Violence

[Avanti]

modern human beings

are supposed to be

mentally gelded

emotionally castrated

never angry

always polite

violence

is a natural expression

of the human will to live

to defy

to defy reality

because life

is defiance against reality

and therefore

we will have violence

as long as

we live under a class system

under Babylon

where 1% controls 99%

that will breed violence

but violence

is only allowed on gladiatorial

cinema theatres

action films

where representatives

of the system

beats up

representatives of chaos

between Chaos and Babylon

i choose Chaos

ctonic powers are assisting us

mystical energies from the deep underground

Babylon is all about order

patriarchy

hierarchy

we need Chaos, matriarchy, egalitarianism

if somebody is sad

hug them

if somebody needs to be beaten up

beat them up

i have used violence

very much

it is a liberating act

a sacral act

a mystical act

a heroic act

violence

is one aspect

of being a human being

and not a robot

dressed in a business suit

real human beings

cry, curse, fight and make up

robots just negotiate

and never feel any real emotions

human beings are messy

should be messy

but Babylon

has created social relations

where humans need anti-depressants

to fit in

need indoctrination

to understand the system

only the police and the army

are supposed to use violence

the moment

you become an agent

an agent for violence

and is using violence

to reach your aims

or to feel more free

you've taken a big step

towards liberation

i remember

when i hit

a nazi

on the back of his head

with an iron bar

left him

with a bleeding mouth

laying on a beach

that is politics

as an art

revolution

demands a blood sacrifice

are you ready

to use violence?

[LeftLibertarian]

... why are all your posts quasi-poetry and separated by a space? It makes it all very off putting.

That being said, violent revolution changes nothing, especially considering the revolution we aim for is necessarily lawless. All that will happen is a replacement of the control of society by the capitalists towards control by the most violent/strongest/most equipped (which of course only leads to an arms race, which is just a form of property acquirement).

For the revolution to last it must be through social progress and peaceful pressure. Workers must take control of the modes of production. That is how revolution is achieved.

[Avanti]

... why are all your posts quasi-poetry and separated by a space? It makes it all very off putting.

That being said, violent revolution changes nothing, especially considering the revolution we aim for is necessarily lawless. All that will happen is a replacement of the control of society by the capitalists towards control by the most violent/strongest/most equipped (which of course only leads to an arms race, which is just a form of property acquirement).

For the revolution to last it must be through social progress and peaceful pressure. Workers must take control of the modes of production. That is how revolution is achieved.

that's how reform

is achieved

we should

sabotage

all attempts

to conduct reforms

because reforms

will make

the people

happier with

their lot

we should

destroy the systems

the leninists

and the maoists

never destroyed the state

they inherited it

or built it

we should be destroyers

not builders

violence

is a mystical rite-of-passing

the birthing woes

of the new zeitgeist

a giant blood sacrifice

our revolution

will be a billion times

more violent

than the revolution

of lenin

[Grenzer]

our revolution

will be a billion times

more violent

than the revolution

of lenin

The avantyist paradise

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CuoSZ_GD_-A/T3MAVdWTRXI/AAAAAAAAAH4/gRkzBfIQrdo/s1600/killing-fields.jpg

[Avanti]

to create the paradise

is an act of faith

no faith

which doesn't demand

a blood sacrifice

is a real faith

and therefore

no real paradise

are you ready

to slash down

a class enemy

with a machete?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It doesn't seem unreasonable to use violence in the defence of workers or their interests.

But by the same token we should not fucking revel in violence. Chaos? Blood sacrifices? Machetes?

Those aren't the word choices of someone facing up to the unpleasant possibility that they might have to use violence in the defence of themselves or others, but are instead the utterances of a swivel-eyed psychopath who's waiting for an excuse to let themselves go.

[Karabin]

It doesn't seem unreasonable to use violence in the defence of workers or their interests.

But by the same token we should not fucking revel in violence. Chaos? Blood sacrifices? Machetes?

Those aren't the word choices of someone facing up to the unpleasant possibility that they might have to use violence in the defence of themselves or others, but are instead the utterances of a swivel-eyed psychopath who's waiting for an excuse to let themselves go.

Exactly. Whether or not you believe violence is necessary in a revolution, you should not try to make the violence something that is heroic and glorious. You would only be taking us further back, to a time where killing your clan chief was the way to become leader of the tribe.

Also, why do you write like that? It isn't impressive, stylish or poetic at all. It just makes you look silly.

[Avanti]

the righteous wrath

of the oppressed masses

can only

be satisfied

by a blood sacrifice

and yes

i think

we need to go back

to move forward

for now

we are

in a dead end

of consumerism

of being gelded sheeple

led towards the slaughter

by the priest rulers

of great Babylon

we need to rediscover

our mystical

mythical

pre-rational roots

live as urban hunter-gatherers

under a ruthless neon sky

dumpster-diving

theft

struggles over abandoned factories

to squat in

illegal trading

blood rituals

meerkat-inspired customs

when this spread

because it has to

millions of people

will live in NeoTribal constellations

then

they'll swarm

the gated communities

overflowing them

blood will fleet

throughout the streets

the secret dream

of the middle class

realized

because

they dream

of the mob

entering their little world

of predictable order

and destroying them

because

deep inside

they know

their sheltered existence

is meaningless

that is why

the liberal middle class

love the concept

of the mob

of the enraged flood

of desperate human beings

who they secretly view

as subhuman

but who are

more human

than they'll ever be

i will not

build any labour camps

use soldiers for executions

i will just

open the floodgates

and let

the masses

take the power

to determine

the fate

of those

whom they hate

[Karabin]

Yes, the proletariat do need blood sacrifices. Lets sacrifice a goat to the sun gods every time we prepare for battle, and smear our bodies in cow shit for Marxist blessings.

[Avanti]

Yes, the proletariat do need blood sacrifices. Lets sacrifice a goat to the sun gods every time we prepare for battle, and smear our bodies in cow shit for Marxist blessings.

now

you are speaking

sense

i doubt

such blood sacrifices

can work today

as intended

but we'll find

replacements

the only proletariat

that can lead

a genuine

revolution

are

the

lumpen-proletariat

[Avanti]

ironic

to rail

against

the glorification

of violence

when you

have

an army avatar

[Green Girl]

It doesn't seem unreasonable to use violence in the defence of workers or their interests.

But by the same token we should not fucking revel in violence. Chaos? Blood sacrifices? Machetes?

Those aren't the word choices of someone facing up to the unpleasant possibility that they might have to use violence in the defence of themselves or others, but are instead the utterances of a swivel-eyed psychopath who's waiting for an excuse to let themselves go.

I agree violence should only be used when necessary.

