Does Marxism attract violent people?

[Questionable]

This is sort of a spin-off of my thread from the "Learning" forum about the liberal debate I was engaged in, but I feel like it's significant enough to warrant its own thread of discussion.

During that debate, I was explaining how I viewed violence as a neutral tool that can and should be used by the working class in its war against the ruling class. This viewpoint earned me a lot of accusations about being a sociopath who didn't care about people. Normally I would brush these claims off, but one person in particular was saying he was happy that I was expressing violent ideals, because it exposed Marxists for what they are; violent people with a violent philosophy.

I know he was probably just trying to stir me up, but for some reason, this comment stung me. Could it be true? Many leftists, from Marxists-Leninists to Anarchists, have expressed violent urges towards capitalist society. I'm guilty of this as well; I've always felt a certain fire build up inside me when reading about how the proletariat should use all authority available to insure their class dominance. At times it's like a sort of revenge fantasy. But are these feelings based on a genuine care for the wellbeing of the proletariat, or are we just what liberals characterize us to be; violent people looking for an excuse to be violent? But if we've been oppressed for so long, maybe we should be justified for having violent thoughts towards our oppressors? Or is there a moral line that must be drawn somewhere?

It's an interesting thought, and I'd like to see what people here think.

[Blake's Baby]

I think you can't blow up a social relationship.

people who want to be violent generally find a much more creative outlet in far-right politics, rampant sports-team hooliganism, joining the army or police force etc.

Have you ever spent any time with marxists? Can you really imagine them starting a punch up?

'Violent' to the kind that you'll argue with in in OI means 'you don't want me to oppress you, you must be a violent sociopath'.

[Ostrinski]

I was under the impression that most Marxists are pretty nerdy lol (me included)

[Drosophila]

As long as their lust for violence doesn't take precedence over their Marxism then I don't see the problem.

[La Peur Rouge]

Might as well have just politely asked slave-owners to free their slaves amirite?

No sane person wants violence, we're just not stupid enough to not use whatever tools we can use to end oppression.

[Deicide]

I was under the impression that most Marxists are pretty nerdy lol (me included)

Speak for yourself, I'm a battle hardened warrior of the Conan type.

[#FF0000]

nah i don't think so.

[Kronsteen]

Marxism attracts many kinds of people.

The violent, who want to fight the police.
Outsiders, who want a support group.
People into one issue, who find the local marxists into the same issue among others.
The disaffected religious, who want something to believe in but don't want a god.
The philosophical, who want to debate dialectics.
Sectarians, who want to be part of a small, tight group with clearly defined enemies.

And even a few who've read Marx, agreed with him and followed through with the next logical step.

I'm at least three of the above.

[Ele'ill]

endless vengeance

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

No, Marxism, as-well with any revolutionary leftist ideology attracts socially aware individuals who aren't afraid to commit violent acts for their liberation.

[Ocean Seal]

I was under the impression that most Marxists are pretty nerdy lol (me included)
Yep, with this I agree. Anyone who is interested in the tomes of Marxism is probably a nerd tbh. But yeah, I think that there is some truth to the idea of violence and revolutionary political activity. You can't convince just anyone to throw molotovs into a building. Revolutionaries for the most part would partake in such an activity if they believed it to be useful. Are we violent, moreso than other political tendencies, no, I wouldn't think so. I would feel terrible for months if I ran over a squirrel.

[Deicide]

Trotsky was a nerd, but he also a man of action, he led the red army, etc. A lot of the revolutionaries could be considered to be 'nerds'.

[kashkin]

Maybe the Sparts. I kid, I disagree. I'm not a very violent person, the point of violence in a revolution is not just because people get a kick out of seeing stuff blow up (though I guess many do), but because the state will fight back.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I think you can't blow up a social relationship. Who says

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

No, Marxism, as-well with any revolutionary leftist ideology attracts socially aware individuals who aren't afraid to commit violent acts for their liberation.

I´m afraid neither of those applies to all marxists.

[Blake's Baby]

Who says

Who says you can't, or who says I think you can't?

In answer to the first, well, I do.

In answer to the second, I do too.

What are you going to do, bomb me until I agree with you?

[Manic Impressive]

WHO ARE YOU CALLING VIOL5NT? FFFFUUUU I'LL KILL YOU ALL!!!!


