overall basis.

Nevertheless the practice of rape was not condoned in any way and the position of women was integral part of marxism and leninism at that time.



I can't agree to this. There is nothing immoral about annihilating a capitalist.

So by that logic it is also not immoral for a capitalist to annihilate a worker or member of the burgeoisie.

You can not defend a position of it not being immoral while at the same time arguing that the exact same opposite is immoral.




Even though the workers were not conscious of the results, it was an act of class struggle.

No...I dispute that. It was an act of hatred, vengeance and base emotions...

The mere fact that it is committed by proletarians against a member of the burgeoisie because they are angry and want to enact revenge does not make it class struggle. In fact...as I now understand it...these acts of violence are stand alone incidents and are not part of mayor protests, strikes or other direct forms of action. Instead they are spontanious acts
of premeditated vengeance....and the workers involved do not go on and protest anything else. Instead they go home and continue with their lives.

As there is very little information I actually called the Indian Times after having called the Samaj ( a regional news paper)...which was a real bother seeing as they spoke very little English and I was unable to articulate my questions in a way they could comprehend...so I decided to call the Times which is an English newspaper. That went much, much better though I was propably somewhat of a curiosity.

What they told me is that incident happend around lunch time after the workers had been given their notice a couple of hours earlier when the exectutive was going home for lunch. It also came to my attention that the man in fact did not take the decission to fire these workers but was assigned the job of handing them the notices by higher management who made the decission.

The police arrested four people initially but later released two and detained the other two for prosecution and trail. The executive was still alive and conscious when security pesonal arrived at the scene but later died in hospital because of extensive third degree burns which covered most of his body.

The rest of the story was pretty much the same as in OP's article.


Are deaths due to starvation not murders ?

Then you have to irrefutably show that these man would now starve to death...



How many workers was this capitalist trying to murder before the workers annihilated him ?

See above...and also note he did not make the decision to fire them but was merely the messenger.



Again, killing such an agent of capitalism is not a crime.


Yes...but as I have argued and you have not answered...that statement is entirely based on the fact that workers did something harmful towards somebody from the burgeoisie. and its logical conclusion is therefore that anything committed by workers against somebody from the burgeoisie is not a crime...including torture and rape.



But none of us are there to help them. So they have to learn through the trial and error method.

The all encompassig way we learn if theory is not present is if mistakes have consequences. Its the only way we can learn. If actions do not have consequences we do not learn.

In this case the mistake was grave enough on several levels...both objective and moral....to warrant consequences in the form of punishment or the very least denounciation of the act.




The workers did not initiate the violence. Structural economic violence is no better than direct military violence.

Though I agree they are both forms of force I think they are very distinct forms of force. And violence in the sense of economic violence warrants revolution...not murder without any objective aims to further the revolution.

force needs to be countered with equal force...and there is whole different level of force ivlved in firing people and burning them to death in their car. There is a real quantative and qualitative difference here.



The capitalist had initiated the violence by laying the workers off. The workers just responded to violence with violence.

As I have shown...this capitalist had not. Making the entire argument here void in the first place.

THe second is that not all violence is warranted as a response to violence. It needs to both be quatative and qualitative and serve a purpose to further the position of the workers.

Mindless acts of rage and violence which leads to murder are neither part of class struggle nor are they in any way shape or form comparible or warranted in the given circumstances.

The context in which this crime is committed clearly shows that class struggle was not the motive behind the act nor was it part of a larger move towards furthering the position of the workers.

[red cat]

Also, would it be okay to annihilate (Got to love that word; sounds so much better than "murder";

Thank you. We use it to distinguish between actions of the working class and those of the ruling classes.


and it's the successor to "liquidate" or the Orwellian "vaporize.") his/her spouse and children?Why are you asking this question ? Do you somehow want to denounce this spontaneous act of class struggle, or are you planning to kill some capitalist along with his/her spouse and children ?


And is it okay to annihilate members of the national bourgeoisie or do we only get to kill compradors?

RED DAVEI don't know who you get to annihilate, because apparently you support the agents of capitalism who mislead workers into reformism, but as far as workers are concerned, even if they annihilate some small capitalist who initially seems to be allying with the revolution, they do not do it other than in response to severe structural violence. Such actions from below are sometimes necessary to rid the revolution of reactionaries.

[RED DAVE]

Are you planning to kill some capitalist along with his/her spouse and children ?No, but if the spouse and children of a bourgeois were consciously and deliberately murdered, would you condone it?

QUOTE=red cat;2041246][A]pparently you support the agents of capitalism who mislead workers into reformism.[/QUOTE]Yeah, right, I call for a bourgeois government along with capitalist parties. No red cat, that what you Maoists do.

By the way, would it be okay for a worker to shoot a member of the Constituent Assembly from a bourgeois party in Nepal?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

No, but if the spouse and children of a bourgeois were consciously and deliberately murdered, would you condone it?

Provided that they do not take part in oppressing the workers, the working class is highly unlikely to engage in such an action. If they do so, the offenders are punished.


Yeah, right, I call for a bourgeois government along with capitalist parties. No red cat, that what you Maoists do.Maoists make their stand against the bourgeois parties very clear by simultaneously organizing the working class against them. You on the other hand, side with agents of the bourgeoisie who try to liquidate the revolutionary potential of the working class by taking them to useless marches.


By the way, would it be okay for a worker to shoot a member of the Constituent Assembly from a bourgeois party in Nepal?

RED DAVEIt would be a tactical blunder at this point. But given the history of such politicians, it would still be morally justifiable and after the worker commits such an act, there is no revolutionary stand other than protecting him from the bourgeoisie.

[red cat]

yes...but he is still a human being. Denouncing his murder is not because he is burgeoisie...but because he is a human being and because his murder served no practical purpose.

He is a bourgeois human being. So his murder is not to be denounced.


Nevertheless the practice of rape was not condoned in any way and the position of women was integral part of marxism and leninism at that time.