Resistance to the nationalizing of businesses and other counter-revolutionary actions is where I see violence coming from. Once businesses have been nationalized by either law, or the force of the workers, most owners and money lenders will be reluctant to hand over the keys to the workers. The workers will have to take this by force. If the nationalization is by law, violence would be by the military. If directly by the workers, we will have to fight off the owners and claim our workplaces. It does not mean we should enjoy this task, it means that we persevere because any violence we perform will be for the benefit of the working class. Just my opinion. :)

[Avanti]

I agree violence should only be used when necessary.

Resistance to the nationalizing of businesses and other counter-revolutionary actions is where I see violence coming from. Once businesses have been nationalized by either law, or the force of the workers, most owners and money lenders will be reluctant to hand over the keys to the workers. The workers will have to take this by force. If the nationalization is by law, violence would be by the military. If directly by the workers, we will have to fight off the owners and claim our workplaces. It does not mean we should enjoy this task, it means that we persevere because any violence we perform will be for the benefit of the working class. Just my opinion. :)

nationalization

will give bureaucrats

all the power

the revolution

is not social

is not within the state

is not within the box

the revolution

must destroy

burn down

the box

and be a big bang

of human liberty

[Prometeo liberado]

Violence has many forms and can not be separated from from any type of systemic change. Is not birth, at it's simplest, a form of violence? The application and interpretation is the more vital question.

[Buttress]

I propose a vote to confiscate Avanti's Enter key.

And no, I am not ready to use violence until violence would have any positive effect at all (which right now, it doesn't).

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

The avantyist paradise

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CuoSZ_GD_-A/T3MAVdWTRXI/AAAAAAAAAH4/gRkzBfIQrdo/s1600/killing-fields.jpg

False, this is the Avanyist paradise.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556392_397698750247765_228532440_n.jpg

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Avantiist paradise would be French Revoltion style of breaking down the Bastille but instead breaking down Babylon.

[Avanti]

the revolution

must come

before paradise

[LeftLibertarian]

I still think it is somewhat defeatist to assume violence is necessary. Death of any person should not be the goal of anyone whose end goal is egalitarianism. The hallmark of violence in revolution forever stains said revolution. Take one look at Commonwealth versus American views of violence. The US was born out of violent revolutionary war, gun toting is now a major social issue that seems unsolvable and war is a national past-time. Australia, born out of diplomacy on the other hand is far less obsessed with guns and war (not to say we are in any way innocent, we are not).

Peaceful revolution is the only to achieve lasting communism.

Also, FFS, someone force Avanti to speak properly.

[Pelarys]

"Mass sacrifices for the great Lenin! Let the blood of our enemies be spread on this imperfect world! The faithful shall banish the heretics from the heart! Marx Vult! "

Seriously this is what you sound like to me avanti, while I agree that revolution is one of the most likely mean to create a better society, glorifying violence with the help of mysticism is closer to what the Church did than what we should aspire to do.

[Avanti]

I still think it is somewhat defeatist to assume violence is necessary. Death of any person should not be the goal of anyone whose end goal is egalitarianism. The hallmark of violence in revolution forever stains said revolution. Take one look at Commonwealth versus American views of violence. The US was born out of violent revolutionary war, gun toting is now a major social issue that seems unsolvable and war is a national past-time. Australia, born out of diplomacy on the other hand is far less obsessed with guns and war (not to say we are in any way innocent, we are not).

Peaceful revolution is the only to achieve lasting communism.

Also, FFS, someone force Avanti to speak properly.

it is more healthy

to be gun-toting

than to assume

daddy policeman

will solve all issues

full human beings

must be expected

to be violent

otherwise

they are just

sheeple

[Fourth Internationalist]

Please stop writing so weirdly, it's annoying to read! :)

[Avanti]

apparently

weirdness

is a success recipe

i've been on this site

for little

over one week

now i define it

[LeftLibertarian]

it is more healthy

to be gun-toting

than to assume

daddy policeman

will solve all issues

full human beings

must be expected

to be violent

otherwise

they are just

sheeple
Paranoia by definition is not healthy.

Education, Social pressure and Progressivism is the only way to change the mind of the masses. Only once that is done is revolution possible. And by that point, democratic socialism will already have taken effect. Violence should not be needed.

[Avanti]

Paranoia by definition is not healthy.

Education, Social pressure and Progressivism is the only way to change the mind of the masses. Only once that is done is revolution possible. And by that point, democratic socialism will already have taken effect. Violence should not be needed.

you are not

radical

you are

liberal

[Thirsty Crow]

That being said, violent revolution changes nothing, especially considering the revolution we aim for is necessarily lawless...
For the revolution to last it must be through social progress and peaceful pressure. Workers must take control of the modes of production. That is how revolution is achieved.
Taking control of the means of production necessitates, as its precondition, a breakdown of the structures of bourgeois power. Social progress and peaceful pressure are not viable in this sense I'm afraid, especially if we agree on the premise that bourgeois rule is based on the monopoly of (the threat of) violence (or in other words - that the ruling class will not surrender its power over society peacefully).

So, you're wrong in stating that violent revolution doesn't changeanything as it eliminates the primary obstacle for a revolutionary transformation of society.



Education, Social pressure and Progressivism is the only way to change the mind of the masses. Only once that is done is revolution possible. And by that point, democratic socialism will already have taken effect.
You're basically saying here that democratic socialism amounts to changing people's mind.

That is clearly absurd since it empties the term out of any political and economic content. Why would it matter if people's opinions are changed when the economic structure is left intact, without any kind of change?

[LeftLibertarian]

Taking control of the means of production necessitates, as its precondition, a breakdown of the structures of bourgeois power. Social progress and peaceful pressure are not viable in this sense I'm afraid, especially if we agree on the premise that bourgeois rule is based on the monopoly of (the threat of) violence (or in other words - that the ruling class will not surrender its power over society peacefully).

So, you're wrong in stating that violent revolution doesn't changeanything as it eliminates the primary obstacle for a revolutionary transformation of society.


You're basically saying here that democratic socialism amounts to changing people's mind.

That is clearly absurd since it empties the term out of any political and economic content. Why would it matter if people's opinions are changed when the economic structure is left intact, without any kind of change?

I do not agree that democracy is fundamentally bourgeois, I believe that it is *currently* bourgeois controlled. If we can take over the political system (democratically), violence is not needed. Call me idealistic if you like, but i believe if the Left pulled their fingers out and seriously started advocating for political change rather than sitting around waiting for a revolution that will never come without at least some participation in the political process.

I should rephrase. Violent revolution does create change, however it is not sustainable change. It creates a new source of power, it leads to accumulation of arms, which may as well be capital, ergo, capitalism.

Changing minds comes before changing the system. There is no point forcing communism on people... Surely history has shown that. Democratic organisation of business (a la Democratic Socialism) is an important next step in social organisation, it is a shift in the economic structure even if still primarily capital-based. The power to the people the better. A continued shift towards greater democracy and egalitarianism eventually allows for the total dismantlement of the state and capitalism.

