Are peaceful leftists still revleftists?

[NoMasters]

I am wondering what people's thoughts are on this. It seems to me that being a peaceful leftist excludes from being a revleftist.

I obviously strongly disagree. But what are your thoughts?

Is revolution violent?

"I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I suppose if we somehow got lucky, and all the proletariat and petty bourgeois figured out what was wrong (they all got class conscious), and somehow the capitalists and the government (depending on the kind of revolution) were pushovers. We could just walk into congress/parliament and demand the keys to the world.

But that won't happen.

[Ostrinski]

It means that they have no practical program for the dismantlement of the bourgeois state. And if they don't have a practical program for the dismantlement of the bourgeois state, their ideas are of no worth to the proletariat in their conquest for class power, thereby making them irrelevant. So it doesn't matter what they say they are or aren't.

[Ocean Seal]

Revolution doesn't necessarily have to be violent. No, some believe that thorugh strikes, walkouts, and mass protests the working class can take power. So yes you can still be a pacifist and a revolutionary. That doesn't mean that your perspective is not immature nor does it make credible.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

In the end, violence in a revolution is an act of self defence, because we are - in our daily lives throughout - being slowly attacked, dismantled and sometimes killed by capitalism and the state. We are no more violent then one person who defends themselves against another person who threatens their survival.

When you have a system and a group of people who threaten human survival, violence here isn't an offensive act, it's defensive.

[NoMasters]

It means that they have no practical program for the dismantlement of the bourgeois state. And if they don't have a practical program for the dismantlement of the bourgeois state, their ideas are of no worth to the proletariat in their conquest for class power, thereby making them irrelevant. So it doesn't matter what they say they are or aren't.

So if every single person in the world that wasn't a bourgeoisie decided to just not go to work, pay taxes, and things alike, that they would still have to kill off the bourgeoisie or force them to surrender through violent coercion?

I feel as if the people are stronger than any gun or military.

Even if the government started killing off all the people, there wouldn't be any bourgeoisie anymore because there would be no workers to exploit.

To me personally, violent revolution is almost completely unnecessary, hence my title of the aspiring pacifist.

If we took over the factories, we the people are the weapons, not the guns or sticks we carry.

Logically, violence as a means to peace is completely contradictory.

[#FF0000]

violence would be used against us, and so self-defense would probably be necessary.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

If we took over the factories, we the people are the weapons, not the guns or sticks we carry.

You know what's happened historically when people did that? Like in France May 68? They send in skull breaking police, and they get violent.

The state is always violence all the time, if you don't believe in violence against it then you don't believe in self defense.

People are dying out there, everyday, the world is starving to death because of capitalism, I'm not going to become a pacifist just to feel I have the moral highground, I literally feel this is life or death.

[#FF0000]

But yeah either way, no one would oppose a peaceful revolution. It's all just about what works frankly. If people can be peaceful, be peaceful. If force is used against them, I don't think there's anything wrong with using force in defense. It's situational. People who are dogmatically non-violent are just as foolish as people who think things need to be a bloodbath.

[NoMasters]

You know what's happened historically when people did that? Like in France May 68? They send in skull breaking police, and they get violent.

The state is always violence all the time, if you don't believe in violence against it then you don't believe in self defense.

People are dying out there, everyday, the world is starving to death because of capitalism, I'm not going to become a pacifist just to feel I have the moral highground, I literally feel this is life or death.

I still feel that your historical example holds no water in refuting what I have proposed.

Like I said, in terms of theory, peaceful revolution is the only position that holds true.

Most people who possess the same idea you do, seem to model Orwellian dystopia in my opinion.

[#FF0000]

I still feel that your historical example holds no water in refuting what I have proposed.

Do you think people should just take bullets and batons without trying to fight back?

[NoMasters]

Do you think people should just take bullets and batons without trying to fight back?

Of course not man. I just think that if the people, and I mean ALL the people decide not to be slaves, I doubt that there is going to be mass murder.

But y'all could be right as well.

[#FF0000]

Of course not man. I just think that if the people, and I mean ALL the people decide not to be slaves, I doubt that there is going to be mass murder.

Right, I gotcha. I think that's a little unlikely, though. I mean, look at the crackdown we had against Occupy, and that was hardly even anything. I don't doubt for a minute that the cops would shoot workers if they decided to REALLY declare the Oakland Commune.

[NoMasters]

Right, I gotcha. I think that's a little unlikely, though. I mean, look at the crackdown we had against Occupy, and that was hardly even anything. I don't doubt for a minute that the cops would shoot workers if they decided to REALLY declare the Oakland Commune.

Oh I agree, but I think small steps towards peaceful change can take place. But I also think that global revolution with arms would work as well.

There have been protests with over 3 million people that stayed peaceful. That is a hopeful prospect in my opinion. Like the anti-Iraq war protest in Rome in 2003.