Seriously though some people get angry and say stupid things sometimes and some people on here are overly enthusiastic about violence, due to a disconnect with the reality of actually killing someone. Sociopathy is an interesting point, the way I understand it is knowing that something is morally wrong yet doing it anyway without any concern for the consequences. Whereas Psychopathy is not recognizing morality at all so having no concept of doing anything wrong. That's probably a very crude explanation, but if it's even a little correct then a whole lot of it rests upon the question of morality or right and wrong. So ask yourself what morality is?

Also on the nerdy thing, I think some of the most nerdy people can also be some of the most brutal when they're not actually doing the deed themselves.

[Rooster]

Trotsky was a nerd, but he also a man of action, he led the red army, etc. A lot of the revolutionaries could be considered to be 'nerds'.

Engels also manned the barricades with a revolver in his hand but I think that's different. I don't think those two set out to be violent for violence sake.

[#FF0000]

No, Marxism, as-well with any revolutionary leftist ideology attracts socially aware individuals who aren't afraid to commit violent acts for their liberation.

No.

[Per Levy]

Speak for yourself, I'm a battle hardened warrior of the Conan type.

just knowing who conan is makes you a nerd, you get extra nerd points if you also know who wrote the original conan storys.


Does Marxism attract violent people?

i doubt that the idea of reading books like capital would atrect people who have a violent fetish. beyond that every human being is somewhat violent, and marxists arnt different in that.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

just knowing who conan is makes you a nerd, you get extra nerd points if you also know who wrote the original conan storys.


I think his name was Robert Howard?

[Rooster]

I think his name was Robert Howard?

I have the big collection. It contains such classic lines such as :

"Conan ejaculated 'Crum!'"

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I have the big collection. It contains such classic lines such as :

"Conan ejaculated 'Crum!'"

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Per Levy]

I think his name was Robert Howard?

indeed "extra nerd points gained", he was a good friend of h.p. lovecraft and commited suicide. never read his conan story though, not that much into fantasy and i dont have money to buy the books anyway. but read some of his cthulhu mythos story, they're allright.

[#FF0000]

just knowing who conan is makes you a nerd, you get extra nerd points if you also know who wrote the original conan storys.

Uhhhh Robert E. Howard who was such close friends with HP Lovecraft that some of the early Conan stories could be considered part of the Cthulhu mythos.

Duh

EDIT: oh beaten. badly

[Brosa Luxemburg]

cthulu mythos story was JUST allright. I have seen some people glorify it WWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much.

[tachosomoza]

Violence is a tool, but not the only one, the most extreme, but certainly not the most effective. Applied correctly, it can work wonders, applied incorrectly, it can get you killed or locked up.

[Kronsteen]

cthulu mythos story was JUST allright

Surely anything about Cthulu is...indescribable.

(Sorry.)

[o well this is ok I guess]

What are you going to do, bomb me until I agree with you? Well, that's one way I could go about doing such.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I can be a pretty violent person, but I've been trying to keep that in check. I've always been a violent person though. So I guess it can attract violent people but what's wrong with that? What is a "violent person" in the first place though?

[tachosomoza]

I get a boner from watching torture videos and thinking about slitting bankers' throats. If you don't, you're mild in terms of violence.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I get a boner from watching torture videos and people getting their throats slit. If you don't, you're mild in terms of violence.

Glad to have you on our side :D

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Hot violence" doesn't really disturb me intellectually...by "hot violence" I mean stuff like especially violent riots, mob violence during the American and French revolution, some of the stuff that transpired on both sides of the Russian civil war, etc. If I saw it first hand I'd probably say, damn, that shit is fucked up! But I can definitely understand why it happened.

"Cold violence" like what happened in 1930's USSR to political opponents (and even before that to the anarchists) is profoundly disturbing to me, though, and sometimes it even makes me question whether humanity is simply too fucked up for something like communism to ever work. I don't think that Marxism necessarily attracts violent people, but when part of your state policy is torture and executions on a mass scale, you start attracting some pretty fucking scary people.

[tachosomoza]

I had a guy tell me I'd make a good NKVD agent once. I guess every successful revolution has found good use for crazy bastards like me. Only on class enemies, though. I especially can't stand people who derive satisfaction from fucking others over, I can actually picture my hands around someone's neck who tells a homeless mother to get a job and shit like that. I consider myself a violently fanatical defender of the underdog.

[gorillafuck]

no, it actually often attracts very optimistic people with unrealistic ideas of how altruistic and good humanity is.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Turn it around on them and ask them why they support such an inherently a violent system. Capitalists are 200 times more violent than the most violent of Marxists. The just don't want to face the music.
It doesn't attract violent people anymore than it attracts nonviolent people. The person who said this obviously has no material arguments so he's stirring up emotions by portraying us as the "red menace" again.