[LeftLibertarian]

you are not

radical

you are

liberal

k. I don't see too many liberals advocating anarcho-communism. I see plenty of them advocating violence though...

[Myrdin]

Violence is never to be glorified; however, should there be a time when the end goes on to justify the means we must not hesitate. I am a major proponent of peaceful revolution, but if this proves impossible we must strive to apply force to areas afflicted with counterrevolutionary sentiment. The amount of violence used must be ever proportionate and measures must be taken to prevent civilian casualties.

[Rafiq]

No revolution without (state) Terror. Any idiot can understand this.

[Let's Get Free]

No revolution without (state) Terror.

The job of revolutionaries is to tear down repressive state apparatuses, not build them up. The use of terror usually denotes the degeneration of a revolution.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Violence ought to be applied ONLY to the extent that it is absolutely necessary to achieve the Revolution and suppress any potential counter-revolution. Glorying in violence is at best a sign of the degeneration of the revolution and frankly smells of fascism.

[Ostrinski]

Capitalism is a violent system. Any violence used to overturn it is self-defense.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that the concept of self-defense ought to be our guiding precedent. As in the concept of self-defense, we ought to utilize the amount of force that is necessary to meet the threat. Self-defense is not a license to engage in gratuitous violence, rather to use an appropriate amount of violence to meet a specific threat.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I agree violence should only be used when necessary.

Resistance to the nationalizing of businesses and other counter-revolutionary actions is where I see violence coming from. Once businesses have been nationalized by either law, or the force of the workers, most owners and money lenders will be reluctant to hand over the keys to the workers. The workers will have to take this by force. If the nationalization is by law, violence would be by the military. If directly by the workers, we will have to fight off the owners and claim our workplaces. It does not mean we should enjoy this task, it means that we persevere because any violence we perform will be for the benefit of the working class. Just my opinion. :)

It's also worth noting that the bourgeois continues to exist as a repressed class under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which means that class struggle ought to countuine. Now this class struggle ought to be largely non-violent however the working class should be given the right to bear arms if they smell a Deng in there mist.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

And the freedom of criticizem and assembly as well. As the last experience tells us that the armed people are a much better deterrent to the restoration of capitalism than a strict vanguard.

[Let's Get Free]

I agree that the concept of self-defense ought to be our guiding precedent. As in the concept of self-defense, we ought to utilize the amount of force that is necessary to meet the threat. Self-defense is not a license to engage in gratuitous violence, rather to use an appropriate amount of violence to meet a specific threat.

The motto of Marx and Engels was peacefully if we can forcibly if we must. We should strive to create the correct conditions for a peaceful revolution. The only way that will be possible is with a majority of the working class in who know what socialism/communism is and want it. If the ruling class are faced with insurmountable odds then it's unlikely to launch a military war against the working class. So workers should be organized peacefully but prepared to defend themselves from any violence coming from the ruling class.

[Yuppie Grinder]

... why are all your posts quasi-poetry and separated by a space? It makes it all very off putting.

That being said, violent revolution changes nothing, especially considering the revolution we aim for is necessarily lawless. All that will happen is a replacement of the control of society by the capitalists towards control by the most violent/strongest/most equipped (which of course only leads to an arms race, which is just a form of property acquirement).

For the revolution to last it must be through social progress and peaceful pressure. Workers must take control of the modes of production. That is how revolution is achieved.

If you think worker's can seize control of the economy without violence you are incredibly naive.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, the proletariat do need blood sacrifices. Lets sacrifice a goat to the sun gods every time we prepare for battle, and smear our bodies in cow shit for Marxist blessings.

If we do not rip the heart out of a Stalinist virgin and banker (respectively), every year, the Sun will die out and capital will reign forever.

[Yuppie Grinder]

If we do not rip the heart out of Stalinist virgin and banker (respectively), every year, the Sun will die out and capital will reign forever.

ritual orgies with lots of hallucinatory drugs are also necessary

[LeftLibertarian]

If you think worker's can seize control of the economy without violence you are incredibly naive.

If you think the workers can sustain a peaceful co-operative society through violence, you are far more naive.

Violence breeds violence. It always does.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

If you think the workers can sustain a peaceful co-operative society through violence, you are far more naive.

Violence breeds violence. It always does.

Oh rly?

[Thirsty Crow]

I do not agree that democracy is fundamentally bourgeois, I believe that it is *currently* bourgeois controlled.Democracy fundamentally is what democracy does and has historically done.
And that was, among other things, the maintenance of the bourgeois order and repression.




If we can take over the political system (democratically), violence is not needed. Call me idealistic if you like, but i believe if the Left pulled their fingers out and seriously started advocating for political change rather than sitting around waiting for a revolution that will never come without at least some participation in the political process.

I would not say idealistic, but rather naive as you seem to be forgetting the whole history of bourgeois democracy in relation to revolutionary struggles.



I should rephrase. Violent revolution does create change, however it is not sustainable change. It creates a new source of power, it leads to accumulation of arms, which may as well be capital, ergo, capitalism.Sustainability depends on the international outreach of workers' revolution. This again is something you seem to be leaving out. In light of this, it's hard to see how this provess leads to an "accumulation of arms" and even harder how such an acsumulation could be likened to capital in this context.



Changing minds comes before changing the system. There is no point forcing communism on people... Surely history has shown that.

Sure there is. There are a whole lot of people who would oppose communism tooth and nail, from capitalists to bourgeois politicians and their troopers in the army and the police. Why would you think that it is even viable to consider "changing their minds"?


Democratic organisation of business (a la Democratic Socialism) is an important next step in social organisation, it is a shift in the economic structure even if still primarily capital-based. I'm not aware of the concrete proposals of democratic socialists but I'd like to point out that such a state of affairs would be precarious and very unstable (workers' self-management in capitalism), and of course subject to the same fundamental antagonisms generated by capital (as you admit as well when noticing that such a restructuring would only be a restructuring of capital).


Violence ought to be applied ONLY to the extent that it is absolutely necessary to achieve the Revolution and suppress any potential counter-revolution.Agree completely.

[Green Girl]

I do not agree that democracy is fundamentally bourgeois, I believe that it is *currently* bourgeois controlled. If we can take over the political system (democratically), violence is not needed. Call me idealistic if you like, but i believe if the Left pulled their fingers out and seriously started advocating for political change rather than sitting around waiting for a revolution that will never come without at least some participation in the political process.

I should rephrase. Violent revolution does create change, however it is not sustainable change. It creates a new source of power, it leads to accumulation of arms, which may as well be capital, ergo, capitalism.

Changing minds comes before changing the system. There is no point forcing communism on people... Surely history has shown that. Democratic organisation of business (a la Democratic Socialism) is an important next step in social organisation, it is a shift in the economic structure even if still primarily capital-based. The power to the people the better. A continued shift towards greater democracy and egalitarianism eventually allows for the total dismantlement of the state and capitalism.

