Executions

[The Cheshire Cat]

Do you think they are inevitable in and during the aftermath of a revolution, or should they be avoided at all costs? Under executions you could also include things like working camps, but it is not necissarily.

[Sir Comradical]

Only to the extent that it's necessary to deprive the reactionaries of their economic, political, and military power.

[Q]

See this topic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/japanese-government-resumes-t169622/index.html).

[sithsaber]

So it's okay to kill reactionaries but not okay to have a death penalty for murderers?

[Caj]

Some executions will probably occur whether we want them to or not. Working camps will be unecessary. As long as the DotP prevents the forces of reaction from re-establishing capitalism and thus ensures the successful transition to socialism, additional force will be unecessary. The former-bourgeoisie and other counter-revolutionaries can either decide to integrate into the new society, or go starve.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The defeated counterrevolutionaries and capitalists should be liquidated. We don't want them, we don't need them.

[Q]

The defeated counterrevolutionaries and capitalists should be liquidated. We don't want them, we don't need them.

Making communists look good again, are we?

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Revolutionary courts" and "revolutionary justice" are reactionary (http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot-blog/rioting-revolutionary.html)


The Maoists argued in favor of setting up a "people's court" to pass judgement on the police whereas Foucault took the contrary position and insisted instead on uncoordinated, unconstrained brutal "popular justice."

Foucault theorized that any attempt to create a judicial system, even a judicial system purportedly run by the people, would simply replicate the power structure that we intended to oppose. Nor did he shy away from taking this argument to its logical conclusion. Foucault went as far as embracing historic examples of disturbing mob behavior, explicitly recalling, and implicitly endorsing, the rash of extrajudicial executions carried out during the French Revolution's September Massacres of 1792 when over a thousand people were murdered by revolutionaries. This, for Foucault, was what "popular justice" looks like and even the "moral ideology" that finds these illegal outbursts repellant "must be submitted to the scrutiny of the most rigorous criticism." The Maoists, on the other hand, insisted that the people's fury ought to be channeled into appropriate (albeit revolutionary) party structures.

uhhhhhh-nurkkkkkyyyy!

[Tim Cornelis]

The defeated counterrevolutionaries and capitalists should be liquidated. We don't want them, we don't need them.

Concerning the liquidation of counter-revolutionaries:

Humane treatment of enemy forces is essential. If you treat captives humanely, the counter-revolutionaries (often apolitical soldiers) will be more likely to surrender as opposed to fight to the death knowing that they will either be executed by the rebels or die in a fire fight.

To quite Kwame Nkrumah:


The question of prisoners, particularly during the initial stages of revolutionary warfare poses a number of prob-lems. A small unit of guerrillas, sometimes without even a base camp, cannot spare time, energy or supplies in looking after them. It is sometimes necessary to abandon them after seizing their weapons and supplies. In general, they should be treated as humanely as possible. If the enemy retains the hope that he can save his life by sur-rendering, his will to fight will be considerably reduced. On the other hand, if the enemy is unaware of the moderate and humane treatment given by guerrillas to prisoners, he will fight with greater fury, in the belief that there is no escape.
When the revolutionary forces have liberated a consider-able area, and have safe base camps, prisoners can be taken, and made to do useful work.

From Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare, pp. 113-114

Concerning the liquidation of capitalists:

When the Zimbabwean government disposed of the European farmers and put farms under control of African capitalists, production fell dramatically. The African workers and capitalists were inexperienced. South Africa is buying land from European farmers and selling them to coloured minorities and Africans. Again, these farms are not profitable because the capitalists and workers were inexperienced

So the government rehired the former capitalists as advisers:

Uhmx6pxDhuM

The result, the farms became profitable again.

While profits will obviously be abolished many workers around the world are still uneducated and inexperienced. The knowledge of former capitalists may be indispensable in training and assisting the workers. It would be unwise to just destroy all that knowledge at the hand of a gun.

Both the execution of capitalists and counter-revolutionaries are impractical from the our own perspective, it is in our self-interest to treat enemies humanely. (leaving ethics/empathy aside, which is also a reason to me, but not something that would be very persuasive as empathy is "subjective").

[ВАЛТЕР]

Humane treatment of enemy forces is essential. If you treat captives humanely, the counter-revolutionaries (often apolitical soldiers) will be more likely to surrender as opposed to fight to the death as they will die anyway.



