Political Violence II

[The Teacher]

Citizen A bombs an abortion clinic, killing several workers inside. After capture he claims that his action is justified because the Bible says "..."

Citizen B bombs a bank, killing several workers. After capture he claims that his action is justified because some leftist intellectual once said "..."

Is there a moral distinction between A and B, based on something other than the fact that B shares your personal taste in books?

Lets consider a few more examples.

Citizen C strongly disagrees with the way that his country is organized. He works within the system to change it (political participation, economic actions, protests). Though he is often harassed and occassionally beaten and arrested, he does not reply with violence against the state.

Citizen D lives in a place where people like C get drug into the streets and shot. Are his revolutionary options limited to violent action or not?

Does the overall culture and political climate affect the moral considerations in any of these cases?

[thesadmafioso]

The bible is not a legitimate source through which to draw political guidance, whereas the individual basing their thought in some sort of developed political theory is far more likely to justify their action through solid argumentation. This is a horribly flawed false equivocation and nothing more.

And moralistic language aside, context always matters when considering political methodology.

[Kamos]

Banks should be nationalised, not bombed, for one.

For two:

Citizen A says that Jews should be purged because Hitler said so and he's right.

Citizen B says that capitalism should be overthrown and private property abolished because Marx said so and he's right.

Consider this.

[The Teacher]

Banks should be nationalised, not bombed, for one.

For two:

Citizen A says that Jews should be purged because Hitler said so and he's right.

Citizen B says that capitalism should be overthrown and private property abolished because Marx said so and he's right.

Consider this.

Isn't that the point? So-and-so said it was true so now I'm going to kill some people. As sad as it is there are people who think that way.

[The Teacher]

The bible is not a legitimate source through which to draw political guidance, whereas the individual basing their thought in some sort of developed political theory is far more likely to justify their action through solid argumentation. This is a horribly flawed false equivocation and nothing more.

And moralistic language aside, context always matters when considering political methodology.

The Bible is a legitimate source to Christians. We don't have to agree. What solid argumentation makes it okay to kill working class people who just happen to be in a bank?

[Octavian]

Banks should be nationalised, not bombed, for one.

For two:

Citizen A says that Jews should be purged because Hitler said so and he's right.

Citizen B says that capitalism should be overthrown and private property abolished because Marx said so and he's right.

Consider this.
Both of those are appeals to authority so they're both fallacious. Though to answer the question of whats the difference. The difference is in ones own personal values and morals. The overall feeling of whether or not they were justified is really a subjective question rendering this thread pretty well meaningless.

[Geiseric]

Taking political advice from the bible is like taking political advice from harry potter. the attitude religeous organisations spew out is to make people always think that something is above them and that they have no choice ultimately as to what happens. Materialism is directly opposed to religeon. Something that humans came up with on their own has more value than what a supposed diety told people to write. Political theory is to effect material conditions in human society, religeon is a useless remnant of superstision from 4000 years ago, before the oppressed knew what could be of society. That's what i think of religeon, and with that in mind, no theory justifies the killing or oppression of another human being for the profit of another. I also believe in freedom of religeon, despite my personal views on it.

[The Teacher]

Religion or politics, it comes down to "This book says I can kill people." That is not a legitimate argument regardless of what book it is.

[Pretty Flaco]

Citizen B says that capitalism should be overthrown and private property abolished because Marx said so and he's right.


Citizen Me says that capitalism should be overthrown and private property abolished because it will improve my condition as well as the condition of my friends, family, neighbors, etc. and would positively affect the living environment our children will live in, not because some old guys with funky beards said to. ;)

[Geiseric]

It's all about how you break down and percieve whatever you read. Somebody might think that by ''dictatorship of the proletariat,'' it means a dictatorship, supposedly supported by the proletariat. I know its not what it means, i meant by reading it at first glance and not understanding the context. however anything taken as seriously as religeon should be double checked, trippled, quadrupled, etc. to make sure it's good (as opposed to evil. couldnt think of a better word.)

[Die Rote Fahne]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1909/xx/tia09.htm

The Bankruptcy of Individual Terrorism by Leon Trotsky

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm

Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism by Leon Trotsky

Just a little perspective.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Citizen A bombs an abortion clinic, killing several workers inside. After capture he claims that his action is justified because the Bible says "..."

Citizen B bombs a bank, killing several workers. After capture he claims that his action is justified because some leftist intellectual once said "..."


Neither is better than the other. Both citizens kill workers which is counter revolutionary, regardless of whether or not the workers are class conscious. One way of dealing with the difference is secularism, which separates religion and state. This in turn would render argument A baseless, but this has failed imo to be effective under a capitalist system.

[x359594]

The bother with these examples is that they're carried out by individuals acting on their own behalf; they're not part of a larger strategy, they're not examples of revolutionary violence.

Abraham Guillen laid out the premises for revolutionary violence in The Philosophy of the Urban Guerrilla. Simply put, he argues that a revolutionary struggle must weave together different kinds of tactics, legal as well as illegal, economic and political as well as military, and that military considerations must be subordinated to political objectives. Thus, political objectives must be clearly defined and articulated, and the appropriate means applied in a given situation; if violence is the best tactic, then it should be applied, and the same goes for work place occupations, demonstrations, and strikes. Which ever is most appropriate to a given situation is the to be used.

I realize that this doesn't address the implied ethical question, but it seems to me that individual acts of violence are by and large counter productive, and in the case of the abortion clinic attack reactionary.

[miltonwasfried...man]

Infringing on anyone's liberty, especially to the point of murder is very rarely justifiable. But at the same time, it is merely self defence for the oppressed to fight back against their masters. More often that not, violence just leads to further violence and there are generally better methods to go about change.

[Geiseric]

Terrorism just gives cops excuses to be more brutal. it shouldn't be in a revolutionary's aresnal. to answer OP'S question, killing for what a book says is rediculous either way. killing =/= self defense btw.