The violence will come from the shift from private to public ownership, thus if communists join the military, national guard and police of their country en masse it could be a relatively peaceful transition. However if the capitalists have control of the military, national guard and police lots of blood on both sides could be spilled.

Education of the workers is very important in my opinion to insure the smoothest transition.

[Avanti]

the problem

with a lack

of glorification

in violence

is that

the far right

has violence

incorporated

into their existence

if you

have doubts

before

you pull the trigger

they'll don't have

they have militias

heroes

like

breivik

mcveigh

the waco cult

ruby ridge

a fetishisation

of guns

the libertarian left

in the united states

and the rest

of the world

has a fetishisation

for flowers

you cannot

behave

like the communist paradise

is already here

in any revolution

the far right

will control

the countryside

and ally

with the military

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you think the workers can sustain a peaceful co-operative society through violence, you are far more naive.

Violence breeds violence. It always does.

Workers will create a peacful cooperative society through reorganizing society to be cooperative, democratic, and non-exploitative. Violence will almost definately be needed to defend against people who rule the current organization of soceity.

Hell, even the capitalists are violent because they use violent means ultimately. When they are able to subdue and passify a population, they ease up to a degree - then they will turn to violence again if their order and THEIR peace (even if that peace means jim-crow for blacks or austerity and misary for workers) is challenged from below. They are violenet and always resort to violence, ultimately, not because of some "original social sin of violence" but because their "peace" and order is based on maintaining a system of exploitation and inequality and alienation that always provokes some kind of resistance to some degree.

If workers go on strike, they are not aiming for violence against their bosses or scabs or the police - but if they want to win, they need to be aware that this is a possibility and be prepared before hand - with a standing police and even national guard, the bosses are always prepared for the "plan B" of the iron boot. Historically, capitalist rulers would even favor fascism if they felt that this was the only thing standing between their order and workers running workplaces and communities themselves. Look at Germany or the Popular Front in Spain, bosses had genocidal fascists on one side and working class movements threatening to shake property relations on the other, and they consistantly picked fascism.

[Avanti]

Workers will create a peacful cooperative society through reorganizing society to be cooperative, democratic, and non-exploitative. Violence will almost definately be needed to defend against people who rule the current organization of soceity.

Hell, even the capitalists are violent because they use violent means ultimately. When they are able to subdue and passify a population, they ease up to a degree - then they will turn to violence again if their order and THEIR peace (even if that peace means jim-crow for blacks or austerity and misary for workers) is challenged from below. They are violenet and always resort to violence, ultimately, not because of some "original social sin of violence" but because their "peace" and order is based on maintaining a system of exploitation and inequality and alienation that always provokes some kind of resistance to some degree.

If workers go on strike, they are not aiming for violence against their bosses or scabs or the police - but if they want to win, they need to be aware that this is a possibility and be prepared before hand - with a standing police and even national guard, the bosses are always prepared for the "plan B" of the iron boot. Historically, capitalist rulers would even favor fascism if they felt that this was the only thing standing between their order and workers running workplaces and communities themselves. Look at Germany or the Popular Front in Spain, bosses had genocidal fascists on one side and working class movements threatening to shake property relations on the other, and they consistantly picked fascism.


it isn't enough

with defensive violence

if we would have any success

we must move

to offensive

"pre-emptive strikes"

now

i believe

revolution

will take a hundred years

and mean

the physical

disassembling

not only

of the ruling class

the priest lords of Babylon

but also

their collaborators

the middle classes

we'll swarm

one gated community

after another

until

we've suffocated them

[LeftLibertarian]

I'm see a lot of the "but the capitalists/right" are violent too. That's my whole point. We should never become what we claim to be replacing. And why is no one talking about the fact that if violent were to occur it would be worker v worker. It is not those in control of capital who will fight, but those they pay to fight for them. This is not okay, we should not punish those we claim to represent.

I can't be the only pacifist on this site... jeez.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm see a lot of the "but the capitalists/right" are violent too. That's my whole point. We should never become what we claim to be replacing. Of course we (and who's that "we", the organized political groups?) should not become capitalists (if we are to engage in class struggle as part of the working class of course) but neither do we become capitalists nor "the right" by advocating self-defense of the revolution. It is not moral characteristics which distinguish capitalists and politicians, but their social function.


And why is no one talking about the fact that if violent were to occur it would be worker v worker. It is not those in control of capital who will fight, but those they pay to fight for them. This is not okay, we should not punish those we claim to represent.So "we" should let these other "workers" decimate the class movement and impose their bosses goals upon us, no matter the price?
Well, I can't say anything esle apart from the fact that I disagree with such abstract reasoning.


I can't be the only pacifist on this site... jeez.You should ask yourself whether this is so due to the fact that your pacifism borders on both defeatism (see the quote above) and simple naivete.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm see a lot of the "but the capitalists/right" are violent too. That's my whole point. We should never become what we claim to be replacing. And why is no one talking about the fact that if violent were to occur it would be worker v worker. It is not those in control of capital who will fight, but those they pay to fight for them. This is not okay, we should not punish those we claim to represent.

I can't be the only pacifist on this site... jeez.There are people who support tactics which they believe would minimize or be the least directly confrontational, but pacifists as far as people who make a moral principle of non-violence are not likely to be revolutionaries because at some point - even at the level of a strike, defending our right to organize and promote our own power as workers will necissarily cause the bosses to try and stop that.

Yes most likely the actual counter-revolutionary forces - if a working class movement gets to the point of actually controlling part of society themselves - will most likely be petty bourgeois and working class induviduals. But as you said, they - in this situation - are directly fighting on behalf of (or actually paid-off by) the old ruling class. So while they may be individual workers, the conflict is still bosses vs. workers just as scabs are not workers finding jobs for themselves, but actually dupes or bought-off by the bosses.

Finally, "violence" is a non-thing - it's meaningless in the abstract unless the circumstances involved are explained. A person fighting an attempted rape with force, does not become a rapist. Slaves who revolt and kill their plantation masters do not turn around and enslave them (despite the racist hysteria of the Southern Elite after the Civil War).

This idea that revolutions in which violence happens then turn into oppressive regimes comes from the fact that aside from some short-term examples of worker's power, all revolutions to this point have only ended up with another class of oppressors in power who represent a ruling group in society which needs to control the majority of the population and exploit them in order to maintain that society.

Workers however, may need to use violence to defend their gains and movements during a revolution - and then after may need to repress the minority of explicitly anti-worker-power people - but it will be the majority fighting for that majority and a group who do not need to systematically exploit others in order to maintain their power. What will be needed to maintain that power is cooperation and democracy and liberation. So in this way, the violence used to "end slavery" can not be equalted with the violence use to enslave people in the first place and continually used to maintain that slavery.