And religious ones have been even higher, up to 20 million like that of the pilgrimage, or whatever you want to call it, to Imam Hussein's burial site.

And I come from an extremely affluent family, and if there were a peaceful revolution, we would never take up arms and fight the workers, we would join them in their quest for a better world!

[Ostrinski]

But yeah either way, no one would oppose a peaceful revolution. It's all just about what works frankly. If people can be peaceful, be peaceful. If force is used against them, I don't think there's anything wrong with using force in defense. It's situational. People who are dogmatically non-violent are just as foolish as people who think things need to be a bloodbath.I agree with this 100%. Our entire political strategy (which goes far beyond the question of violence or non violence) will be a reflection of the conditions that characterize our situation in a particular framework. The smaller the opposition to the movement, the less pretext for violence. The greater the opposition to the movement, the more violence necessary for the movement to sustain itself. Though one would be naive not to think that the bourgeoisie would use all state mechanisms at their disposal to crush those that threaten their interests. Violence is the privilege of the state, and must be met with greater violence. Its all mathematics really, this is how contradicting interests have always been sorted out.

[Ostrinski]

So if every single person in the world that wasn't a bourgeoisie decided to just not go to work, pay taxes, and things alike, that they would still have to kill off the bourgeoisie or force them to surrender through violent coercion?

I feel as if the people are stronger than any gun or military.

Even if the government started killing off all the people, there wouldn't be any bourgeoisie anymore because there would be no workers to exploit.

To me personally, violent revolution is almost completely unnecessary, hence my title of the aspiring pacifist.

If we took over the factories, we the people are the weapons, not the guns or sticks we carry.

Logically, violence as a means to peace is completely contradictory.But see in the end it doesn't really matter whether you prefer violence or not, its all about the mechanics of sustaining class power. Its about what means are necessary to meet our ends. You're presenting this as a question of ideals, which is intellectually dishonest, because it is really a question of the relationship of the movement to the material circumstances.

[Renegade Saint]

Revolution doesn't necessarily have to be violent. No, some believe that thorugh strikes, walkouts, and mass protests the working class can take power. So yes you can still be a pacifist and a revolutionary. That doesn't mean that your perspective is not immature nor does it make credible.
Those things only work because of the implied threat of force behind them.

[NoMasters]

But see in the end it doesn't really matter whether you prefer violence or not, its all about the mechanics of sustaining class power. Its about what means are necessary to meet our ends. You're presenting this as a question of ideals, which is intellectually dishonest, because it is really a question of the relationship of the movement to the material circumstances.


I think that it does matter if it is violent or not.

Whatever is necessary to meet out means can mean a lot of different things. I don't think there is a serious truth in how to get to the end. But I bet you that peace, or near bloodless revolution would work. It might not change things as fast, but it surely doesn't allow the end to become the failure of the USSR.

[workersadvocate]

Those things only work because of the implied threat of force behind them.

I could QFT this a thousand times and it still would not do this truth enough justice.
Never forget what this quote means.

[Bronco]

Some of the non-violent leftists are pretty cool, Tolstoy for instance. I kinda agree with the argument that violence is inherently authoritarian and therefore something that Anarchists should oppose but at the same time I consider it more a legitimate measure of self-defence against the ruling classes who are intent on exploiting and controlling the masses, and I'm also not sure if a revolution could ever really be achieved without violence. I dunno, I'm still clarifying my position on violence, but I'd say that yes somebody could be a revolutionary leftist while remaining a pacifist

[NewLeft]

Revolution would no doubt be an authoritarian act..

[NoMasters]

I just don't see that to be true, at least not completely true.

I would be willing to give up my wealth if a revolution were to happen in America. I wouldn't kill people for it.

[Ostrinski]

I think that it does matter if it is violent or not.

Whatever is necessary to meet out means can mean a lot of different things. I don't think there is a serious truth in how to get to the end. But I bet you that peace, or near bloodless revolution would work. It might not change things as fast, but it surely doesn't allow the end to become the failure of the USSR.You are right in that there is no one solution to the question of meeting an end, which is exactly why ethically absolutist pacifist stances are worthless. Refer to the post I made before the one you quoted, I think it deals with this point pretty well.

The problem is that I feel like you, like all other proponents of ethically absolutist positions, are arguing against violence because you don't like it. Which really doesn't fly, because it won't matter what we like or don't like in the end, it will be the method that is most compatible with a given situation that determines policy. This is what I meant by violence vs. non violence not mattering. It is simply a means, and means will differ in relation to different material conditions whereas the end is the same. I don't like violence any more than the next person, but I'm all for the pragmatic solution.

[Veovis]

There's a time and a place for peaceful actions, and there's a time and a place for violence. That's my position on the issue. Heads roll in revolutions, but I think it's an admirable goal to keep the bloodletting to a minimum.

[Comrade Hill]

Non-violence isn't completely off the table.