[Left Leanings]

The violence I am most concerned with, is the violence of capital.

In it's most brutal form, direct suppression of the workers at the point they protest and defend themselves.

Then it's implied violence, always hanging over our heads. The police, with their pistols, batons and CS gas. Know your place. Do not step out of line.

Then there is the violence of unemployment, of poverty, of homelessness, of working for next to nothing, of being 'passed over' as useless.

No. I don't think Marxism attracts people who have a propensity towards violence. But those who see violence as a necessary part of class struggle and liberation.

The motto must be, in the act of insurrection, when capital uses their state machine against us: as much violence as is necessary to overthrow them; but as little violence as possible.

Me, I am not a violent person. But I have been subjected both to threats of violence, and actual violence.

[pax et aequalitas]

I have been a pacifist for a while and while not anymore I'm probably still the most peaceful guy among my friends. Violence is a valid tactic and most people know I think so, but in daily life, I would much rather avoid violence. Peace & love ya know.

[Zealot]

Maybe. I'm not usually violent but I agree with Fidel Castro, who may not be the best Marxist, when he said:

"When I was asked about my beliefs, what I had answered then I answered in all honesty that I was not lucky enough to have such good pastors…We do not believe in that heaven. We want to go to a heaven where there is justice, where there is human dignity, we want to go to a heaven where there is brotherhood. And in that heaven, I believe, and for that heaven, I'm willing to give up my life."

Every real Marxist should be willing to give up his life in the struggle for Socialism when that time comes. However, violence is the exception, not the rule.

[Ostrinski]

I dunno ppl like Orlov are kinda scary

[Ostrinski]

Every real Marxist should be willing to give up his life in the struggle for Socialism when that time comes. However, violence is the exception, not the rule.Isn't that a slippery slope into lifestylism?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

"A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains-let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality!" . . . "A means can be justified only by its end; The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." -Trotsky

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, people are ruled by words, by language, what I mean is that people are ruled by the twisting of the real meaning of words. By saying this, what I am trying to convey is that in the USA lots and lots of words are twisted in order to control americans, to prevent americans from being rebellious people which is a natural action, because even babies are rebels, rebel when they are hunger.

And I think that this extreme anti-fighting preaching coming from teachers, churches, the media in USA is what makes americans so passive. But at the same time USA is a very contradictory society because on the one hand there are pro-gun laws approved by the US government, the NRA backed by laws and backed by the US government promotes violence and guns, the US Government is violent, the US media promotes and foments violent movies, violent films. And there are lots of pro-violence videos and computer games in America.

But like I said on the other hand, the US educational system, churches and moral codes of USA stimulate an excess of pacifism.

But having said all this, of course Marxism and leftist ideology atracts violent people, because violent, aggressive and pro-fighting is not evil, it is good. Even Jesus Christ got violent against the markerters in the temple.

Nietzsche said that The paradise lies under the shadows of the swords, and that the free man, the free spirit is a warrior, he claimed that life itself is a war, and that we should always be in a permanent state of war.

So don't believe in your teachers that tell you that should be an 100% pacifist, and reject all forms of fighting. That is really a pretext to destroy the natural warrior and conquerer instincts of humans. The natural passions and emotions of anger, violence and vengeance. Vengeance that passion labeled by Homer as sweeter than honey

You know in USA lots of natural passions and emotions that humans have like anger, envy, vengeance and even sexual lust are very repressed and oppressed. When I said that the US system uses words to control people. The US justice system for examples loves labels as a form of social control and manipulation of the behaviour of people.

For example, humans are natural social-animals and need human contact on a regular basis. So in USA people that tend to be too friendly and tend to be open with strangers are labeled as "stalkers". And people who love flirt with girls as a natural lust reaction are labeled as "sex predators"

So the "violence" is just a word and label. Just like "terrorist" that the US fascist rulers use to manipulate and shape the behaviour of americans into passive conformist drones.

But again anger, violence, rage, envy of the wealth of the rich, and vengeance agaisnt the rich oppressors are very necessary. And fighting skills, self-defense skills are good. Because the paradise lies under the shadows of the swords !!


.



This is sort of a spin-off of my thread from the "Learning" forum about the liberal debate I was engaged in, but I feel like it's significant enough to warrant its own thread of discussion.

During that debate, I was explaining how I viewed violence as a neutral tool that can and should be used by the working class in its war against the ruling class. This viewpoint earned me a lot of accusations about being a sociopath who didn't care about people. Normally I would brush these claims off, but one person in particular was saying he was happy that I was expressing violent ideals, because it exposed Marxists for what they are; violent people with a violent philosophy.