[Avanti]

There are people who support tactics which they believe would minimize or be the least directly confrontational, but pacifists as far as people who make a moral principle of non-violence are not likely to be revolutionaries because at some point - even at the level of a strike, defending our right to organize and promote our own power as workers will necissarily cause the bosses to try and stop that.

Yes most likely the actual counter-revolutionary forces - if a working class movement gets to the point of actually controlling part of society themselves - will most likely be petty bourgeois and working class induviduals. But as you said, they - in this situation - are directly fighting on behalf of (or actually paid-off by) the old ruling class. So while they may be individual workers, the conflict is still bosses vs. workers just as scabs are not workers finding jobs for themselves, but actually dupes or bought-off by the bosses.

Finally, "violence" is a non-thing - it's meaningless in the abstract unless the circumstances involved are explained. A person fighting an attempted rape with force, does not become a rapist. Slaves who revolt and kill their plantation masters do not turn around and enslave them (despite the racist hysteria of the Southern Elite after the Civil War).

This idea that revolutions in which violence happens then turn into oppressive regimes comes from the fact that aside from some short-term examples of worker's power, all revolutions to this point have only ended up with another class of oppressors in power who represent a ruling group in society which needs to control the majority of the population and exploit them in order to maintain that society.

Workers however, may need to use violence to defend their gains and movements during a revolution - and then after may need to repress the minority of explicitly anti-worker-power people - but it will be the majority fighting for that majority and a group who do not need to systematically exploit others in order to maintain their power. What will be needed to maintain that power is cooperation and democracy and liberation. So in this way, the violence used to "end slavery" can not be equalted with the violence use to enslave people in the first place and continually used to maintain that slavery.

that's why

we need to

destroy

society

[GoddessCleoLover]

THIS society needs to be destroyed, not society in general.

[Strannik]

Discussion about violence is a bit misaimed. The actual question is - how and by whom are the rights produced and maintained?

Bourgeoise likes to believe that rights somehow magically exist as abstract ideas determining concrete social relationships.

The truth is no right exists without people who reproduce it daily: who set up a law, threaten with violence those who think about breaking the law and commit violence upon those who break it.

Private property is the fundamental Right of bourgeois society and most people are currently constantly reproducing it. Not just police and armies, but everyone who hungers without taking food that does not belong to them is commited to reproduction of property rights.

So the question one has to ask is not are we violent or nonviolent. The question is - how are we producing rights that determine the reality of our society. Current system of reproduction by violence monopoly allows many people to believe that rights exist by themselves; as if they were natural laws. For example, this is the thinking that allows anarcho-capitalist reasoning - why do we need the state if property rights are as absolute as natural laws? Gravity does not need to be enforced.

But if we accept that rights exist only so far as they are socially produced, we need to ask how do we intend to arrange their production so it serves social interest.

[Kindness]

Violence is a tool of the oppressor, and its only end can be oppression, death, and destruction. Nothing good can come of it. It's inherently reactionary. Every bit of progress we've made in the past century -- worker's rights, women's rights, African-American rights, LGBT rights -- came as the result of non-violent struggle.

[cyu]

pacifists as far as people who make a moral principle of non-violence are not likely to be revolutionaries because at some point - even at the level of a strike, defending our right to organize and promote our own power as workers will necissarily cause the bosses to try and stop that.

Actually I was surprised by this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

"Pacifist churches vary on whether physical force can ever be justified in self-defense or protecting others... Others would oppose organized military responses but support individual and small group self-defense against specific attacks if initiated by the dictator's forces. Pacifists may argue that military action could be justified should it subsequently advance the general cause of peace."

Damn those pacifists ;)

[bcbm]

Violence is a tool of the oppressor, and its only end can be oppression, death, and destruction.

but of whom?


Nothing good can come of it.

it ended slavery


It's inherently reactionary.

no


Every bit of progress we've made in the past century -- worker's rights, women's rights, African-American rights, LGBT rights -- came as the result of non-violent struggle.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haymarket/riotscene.jpg
http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/38/3844/JGWYF00Z/posters/suffragettes-drawing-of-women-smashing-shop-windows-in-london-march-1912.jpg
http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/wattsriots.jpg
http://www.racontrs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/stonewall-riots.jpg

[Rurkel]

Every bit of progress we've made in the past century -- worker's rights, women's rights, African-American rights, LGBT rights -- came as the result of non-violent struggle.
Even in relatively peaceful cases, the threat of potential violence always haunted the ruling class (LGBT people, being in the substantial minority may be an exception of sorts... but then, advancing LGBT equality is sort of useful for workers' movement). Discussions on violence as a tactics and the amount of violence which is necessary are fine, and I don't like the "as much violence as possible, or your a liberal pacifist capitalist roader" attitude, but absolute pacifism can never lead to any kind of progress for any movement.

[black magick hustla]

i dont really like how some people in this forums talk about violence. i think violence is just immanent in our society and it's unavoidable in disturbances that overturn institutions. it's not really a question of who is using it or not, it's just something that happens when there is large change etc

[Os Cangaceiros]

^yeah, that's kind of how I've come to see violence too, as just something that happens peripherally to larger, perhaps less visible changes in societies. It may help the process along in certain specific instances, but to say that violence did this or violence accomplished that, might be problematic.

[Kindness]

I can't be the only pacifist on this site... jeez.

Nope :). I'm a pacifist, too.


but of whom?

It doesn't matter. All human beings have infinite worth, and should not be killed or harmed in any way.


it ended slavery

No, it didn't. There were peaceful abolitionist movements in the United States for decades before the Civil War, and it was largely those movements that inspired Lincoln to pass the Emancipation Proclamation. Other nations, such as Britain and France, got rid of slavery without firing a shot.

[bcbm]

i dont really like how some people in this forums talk about violence. i think violence is just immanent in our society and it's unavoidable in disturbances that overturn institutions. it's not really a question of who is using it or not, it's just something that happens when there is large change etc

agreed


^yeah, that's kind of how I've come to see violence too, as just something that happens peripherally to larger, perhaps less visible changes in societies. It may help the process along in certain specific instances, but to say that violence did this or violence accomplished that, might be problematic.

yeah i wasn't trying to suggest violence was really the cause or determining factor, but i think it is undeniable that it has been a part of the struggles i mentioned, etc



It doesn't matter. All human beings have infinite worth, and should not be killed or harmed in any way.

youre telling it to the wrong people


No, it didn't. There were peaceful abolitionist movements in the United States for decades before the Civil War

and they got basically nowhere. abolition caught on primarily after the publication of uncle tom's cabin and there was almost always violence associated with it, ie abolitionists raiding jails to free recaptured slaves. by the time of the civil war even many of the prominent pacifist abolitionists were questioning the idea of moral suasion. most supported the war or joined up once it started.

and of course john brown

[Kindness]

and they got basically nowhere. abolition caught on primarily after the publication of uncle tom's cabin and there was almost always violence associated with it, ie abolitionists raiding jails to free recaptured slaves. by the time of the civil war even many of the prominent pacifist abolitionists were questioning the idea of moral suasion. most supported the war or joined up once it started.