But absolute pacifism, like you are advocating, is a ideal that stems from the petty-bourgeoisie, since petty-bourgeois people live confortable lives, violence is not their class nature. Violence however, is the class nature of the poor and the working class. Pacifism is what many revolutionaries do not tolerate, as it hampers the revolution and it holds back the working class.

"Peaceful" revolutions happen, like the one in Mongolia, but very rarely.

So yeah, there's really no "peaceful" revolutionaries. The state is an organ of class rule that protects the means of production through violence. You cannot counter violent institutions with non-violence.

[danyboy27]

I am wondering what people's thoughts are on this. It seems to me that being a peaceful leftist excludes from being a revleftist.

I obviously strongly disagree. But what are your thoughts?

Is revolution violent?

"I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."

Challenging current property right is an act of violence against the system, no matter how you do it.
Occupy a public building and you will get the taser, go to the street without a permit, you will also get the taser and the stick, occupy your workplace and the swat team will be there in about 5 min.

Even Ghandi, the champion of every pacifist was violent, precisely beccause he put himself and his fallower in the way of the brittish interest in the region.

Ghandi philosophy probably killed more indian than if they would have just decided to fight back when they where clubbed to death by brittish troops.

i am not a violent man but if someone try to hit me with a stick the least i can do is to hit the fucker back.

[praxis1966]

The only thing I can say here is that absolutist pacifism is fucking naive and, on occasion, dangerous. There are some people, the Peace Police as they've come to be known out here on the West Coast, who will actually use violence against others in order to enforce their definition of what non-violence is and how it should be handled.

Most recently, in Oakland this has come in the form of demonstrators being physically assaulted by other demonstrators for breaking windows. They've also tried to de-mask people, chastise them for doing things as objectionable as banging on trash can lids, or attempt to force people to do away with signs that had curse words on them. On a personal level, I actually had two demonstrators get in my face when I tried to start a chant that include the language "fuck the police" at one march. Ironically, this was at the march to take back Oscar Grant Plaza on October 25 of last year. You know, the one where the cops completely overreacted and teargassed, flashbanged, rubber bulleted, and batoned their way into a situation of national antipathy.

And I know what the OP's thinking, "But I'd never assault anyone in the name of non-violence," but I don't buy it. That's what they all say... right before they drop dime on you because they didn't like the way you protested, just like in Seattle '99, turning you over to the most violent organization in the country: the police.

[RedAtheist]

The problem I see with pacifism is that it can too often lead to passiveness (in other words, letting others abuse you.) I believe we should avoid unnecessary violence. The key word being 'unnecessary'. Fact is, if the capitalists weren't willing to violently oppress the working class in order to maintain their position, they wouldn't be capitalists, they would have been out-competed by more ruthless capitalists long ago. Thus I agree that violence should be used to defend the revolution and the revolutionary workers against those who want to use violence against them to destroy the revolution and maintain/restore capitalism. It shouldn't be used for any other purpose though (such as suppressing non-violent protests against a socialist government.)

[hatzel]

...I know I want to say something in this thread, but I'm not sure what exactly...I'll get back to you later on with something semi-coherent, maybe...

To see you over, these are just a couple of things you might be (un)lucky enough to find in my head at the moment:

1. The image of Jacques Ellul laughing talking about the scandal that inevitably erupts whenever a car - that is to say 'sacred' object of contemporary society - is burnt - that is to say desecrated - by protesters. The tone suggests he had no problem with such acts, despite his adherence to non-violence. And why should he have? Burning a car certainly doesn't cause anybody any injury...

2. Non-violence doesn't feel like a great word to use because effective non-violence is intensely violent on a psychological level. It doesn't call for everybody to be friends but wants to turn 'the Adversary' into a shivering wreck cowering in a dark corner somewhere to escape the torturous world. Okay that was maybe a big of an exaggeration but whatever, you get the idea. Definitions of 'peace' and 'violence' are certainly required.

3. We could always just go and kill every single soldier and police officer and politician and business owner and everything and everybody but there would probably still be the state and capitalism afterwards. Anybody who believes otherwise has a fallacious understand of society's dynamics of power, I would argue. The question then isn't so much one of what's 'pleasant' but of what might lead to the successful dismantling of these institutions; all previous revolutions have merely seen the transfer of state authority from one group to another - violence is of great use in achieving this; in fact the mere seizure of the state could be undertaken through exclusively violent means, - whilst the anarchists' revolution necessarily entails the dissolution of said state authority. As such the anarchists' revolution cannot be built according to the models of previous revolutions, all of which presuppose the perpetuation of the state - new approaches to the question of revolutionary method are therefore necessary.

4. The vast majority of self-declared 'pacifists' are complete and utter numbskulls without even any revolutionary ambitions, let alone potential. They should not be seriously considered. They have a shallow understanding of reality and the causes of war - much like most environmentalists or animal rights activists or feminists or anti-racists etc. etc. don't adequately understand the causes of their respective issues - and as such offer no viable strategy to overcome these issues, thinking that just asking people nicely, without even approaching the structural and systematic roots of war and violence, will have any meaningful impact. The only valuable contribution they could make to the cause of peace would be staying home that day.