I know he was probably just trying to stir me up, but for some reason, this comment stung me. Could it be true? Many leftists, from Marxists-Leninists to Anarchists, have expressed violent urges towards capitalist society. I'm guilty of this as well; I've always felt a certain fire build up inside me when reading about how the proletariat should use all authority available to insure their class dominance. At times it's like a sort of revenge fantasy. But are these feelings based on a genuine care for the wellbeing of the proletariat, or are we just what liberals characterize us to be; violent people looking for an excuse to be violent? But if we've been oppressed for so long, maybe we should be justified for having violent thoughts towards our oppressors? Or is there a moral line that must be drawn somewhere?

It's an interesting thought, and I'd like to see what people here think.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

And i should add that every revolutionary should read Slavoj Zizek's Book Violence here (http://www.mediafire.com/?062fy1irxc8p75c).

[tachosomoza]

Every revolutionary should also try to train themselves in some kind of combat. The wannabe Nazis do it, I'm sick of us being portrayed as a bunch of naive ivory tower wimps.

[BE_]

I had a long post all setup but revleft decide to mess up on me.

I am against the indiscriminate killing of humans, and I am also against terrorism. I am really not a violent person at all.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Most Nazis in the USA seem to be overweight.

[TrotskistMarx]

However at the same time, we should also foment peace and love. And we should also love people who vote for capitalist parties (Republican party voters, Democratic Party voters), and we should be like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Trotsky, and be mountains of love, forgiveness, tolerance, compassion and friendliness. Because you all know how nazis and republican right-wingers are, i mean so pro-violence. We should always avoid fights with others as opposed to nazis and right-wingers.

The real war that we should fight is a war to destroy our own old selves, and a war against ignorance, against hatred, against immorality and against oppression. So being a real leftist is not easy, because we should be friendly, loving. And the real enemy is really ignorance. If we could destroy ignorance, lack of book-reading habits, if we could elevate the levels of literacy in this world, it would be a lot easier to spread the ideology of socialism. In fact we wouldn't even help people to become socialists, if most people of this world were well-read, because they would naturally automatically become leftists and progressive voluntarily. So I think that the manin enemy of the whole left in this world is the present egocentric paradigm and ignorance. When the egocentric-paradigm and ignorance is destroyed, we will evolve into the altruism-paradigm and a more advanced world of super-humans


.

[tachosomoza]

Most Nazis in the USA seem to be overweight.

White power guys are some of the most formidable MMA fighters in the country. Don't forget the Nazi boneheads, either.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You wouldn't know that based on the NSM's performance in New Jersey.

I know that there are some young buck Nazis in eastern Europe and elsewhere who are pretty tough, but honestly neo-Nazis in the USA seem to be cut from mostly the same cloth...fat dudes who eventually get arrested for meth possession, child abuse or hate crimes.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Isn't that a slippery slope into lifestylism?
Is it? Shouldn't every Marxist be willing to lay their lives down for the liberation of our class?

[tachosomoza]

The NSM isn't representative of the NeoNazi subculture, they're a bunch of clowns who are looked down upon by other fash. Yeah, they got their ass kicked in Pemberton last year and everywhere else they show up, but they are in no way representative of that extremely hateful and violent subculture. They're punching bags fir the local minority community and antifa. Many of these people (fascists) have been getting in fights with locks in socks in jail, street brawling, and training with weapons while we have been reading books about revolutionary violence. In a pitched battle with these ex cons, criminals and street fighters, we'd get creamed. Like I said, we need to get practical, because they are. While you've got your head up your ass over minutiae of something some dead dictator or author said 50 or 100 years ago, a fucking Neo Nazi or other reactionary is test firing his new pistol as visions of a race war dance in his head.

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, I am not an Einstein, a Marx and a scientist. However from the articles I read about the transition toward an anarchist-communist whole world. I think that there would need to be a biological psychological evolution of humans into a less barbaric behaviour pattern, into humans so mentally strong, that negative passions like greed, hatred, anti-social behaviours, depression, pessimism, abulia, lazyness etc. will be erased from the minds and bodies of humans. So I think it's the other way around.

What I mean is that Marxism attracts real loving, peaceful and great cool people. Here is a good link about a more advanced humanity with the help of transhumanism science http://www.hedweb.com

I think that humans will be more mentally and physically advanced in a world communist system, because since there won't be money. And where if you need food or a car, you just would grab it from the food providers and car providers. So I think that the evolution of the behaviour of people into very very altruists, and very honests people will be an important requirement for a communist-anarchist money-less, class-less, state-less world system to work !!!