The war was a reactionary one started by the South, the North joined in to preserve national unity. Ending slavery was an important part of the decision to join the war, but it wasn't the primary motivator. The moral suasion movements did, in fact, place pressure on those in power to

Also, keep in mind that the North abolished slavery without violence; so did European nations like Britain, France, Spain, etc. The Civil War was the exception, not the rule.


and of course john brown

I don't think John Brown had a big impact in the demise of slavery. His movement raised awareness and put fear into slaveowners, sure. but that could have been done without violence.

[Kindness]

The most fundamental question surrounding the violence question is do the ends justify the means? Is it worth committing evil acts in order to achieve a good outcomes? For me, the answer is unequivocally no, and that is why I oppose violence, "revolutionary" or otherwise.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

The most fundamental question surrounding the violence question is do the ends justify the means? Is it worth committing evil acts in order to achieve a good outcomes? For me, the answer is unequivocally no, and that is why I oppose violence, "revolutionary" or otherwise.

Just to clarify, and repeating what I said in another thread, violence is an unfortunate necessity. If we, communists, are to choose, we're for peaceful expropriation of the bourgeoisie. However, the bourgeoisie has never (and will never) let us do that the peaceful way.

Is it not violence to explore and condemn the proletariat to poverty? Is it not violence what the bourgeois state does? The bourgeois state is oppressive by nature, all states are, for that matter. What we advocate for is the proletarian state to suppress the bourgeoisie through democratic ways for the proletariat.

I'm sorry my friend, but your pacifism changes nothing, and never will. The terreur rouge is the self defense of the proletariat.

As for your last question, my answer is yes. I support the use of violence to crush capitalism. I support the use of violence to emancipate humanity. In this case, the ends justify the means, yes.

[Os Cangaceiros]

yeah i wasn't trying to suggest violence was really the cause or determining factor, but i think it is undeniable that it has been a part of the struggles i mentioned, etc

I think that violence can sometimes spawn movements that are more empowered than they were before...the classic example being the stonewall riots I suppose, which revitalized gay rights issues after they'd stagnated in the homophile movement for decades. Maybe the riots in the south (and elsewhere) during the civil right's movement, too. (You can question the legacy of the LGBT & civil rights movement but that's another topic...) But at the same time I hesitate to overemphasize the role violence can play in a social movement simply because the people on this website who fetishize violence often irritate me more than the pacifists do.

[Kindness]

Is it not violence to explore and condemn the proletariat to poverty? Is it not violence what the bourgeois state does?

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to their level. We're better than that.


The bourgeois state is oppressive by nature, all states are, for that matter. What we advocate for is the proletarian state to suppress the bourgeoisie through democratic ways for the proletariat.

I don't see how the "proletarian state" -- at least as it's been practiced in the 20th century (whether the USSR, Maoist China, etc. were really proletarian states is another topic of discussion) -- is any less violent than the bourgeois states that exist today. Tens of millions were killed under Stalin and Mao. Is that not oppression? Is that not evil?

If there is going to be any end to the oppression and establishment of communist society, it must come through non-violent means.


I'm sorry my friend, but your pacifism changes nothing, and never will.

Pacifism and civil disobedience changed a lot of things for India (ending British rule) and blacks in the American South. It can destroy capitalism as well.


The terreur rouge is the self defense of the proletariat.

And that "self defense" killed millions. Proletarian bullets end innocent lives just as readily as bourgeois ones. Terror is never the answer. Never.


As for your last question, my answer is yes. I support the use of violence to crush capitalism. I support the use of violence to emancipate humanity. In this case, the ends justify the means, yes.

Violence will never emancipate anything, only continue the disgusting cycle of war, killing, domination, and oppression. There has to be a higher way.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Other nations, such as Britain and France, got rid of slavery without firing a shot. Yo this is flat out wrong
like
flat out wrong
Haiti went through a god damn war to prevent the restoration of slavery by the Bonaparte administration while groups like the maroons in Jamaica were constantly burning down plantations. Furthermore, the initial abolition of slavery by France was driven by a straight up revolution as well as the suppression of the girondins via guillotine

[cyu]

If a fighter jet was flying overhead and about to bomb some village, and you had a Stinger missile, would you refuse to fire it, because the pilot's life has "infinite worth"? What if I grabbed the Stinger missile from your hands and fired at the fighter jet? Would you try to kill me to stop me from bringing down the fighter jet?

Say there are a thousand people who are starving and they want to use some farmland to grow some food. They are attacked by minions sent by the supposed land "owners" to prevent them from using the land to feed themselves. You would prefer that the poor people not fight back, get weaker, and possibly die while you try to work something out by walking in the streets with signs?

[Of course, if you wanted to try an alternative course, like cutting off water, phone lines, and electricity to the caplitalist's house, slashing the tires of his cars, and burning down his bedroom when he's not there, all in the name of avoiding taking his life, I could see myself helping you do that.]

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to their level. We're better than that.

To lower 'ourselves' to their level, we would have to live off other peoples' work, cause war, famine etc.



I don't see how the "proletarian state" -- at least as it's been practiced in the 20th century (whether the USSR, Maoist China, etc. were really proletarian states is another topic of discussion) -- is any less violent than the bourgeois states that exist today.

It's not. The difference resides on who are the oppressors and who are the oppressed.


Tens of millions were killed under Stalin and Mao. Is that not oppression? Is that not evil?

It is oppression, it is 'evil' (bad choice of words but okay). But then again, and not trying to justify anything, violence is necessary sometimes. The ruling class, on the other hand, does not care if it is evil to kill people. History has shown us that they will not hesitate on slaughtering proles if their hegemony is in danger.


If there is going to be any end to the oppression and establishment of communist society, it must come through non-violent means.

Such as?




Pacifism and civil disobedience changed a lot of things for India (ending British rule) and blacks in the American South. It can destroy capitalism as well.

How? How will the proletariat destroy capitalism without violence?




And that "self defense" killed millions. Proletarian bullets end innocent lives just as readily as bourgeois ones. Terror is never the answer. Never.

During a certain period of time (1918-21), terror saved a revolution.




Violence will never emancipate anything, only continue the disgusting cycle of war, killing, domination, and oppression. There has to be a higher way.

A couple of Mao's quotes:


To build a revolutionary army under the leadership of the Communist Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in fact to prepare the conditions for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites are at the same time complementary.


It is highly important to grasp this fact. It enables us to understand that revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society and that without them, it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power.