I know this. I have studied military tactics and understand that when given the option of surrender or death the enemy will choose death in battle over death in surrender.

I am talking not about the individual foot soldiers, but rather their commanding officers, and political elite.

[piet11111]

Only for the most dangerous people that can not be rehabilitated like Anders Breivik.

Some fuck like Paul Ryan (discussed in another thread) a clear cut class enemy is not someone i would consider dangerous (as in picking up arms against us) after a revolution so he should be rehabilitated.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Only to the extent that it's necessary to deprive the reactionaries of their economic, political, and military power.

Same thing goes for the powerful bourgeoisie, members of the former power structure, outspoken reactionaries who try to unite the reactionary bourgeoisie against the new proletariat state (powerful ones, like Rush Limbaugh), and people who have committed crimes against the working class before the revolution. And to the the OP, I believe that penal labor institutions are a good way to make prisoners tools for helping socialist development. If they are proven, with room for little doubt, through due process and with the use of socialist legality, to be criminals, they should be made to work so that their incarceration would not be without profit for the proletariat and the advancement of socialism. Their incarceration must have a use for the greater society.

[Positivist]

I think I might kill Paul Ryan whether or not he could be rehabilitated. Now I don't mean this but it was my first reaction and if I kicked down a door and saw him I'd probably shoot him. How would we classify these kind of executions and would we punish the executers?

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think I might kill Paul Ryan whether or not he could be rehabilitated. Now I don't mean this but it was my first reaction and if I kicked down a door and saw him I'd probably shoot him. How would we classify these kind of executions and would we punish the executers?

Everyone gets one "get out of executing a random reactionary free" card.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Ummmmmm, I think the penal labor camp question confused me. I think that, no matter what, prisoners should work, whether in a labor camp or not.

I would say it is ok to send dangerous reactionaries to labor camps. . . in Alaska for us Americans. They are a threat to socialist construction and the power of the proletariat. If they could, and they have before, they would send us to labor camps. As a very wise comrade said before me, we don't need them and neither do we want them. We should not be weak in the face of reactionaries. Capitalist restoration is a very scary reality.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The fact is if we let them get away they will jump at the chance to bring counterrevolution and spread dissent in the people. Much like the families of Ustasha and Chetniks which escaped the Partisans in Yugoslavia, later sent money and arms to their respective nationalities when the civil war broke out. They supported the nationalists and even returned to fight on the front lines with them. This is an example of what happens when you let them get away thinking they wont be back.

[Ostrinski]

This question implies that there will be some kind of external control above the working class in its entirety, to make sure they don't do this. This however will not be the case, and I'm sure there will be many whether any one of us likes it or not.

[The Jay]

Once the bourgeois elements have their capital removed, both political and economic, they cease to be bourgeoisie since they no longer own the means of production. They would also cease to be a threat if they can't pay mercenaries (read police/military) to enforce their preferred relations. I would only monitor their behavior and take away their voting rights. I don't remember the quote but it's not Capitalists' fault that they are since most are born into the system that makes them so. That said, we are talking after the revolution in which there may be bloodshed (mostly reactionary vs revolutionary proles probably).

Ps: Of course the dangerous ones that would attempt insurrections would be imprisoned, I was addressing the run-of-the-mill business owner.

[Grenzer]

Only the material conditions at the time will determine whether executions will be needed in a revolution and the time afterwards. None of us are really in a position to say what the conditions will be at that time, but I am fairly certain that it's probably going to entail some violence. As Marxists and/or revolutionaries, we should not shirk aware from this when the conditions demand it; but also be aware of the dangers of arbitrary and excessive use of it. It's absolutely critical to ensure that morals don't play a part in our decision making in this regards. That's my take on it.

[The Jay]

It's absolutely critical to ensure that morals don't play a part in our decision making in this regards.

I do not understand why you're saying that. Morality is why I chose Marxism in the beginning. Social relations may be seen as a math-like system but isn't the point of a revolution to bring those relations more into line with morality? If morality is not involved then you may not call the bourgeois system injust. History would just be an unfurling of social relations, which it is but there's also more. Can a revolution in consciousness, caused by words or socio-economic conditions, not be called a revolution in morality? I understand that dialectical materialism is the science of human relations but is ethical philosophy not how we see where we should push towards?

[sithsaber]

I think I might kill Paul Ryan whether or not he could be rehabilitated. Now I don't mean this but it was my first reaction and if I kicked down a door and saw him I'd probably shoot him. How would we classify these kind of executions and would we punish the executers?