I don't think that women took part in actual combats as they do now. It is only now that women are struggling equally or at places at a higher scale than men in all fronts. So it is wrong to expect revolutionary men from a century ago to be nearly as aware of the real position of women as they are now.



So by that logic it is also not immoral for a capitalist to annihilate a worker or member of the burgeoisie.

You can not defend a position of it not being immoral while at the same time arguing that the exact same opposite is immoral.

A worker never exploits a capitalist. So a worker annihilating a capitalist is not the same as the opposite happening.



No...I dispute that. It was an act of hatred, vengeance and base emotions...

The mere fact that it is committed by proletarians against a member of the burgeoisie because they are angry and want to enact revenge does not make it class struggle. In fact...as I now understand it...these acts of violence are stand alone incidents and are not part of mayor protests, strikes or other direct forms of action. Instead they are spontanious acts
of premeditated vengeance....and the workers involved do not go on and protest anything else. Instead they go home and continue with their lives.

As there is very little information I actually called the Indian Times after having called the Samaj ( a regional news paper)...which was a real bother seeing as they spoke very little English and I was unable to articulate my questions in a way they could comprehend...so I decided to call the Times which is an English newspaper. That went much, much better though I was propably somewhat of a curiosity.

What they told me is that incident happend around lunch time after the workers had been given their notice a couple of hours earlier when the exectutive was going home for lunch. It also came to my attention that the man in fact did not take the decission to fire these workers but was assigned the job of handing them the notices by higher management who made the decission.

The police arrested four people initially but later released two and detained the other two for prosecution and trail. The executive was still alive and conscious when security pesonal arrived at the scene but later died in hospital because of extensive third degree burns which covered most of his body.

The rest of the story was pretty much the same as in OP's article.


Alright, but still it was an act of workers retaliating to structural violence by a capitalist. So it was an instance of class struggle.



Then you have to irrefutably show that these man would now starve to death...

Families of unemployed men starving to death is a common phenomenon in India. I should rather ask you to prove that they would not starve to death.


See above...and also note he did not make the decision to fire them but was merely the messenger.

These executives belong to the managerial class and are agents of capitalism. They actively plan anti-worker actions like this.



Yes...but as I have argued and you have not answered...that statement is entirely based on the fact that workers did something harmful towards somebody from the burgeoisie. and its logical conclusion is therefore that anything committed by workers against somebody from the burgeoisie is not a crime...including torture and rape.

But that something harmful was not rape.


The all encompassig way we learn if theory is not present is if mistakes have consequences. Its the only way we can learn. If actions do not have consequences we do not learn.

In this case the mistake was grave enough on several levels...both objective and moral....to warrant consequences in the form of punishment or the very least denounciation of the act.

It is morally justifiable, and we don't have the right to denounce it tactically because workers are not born knowing usual communist strategy and tactics. The best we can do is to explain their mistakes to them.



Though I agree they are both forms of force I think they are very distinct forms of force. And violence in the sense of economic violence warrants revolution...not murder without any objective aims to further the revolution.

force needs to be countered with equal force...and there is whole different level of force ivlved in firing people and burning them to death in their car. There is a real quantative and qualitative difference here.


I don't see what the difference between the two is. And what makes capitalist structural violence so admirable.



As I have shown...this capitalist had not. Making the entire argument here void in the first place.

I will be surprised if I come to know that he had not actively taken part in deciding to lay the workers off.



THe second is that not all violence is warranted as a response to violence. It needs to both be quatative and qualitative and serve a purpose to further the position of the workers.

Mindless acts of rage and violence which leads to murder are neither part of class struggle nor are they in any way shape or form comparible or warranted in the given circumstances.

The context in which this crime is committed clearly shows that class struggle was not the motive behind the act nor was it part of a larger move towards furthering the position of the workers.

All acts of class struggle need not be consciously planned to move forward to communism. All these acts that might sometimes result in a setback, are instances of spontaneous class struggle.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think some people don't like this because of their own guilty consciences.
I don't like it when the poor brown people turn the tables . . . 'cos they're implicitly turning the tables on me!

Seriously, shit is ugly. Get over it whiny liberal bores.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Burning another human being to death is not class struggle. It's bloody murder. Class struggle is striking, blockading, occupying, contesting for control over the means of production.

I contest your assertions.

The first sentence depends on the context. It could very well be a tactic used during a societal aggravation of dem Klassenkampf along with the transition to socialism (i.e., the state burning class enemies to death).

The last sentence is economistic. Class struggle is political organization. Mere labour disputes are about striking, blockading, occupying, contesting, etc. re. the means of production.

That said, I'm not shedding any tears for the SOB who played with fire proverbially and got burned literally.

[PhoenixAsh]

He is a bourgeois human being. So his murder is not to be denounced.

Yeah...I think its still murder.



I don't think that women took part in actual combats as they do now. It is only now that women are struggling equally or at places at a higher scale than men in all fronts. So it is wrong to expect revolutionary men from a century ago to be nearly as aware of the real position of women as they are now.

this offcourse completely irrelevant. The theory was there and they were aware of it.

the act was still wrong....or are you arguing its ok to rape women as long as you do not know about their equal position? Because that is what you are actually doing here.




A worker never exploits a capitalist. So a worker annihilating a capitalist is not the same as the opposite happening.

But workers exploit other workers is it now ok for workers to kill other workers if they are exploited?



Alright, but still it was an act of workers retaliating to structural violence by a capitalist. So it was an instance of class struggle.


No...I dispute that...to be part fo class struggle it has to be part fo a larger movement. This was just an isolated act of vengeance.



Families of unemployed men starving to death is a common phenomenon in India. I should rather ask you to prove that they would not starve to death.

Why? There was no proof required that the guy in the car actually fired them....now was there?




These executives belong to the managerial class and are agents of capitalism. They actively plan anti-worker actions like this.



But that something harmful was not rape.

but the line of reasoning still applies...so...tell me...what and what is NOT acceptable???