This is sort of a spin-off of my thread from the "Learning" forum about the liberal debate I was engaged in, but I feel like it's significant enough to warrant its own thread of discussion.

During that debate, I was explaining how I viewed violence as a neutral tool that can and should be used by the working class in its war against the ruling class. This viewpoint earned me a lot of accusations about being a sociopath who didn't care about people. Normally I would brush these claims off, but one person in particular was saying he was happy that I was expressing violent ideals, because it exposed Marxists for what they are; violent people with a violent philosophy.

I know he was probably just trying to stir me up, but for some reason, this comment stung me. Could it be true? Many leftists, from Marxists-Leninists to Anarchists, have expressed violent urges towards capitalist society. I'm guilty of this as well; I've always felt a certain fire build up inside me when reading about how the proletariat should use all authority available to insure their class dominance. At times it's like a sort of revenge fantasy. But are these feelings based on a genuine care for the wellbeing of the proletariat, or are we just what liberals characterize us to be; violent people looking for an excuse to be violent? But if we've been oppressed for so long, maybe we should be justified for having violent thoughts towards our oppressors? Or is there a moral line that must be drawn somewhere?

It's an interesting thought, and I'd like to see what people here think.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The NSM isn't representative of the NeoNazi subculture, they're a bunch of clowns who are looked down upon by other fash. Yeah, they got their ass kicked in Pemberton last year and everywhere else they show up, but they are in no way representative of that extremely hateful and violent subculture. They're punching bags fir the local minority community and antifa. Many of these people (fascists) have been getting in fights with locks in socks in jail, street brawling, and training with weapons while we have been reading books about revolutionary violence. In a pitched battle with these ex cons, criminals and street fighters, we'd get creamed. Like I said, we need to get practical, because they are.

Dudes in prison aren't really representative of neo-nazis generally, though...a group like the Aryan Brotherhood has essentially no street presence, for example. It's a gang in jail that's all white and fetishizes neo nazi symbolism because of it, but that's because prison is organized around what color you are, not because they believe fascism/nazism is some kind of powerful intellectual force. Those dudes are criminals first, "nazis" second. Groups like the Nazi Low Riders even have latino members.

I honestly don't see much of a point in knowing how to fight really well in today's day and age, except for maybe certain situations. In fact most of the time the antifa people who are all like, oh man, we gotta get jacked so we can pound these boneheads! really kind of turn the left into a ghetto of specialized violence. If you're somewhere in which it's really dangerous to be an antifascist, then yes, maybe you should learn how to use a weapon effectively. For me, though...there is absolutely no reason for me to learn how to fight Nazis.

[tachosomoza]

Yeah, they're racist criminals, and racist criminals like to beat the fuck out of what they see as pussy leftist kids, because they know that you wont do shit. Latinos that have lighter skin are seen as white by many.


Dudes in prison aren't really representative of neo-nazis generally, though...a group like the Aryan Brotherhood has essentially no street presence, for example. It's a gang in jail that's all white and fetishizes neo nazi symbolism because of it, but that's because prison is organized around what color you are, not because they believe fascism/nazism is some kind of powerful intellectual force. Those dudes are criminals first, "nazis" second. Groups like the Nazi Low Riders even have latino members.

I honestly don't see much of a point in knowing how to fight really well in today's day and age, except for maybe certain situations. In fact most of the time the antifa people who are all like, oh man, we gotta get jacked so we can pound these boneheads! really kind of turn the left into a ghetto of specialized violence. If you're somewhere in which it's really dangerous to be an antifascist, then yes, maybe you should learn how to use a weapon effectively. For me, though...there is absolutely no reason for me to learn how to fight Nazis.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that ranks pretty low on their list of priorities, though. Probably somewhere far below "gotta sell this crystal", for example.

[tachosomoza]

Stereotyping is dangerous, comrade.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't think we need to learn to fight because of Neo-Nazis, but because we live in a violent society where knowing how to fight can save your ass. It's not just Nazis that try to fight people.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Stereotyping is dangerous, comrade.

Comrade, you just stereotyped all American nazis as a bunch of badass dudes who read Louis Beam and gargle barbed wire in Chino! Don't talk to me about stereotyping broski! ;)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think we need to learn to fight because of Neo-Nazis, but because we live in a violent society where knowing how to fight can save your ass. It's not just Nazis that try to fight people.