The FBI will be at your door in 3..2..1...

[Rafiq]

Of course they will be of necessity. Not out of revenge, but as a part of something larger. During the French revolution, the bourgeoisie lead by Robesspiere didn't execute many for "justice", they did so to secure the revolution.

Dzerzhinsky didn't conduct executions because of a personal vendetta, he did so because the revolution is in danger.

Should the revolution require executions or mass terror upon the reaction, why are we to supess her hunger in the name of bourgeois moralism and Liberalism?

[Grenzer]

I do not understand why you're saying that. Morality is why I chose Marxism in the beginning. Social relations may be seen as a math-like system but isn't the point of a revolution to bring those relations more into line with morality? If morality is not involved then you may not call the bourgeois system injust. History would just be an unfurling of social relations, which it is but there's also more. Can a revolution in consciousness, caused by words or socio-economic conditions, not be called a revolution in morality? I understand that dialectical materialism is the science of human relations but is ethical philosophy not how we see where we should push towards?

Well moral systems are determined by the material conditions. The dominant form of morality today is that which has been determined by the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, to best insure the execution of their interests. The main purpose of revolution is to bring the material interests of the proletariat to its logical conclusion.. that's all it really is. One might make a new system of morality based around the interests of the proletariat, and then you could say that socialist revolution would be moral, but as Marxists we have the capability to realize that moral systems are in fact arbitrary impositions in a universe where the material conditions are constantly changing. This is not a carte blanche to do anything you want, but it is the realization that traditional, static systems of morality are not helpful.

I am not a dialectician and I don't think there is anything scientific about dialectical materialism. It might have some practical applications, but it really is only a philosophical way of looking at the world in my opinion. In any case, I think a materialist dialectician wouldn't find too much to disagree with on my statement regarding morality.

[Rafiq]

This question implies that there will be some kind of external control above the working class in its entirety, to make sure they don't do this. This however will not be the case, and I'm sure there will be many whether any one of us likes it or not.

Indeed, I completely concur.

Executions would be in the hands of the proletariat.

[The Jay]

I agree that morality is shaped partly from material conditions but I don't think that is the whole picture. To say that it is wholly is to ignore any sort of out of the box or hypothetical thinking. How else do you explain the very existence of Engels's socialistic beliefs when that sort of society would be entirely against his class-interests. It can't be said that the material conditions were close enough to the revolution to account for his forward-thinking since he's been long dead and the revolution has not yet come. I could come up with several more hypothetical examples but I hope that this is enough for you to see my point. In conclusion, there is more to what the human mind thinks of, due to empathy I claim, than what the effects of material conditions point towards.

[Ostrinski]

If you are into Marxism for moral reasons, I suggest you either take another look at Marxism or adopt a liberal egalitarian approach (of course, liberal egalitarians had their share of executions in France as well).

[The Jay]

If you are into Marxism for moral reasons, I suggest you either take another look at Marxism or adopt a liberal egalitarian approach (of course, liberal egalitarians had their share of executions in France as well).

I will not take your suggestion because that is not the view of the world that I think is the most logical and moral. If you have some real criticism of what I said, state it. Don't just dismiss my argument under the rug by basically calling me a liberal.

[sithsaber]

If you are into Marxism for moral reasons, I suggest you either take another look at Marxism or adopt a liberal egalitarian approach (of course, liberal egalitarians had their share of executions in France as well).

Shouldn't we be into marxism for both the logical dialectic and it's morality? If morality means nothing i should just be a parasite and reap the benefits of the current system. I can and choose not to. Che was a revolutionary because he thought what he did was right, not because he viewed the revolutionary as an innevitability that would benefit him if he helped initiate it

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Do you think they are inevitable in and during the aftermath of a revolution, or should they be avoided at all costs? Under executions you could also include things like working camps, but it is not necissarily.

Largely I believe the death penalty or any kind of execution acted upon by the state or revolutionary force should be avoided, but if it comes down to suppressing a powerful potentially dangerous counter revolution than yes. The Revolutionaries, or Socialist state wouldn't be able to win the populace over by mass executions, just look at what happened to minorites and other nationalites within the German Third Reich. While the population would be temporaily controlled by fear, that fear will eventually in anger and dissent which will eventually result in counter revolution. A Socialist, or Communist revolution should always work with the people, and act in the service of the people.