Because you are arguing that everything is acceptable.


It is morally justifiable, and we don't have the right to denounce it tactically because workers are not born knowing usual communist strategy and tactics. The best we can do is to explain their mistakes to them.

No...its understandable...its morally unjustifiable. There was no self defence, there was no greater goal...it was mere vengeance.


I don't see what the difference between the two is. And what makes capitalist structural violence so admirable.

Neither do I...but the one is intrinsically not a moral system and the other claims to be a system which on moral grounds wants to built a better society.



I will be surprised if I come to know that he had not actively taken part in deciding to lay the workers off.

Would that change your decision or position?



All acts of class struggle need not be consciously planned to move forward to communism. All these acts that might sometimes result in a setback, are instances of spontaneous class struggle.

And we all agree this act was not planned to move communism foreward.

So...lets retrace...every crime committed by a worker against somebody of the burgeoisie is class warfare?

[Obs]

Yeah...I think its still murder.
You have yet to give a single reason why we should ever care about the lives of class enemies, and your sympathy towards them is, frankly, disgusting.

[PhoenixAsh]

You have yet to give a single reason why we should ever care about the lives of class enemies, and your sympathy towards them is, frankly, disgusting.

....said the person who called for his wife, kids, dog and its puppies being burned alive.....:rolleyes:

I gave several...but hey...you want to burn people and animals for no purpose what so ever...I get it.

[Obs]

....said the person who called for his wife, kids, dog and its puppies being burned alive.....:rolleyes:

I gave several...but hey...you want to burn people and animals for no purpose what so ever...I get it.
You've explained why you didn't think it was a good thing, but I have yet to understand why you think it was demonstrably a bad thing.

[PhoenixAsh]

You've explained why you didn't think it was a good thing, but I have yet to understand why you think it was demonstrably a bad thing.


Because:
01). It served no purpose to cause harm but so sate base emotions
02). It was not directed towards anything to solve the direct problem
03). It caused harm to workers struggle
04). Its used to prop up repressions and prevention plans to frustrate and interefere with genuine workers strikes and stuggles
05). Its used or can be used as anti-workers propaganda
06). Its used to legitimise the repression of workers
07). It works against popular support
08). It deepens the rift between moderates and radicals
09). It pushes workers to more liberal positions

To name a few

[Obs]

Because:
01). It served no purpose to cause harm but so sate base emotions
One reason you think it wasn't good, but not a reason it should be a bad thing to do.

02). It was not directed towards anything to solve the direct problemSee 1)

03). It caused harm to workers struggle How?

04). Its used to prop up repressions and prevention plans to frustrate and interefere with genuine workers strikes and stuggles"Genuine" worker struggles? You don't think this is a genuine struggle?

05). Its used or can be used as anti-workers propagandaSo can any act of class warfare.

06). Its used to legitimise the repression of workersYou'll find workers are already repressed.

07). It works against popular supportYou don't have any idea what the sentiment towards this incident is in the region where it happened.

08). It deepens the rift between moderates and radicalsThere should be a fucking rift. Moderates and reformists are enemies, too.

09). It pushes workers to more liberal positionsSource?

[PhoenixAsh]

One reason you think it wasn't good, but not a reason it should be a bad thing to do.

So causing pain is a good thing?



See 1)


Its a useless act...useless is bad.


How?

see all the other points



"Genuine" worker struggles? You don't think this is a genuine struggle?

No...I do not. As I have repeatedly stated.


So can any act of class warfare.

Yes...but not with as much legitimacy and widespread agreement



You'll find workers are already repressed.


wel..straddle your horses because its gonna get worse



You don't have any idea what the sentiment towards this incident is in the region where it happened.

I got a farily good idea when I called the news paper. Its not received well.



There should be a fucking rift. Moderates and reformists are enemies, too.

Yeah...smart thing. lets cause a rift instead of bringing them over.

But hey...that actually brings up a queston I forgot to ask. Is it OK to burn moderates too? I mean...hell...they are practically class traitors. And what about liberals?



Source?


see two point above.

[KC]

This crap's still going on? Why are you even debating with this nutjob?

[Wanted Man]

CEOs all over the world inflict misery on a daily basis.

I pointed out the reasons why this type of act is analogous to Narodnik terror in my post. I gave a list of problems that applied to both then and now.

I never said that.

I didn't raise "People's war in Asia," (or any of the rest) much less say it was "the same," much less say it was "exactly the same."

That is your own fantasy.

I presented a historical analogy and argued that it applied to the boss burning, based on a list of criteria. You present nothing, only made up claims.

So apparently, it is you who doesn't need analysis.

I believe I did conflate two responses, but surely the point can't be denied by anyone who has spent any amount of time reading the same old high-and-mighty denunciations by (mostly) Trotskyist hacks in their papers whenever a worker farts in the wrong direction somewhere in this world. In this extremely limited and self-serving worldview, everything that happens needs to be measured according to a measuring stick that is 80 years old, even if it still uses the imperial system. It is more of a general point than a direct representation of your specific position.

If you actually laboured under the illusion that your "historical analogy" was sound in any way, then I'm sorry.

An even worse example of what I'm talking about is this post, using comparatively less "Leninist" buzzwords:


Really? I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks seized power in a semi-feudal country without burning anyone alive... the violence only happened after they took power, when the capitalists engaged in counter-revolution.

The workers did something that the Bolsheviks didn't, therefore it's wrong. Brilliant.

The whole moral panic levelled against the Indian workers is just so intensely hypocritical. Thousands die gruesome deaths every day because that's just how the system works, but one extremely isolated act of primitive retaliation against this fact needs to be utterly condemned and denounced as strongly as possible.

I would seriously argue that playing Morrowind and getting high is a more productive way of spending your time than trying to think of the most poisonous words that you can use to slander the Indian workers.

[La Comédie Noire]

There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’, if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the “horrors of the… momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror – that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

- Mark Twain.