[CommieTroll]

The ruling class will never be defeated through non-violent means. The concept of non-violence is pretty admirable but would you really expect the bourgeois along with the state and it's forces to non-violently suppress any form of revolt? The working class will need to defend itself by any means necessary

[Rafiq]

Non violence aids birth to forms of protest that, although demanding "change", never present themselves with the ability to "demand the impossible" while acting upon it. It allows protest to be something of a norm, within the constraint of the capitalist system.

Real violence radicalizes, and tears down the mystifications in place, pushes forward the radical constraint.

[Krano]

Liberal revolution asking for a bill to be passed calling for a Revolution :lol:

[NGNM85]

Violence can be just, or unjust, depending on the circumstances. However; violence should, generally, be employed as a last resort. Anyone who says otherwise is a psychopath, or an idiot. (Or, perhaps, both, as these criteria are not mutually exclusive.) I could, technically, be decscribed as a 'Revolutionary Leftist', but I've always disliked this term, and would never describe myself, as such.

[NGNM85]

Revolution would no doubt be an authoritarian act..

If that's the case, then you're doing it wrong.

[praxis1966]

If that's the case, then you're doing it wrong.

I may be quibbling over semantics here, but my attitude is that an 'authoritarian' revolution is another way of saying 'palace coup.' In other words, it's not much of a revolution in the way leftists would understand the term.

[Comrade Auldnik]

There's a reason they call it the revolutionary left.

[NGNM85]

I may be quibbling over semantics here, but my attitude is that an 'authoritarian' revolution is another way of saying 'palace coup.' In other words, it's not much of a revolution in the way leftists would understand the term.

That's how it should be understood, I'm not sure to what extent this is reperesentative. Common sense is often anything but. Simply put; Libertarian Socialism, real Socialism, and Authoritarianism are fundamentally incompatible.

[Comrade Auldnik]

That's how it should be understood, I'm not sure to what extent this is reperesentative. Common sense is often anything but. Simply put; Libertarian Socialism, real Socialism, and Authoritarianism are fundamentally incompatible.

:rolleyes: Define authoritarianism. That is, lay out some concrete parameters for what makes a government authoritarian.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I'm very anti-violence. I just see that it's necessary to use it when violence is destined to be used against us.

[Ele'ill]

violence would be used against us, and so self-defense would probably be necessary.

and eventually we'll get really sick of constantly being defensive and switch it up

[NoMasters]

Non violence aids birth to forms of protest that, although demanding "change", never present themselves with the ability to "demand the impossible" while acting upon it. It allows protest to be something of a norm, within the constraint of the capitalist system.

Real violence radicalizes, and tears down the mystifications in place, pushes forward the radical constraint.

I am starting to respect you a little more.

I categorically agree with that statement.

However, I might still be a peaceful romantic to wish for a truly peaceful revolution. I will add however that if it became violent, I would join immediately. I just believe we should try peace first.

[Klaatu]

Is revolution violent?
Not necessarily.

In my humble opinion, the best revolution is a non-violent revolution. Most people abhor violence. The way to get the most support across the broadest spectrum of leftist-minded people is to condemn violence, theft or destruction of others' possessions, or anything else which is outside the law. Consider the massive protests in Wisconsin and Ohio; there was no violence, but they got things done. And perhaps these events were only the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps total revolution can happen in incremental events. That is, not so much one giant uprising, perhaps, instead, many smaller ones.

[Tommy4ever]

If that's the case, then you're doing it wrong.

I think Engels said something along the lines of: a revolution is ultimately a highly authoritarian act. It is one segment of the population imposing its will on another through means of rifles, bayonets and cannons.

I don't know how you can claim that a revolution isn't an authoritarian act.

[RGacky3]

Its not one group of people imposing their will on another, its on group of people undoing institutions of power controlled by another.

[NGNM85]

:rolleyes: Define authoritarianism. That is, lay out some concrete parameters for what makes a government authoritarian.

It's not especially complex. Authoritarianism is simply the belief that authority is always inherently legitimate, which is anathema to Anarchism, which asserts that authority is never inherently legitimate.

[daft punk]

I am wondering what people's thoughts are on this. It seems to me that being a peaceful leftist excludes from being a revleftist.

I obviously strongly disagree. But what are your thoughts?

Is revolution violent?

"I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."
Only 2 people died in the Russian revolution, and that was a backward country in the middle of WW1. In the first half of 1918 22 people were executed. It only got nasty because the generals in the Russian army who supported the Tsar and capitalism started a civil war.

Bear in mind also they didnt have democracy before the October revolution, although the Provisional Government was planning an election, or talking about it.