[Ostrinski]

I will not take your suggestion because that is not the view of the world that I think is the most logical and moral. If you have some real criticism of what I said, state it. Don't just dismiss my argument under the rug by basically calling me a liberal.Only liberal in your subscription to a liberal mode of thinking, i.e. idealism, the language of the Enlightenment.


I do not understand why you're saying that. Morality is why I chose Marxism in the beginning. Social relations may be seen as a math-like system but isn't the point of a revolution to bring those relations more into line with morality? If morality is not involved then you may not call the bourgeois system injust. History would just be an unfurling of social relations, which it is but there's also more. Can a revolution in consciousness, caused by words or socio-economic conditions, not be called a revolution in morality? I understand that dialectical materialism is the science of human relations but is ethical philosophy not how we see where we should push towards?The point of revolution is the toppling of outdated systems and the implementation of new ones (by outdated we mean systems that lack the ability to address their own contradictions). That is the material basis for revolution, but of course, since morality is a reflection of material interest, every revolution and revolutionary period spawn new moral understandings and new modes of thinking (which include methods of understanding morality, such as Ethics, a bourgeois method of moral analysis).

Of course we say bourgeois society is unjust, but that is because we are communists and either are proletarians ourselves or have at least adopted an ideology that reflects the interests of the proletariat. You think the bourgeoisie would call bourgeois society unjust? No, bourgeois society is very just - for the bourgeoisie. Just as a socialist society is equally as just - but only for the (future non existent) proletariat. Socialism seems barbaric to the bourgeoisie because it is antithetical to their class interest. Is it because they're just evil people? Fuck no.

History is essentially just an unfurling of social relations.

[Ostrinski]

Shouldn't we be into marxism for both the logical dialectic and it's morality? If morality means nothing i should just be a parasite and reap the benefits of the current system. I can and choose not to. Che was a revolutionary because he thought what he did was right, not because he viewed the revolutionary as an innevitability that would benefit him if he helped initiate itWe should be into Marxism because of its validity as a science. If it's validity as a science can be repudiated, then it is worthless. I never said morality was nothing. In fact it is very much something. But it isn't some transcendent thing that crosses class lines. You could, in essence, be a parasite reap what you can from bourgeois society, and still hold a Marxian analysis. We might see you as an asshole, but you can still be a consistent Marxist.

While some might consider him admirable, Che was a bourgeois idealist. I would very much hope we are not all communists because we seek to emulate Che or Goldman or Robert Jordan or any other archetypal idealist.

[The Jay]

I agree with what you said almost entirely. I was only saying that material conditions do not determine 100% of a person's moral structure and therefore how they act and what they push for socially. This is what I meant, not that a majority would act out of their class interest or against the direction that the material conditions point towards. I was talking about the outliers because that's where the discussion is. I hope that I've cleared myself up a bit.

[DaringMehring]

This polemic of Julius Martov pretty much says it all: http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/1918/07/death-penalty.htm

Martov is right. There is no need to kill an unarmed, captured, defeated person. Down with the death penalty.

[Positivist]

I agree with Grenzer for the most part but I also agree with Liquidstate on the issue of morality. Moral incentives should not have an overarching influence on practical decisions but their guidance should certainly be present.

[The Jay]

This is a really good discussion and though this isn't entirely relevant I'd like to thank everyone involved. I believe that I'll make a thread on a theory of the mind involving material conditions, desire, and empathy in the near future.

[The Young Pioneer]

Death is too good for some of those capitalist bastards.

Why don't we resurrect that Fave Torture Methods thread and pool our ideas? :w00t:

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The defeated counterrevolutionaries and capitalists should be liquidated. We don't want them, we don't need them.

"No Quieremos! No Necessitamos!"

[Left Leanings]

I think in the act of insurrection against the capitalist state, the principle should always be: as little violence as possible, but as much as is necessary.

After this, the former ruling class and their supporters, should be given the opportunity to assimilate into the new society. They should be given the same privileges and entitlements as everybody else, on the proviso that they work with and for the new way of doing things, and not against it.

If they will not do this, and seek to agitate for a counter-revolution, then they should be placed under house arrest, or else imprisoned in a penal setting in humane conditions, until such a time as they no longer pose a realistic threat, or else choose to contribute constructively.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Executions imply state-sanctioned murder, or extra-judicial murder.

I'm sure the revolution won't be a dinner party, but when you are the mass of the working class - the people -, you have a certain legitimacy in defending your class interests, with force if necessary.