[DaringMehring]

I believe I did conflate two responses, but surely the point can't be denied by anyone who has spent any amount of time reading the same old high-and-mighty denunciations by (mostly) Trotskyist hacks in their papers whenever a worker farts in the wrong direction somewhere in this world. In this extremely limited and self-serving worldview, everything that happens needs to be measured according to a measuring stick that is 80 years old, even if it still uses the imperial system. It is more of a general point than a direct representation of your specific position.

If you actually laboured under the illusion that your "historical analogy" was sound in any way, then I'm sorry.

An even worse example of what I'm talking about is this post, using comparatively less "Leninist" buzzwords:



The workers did something that the Bolsheviks didn't, therefore it's wrong. Brilliant.

The whole moral panic levelled against the Indian workers is just so intensely hypocritical. Thousands die gruesome deaths every day because that's just how the system works, but one extremely isolated act of primitive retaliation against this fact needs to be utterly condemned and denounced as strongly as possible.

I would seriously argue that playing Morrowind and getting high is a more productive way of spending your time than trying to think of the most poisonous words that you can use to slander the Indian workers.

I am on the side of the Indian workers and the proletariat of the whole world against capitalism, so I was surprised by your allegations. I reviewed my first post to be sure, and indeed, I cannot find any example of "poisonous words" used to "slander the Indian workers."

The harshest word I used was "pointless." And it was pointless, burning that boss. It did not advance the class struggle.

Really, what planet are you living on that you thought that post poisonously slandered the Indian workers?

The analogy to the Narodniks, and their successors the SRs, is valid and important. It shows the futility of this type of tactic, even when implemented on a much larger scale. Understanding the failure of the Narodniks/SRs is a basic building block for a revolutionary, if you're going to argue that the core principle isn't the same in this context, then you should give reasons why. Like "the Narodniks/SRs failed with these tactics because X, but now that we understand it, we can do Y and Z and succeed instead" or "the Narodniks/SRs failed because of X, but over time X changed and we can succeed now using their tactics."

You can't just say "the Narodniks/SRs were a long time ago." -- well, Marx was a long time ago too.

[bcbm]

It shows the futility of this type of tactic

i don't think this was a "tactic"

[Ravachol]

I love the almost marketing-oriented liberal moralism being thrown around here. Condemning a desperate act of workers you've never met, who's conditions you've never experienced on the other side of the globe, erroneously comparing them to the planned, political individual assasinations of the Narodniks (whereas this act was obviously an act of mass rage emerging from clear material conditions, without the planned strategy of 'politics'). And all this mainly to perserve the 'good image' of the 'workers movement' or what not, like it's the prized and cherished baby of some marketing campaign to promote this or that political groupuscule in the eye of 'public opinion' or other liberal social constructs.

[PhoenixAsh]

I love the almost marketing-oriented liberal moralism being thrown around here. Condemning a desperate act of workers you've never met, who's conditions you've never experienced on the other side of the globe, erroneously comparing them to the planned, political individual assasinations of the Narodniks (whereas this act was obviously an act of mass rage emerging from clear material conditions, without the planned strategy of 'politics'). And all this mainly to perserve the 'good image' of the 'workers movement' or what not, like it's the prized and cherished baby of some marketing campaign to promote this or that political groupuscule in the eye of 'public opinion' or other liberal social constructs.

I love how you insinuate that criticism can only be reserved for acts we know about by people we know about and situations we personally have experienced and totally negate any form of analysis, criticism and comment...which...yeah...also logically does include the materialist one or ones based on the works of Marx/Lenin/Countless revolutionaries....Incidentally also arguing that criticism of any form of action taken by workers is above reproach....as long as it is derived from material conditions.

That logically means we can not discuss more than 90% of the topics in the board...since we neither experienced them nor know the actors involved or actually express an opinion on them.

Your whole post comes down to this simple assesment:

"These were workers....the act came from material need....ergo the action is always good."

Which in its logical conclusion is actually saying:

"anything a worker does which can be revered back to material needs is always good and justified not matter the act"

[Ravachol]

I love how you insinuate that criticism can only be reserved for acts we know about by people we know about and situations we personally have experienced and totally negate any form of analysis, criticism and comment


Nowhere have I insinuated this. What I said was that the erroneous comparison to Narodniki 'individual acts of violence' and mere condemnation serve no purpose apart from empty moralism.



Incidentally also arguing that criticism of any form of action taken by workers is above reproach


Where have I argued this? I fail to see how you condense this from my post.



Your whole post comes down to this simple assesment:

"These were workers....the act came from material need....ergo the action is always good."


In fact, if you read the post, I haven't said whether I consider this 'good' or 'bad'. I don't think this kind of action achieves anything but then again I explicitly stated that this action wasn't strategic, that it was the result of a certain tension arising from material conditions. Thus we shouldn't evaluate it on the basis of it's strategic merits simply because that wouldn't mean anything. Apart from that, I don't think we should engage in any liberal form of 'universal human rights' or moralism of any other kind that blurs class lines. I don't see how condemning (or promoting, for that matter) this serves any purpose apart from moralist chest-beating in the defense of some bourgeois fucker or, in the converse case, the glorification of some kind of revenge-based violence by painting it as something that it isn't.

[StalinFanboy]

I love the almost marketing-oriented liberal moralism being thrown around here. Condemning a desperate act of workers you've never met, who's conditions you've never experienced on the other side of the globe, erroneously comparing them to the planned, political individual assasinations of the Narodniks (whereas this act was obviously an act of mass rage emerging from clear material conditions, without the planned strategy of 'politics'). And all this mainly to perserve the 'good image' of the 'workers movement' or what not, like it's the prized and cherished baby of some marketing campaign to promote this or that political groupuscule in the eye of 'public opinion' or other liberal social constructs.
I think the original argument was that this has nothing to do with the communist project, not that it is morally wrong or right.

These fools were probably pissed and desperate, which is understandable. But people saying that this challenges the capitalist class relationship or the logic of capital are either really high, or completely delusional.