In the west, if enough people wanted socialism, hopefully the elections wouldnt get cancelled and it would be done through the ballot box to a large extent. Of course the capitalists would try to sabotage it, but whether they could get the army behind them depends, in Russia the Bolsheviks had most of the armed forces in Petrograd on board, so the actual revolution was easy.

You have to win over the ranks of the army while explaining that the army tops are never to be trusted.

[Revolution starts with U]

I am starting to respect you a little more.

I categorically agree with that statement.

However, I might still be a peaceful romantic to wish for a truly peaceful revolution. I will add however that if it became violent, I would join immediately. I just believe we should try peace first.
All we are sayying is... to give peace a chance! :lol:

No, but Rafiq is like that. At first you think he is just this petulant teenager with a grudge against the world. Then, even if you still disagree, you realize he is intelligent and well Informed, who just has no reservations against the use of violence.


It's not especially complex. Authoritarianism is simply the belief that authority is always inherently legitimate, which is anathema to Anarchism, which asserts that authority is never inherently legitimate.

Let me preface this by saying I am often going to side with you and libertarian (not lolbertarian) movements on what tactics are going to be utilized.

But it goes like this. We cannot assume that there are universal morals, and that non aggressionis part of it. We don't oppose the ruling class because of anything other than that we choose a set of ethics directly opposed to them. To us they are bad. To themselves we are.

If someone comes to rob you, andyou resist, you both are going to try to impose your will over each other; him his desire for your money, and you your desire to keep it. One of you, the victor, will express their authority.

The dichotomy is an illusion, between libertarian and authoritarian. The real dichotomy is between those who are wantonly violent and oppressive, and those relaxed and open minded.

[NoMasters]

:rolleyes: Define authoritarianism. That is, lay out some concrete parameters for what makes a government authoritarian.

A state.

[Revolution starts with U]

Legality requires its legitimacy. You don,t need the right to use violence (the state; including silly lolbertarian private States), or the enforcement of class structure.

Any general cultural norm protected by punishment (the law) is an authoritarian act, by definition.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is revolution violent?

"I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."

I think your whole premise is flawed because most of the left is not organizing for a directly violent overthrow of the state. For one thing, in a non-revolutionary time, most people aren't convinced that such an attempt could even be successful so organizing on this basis would have little effect. But more importantly because if our goal is the self-emancipation of the working class, underground armies aren't very good at organizing that. In fact it takes people away from their workplaces (can't fight an insurgency and then clock in for work on time) and the skills they learn are tactical and military skills, not skills of organizing their fellow workers and learning how to exert power and control at their workplaces.

For revolutionary socialism to be established, millions of workers need to have the skills to run society, organizing together, fighting the bosses, taking over their workplaces all teach the working class how to rule society.

But this is not to say that some real direct fighting won't also be essential in helping workers to defend the communities and workplaces they take over.

I think this whole debate is strange in the context of being just a year past the "Arab spring" and the start of the Egyptian Revolution. While there was some street-fighting, that movement didn't set out to be violent, but had to use violence to defend the square from the military, police and then armed thugs. That battle was just over replacing the head of a system, the body remained not to mention the whole system that the regime is set up to serve. We can do everything we can to ensure the safety of our people by trying to avoid unnecessary violence, we can even have protests and movements that paralyse the military, but that's why most ruling classes rely on many different agencies to violently protect their system: if the police are over-run then the military is sent in, if the grunts won't fire on their brothers and sisters and the military is neutralized, then the state will arm thugs and give them carte blanche to do whatever they want to terrorize us back into submission, if that fails they will even allow these thugs to run the country and then we have a real police state or even fascism.

So while our strength as a class does exist in organizing and our roles in production (though to struggle on these fronts often also requires violent defense of strikes or protest movements) and this is where revolutionaries, in my view, should focus we also have to expect that the people who rule society are not going to give that up without a probably bloody fight. But revolution for worker's power is still favorable to the staus-quo because while we don't know if a revolutionary movement will suceede, or if there will be a really bloody struggle, we know for sure that not replacing capitalist rule means daily violence and unnecessary death and potentially the destruction of the environment or catastrophic war between the US and China or Russia and the EU.


I think that it does matter if it is violent or not.

Whatever is necessary to meet out means can mean a lot of different things. I don't think there is a serious truth in how to get to the end. But I bet you that peace, or near bloodless revolution would work. It might not change things as fast, but it surely doesn't allow the end to become the failure of the USSR.The Russian Revolution was one of the least bloody major revolutions in modern history - it was the reaction, civil war, attacks by the imperialist countries, internal counterrevolution, and then WWII that were bloody.

[RGacky3]

The whole system of Capitalism requires violence to exist, so once you get rid of the systemic violence you get rid of capitalism, problem is Capitalism will use violence to prevent it, you have a general strike believe me there will be violence.

How to deal with that is another matter, and counter violence is definately an option. But it should be a strategic matter, not an emotional one.