I think you just have to get a large enough group of people together with a lot of various things that shoot, then fire in the general direction of your enemies.

Maybe being skilled in clubbing people over the face was useful in another era, but in this era of highly mechanized and technical violence I don't see how it's useful in taking power. Assuming that's what we're talking about. For life's smaller problems clubbing people over the face is indeed useful.

[Ocean Seal]

Engels also manned the barricades with a revolver in his hand but I think that's different. I don't think those two set out to be violent for violence sake.
I don't know much about this, where did Engels get to man the barricades?

[Railyon]

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler. Says it all. Socialists are fucking loons.

[Grenzer]

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler. Says it all. Socialists are fucking loons.

And Obama. You can't forget Obama.

[Left Leanings]

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler. Says it all. Socialists are fucking loons.


And Obama. You can't forget Obama.

May as well throw Tony Blair in there too. He once described himself as a socialist. And he kept a straight face when he did it. As for violence, well, he conspired in the invention of reasons to bomb Iraq. Pretty much a violent guy.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think you just have to get a large enough group of people together with a lot of various things that shoot, then fire in the general direction of your enemies.

Maybe being skilled in clubbing people over the face was useful in another era, but in this era of highly mechanized and technical violence I don't see how it's useful in taking power. Assuming that's what we're talking about. For life's smaller problems clubbing people over the face is indeed useful.
Yeah I was talking about everyday life kind of stuff. Like when you're at a party and some asshole won't get out of your face or you're at a club and some dude won't leave a girl you went with alone even after she said she didn't want to dance with him. You know, those kind of events.

[#FF0000]

Every real Marxist should be willing to give up his life in the struggle for Socialism when that time comes.

Yeah, and you think you're one of those people?

You really do?

[gorillafuck]

I guarantee that at least 95% of the Aryan Brotherhood don't actually care about setting up a nazi government. they're "nazis" in the sense that nazism is tough and brutal. they're a drug dealing, inmate prostituting, gun selling white prison gang. not a group of dedicated fascists.

[Rooster]

I don't know much about this, where did Engels get to man the barricades?

It was a part of the 1848-49 revolutions. From wiki:


However, during the June 1849 Prussian coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) the newspaper was suppressed. After the coup, Marx lost his Prussian citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship), was deported, and fled to Paris and then London. Engels stayed in Prussia and took part in an armed uprising in South Germany as an aide-de-camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide-de-camp) in the volunteer corps of August Willich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Willich).[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#cite_note-46)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#cite_note-47)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#cite_note-48) Engels also brought two cases of rifle cartridges with him when he went to join the uprising in Elberfeld on May 10. 1849.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#cite_note-49) Later when Prussian troops came to Kaiserlautern to suppress an uprising there, Engels joined a group of volunteers under the command of August Willich, who were going to fight the Prussian troops.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#cite_note-50) When the uprising was crushed, Engels was one of the last members of Willich's volunteers to escape by crossing the Swiss border. Marx and others became concerned for Engels life until they finally heard from him.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#cite_note-51) Engels traveled through Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) as a refugee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee) and eventually made it to safety in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels

[Franz Fanonipants]

i've lost my fair share of fights

[La Guaneña]

Well, I do have a faily big boner for violence, when I was younger i maybe was involved in some sport hooliganism, always loved martial arts and watching riot porn on youtube.

But I also was always that compulsive kid who needed information all of the time, nearly eating one book after the other and was sort of a nerd.

So someday I crosses black bloc, antifa and stuff and decided I was an anarchist, but the kind that likes to throw shit at the police and paint walls.

Now I am partly over it, take it out on sports and stuff, but I feel that in a revolutionary situation I would still enjoy stirring up shit.

[La Guaneña]

But here in my country most of the leftists are stereotyped as pacifist hippie pot smoking lazy ass history grad students, and they actually are a relevant part of the left here.

[Railyon]

pacifist hippie pot smoking lazy ass history grad students

I actually know someone like that... :mellow:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That's pretty silly.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Speak for yourself, I'm a battle hardened warrior of the Conan type.
Not I! When I was younger, some people egged my house. Since I thought it was a burglar, I hid under my bed until the police came. I was 17...

The only weapon I've ever carried was rhetoric!