A worker could shit in a bag, and some people on this site would call it class struggle.

[Exakt]

One thing I learned from this thread: smokin' chronic & playing Morrowind is a good combo.

[PhoenixAsh]

Nowhere have I insinuated this. What I said was that the erroneous comparison to Narodniki 'individual acts of violence' and mere condemnation serve no purpose apart from empty moralism.

ok...very well...I have misunderstood you in the context this thread has been taken....



Where have I argued this? I fail to see how you condense this from my post.

In fact, if you read the post, I haven't said whether I consider this 'good' or 'bad'. I don't think this kind of action achieves anything but then again I explicitly stated that this action wasn't strategic, that it was the result of a certain tension arising from material conditions. Thus we shouldn't evaluate it on the basis of it's strategic merits simply because that wouldn't mean anything. Apart from that, I don't think we should engage in any liberal form of 'universal human rights' or moralism of any other kind that blurs class lines. I don't see how condemning (or promoting, for that matter) this serves any purpose apart from moralist chest-beating in the defense of some bourgeois fucker or, in the converse case, the glorification of some kind of revenge-based violence by painting it as something that it isn't.

Ok...I agree partly with what you say here. What my concern is is that in the light of revolution there should never be an anything goes approach...or blanketing situations which are wrong on several levels.

[PhoenixAsh]

One thing I learned from this thread: smokin' chronic & playing Morrowind is a good combo.


:laugh: At least you learned something useful :D

[RATM-Eubie]

Yea this is defiantly not good for the cause....

[StalinFanboy]

defiantly!

[Desperado]

Class struggle is the active expression of class conflict, so this clearly falls under that category. That doesn't necessarily mean that it contributes to revolution, or is right.

[Kuppo Shakur]

One thing I learned from this thread: smokin' chronic & playing Morrowind is a good combo.
Finally! A post in this thread that doesn't make me cringe!

[black magick hustla]

I love the almost marketing-oriented liberal moralism being thrown around here. Condemning a desperate act of workers you've never met, who's conditions you've never experienced on the other side of the globe, erroneously comparing them to the planned, political individual assasinations of the Narodniks (whereas this act was obviously an act of mass rage emerging from clear material conditions, without the planned strategy of 'politics'). And all this mainly to perserve the 'good image' of the 'workers movement' or what not, like it's the prized and cherished baby of some marketing campaign to promote this or that political groupuscule in the eye of 'public opinion' or other liberal social constructs.
its not about good image though its about fucking dousing a human being with gasoline and making him fire up. i dont care about communism/liberalism/whateverism and bonnano talking about shooting bosses in the head that shit is whack. i agree its class struggle but if i was part of that shit i would protest against it

[black magick hustla]

dont become a fucking monster when fighting monsters. i want to regain my species being back not get drunk in blood

[StalinFanboy]

Class struggle is the active expression of class conflict, so this clearly falls under that category. That doesn't necessarily mean that it contributes to revolution, or is right.

It's "class struggle" in that it's a reaction to class society. But in the same way that some dude shooting up his work place is a reaction to class society.

[bcbm]

a fucked up world produces fucked up results

[Ravachol]

its not about good image though its about fucking dousing a human being with gasoline and making him fire up. i dont care about communism/liberalism/whateverism and bonnano talking about shooting bosses in the head that shit is whack. i agree its class struggle but if i was part of that shit i would protest against it

I agree and I don't applaud this kind of thing, I think Species Being puts it best when he says:


It's "class struggle" in that it's a reaction to class society. But in the same way that some dude shooting up his work place is a reaction to class society.

Most reaction to class society, most tension arising from it, most class struggle has 'nothing to do with the communist project' in the sense that the communist project is the conscious expression of the active desire for Communism, which would exclude this kind of action. The thing is that these kind of actions are like the guy shooting up his work place, they are like the banlieu gangs forming as a reaction to precarity, they are like the countless 'anti-social' acts that spring up because of the fucked-upness of Capital's dominance so I don't think either applauding or condemning this means anything.

Apart from that I do think we shouldn't allow ourselves to be drawn in with the liberal crowd who condemn all violence as 'equally wrong'. I'm rather ambiguous about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat but I think we all know what this entails:



Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!


The process of overcoming class society will inevitably pit the full force of the bourgeoisie against the revolutionary process and I don't think anyone here holds the illusion that the revolutionary process is going to be a picknick, for either side for that matter.

[Exakt]

but I think we all know what this entailsWhat does it entail?

[PhoenixAsh]

Originally Posted by Battaglia Communista
Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!


Right there is your reason why this should not be condoned:


The monster of (...) craving for revenge.



The act of understanding these kind of acts within the context in which tehy are committed is fine...as I have argued...but justifying them serves a contrary purpose to genuine revolutionary goals and struggle.

Contrary to justification...condemnation does serve a very real purpose. The purpose of distinguishing between misguided acts of class struggle based on wrong motivations, flawed analysis or complete ignorance of the class situation and materialist analysis of the current system and those which do serve the purpose of revolutionary class warfare and struggle with the intended goals we all hold.

It sets some guidelines for behaviour and for what can be considered true revolutionary direct action and wat can not, and what is acceptable and what is not.

If we fail to acknowledge that; we run the risk of bogging down and assimilating the movement with the very same acts that work contrary to its goals and purpose and will eventually hurt that cause.

Now...we all know that revolutionary warfare and class struggle are absolutely not going to be a picknick and that at some point or another call for violent acts. But these acts serve a purpose. They are directed towards a goal and based on defense of the revolution and the ones fighting against the system...sometimes this goal may be induvidual and sometimes collective....but they are directed to proactive or retroactive selfdefence.

[StalinFanboy]

Right there is your reason why this should not be condoned:





The act of understanding these kind of acts within the context in which tehy are committed is fine...as I have argued...but justifying them serves a contrary purpose to genuine revolutionary goals and struggle.