[bugsbunny]

The ruling class will never be defeated through non-violent means. The concept of non-violence is pretty admirable but would you really expect the bourgeois along with the state and it's forces to non-violently suppress any form of revolt? The working class will need to defend itself by any means necessary


That's why the Left is so violent.

[#FF0000]

That's why the Left is so violent.

you are saying this as police are beating the shit out of protesters in America, Iraq is being occupied, unrestricted drone warfare is being carried out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, western cash and weapons are being shipped out to dictators or rebel groups (depending on who benefits France, the US, or whoever, the most), and while militant, populist right-wing groups are sprouting up all over the place.

But nah folks talking about self-defense or who break windows and burn dumpsters are the violent ones, I guess?

[bugsbunny]

you are saying this as police are beating the shit out of protesters in America, Iraq is being occupied, unrestricted drone warfare is being carried out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, western cash and weapons are being shipped out to dictators or rebel groups (depending on who benefits France, the US, or whoever, the most), and while militant, populist right-wing groups are sprouting up all over the place.

But nah folks talking about self-defense or who break windows and burn dumpsters are the violent ones, I guess?

The police are beating protestors who are violent and breaking the law.

Iraq is not occupied. They have an elected government and US troops have left after doing a good job in destroying the Saddam regime and holding elections.

Drone warfare is carried out to kill those who want to kill you. In war, you are expected to do that.

What right wing group sprouting all over the place? Nonsense.

[RGacky3]

The police are beating protestors who are violent and breaking the law.


Really? Is sitting down violent? IS standing in public space violent? You ever been to a protest?


Iraq is not occupied. They have an elected government and US troops have left after doing a good job in destroying the Saddam regime and holding elections.


1st. Saddam was installed by the US
2nd Iraq still has a huge US military in Iraq and it is understood (implicitly) that if they don't play by the US rules the US will take them out again.


Drone warfare is carried out to kill those who want to kill you. In war, you are expected to do that.


They want to kill us because we are there, switch the scenario, see how you'd react.


What right wing group sprouting all over the place? Nonsense.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978081320
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-14/politics/extremism.report_1_extremist-groups-radicalization-and-recruitment-southern-poverty-law-center?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/02/84680/right-wing-extremist-244/

[Jimmie Higgins]

The police are beating protestors who are violent and breaking the law.According to Mubarak?

"Violent and breaking the law" is mostly propaganda and if you are shooting tear gas into the face of vets and Kettering 400 people while marching in Oakland, they are not the ones being violent, the police are.


Iraq is not occupied. They have an elected government and US troops have left after doing a good job in destroying the Saddam regime and holding elections.:rolleyes: So if China overthrew the white house, spent almost a decade having troops patrol US neighborhoods, but then wrote a new constitution and then allowed people to vote for a new President, trined a new military and police force, then pulled their troops to the Mexico and Canadian border while retaining the "right" to intervene when necessary and also flying drone planes over US towns, and then built an embassy the size of the Pentagon next the the White House... you'd say, "good job"?


Drone warfare is carried out to kill those who want to kill you. In war, you are expected to do that.So some "violence" is more justified than others? I'd agree with that, but then whose violence and to what end? Violence to control others or violence to defend or liberate yourself?


What right wing group sprouting all over the place? Nonsense.Well let's see, in the US just militia violence alone in the 1990s killed more people than notorious and stupidly cartoonish examples of left-wing violence: like an anarchist lone-wolf shooting a President at the beginning of the last century and the Weathermen Underground members blowing themselves up by accident.

Here in Oakland a guy got in a shoot-out with police while he was trying to go to San Francisco to shoot up liberal organizations. His stated reason, "Glenn Beck told me - not in so many words, but if you read between the lines you have to kill the people destroying the country".

[#FF0000]

The police are beating protestors who are violent and breaking the law.

No, they are beating anyone who happens to be in front of them, whether they were violent or not. The vast, vast majority of people have not been violent. Whether or not they've broken the law is up in the air in most cases, I suppose, but do you really believe violence is the way to deal with civil disobedience?


Iraq is not occupied. They have an elected government and US troops have left after doing a good job in destroying the Saddam regime and holding elections.I'm not sure what planet you live on where the US did a good job job in destroying the Saddam regime, and though you are right that Iraq isn't occupied anymore, it has been for about 10 years, and the entire war was started on false pretenses. But somehow this isn't violence to you.


Drone warfare is carried out to kill those who want to kill you. In war, you are expected to do that.
Is that so? (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/) Nevermind the fact that a good bulk of the deaths in all these wars -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (oh, that last one isn't officially a war, I forgot) are civilian casualties, I suppose.


What right wing group sprouting all over the place? Nonsense.
Er. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/us-surge-rightwing-extremist-groups) And then there's folks like the EDL over in England (though they're dying down a bit now), or the out-and-out fascists in some of Italy, taking power in Greece...etc. etc. etc.

But whatever.

I'm kind of disappointed honestly. Yours was an incredibly weak response.