However, once you've come to power, if you genuinely have that much support, there's no way that you can legitimately be seen to execute prisoners, enemies etc. It really points to paranoia and a need to cling to power; if you have the genuine, active, conscious support of tens of millions of workers (in the UK let us say), then no amount of nukes or stock options will bring down the revolution.

[Agathor]

I haven't heard a proper defence of the post-revolutionary state slaughter of the former establishment. You get a lot of juvenile sadism from people who think that calling for the state to murder defenceless men is a sign of strength rather than stupidity and depravity, and vague platitudes about defending the revolution, crushing reaction etc. You get no direct real world examples of how a counter-revolutionary is more dangerous in prison than dead.

The vast majority of "counter-revolutionary suppression" has been an alibi for the destruction of the political rivals of the new ruling class.

[X5N]

As radical as I am, I don't think someone deserves to die because they're a capitalist or a counterrevolutionary. And capital punishment, in my view, has no place in a revolutionary society. It does have the word capital in it, after all. :D


I haven't heard a proper defence of the post-revolutionary state slaughter of the former establishment. You get a lot of juvenile sadism from people who think that calling for the state to murder defenceless men is a sign of strength rather than stupidity and depravity, and vague platitudes about defending the revolution, crushing reaction etc. You get no direct real world examples of how a counter-revolutionary is more dangerous in prison than dead.

The vast majority of "counter-revolutionary suppression" has been an alibi for the destruction of the political rivals of the new ruling class.

This, a thousand times this.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

I know this. I have studied military tactics and understand that when given the option of surrender or death the enemy will choose death in battle over death in surrender.

I am talking not about the individual foot soldiers, but rather their commanding officers, and political elite.

So you mean the bourgeoise. Not capitalists in general.

[manic expression]

I haven't heard a proper defence of the post-revolutionary state slaughter of the former establishment. You get a lot of juvenile sadism from people who think that calling for the state to murder defenceless men is a sign of strength rather than stupidity and depravity, and vague platitudes about defending the revolution, crushing reaction etc. You get no direct real world examples of how a counter-revolutionary is more dangerous in prison than dead.

The vast majority of "counter-revolutionary suppression" has been an alibi for the destruction of the political rivals of the new ruling class.
Of course there's no need for "state slaughter", though the term itself implies lack of necessity.

However, one simply has to read a few leaves in the book of history to figure out that politics is the cauldron into which is poured all of humanity's treachery, wickedness, duplicity and mercilessness. First, what this means is that in the course of any revolution, the ruling class will resort to very terrifying things in their bid to keep power, and that those who are responsible for this must be held accountable. Second, this also means that it is naive to the point of self-injury to believe that a new order can be established through good-heartedness and forgiveness: turning the other cheek never was a viable policy. Third, while you (and I) may take exception to the misuse of the measure it does not render the measure itself wrong.

Those who commit heinous crimes need to face the consequences of their actions. That cannot be ignored. Remember, it is the basest criminality, not this or that belief, that arguably warrants such a response.

[The Jay]

Those who commit heinous crimes need to face the consequences of their actions. That cannot be ignored. Remember, it is the basest criminality, not this or that belief, that arguably warrants such a response.

I don't think that anyone is implying that those responsible for atrocities or leading counter-revolutionary forces should go free, unpunished. I believe that what is being said is that regular bourgeoisie should not be exterminated. Most do not have the power to resist revolutionary change when it happens and would not put up much resistance after a revolution. They should be left to join the (disappearing) proletariat.

[manic expression]

I don't think that anyone is implying that those responsible for atrocities or leading counter-revolutionary forces should go free, unpunished. I believe that what is being said is that regular bourgeoisie should not be exterminated. Most do not have the power to resist revolutionary change when it happens and would not put up much resistance after a revolution. They should be left to join the (disappearing) proletariat.
Apologies if I was off the mark, but it seemed as though the poster I was responding to was opposed to any and all application of capital punishment. I don't disagree with the point you're making.

[The Jay]

Apologies if I was off the mark, but it seemed as though the poster I was responding to was opposed to any and all application of capital punishment. I don't disagree with the point you're making.

He may be against capital punishment, but not punishment as a whole. Would you mind if the leader of the counter-revolution, if there was one, was imprisoned in a tower somewhere for the rest of his/her life? It would be almost identical to being executed without having infighting among ourselves.