Contrary to justification...condemnation does serve a very real purpose. The purpose of distinguishing between misguided acts of class struggle based on wrong motivations, flawed analysis or complete ignorance of the class situation and materialist analysis of the current system and those which do serve the purpose of revolutionary class warfare and struggle with the intended goals we all hold.

It sets some guidelines for behaviour and for what can be considered true revolutionary direct action and wat can not, and what is acceptable and what is not.

If we fail to acknowledge that; we run the risk of bogging down and assimilating the movement with the very same acts that work contrary to its goals and purpose and will eventually hurt that cause.

Now...we all know that revolutionary warfare and class struggle are absolutely not going to be a picknick and that at some point or another call for violent acts. But these acts serve a purpose. They are directed towards a goal and based on defense of the revolution and the ones fighting against the system...sometimes this goal may be induvidual and sometimes collective....but they are directed to proactive or retroactive selfdefence.
That quote is actually referring to the revenge of the ruling class and counter-revolutionary forces.

[bcbm]

Contrary to justification...condemnation does serve a very real purpose. The purpose of distinguishing between misguided acts of class struggle based on wrong motivations, flawed analysis or complete ignorance of the class situation and materialist analysis of the current system and those which do serve the purpose of revolutionary class warfare and struggle with the intended goals we all hold.

yes an extreme and irrelevant minority of privileged socialist ideologues condemning miserable factory workers across the world who were driven to murder will surely be a beacon for workers everywhere, establishing truth and justice.

a fucked up world produces fucked up results is really all we need to say about this. this is why we desire an end to this catastrophe. theres nothing to cheer or condemn. we are pro-revolutionaries desiring a true human community and looking for ways to get there, not moralists.

[Ravachol]

yes an extreme and irrelevant minority of privileged socialist ideologues condemning miserable factory workers across the world who were driven to murder will surely be a beacon for workers everywhere, establishing truth and justice.

a fucked up world produces fucked up results is really all we need to say about this. this is why we desire an end to this catastrophe. theres nothing to cheer or condemn. we are pro-revolutionaries desiring a true human community and looking for ways to get there, not moralists.

This.

I'm not applauding this and I'm not condoning this either because neither would mean anything. First of all because the pro-revolutionary milieu means almost nothing, but even if that wouldn't be the case, even if there would be such a thing as a grand pro-revolutionary milieu, any moralism regarding this acts would still be meaningless precisely because, as I said before, these acts aren't part of the communist project. They're expressions of class tension arising from material conditions, they're the fucked up result of a fucked up world. When we evaluate or criticize it isn't to be a beacon of moralist truth and justice (if there even is such a thing, in any meaningful sense). If we criticize it is to sharpen our swords, adjust our strategy and tactics and further the communist project. Hence, criticism regarding the usefulness of this or that act to 'the way forward' only makes sense if these acts aspire to be part of this project in the first place.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't know how to respond to this... I guess we shouldn't be surprised to find a Maoist like you defending individual acts of terrorism and mistaking it for actual class struggle. After all, it is the modus operandi of Maoism.


Stop treating a personal argument between you and red cat like a tendency war between Maoism and Trotskyism. Many Trotskyists would actually be more on red cat's side on this and many Maoists would actually be more on yours.



Instead of trying to play the "my people are more oppressed than yours" game so beloved of you third worlders - and usually employed to avoid the point
Feudal or not, you simply cannot deny that certain forms of capitalism are basically significantly worse and more reactionary than other forms, and conditions in some factories and companies are simply much worse than conditions in other workplaces, that a worker forced to commit suicide at a Foxconn plant in China is objectively much more oppressed than a white collar worker in New York.

This isn't just based on the binary difference of First World vs. Third World either, because even within First World and Third World regions conditions can differ greatly. In the UK, female workers are generally more oppressed than male workers, queer workers more oppressed than straight workers, blue collar workers more oppressed than white collar workers, low income workers more oppressed than middle income workers, disabled workers more oppressed than healthy workers, Asian Muslim immigrant workers more oppressed than white Christian native workers. In China, a consumerist "white collar princess" based in a Shanghai company is much less oppressed than an immigrant worker from rural areas.

SOME WORKERS ARE INDEED MORE OPPRESSED THAN OTHER WORKERS, that's just an objective fact that one simply cannot deny. "Progressive" and "reactionary" are always relative, not just binary "black-and-white". If you can't see this, you are just blind.

[PhoenixAsh]

yes an extreme and irrelevant minority of privileged socialist ideologues condemning miserable factory workers across the world who were driven to murder will surely be a beacon for workers everywhere, establishing truth and justice.

a fucked up world produces fucked up results is really all we need to say about this. this is why we desire an end to this catastrophe. theres nothing to cheer or condemn. we are pro-revolutionaries desiring a true human community and looking for ways to get there, not moralists.


Looking for a way to get there really does include defining the way in which the revolution is to be fought and how revolutionaries should conduct themselves.

And what anybodies relevance is is in fact completely irrelevant to the nature and content and obvious need of that debate.

Stating a fucked up word produces fucked up results is a trueism which does nothing to further the goal of reaching a human society and incidentally completely justifies the entire economic model we currently have and negates arguing that its a wrong system....because, as you so put it...the world is a fucked up place and fucked up things happen....and we are all incredebly irrelevant.

[PhoenixAsh]

This.

I'm not applauding this and I'm not condoning this either because neither would mean anything. First of all because the pro-revolutionary milieu means almost nothing, but even if that wouldn't be the case, even if there would be such a thing as a grand pro-revolutionary milieu, any moralism regarding this acts would still be meaningless precisely because, as I said before, these acts aren't part of the communist project. They're expressions of class tension arising from material conditions, they're the fucked up result of a fucked up world. When we evaluate or criticize it isn't to be a beacon of moralist truth and justice (if there even is such a thing, in any meaningful sense). If we criticize it is to sharpen our swords, adjust our strategy and tactics and further the communist project. Hence, criticism regarding the usefulness of this or that act to 'the way forward' only makes sense if these acts aspire to be part of this project in the first place.