[NGNM85]

But it goes like this. We cannot assume that there are universal morals, ..

This is a totally different, and complicated issue. However, in brief; I largely tend to disagree. I feel totally comfortable condemning murder, or child molestation. Furthermore; I think there are perfectly sound, empirical arguments that a society that tolerates murder, and child molestation will always, absolutely be a less ideal society for human beings, overall.


and that non aggressionis part of it.

Again; the only rational, ethical approach is to use violence as a means of last resort. Anyone who suggests otherwise, is a psychopath, or an idiot. (Or both, as I said, before, these criteria aren’t mutually exclusive.)


We don't oppose the ruling class because of anything other than that we choose a set of ethics directly opposed to them. To us they are bad. To themselves we are.

You have a bad habit of putting words in other peoples’ mouths.

There’s no such thing as ‘class-based ethics.’ That’s total bullshit. Moreover; I see no evidence that the conflict between the elites, and the working class is philosophical in nature. The elites want to preserve and protect the status quo, first, and foremost, because they are the primary beneficiaries of maintaining the status quo.


If someone comes to rob you, andyou resist, you both are going to try to impose your will over each other; him his desire for your money, and you your desire to keep it. One of you, the victor, will express their authority.

No, most robbers, or rapists, etc., don’t subscribe to different ethical paradigms. They don’t have morals. In fact; most of them will immediately concede that what they do is ethically/morally indefensible, they just don’t care.


The dichotomy is an illusion, between libertarian and authoritarian.

No, it isn’t.


The real dichotomy is between those who are wantonly violent and oppressive, and those relaxed and open minded.

No, the dichotomy is between those who believe force is never inherently legitimate, and should be subject to a burden of proof, and those who believe force is always, inherently legitimate.

[Revolution starts with U]

1) Nobody believes authority is always inherently justified. So if that is the dichotomy than there is no dichotomy, because group B doesn't exist.

2) I feel comfortable condemning murder too. But I have no illusions that this just a choice I make, and many societies have been perfectly comfortable engaging in murder. Ethics are relative to the individual, and the best objectivity we can hope for is to get people to agree with us.

3) If someone comes to rob me, and I know beforehand it will happen, I can try to talk him out of it, or I can punch him in the throat and walk away. I can make al the excuses I want, but that was not a last resort. I could have just let him take the money.

4) You obviously don't personally know many robbers and killers. I do. They have no end to excuses for why their actions are justified. Only sociopaths reject ethics altogether. Most people aren't sociopathic.

5) If you stop someone from doing something you violate their free expression; ie, you aggressor upon them. Trying to argue otherwise is circuitous.

[NGNM85]

1) Nobody believes authority is always inherently justified. So if that is the dichotomy than there is no dichotomy, because group B doesn't exist.

Of course they do, that’s what makes them authoritarians.


2) I feel comfortable condemning murder too. But I have no illusions that this just a choice I make,

No, the arguments for murder, and the arguments against murder, are not of comparable strength. They aren’t even close.


and many societies have been perfectly comfortable engaging in murder.

Yes, and even a cursory analysis will reveal those societies were less ideal for human beings.


Ethics are relative to the individual, and the best objectivity we can hope for is to get people to agree with us.

That’s complete horseshit.


3) If someone comes to rob me, and I know beforehand it will happen, I can try to talk him out of it, or I can punch him in the throat and walk away. I can make al the excuses I want, but that was not a last resort. I could have just let him take the money.

Those are all possible responses to the given scenario. However; this doesn’t disprove, or in any way conflict with anything I said.


4) You obviously don't personally know many robbers and killers. I do. They have no end to excuses for why their actions are justified. Only sociopaths reject ethics altogether. Most people aren't sociopathic.

I’ve conducted extensive research on serial homicide. Of course, (unsurprisingly) the vast majority of serial killers are sociopaths.

Thieves, and killers often make excuses for their crimes, especially when they are on trial, or making an appeal. However, again; their crimes are not motivated by a different version of morality, but rather, the absence of it. They simply don’t care about the victims, or, at the very least, not nearly as much as they care about themselves.



5) If you stop someone from doing something you violate their free expression; ie, you aggressor upon them. Trying to argue otherwise is circuitous.

Incorrect. YNo-one has the ‘right’ to rape someone, no-one has the ‘right’ to steal from someone, etc. Preventing these individuals from doing so is not an act of aggression, it is an act of self-defense, and a justified one, at that.

[Revolution starts with U]

You assume your own consequence.

Tell me, on what foundation do you bsse these ethics on? Is it stealing to seize a factory? Does the poor man steal the steaks from the Piggly Wiggly? Is it murder fight for you country in a war of imperialism?

Ethics is nothing but a choice we make before reason ever happens. Everything after is mere justification. Is history not an example of this? Or do you think millions of people for thousands of years were sociopathic?

[Klaatu]

Wanting a peaceful Socialist Revolution does not necessarily mean that one is not willing to fight for a righteous (Socialist) revolution.

