The use of violence.

[eric922]

I accept Marxism, his critiques of capitalism are being proven every day and I believe that the working class should control the means of production.

My biggest problem with some segments of the left, at least as I've seen from some posters on this forum, there seems to be a segment of leftists that support violence for violence sake. This doesn't include all or even the majority of posters on these forums, but there does seem to be a segment of posters who the above criticism applies to. I believe that if a counter-revolution breaks out it should be fought as hard as necessary and if the bourgeois refuse to give up their property, they will have to be dealt with.

However, I see no purpose in doing something as extreme as killing members of the bourgeois who have given up their property and are willing to submit to the new worker's state and become workers themselves.


Like I said, this doesn't apply to even the majority of posters here, and maybe I'm completely misjudging segments of the community. I guess I just wanted to see if anyone else shared my feelings on violence and authoritarianism and its uses in revolution.

[Franz Fanonipants]

pragmatic deployment of resistance is key.

militancy will be needed to protect the proletariat from the inherent violence of capitalism, but there are places where peacful demonstration and discourse will drill into the enemy's conscience. both will be necessary and both cannot be discarded out of hand.

e: otoh i really don't want to shoot anyone so there's also that

[Ostrinski]

Violence will only be necessary insofar as there is a precedent for it. Popular violence/terror is constructive, but I wouldn't apply my advocacy for violence to actions executed outside of and contradictory to proletarian interests (preservation of class power).

No one on here comes to mind in terms of people with a psychopathic bloodlust. Though, in the past there have been some (Azula, etc.).

[Lanky Wanker]

However, I see no purpose in doing something as extreme as killing members of the bourgeois who have given up their property and are willing to submit to the new worker's state and become workers themselves.


From this comes the big question: are they likely to give up their property and submit? Will you tell the police officer who's just arrested you for cocaine possession, "I'm going to do it again, please throw me in the slammer and lock me away"? Of course you won't. That said, killing them isn't necessarily the only immediate option.

[Deicide]

I believe in violence! I believe in blood! I believe in BLOODY REVOLUTION!!! - 12 year old kid over the internet.

:laugh:

[dodger]

I believe in violence! I believe in blood! I believe in BLOODY REVOLUTION!!! - 12 year old kid over the internet.

:laugh:

The above minus laughterecon......+52years after getting my January GAS BILL.

[RedAtheist]

I personally believe that violence should only be used when no other opinion would work (e.g. someone is invading your country, somebody is trying to violently bring down a democratic workers' state, etc.) Keep in mind that the ruling class is more than willing to use violence to maintain its domination or to come back into power. If they use violence, they make a violent response necessary. They cannot complain that socialism is a violent ideology. In that situation we would be no more 'violent' than a woman who defended herself from being raped. Socialism (at the least the kind advocate by Marx and people like him, rather than the utopians) is simply a realistic ideolody.

That said we should not randomly use violence out of a desire for revenge. It should always be based on the situation and furthering the revolution.

[Bostana]

The Bourgeoisie uses violence. They use it all the time. The difference? They have the Police and national guard on their side. So we must fight fire with fire. It is the only way to defeat Capitalism.

Here Lenin quotes on this it gives a good example of why a revolution:


" In the second case, this assertion is incomplete and inaccurate, for not only the right on nations to self-determination but all the fundamental demands of political democracy 'possible of achievement' under imperialism, only in an in-complete, in a mutilated form and as a rare exception (for example, the secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905). The demand for immediate liberation of the colonies, as advanced by all revolutionary Social-Democrats, is also 'impossible of achievement' under Capitalism without a series of Revolutions.-to refrain would merely be the advantage of the Bourgeoisie"

[dodger]

The Bourgeoisie uses violence. They use it all the time. The difference? They have the Police and national guard on their side. So we must fight fire with fire. It is the only way to defeat Capitalism.

Here Lenin quotes on this it gives a good example of why a revolution:

They also fight clever......so must we Bostana.

[Lolumad273]

If we do a good enough job, we can minimize violence. The Bourgeoisie are few in number, how could they possibly damage the millions of working class against them? The police and military are working class men and women, who have been tricked into defending the system that damages them. As a class, we need not to recognize their authority, and it will disappear. With the soldiers on our side, the police on our side, who's to commit violence against us?

[Lanky Wanker]

With the soldiers on our side, the police on our side, who's to commit violence against us?

Police... that might spark some controversy. Even with the police and military on our side, I doubt it will be every single last one of them. Nazis and other fuckers like that shouldn't be a huge problem, but they'll make up a percentage of the opposition.

[Lolumad273]

If there is a small percentage remaining against us, I doubt they'll be able to make an impact against the revolution. Persistent violent offenders could be jailed. But I don't think violence will win hearts and minds...

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I accept Marxism, his critiques of capitalism are being proven every day and I believe that the working class should control the means of production.

My biggest problem with some segments of the left, at least as I've seen from some posters on this forum, there seems to be a segment of leftists that support violence for violence sake. This doesn't include all or even the majority of posters on these forums, but there does seem to be a segment of posters who the above criticism applies to. I believe that if a counter-revolution breaks out it should be fought as hard as necessary and if the bourgeois refuse to give up their property, they will have to be dealt with.

However, I see no purpose in doing something as extreme as killing members of the bourgeois who have given up their property and are willing to submit to the new worker's state and become workers themselves.


Like I said, this doesn't apply to even the majority of posters here, and maybe I'm completely misjudging segments of the community. I guess I just wanted to see if anyone else shared my feelings on violence and authoritarianism and its uses in revolution.



I agree with you. 100%

You proclaim a pragmatic position, where you see violence as a tool among many. Each tool for each purpose, completly logical without anny BS moral. Its the circumstances thats decides where to use what, actually i dont see what we can discuss here, since most people will agree with this.

[Game Girl]

I consider myself to be a Pacifist. I detest violence, Personally, I hope the use of violence will not be needed. But I am aware of it being a possibility...

EDIT: While I detest violence, there has been incidents where I have used it in the past. This is due to my previous mental health problems, which have now been resolved. :)

[daft punk]

The trick to a peaceful revolution is a very bold, clear lead by Marxists. Any pussy footing around invites agression, eg Chile 1973 or Indonesia 1965. The Bolsheviks had a revolution in a country where there was no democratic process, and 2 people died. Of course later there was a civil war but this was a backward country in the middle of WW1. 3 million Russians had already died in WW1. I think nowadays in an advanced country it would depend on whether democracy got cancelled by the capitalists.

Yes you have to win over the ranks of the army and police. But NOT their leaders!

[The Jay]

I'm still debating this topic with myself. It's why I posted what I did on the blog portion of this site. It's a big question that I'll attempt to answer on Monday.

[Ele'ill]

So, uh.. Who on this forum advocates 'violence for violence sake'?

[Drosophila]

So, uh.. Who on this forum advocates 'violence for violence sake'?

I've seen a few, but they don't post often.

[Bostana]

They also fight clever......so must we Bostana.
Lenin also says this on what the Revolutionary Army Must Have:


"An army needs the strictest discipline; nevertheless the class-conscious workers succeeded in uniting the peasants, succeeded in taking the old tsarist officers into their service, succeeded in building a victorious army.

The Red Army established unprecedentedly firm discipline-not by means of the lash, but based on the intelligence, loyalty and devotion of the workers and peasants themselves.

And so, to save the working people from the yoke of the landowners and capitalists for ever, to save them from the restoration of their power, it is necessary to build up a great Red Army of Labour. That army will be invincible if it is cemented by labour discipline."