So basically what you are arguing is exactly my point.

Now...seeing as we both completely agree that this act did in fact NOT inspire that but that some of the members here DO see it as such an act and valid strategy obviously emphasizes the need for such a debate in the rev. community and is exactly what is happening here....


...there is no real relevance in arguing against either to justify or condemn these acts....making your point that we should not do so an irrelevant one. Simply because they are not part of the communist project but do occur.

As I read your arguments...you do not have an opinion on these acts...yet you do... You call them not constructive and nt part of the communist project.

Now...your personal opinion on such incidents...including murder, rape, mutilations and torture OUTSIDE the scope of the communist projects. Should the culprits be punished or ignored...because they are not part of the communist project? Or don't you have an opinion on that?

[Queercommie Girl]

You are right, we need a humanist, socialist revolution. Killing a human, even killing a nazi is satanic and evil.

.

Absolute pacifism and Marxism don't mix. Are you saying you refuse to shoot down a Nazi when Nazis are invading your country?

Abrahamic beliefs in "absolute good and evil" are philosophically ridiculous, since morality is just a socio-economic construction, so stop mixing them with Marxism.

Humanism doesn't believe in absolute pacifism either. There is such a thing called "just violence".

[Queercommie Girl]

Also, the "morally repugnant" argument is bourgeois. There is nothing immoral in killing a capitalist.


Marxism is not amoral, Marx himself made plenty of moral criticisms against capitalism in his writings. But morality is a social construction, therefore there is no absolutely abstract human rights independent of socio-economic considerations such as class.

[Queercommie Girl]

The whole moral panic levelled against the Indian workers is just so intensely hypocritical. Thousands die gruesome deaths every day because that's just how the system works, but one extremely isolated act of primitive retaliation against this fact needs to be utterly condemned and denounced as strongly as possible.


This.

Strategically I don't believe individual terrorism is a sound approach, and objectively I wouldn't say what happened here is a "good thing", but seriously it's somewhat worrying that some people here aren't able TO PUT THEMSELVES INTO THIS WORKER'S SHOES and show some degree of empathy.



I would seriously argue that playing Morrowind and getting high is a more productive way of spending your time than trying to think of the most poisonous words that you can use to slander the Indian workers.


Agreed.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'd like to know what revolutionary goals you are pursuing between getting high and playing Morrowind? Not doing your homework, perhaps?


This is really a poor example of a personal attack, really poor.

Firstly, putting Morrowind on the same level as drugs is ridiculous. Personally I don't agree with taking drugs but I see nothing wrong with computer games. If you think computer games are wrong you might as well think novels and films are wrong as well, because they are just different types of fictional media.

If you don't have any fun in your life that's fine by me, but don't try to make other people refrain from some fun as well. Jesus, the last time I heard someone denouncing computer games as bad was from some old Stalinists in China back in the 1980s. :rolleyes:

Secondly, Morrowind is actually a pretty good game, it has a fantasy storyline based on pagan mythology that is deeper and superior (and less crypto-racist) than mainstream fantasy like the Lord of the Rings. It has nothing of the "all elves are good" and "all orcs are evil" morally binary non-sense.

Your personal attack here really is quite poor, and totally irrelevant to the topic.

[Queercommie Girl]

One thing I learned from this thread: smokin' chronic & playing Morrowind is a good combo.

Tangent:

Morrowind is a good anti-dote for those poisoned by the fundamentalist Abrahamic ideals of "absolute good and evil".

It's funny to see how some Christian fundamentalists respond to this game on some forums, claiming that it has "demonic influences" just because of its deeply pagan setting and its rejection of binary spiritual moralism.

Fact is, better to worship some of the Daedras in Morrowind than the god of Christian fundamentalism. (Obviously this kind of thought must be absolutely "evil and satanic" for these people)

I'm an atheist and a humanist, but suppose I had to choose a religion, then it would have to be global paganism. If "absolute morality" cannot exist in the human realm, then it cannot exist in the spiritual realm either, if such a realm really exists. All things are a mixture of "good" and "evil", "black" and "white", in different proportions and in different ways, it has always been, and it will always be, until the pico-second at which all existence cease. Absolute moralism is just as stupid as absolute amoralism.

As an old Chinese saying goes: there never exists unconditional love, and there never exists unconditional hatred. (If there really is an absolute moral constant in our universe then this must be it)

People should reflect on this proverb when analysing the situation here. Stop thinking like a Christian fundamentalist.

[synthesis]

God damn it people, no more Morrowind

[Robocommie]

God damn it people, no more Morrowind

Seriously, let's play something else.

[Exakt]

Elder Scrolls 5 is out soon

[red cat]

Yeah...I think its still murder.

Yes, but a justified one since the victim was an enemy of the proletariat.




this offcourse completely irrelevant. The theory was there and they were aware of it.

the act was still wrong....or are you arguing its ok to rape women as long as you do not know about their equal position? Because that is what you are actually doing here. Just because someone proposed a theory does not mean that every worker in a movement will know about it. I am not justifying rapes, I am just stating that these don't happen nowadays since workers are presently much more conscious about women's rights.



But workers exploit other workers is it now ok for workers to kill other workers if they are exploited?How does a worker exploit another worker and to what degree ?


No...I dispute that...to be part fo class struggle it has to be part fo a larger movement. This was just an isolated act of vengeance.Acts of class struggle can be isolated.


Why? There was no proof required that the guy in the car actually fired them....now was there? The workers came to their conclusion from the general situation. Given the situation in India, it is alright to assume that executives or managers actively participate in the decision making procedure.



but the line of reasoning still applies...so...tell me...what and what is NOT acceptable???

Because you are arguing that everything is acceptable. I already outlined in an earlier post why rape is not acceptable.