Sometimes you have to fight for your rights. :)

This is what I hope the revolution is a lot like (nonviolent but effective):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/uaw-marks-75th-t167698/index.html?t=167698

[NGNM85]

You assume your own consequence.


Tell me, on what foundation do you bsse these ethics on?

My ethics and morals are a confluence between my rational faculties, and evolutionary software.


Is it stealing to seize a factory?

Not necessarily. It depends on the context.


Does the poor man steal the steaks from the Piggly Wiggly?

Does he? I have no idea. Of course, I know what you mean to say. Again; I think circumstances are important.


Is it murder fight for you country in a war of imperialism?

It could very definitely constitute a war crime.


Ethics is nothing but a choice we make before reason ever happens. Everything after is mere justification.

In some cases, perhaps, but not all. Also; even if we’re just responding, instinctually, in accordance with our pre-loaded moral software, that doesn’t mean we’re acting irrationally. It’s very rational that we have a natural inclination to protect our children from harm, etc.


Is history not an example of this? Or do you think millions of people for thousands of years were sociopathic?

They were ignorant, etc. There’s a reason they call it; ‘progress.’

[Revolution starts with U]

Quote function not working. Delete this post please.




My ethics and morals are a confluence between my rational faculties, and evolutionary software.



Not necessarily. It depends on the context.



Does he? I have no idea. Of course, I know what you mean to say. Again; I think circumstances are important.



It could very definitely constitute a war crime.



In some cases, perhaps, but not all. Also; even if we’re just responding, instinctually, in accordance with our pre-loaded moral software, that doesn’t mean we’re acting irrationally. It’s very rational that we have a natural inclination to protect our children from harm, etc.



They were ignorant, etc. There’s a reason they call it; ‘progress.’

[Revolution starts with U]

That is the whole point; that circumstances matter... especially the customs and norms of the culture you find yourself in. You know from your own life beforehand when you are or are not going rob or transgress someone. Very rarely do we talk ourselves into or out of a decision. Minds are most often changed by others, not self.

Consider this scenario: in Idaho/Montana if you walk into a person's house while they are gone and take some food, you will be punished (if caught). In the same area 300 years ago in Nez Perce culture that was not only allowed, but if the resident complained it would be frowned upon. Two totally different responses to the same action.

Why? Because objective ethics only arise through the intersubjective agreements of individuals. Invariably those with more power have a stronger say in the rules. This objectivity creates an authoritarian position of the norm makers against norm breakers. Yes, even against rapists and murderers* people who are merely expressing their free will. We can say there is a difference because the rapists harms her victim. But then I ask, does the property holder not harm the laborer and general populace? Some would disagree.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I feel there needs to be some clarification in this thread.

A strike is an extremely violent act in a work place. It brings production to a grinding halt and places the workers and owners squarely at odds with one another. Though it may be called a non-violent act, the term is pretty misleading if non-violence is thought of as simply equating to peaceful actions.

[Franz Fanonipants]

strategic non-violence will be necessary to demonstrate moral superiority over capitalism.

strategic militancy will be necessary to defend the proletariat.

this is not a binary.

e: it is a tragedy op was banned because we could all make fun of them on the basis of them being a "pacifist" who wanted nato to blow up assad.

[robbo203]

I am wondering what people's thoughts are on this. It seems to me that being a peaceful leftist excludes from being a revleftist.

I obviously strongly disagree. But what are your thoughts?

Is revolution violent?

"I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."

Revolution means simply a fundamental change in the basis of society. It does not as such refer to the means by which such a change is effected. It is sloppy thinking to characterise events such as mass protests or civil war as "revolutionary" per se. Only when these are fundamentally aimed at transforming the basis of society can they be described as revolutionary

A revolutionary transformation from capitalist to socialist society can only happen when a majority of workers want and understand what the latter entails. That has profound implications for the means by which you hope to effect such a transformation. It almost certainly rules out violence - at least as a consious strategy (which is not to deny that violent incidents may not occur in the course of revolutionary transformation).

Violence is ineffectual for the purpose. Take on the might of the state and you will end up with a bullet in the head. Far better that you have an idea in your head about the kind of society you want, than a bullet. Violence signifies the unreadiness of society for fundamental change and promotes hierachical authoritarian modes of thinking

The peaceful approach to revolution is to be much prefered - not out of any kind of wishy washy liberal sentiment but for solid down-to-earth pragmatic reasons. Quite simply, it is the only realistic way in which we are ever going to overthow capitalism and usher in a decent alternative. The ends and the means can never be separated in practice: the ends determine the means.

A democratic free society (socialism) can only ever be brought about by means that are themselves democratic and free

[Anon4chan1235]

revolution does not have to be bloody, violent? well that depends on your definition of violent. if forming a human wall with trashcan lids as sheilds and forcing your way into an area you want to occupy, is violent to you, then yes it will be violent.