Mao comes to this conclusion after years and years of study and practice, as did many people before him. A revolution is the plainspoken class struggle, it's when a class conquers the political power to rule over another class. I'm being repetitive because I can't see a peaceful way.

[Kindness]

If a fighter jet was flying overhead and about to bomb some village, and you had a Stinger missile, would you refuse to fire it, because the pilot's life has "infinite worth"? What if I grabbed the Stinger missile from your hands and fired at the fighter jet? Would you try to kill me to stop me from bringing down the fighter jet?

Why is the village being bombed? Is it full of terrorists or innocent people?


Say there are a thousand people who are starving and they want to use some farmland to grow some food. They are attacked by minions sent by the supposed land "owners" to prevent them from using the land to feed themselves. You would prefer that the poor people not fight back, get weaker, and possibly die while you try to work something out by walking in the streets with signs?


Of course, if you wanted to try an alternative course, like cutting off water, phone lines, and electricity to the caplitalist's house, slashing the tires of his cars

I don't see why such actions would even be necessary. We have 1000 workers, the capitalist has 20-30 "minions." Just tell the people to refuse to leave. There are also other options, like moving the people to different land, or requesting aid from the government. If there were truly no other options, I'd support non-lethal action to get those people back on their land,like what you've said above.

[Tim Cornelis]

Kindness raises two examples I want to address.

First, the 'peaceful' end of slavery.

The end of slavery in France, Britain, and the United States rested on violence. You mention that Britain's and France's abolition thereof did no involve 'violence' and that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery was abolished by a the passing of a law or decree in all these countries. Laws and decrees rest on the enforcement by a state, that is, highly concentrated armed power. The abolition of slavery was not peaceful, rather the institutionalised violence of the state was so overwhelming the slave owners evaded confrontation for their own sake. Absence of mutual violent confrontation does not mean the absence of violence in general.

Second, non-violent resistence against British colonial rule in India.

If we look at the development of colonialism under modern imperialism we see that it was its own gravedigger. As capitalism requires expansion and is based in competition, colonial powers continually had to expand the financial investment in education and infrastructure in their colonies to stimulate their productivity and profitability. Around 1945, investments by colonial powers had become so large colonies were no longer profitable. Neither Indo-China, India, nor Indonesia were profitable to the colonial powers, France, Britain, and the Netherlands respectively. However, where France and the Netherlands believed that in the future they could make their colonies profitable again and thus violently resisted independence movements, Britain did not believe so and relatively peacefully allowed India its independence. This was the reason behind the 'non-violent decolonisation' of India, not non-violence as principle.

[Kindness]

To lower 'ourselves' to their level, we would have to live off other peoples' work, cause war, famine etc.

Didn't the so-called "communist" regimes of the 20th century (Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, etc.) do just that?


It's not. The difference resides on who are the oppressors and who are the oppressed.

I don't care who the oppressor and the oppressed are. We need to end oppression. It's anti-human and disgusting, and it gets us nowhere as a species. I fight for the freedom of all: the working class, the bourgeois, the aristocracy, the peasants, and everyone in between. All of humanity is my class, and I work to free us all from oppression, not simply replace one form of tyranny with another.



It is oppression, it is 'evil' (bad choice of words but okay).

Then it should not be done. It really is that simple.


But then again, and not trying to justify anything, violence is necessary sometimes.

I can think of very limited situations in which this may be true (for example, a would-be murderer breaks into your home -- with your family inside -- with an AK-47 and the intent to kill, and your family has no route of escape), but it isn't true in any revolutionary situation.


The ruling class, on the other hand, does not care if it is evil to kill people. History has shown us that they will not hesitate on slaughtering proles if their hegemony is in danger.

I'm not willing to become like them.




Such as?

General strikes, non-cooperation, sit-ins . . . basically the methods used by Gandhi and MLK to bring about change.



During a certain period of time (1918-21), terror saved a revolution.

I'm sure Bin Laden thought the same thing about his disgusting terrorist campaign of killing innocent people, doesn't mean he didn't do unconscionable acts or that he himself wasn't an evil person. Terror is evil and always unacceptable, and I will fight it wherever possible.



A couple of Mao's quotes:

Mao was one of the worst mass-murderers in human history. I don't really care what his thoughts were.

The ends never justify the means.

[cyu]

Why is the village being bombed? Is it full of terrorists or innocent people?

Are you trying to contradict yourself now? So if the village were full of innocent people, their lives would have "infinite value" but if you claimed they were "terrorists" then their lives would no longer have "infinite value"?


We have 1000 workers, the capitalist has 20-30 "minions." Just tell the people to refuse to leave.

You would like to see their heads bashed in by pro-capitalist minions? Maybe a brain-dead child can work wonders for advancing "your" movement, but I would prefer if the kid (and his parents) didn't get their heads bashed in the first place. If you refuse to leave, the only way to prevent getting your head bashed is to fight back.


There are also other options, like moving the people to different land, or requesting aid from the government.

You do realize why there are poor people in the world don't you? It's because the rich already control all the resources.


If there were truly no other options, I'd support non-lethal action to get those people back on their land,like what you've said above.

I'd support non-lethal action as well as a first resort. Plays much better in the media, and a better way to run society in general. However, if a pro-capitalist minion is about to strike you over the head with the butt of his rifle, I would be thankful if he was shot before he could do it. Taking a step back, I would be even more thankful if actions were already being taken against the capitalist and his politicians to prevent them from ordering any attacks.

[MarxSchmarx]

The ends never justify the means.

Here's the problem with this: if the ends don't justify the means, then what does?

In fact, it is precisely because the "ends" that leftists seek is a society built on self-realization, emancipation, and simple human decency and that aims to end alienation and oppression that violence as a means to this end is counterproductive. Violence is inherently hierarchical, it is non-liberatory, and as you note, it has a historically abysmal track record in creating a successful socialist society over the long term. The issue isn't so much whether nonviolence has succeeded where violence has failed, but whether violence provides that extra modicum necessary for success. Thusfar, the evidence is wanting. In fact, it is the use of violent means that has proven time and again provide the kernel for the reaction (e.g., NKVD) and the eventual restoration of capitalism (as is happening in Vietnam, where seasoned veterans of the war oversaw the "reintegration" of Vietnam into the capitalist market). And of course, these are just the cases where the advocates of violence see success - they need to be mindful of the countless armed insurrections that have failed, and failed spectacularly. If their argument was that using violence was a roll of the dice well it might have some credence but when you look at how even when the outcome of violence was more or less what it was meant to achieve, the fact is that the means used systematically and thusfar with great certainty undermined the goals. It is the advocates of violence who really are committed to the phrase "the ends never justify the means" because the means that they employ are not serving their stated ends.

[bcbm]

The war was a reactionary one started by the South, the North joined in to preserve national unity. Ending slavery was an important part of the decision to join the war, but it wasn't the primary motivator.

no, but thats not really the point is it?