No...its understandable...its morally unjustifiable. There was no self defence, there was no greater goal...it was mere vengeance. It was intended to be an act of self defence.




Neither do I...but the one is intrinsically not a moral system and the other claims to be a system which on moral grounds wants to built a better society. There is nothing as moral as a worker trying to attack the capitalist system.



Would that change your decision or position?No, because he was a part of the bourgeoisie after all.


And we all agree this act was not planned to move communism foreward.

So...lets retrace...every crime committed by a worker against somebody of the burgeoisie is class warfare?First let's learn to take sides. Until we take the side of the proletariat, there is no use of trying to analyze the situation. Until you stop identifying this as a "crime", you remain on the side of the bourgeoisie.

[Queercommie Girl]

Seriously, let's play something else.

Morrowind is a well made game in many ways, but obviously it isn't the only good one out there.

[Queercommie Girl]

Elder Scrolls 5 is out soon

Yay!

[Queercommie Girl]

God damn it people, no more Morrowind

What's wrong with Morrowind? It's a good game. TES is better than the majority of the games out there.

I'd go for TES over a LOTR game on any day.

Mostly I prefer sci fi, TES is the only fantasy game I've played quite deeply.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, but a justified one since the victim was an enemy of the proletariat.


Well, personally I wouldn't call it a "good thing", because violence is never good in itself, but I think any genuine socialist should be able to empathise with this worker. I'm certainly not going to condemn him either for what he did. People who make moral criticisms like the bourgeois do towards this worker don't understand that like love, hatred is never unconditional. There is a reason why people are driven to do such things. And I dare say that if people like Bob the Builder were placed in this worker's shoes, he might have done exactly the same thing.

Morally condemning this worker is as stupid as blaming 9-11 on the "sheer evilness" of Muslims.



How does a worker exploit another worker and to what degree ?


Agree. To say that "a worker exploits another worker" is really fucking stupid from a Marxist perspective.



Acts of class struggle can be isolated.


Agree. Though from an objective strategic point of view individual terrorism can never solve anything concrete.



First let's learn to take sides. Until we take the side of the proletariat, there is no use of trying to analyze the situation. Until you stop identifying this as a "crime", you remain on the side of the bourgeoisie.


Agree. Why are some people more morally outraged by this incident than capitalists driving workers to suicide at Foxconn in China like how a slavelord drives his slaves?

[Kuppo Shakur]

I say we play Dead Space 2 instead.
Anybody get past that part where you're hanging upside down yet?

[bcbm]

Looking for a way to get there really does include defining the way in which the revolution is to be fought and how revolutionaries should conduct themselves.

pro-revolutionaries may be able to define their mythological millenarian event and the direction they would like to see it take, but i don't think a scattering of disparate attitudes will be defining the content of any future push towards communism.


And what anybodies relevance is is in fact completely irrelevant to the nature and content and obvious need of that debate.

actually i think understanding your overall place in the scheme of things is of great importance because it will keep you from thinking there is an obvious need to moralize about events over which you can have no influence and will likely have no influence on you.


Stating a fucked up word produces fucked up results is a trueism which does nothing to further the goal of reaching a human society and incidentally completely justifies the entire economic model we currently have and negates arguing that its a wrong system....because, as you so put it...the world is a fucked up place and fucked up things happen....and we are all incredebly irrelevant.

the world is a fucked up place with fucked up results because of our economic model, not in spite of it. but yes, it certainly doesn't do anything to further the goal of reaching a true human community and probably very little or even nothing pro-revolutionaries do will.

[PhoenixAsh]

pro-revolutionaries may be able to define their mythological millenarian event and the direction they would like to see it take, but i don't think a scattering of disparate attitudes will be defining the content of any future push towards communism.

basically saying...everything goes and it really does not matter what you do to other people as long as you sugar coat it in the context of class struggle and of the revolution.



actually i think understanding your overall place in the scheme of things is of great importance because it will keep you from thinking there is an obvious need to moralize about events over which you can have no influence and will likely have no influence on you.

basically saying we can not debate anything at all...ever....in which we do not participate, have no influence over, does not influence us (which I do not agree with).




the world is a fucked up place with fucked up results because of our economic model, not in spite of it. but yes, it certainly doesn't do anything to further the goal of reaching a true human community and probably very little or even nothing pro-revolutionaries do will.

No...its a fucked up world because people do horrible things regardless of economic model...if you let them. Capitalism is a perfect expression of people doing horrible things...as people introduced it.

[Kibbutznik]

Such gruesome acts like this are a symptom of class antagonism. Cheerleading for murder isn't going to start the revolution. Yeah, we can sympathize with what drove this workers to such desparate action, but we cannot, nor should we, sympathize with the results.

Those who raise arms against a workers' revolution ought to be put down. But baying for capitalist blood in senseless murders like this isn't going to get us anywhere.

[RATM-Eubie]

I just dont think burning someone to death is the right way to go here, and mostly not the most smart way to go...

[bcbm]

basically saying...everything goes and it really does not matter what you do to other people as long as you sugar coat it in the context of class struggle and of the revolution.

i don't really know how that is what you interpreted from my comment, it doesn't have anything to do with "sugar coating" or suggesting people can do anything but that condemning this as poor strategy or something misses the point. i don't know of any serious push within workers or pro-revolutionary organizations to burn people to death so its just silly.


basically saying we can not debate anything at all...ever....in which we do not participate, have no influence over, does not influence us (which I do not agree with).

no, basically saying it is silly to moralize about some desperate workers on the other side of the world and tell them how to pursue things, as though this was part of any strategy. they were driven to murder by economic conditions, it is horrible, why would we want to live in a world like that? it is a tragedy not a miscalculation.


No...its a fucked up world because people do horrible things regardless of economic model...if you let them. Capitalism is a perfect expression of people doing horrible things...as people introduced it.

so you're basically saying that the world is a fucked up place and fucked up things happen, which supposedly completely justifies the entire economic model we currently have and negates arguing that its a wrong system?