[black magick hustla]

Yeah, they're racist criminals, and racist criminals like to beat the fuck out of what they see as pussy leftist kids, because they know that you wont do shit. Latinos that have lighter skin are seen as white by many.

i've never met one of these people in my entire life so doing other shit is much of a priority than roleplaying 1920s germany

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What the hell is violence?
Maybe this has already come up, since I only skimmed the thread, but it seems like it would be a crucial question. I mean, sure, Marxists are disproportionately in a positions of carrying out violence in a subjective sense, but arguably a tennis-playing liberal is conplicit in much more disturbing systemic and systematic violence. Yup.

[gorillafuck]

What the hell is violence?
Maybe this has already come up, since I only skimmed the thread, but it seems like it would be a crucial question. I mean, sure, Marxists are disproportionately in a positions of carrying out violence in a subjective sense, but arguably a tennis-playing liberal is conplicit in much more disturbing systemic and systematic violence. Yup.tennis players in general are known to be the most violent people on earth, dwarfing the violence of joseph kony.

[dodger]

This is sort of a spin-off of my thread from the "Learning" forum about the liberal debate I was engaged in, but I feel like it's significant enough to warrant its own thread of discussion.

During that debate, I was explaining how I viewed violence as a neutral tool that can and should be used by the working class in its war against the ruling class. This viewpoint earned me a lot of accusations about being a sociopath who didn't care about people. Normally I would brush these claims off, but one person in particular was saying he was happy that I was expressing violent ideals, because it exposed Marxists for what they are; violent people with a violent philosophy.

I know he was probably just trying to stir me up, but for some reason, this comment stung me. Could it be true? Many leftists, from Marxists-Leninists to Anarchists, have expressed violent urges towards capitalist society. I'm guilty of this as well; I've always felt a certain fire build up inside me when reading about how the proletariat should use all authority available to insure their class dominance. At times it's like a sort of revenge fantasy. But are these feelings based on a genuine care for the wellbeing of the proletariat, or are we just what liberals characterize us to be; violent people looking for an excuse to be violent? But if we've been oppressed for so long, maybe we should be justified for having violent thoughts towards our oppressors? Or is there a moral line that must be drawn somewhere?

It's an interesting thought, and I'd like to see what people here think.

Do nice people ever win civil wars?

[Left Leanings]

Yeah, they're racist criminals, and racist criminals like to beat the fuck out of what they see as pussy leftist kids, because they know that you wont do shit. Latinos that have lighter skin are seen as white by many.


i've never met one of these people in my entire life so doing other shit is much of a priority than roleplaying 1920s germany

Then you've been lucky.

It depends on the situation in your own locality. It doesn't happy very often, and the problem shouldn't be overstated. Nor should it be totally disregarded either.

[u.s.red]

During the Vietnam War (the Vietnamese call it the American War) a lot of communists, Marxists, Maoists, and other socialist types got really mad when the French and Americans murdered several million Vietnamese. These socialists got really violent. They even resorted to shooting American soldiers and shooting down American planes.

You have to remember, Marxists are not Christians, they do not believe in turning the other cheek.

[black magick hustla]

Then you've been lucky.

It depends on the situation in your own locality. It doesn't happy very often, and the problem shouldn't be overstated. Nor should it be totally disregarded either.

maybe but it just annoys me to no end when some dumb antifa goes about how leftists are pussy bookish kids while neonazis are criminals with big muscles. there is something really gross and macho about it and they don't really grasp the irrelevancy. unless you are a fucking mafia enforcer,cop,soldier, wrestler or a bouncer who gives a fuck how tough you are

[tachosomoza]

Oh well, everyone ain't built to fight. Who wants to form a Revolutionary Militia to protect these poor bookish comrades?
:lol:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Oh well, everyone ain't built to fight. Who wants to form a Revolutionary Militia to protect these poor bookish comrades?
:lol:
Sadly I'm not built to fight anymore :crying:. You know when people say "if you don't use it, you lose it"? Yeah, that totally counts for muscles. This thread makes me want to get off my ass and lift weights or do some pushups.

[u.s.red]

Sadly I'm not built to fight anymore :crying:. You know when people say "if you don't use it, you lose it"? Yeah, that totally counts for muscles. This thread makes me want to get off my ass and lift weights or do some pushups.

trotsky was a bookish type who rebuilt the red army from scratch and defeated the rambo western armies who attacked the soviet union in 1918.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

trotsky was a bookish type who rebuilt the red army from scratch and defeated the rambo western armies who attacked the soviet union in 1918.
But could he defeat somebody in a drunken brawl at a bar? He let himself get ice-picked, maybe if he knew how to fight things wouldn't have ended in such a manner.

[Pretty Flaco]

yeah, let's see a book save you from an icepick, nerds!

[black magick hustla]

Oh well, everyone ain't built to fight. Who wants to form a Revolutionary Militia to protect these poor bookish comrades?
:lol:

a .45 can do the trick

[Loony]

I think people who are violent and aggressive by nature will find any reason to be violent to justify their urges.

A political affiliation gives them the cover to do so "legitimately". I also think there can be a tendency to develop a pack mentality where people who are not naturally violent will spur each other and become aggressive.

[Tim Finnegan]

yeah, let's see a book save you from an icepick, nerds!
http://ecstaticfreshness.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/robert-the-book-gun-4.jpg

[Per Levy]

But could he defeat somebody in a drunken brawl at a bar? He let himself get ice-picked, maybe if he knew how to fight things wouldn't have ended in such a manner.

if i remember right, trotzki was attacked from behind not knowing of the attack, so no matter how many muscles he would have had he wouldnt survive an attack like this anyway. besides trotzki did get up and wrestled down his attacker until his bodyguards came, with a hole in his head so yeah seems like he could have stand his ground in a brawl, at least for a while.


yeah, let's see a book save you from an icepick, nerds!

well capital could save you from an icepick attack, its pretty thick, sure the book would be ruined afterwards but whatever.

[ridethejetski]

I think it did when it was very popular (such as the 1970s), and socialist and Marxian movements rather large with real potential, as it was conceivable that these people would be able to engage in violence. Now such people are more likely to be attracted to other political movements that engage in violence, as Left Wing terrorism is mostly gone now, and in most countries prospects of a violent proletarian revolution are slim.

[Animarossa]

ok i'll make an easy copy of Malatesta here:

It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers. (Umanità Nova, number 125, September 6, 1921)

Violence should be legitimate only if could bring a better perspective for everyone, EVERYONE!

To me marxism "only" bring consciousness to one, and that's the theory part...direct action is another history.

[Raúl Duke]

This reminds me strongly of something Mark Twain said:


If we really think about it, there were two Reigns of Terror; in one people were murdered in hot and passionate violence; in the other they died because people were heartless and did not care. One Reign of Terror lasted a few months; the other had lasted for a thousand years; one killed a thousand people, the other killed a hundred million people. However, we only feel horror at the French Revolution's Reign of Terror. But how bad is a quick execution, if you compare it to the slow misery of living and dying with hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery is big enough to contain all the bodies from that short Reign of Terror, but the whole country of France isn't big enough to hold the bodies from the other terror. We are taught to think of that short Terror as a truly dreadful thing that should never have happened: but none of us are taught to recognise the other terror as the real terror and to feel pity for those people.Poverty, which arises form the inequality of classes, is a form of violence; in one degree or another.
The capitalist state uses violence to maintain this inequality, it protects property rights by force.
When we fight, it is not us who threw the "first stone;" we fight in self-defense to rid ourselves from the class position that capitalism has thrown us to by ridding class altogether.

But perhaps this is too abstract for them.

[fabian]

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sLcDFFgJp6I/T4PD1cgpsSI/AAAAAAAAHmQ/-rvFAy713X8/s800/hunger-games-psa-4.jpg

[Raúl Duke]

To be honest, I personally was never motivated by violence or even class spite when I started getting into the left.

I was more interested in an "efficient" "equitable" society.

By the time I was 22 or 21, class spite began to motivate me more as I faced constant unemployment, precariousness, debts, the likelihood that my college degree ain't worth shit in these recent decades, and discontentment.

I say that what I say may be abstract, but in a way it isn't to people who are unemployed or underemployed, to people who are facing deprivation/starvation/homelessness abroad and even in the first world, to victims of state repression/violence, victims of wars.

What makes it even more infuriating is that these days we face an elite class, a financial elite class, that is intensely smug, (and politicians) contemptuous of regular people, who tell us "go get a job" (how, if you guys outsourced it, eliminated it, etc?), that we should die if we can't pay for health care, etc.

To be honest, I don't care if we're labeled as violent. So what? If anything, we're a symptom, an anti-thesis, to an already inherently violent, unequal, unjust society ruled by violently selfish/greedy people.

[Robespierres Neck]

yeah, let's see a book save you from an icepick, nerds!

If it's a relatively thick book, an ice-pick won't pierce through it.

:blushing:

[tachosomoza]

I'm black. I was born into a system and country that sought to either destroy me from the beginning or maintain my status as a permanent whipping boy, class inmate, suspect or underclassman. So yeah, damn right I'm fucking pissed off. If that gets me labeled as violent, I don't give a damn.