The moral suasion movements did, in fact, place pressure on those in power to yeah once they were involved in the bloodiest conflict in american history


Also, keep in mind that the North abolished slavery without violence;the continued passage of laws protecting the slaveholders in the south and allowing them to capture escaped slaves (or really any black person) in the north was one of the primary concerns pushing abolitionists away from pacifism and towards direct action. raids and riots against prisons to free escaped slaves were so common that at one point the marines were called in to bring one captured slave back to the south. there was a great deal of violence surrounding this issue.

and hell what about nat turner and other slave insurrectionists? they were wrong and 'stooping to the level' of their oppressors by fighting back? gimme a break


I don't think John Brown had a big impact in the demise of slavery. His movement raised awareness and put fear into slaveowners, sure. but that could have been done without violence.john brown was the spark that ignited the civil war


I think that violence can sometimes spawn movements that are more empowered than they were before...the classic example being the stonewall riots I suppose, which revitalized gay rights issues after they'd stagnated in the homophile movement for decades. Maybe the riots in the south (and elsewhere) during the civil right's movement, too.

like bmh said, i think anytime you have social upheaval there will be violence, much of it not applied in a necessarily 'conscious' or perhaps 'tactical' manner, but just as a result of the conditions. its just what happens when shit starts to break down. which isn't to say it is all random or can't be used by people more deliberately, oboviously.


But at the same time I hesitate to overemphasize the role violence can play in a social movement simply because the people on this website who fetishize violence often irritate me more than the pacifists do.

yeah it isn't something to be relished. i just don't see those with power handing it over because we convinced them we were morally superior. i think both sides are full of shit, really, we shouldnt worship violence or peace

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The most fundamental question surrounding the violence question is do the ends justify the means? Is it worth committing evil acts in order to achieve a good outcomes? For me, the answer is unequivocally no, and that is why I oppose violence, "revolutionary" or otherwise.
I see nothing evil with punching a cop in the face or even shooting one. Evil is siding with cops and capitalists, evil is standing side by side with politicians as they cut your grandmas source of income to protect their friends in the financial and "defense" industries. It's not evil when people being abused by the system decide to kick the it right in balls instead of asking it to change or refusing to support it and getting forced into a compulsory labor for doing that.

[MP5]

Jesus christ i could not read that shit that the now banned thread starter wrote.

Anyway my take on violence is that it is merely a tool to be used in struggle whether it be the class war or otherwise. It should however be held as a last resort and unfortunately the oppressors intentionally leave the oppressed with no other real tool for political change but violence. People are not as willing to pick up a gun as they are to put a vote in a ballot box so they take away the ballot box or as per usual in any bourgeois democracy leave the oppressed with no real choices to work within the system to change it. But then again it's pretty hard to burn down a system by working within it anyway.

I agree with Malcolm X on the use of violence in that non violent protest is the way to go as long as it works.

[Brutus]

Malcolm X:
Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution —— what was it based on? The land—less against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost; was no compromise; was no negotiation. I’m telling you, you don’t know what a revolution is. ’Cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the alley; you’ll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution —— what was it based on? Land. The land—less against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed. And you’re afraid to bleed. I said, you’re afraid to bleed.

[Rafiq]

In the end, violence is a given, but it is not enough. The real cleansing sword of the proletariat, the real hammer of revolutionary dictatorship and class-based hegemony is through terror. In times of revolution, and the process of revolution, there can only be power through terror.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[piet11111]

Is it just me but where are the pro-capitalist pacifists ?

Where are our pacifist oppressors ?

[Kindness]

In the end, violence is a given, but it is not enough. The real cleansing sword of the proletariat, the real hammer of revolutionary dictatorship and class-based hegemony is through terror. In times of revolution, and the process of revolution, there can only be power through terror.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I don't see how that is any better than Al Qaeda's ideology. Killing and terrorizing innocent people is never justified. And I don't want revolutionary dictatorship or class-based hegemony, I want a classless world where all people live in peace and harmony. What you describe is monstrous.

[piet11111]

I don't see how that is any better than Al Qaeda's ideology. Killing and terrorizing innocent people is never justified. And I don't want revolutionary dictatorship or class-based hegemony, I want a classless world where all people live in peace and harmony. What you describe is monstrous.

I see you thanked my post but the point i was making is that our capitalist oppressors are not pacifists but will inflict upon us all the violence they can to break our resistance.

I am of the opinion that any and all violence directed back at them is justified and as far as revolutionary violence goes i would even say that the shooting of the tsar and his family was a good thing because even if you agree with it or not your shit out of luck if you want to reestablish that blood line to the throne.

[Engels]

In the end, violence is a given, but it is not enough. The real cleansing sword of the proletariat, the real hammer of revolutionary dictatorship and class-based hegemony is through terror. In times of revolution, and the process of revolution, there can only be power through terror.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I think I actually heard you climaxing as you finishing typing this statement.

[Kindness]

I see you thanked my post but the point i was making is that our capitalist oppressors are not pacifists but will inflict upon us all the violence they can to break our resistance.

I am of the opinion that any and all violence directed back at them is justified and as far as revolutionary violence goes i would even say that the shooting of the tsar and his family was a good thing because even if you agree with it or not your shit out of luck if you want to reestablish that blood line to the throne.

Monstrous. There is no excuse for killing non-combatants, especially children. I despise all evil, whether it's done in the name of communism, Nazism, radical Islam, or any other ideology. People's lives are more important than some ideology or even the success of a revolution.

[piet11111]

Monstrous. There is no excuse for killing non-combatants, especially children. I despise all evil, whether it's done in the name of communism, Nazism, radical Islam, or any other ideology. People's lives are more important than some ideology or even the success of a revolution.

Non combatants ? the Tsar was the main instigator of the violence against the russian people !

Now i know i personally would not have been able to shoot the children but i have the advantage of not having to be put into that situation and to that i can only say thank you bolsheviks for putting me in a position where any praise or condemnation is reduced to a message board conversation.

Can you see why i am glad for that ?

[Kindness]

I don't see how the bolsheviks gave you the right to free speech.

The Tsar was a non-combatant because he was unarmed, killed in front of his family. That was deeply wrong. And those kids were innocent. I don't feel the need to defend atrocities done by leftists, I can denounce them and still remain a socialist. The fact that some still defend these acts is why so many working people are against communism today.

[Rurkel]

I do not subscribe to the traditional justificcations for killing the teenagers, but I couldn't care less about Nicky.

And while I think that killing the teenagers was wrong, I don't think that it discredits the Russian Revolution.

I'd say that holding to such a position on violence as you do definitely excludes being a Marxian socialist or a communist.

[Dean]

Monstrous. There is no excuse for killing non-combatants, especially children. I despise all evil, whether it's done in the name of communism, Nazism, radical Islam, or any other ideology. People's lives are more important than some ideology or even the success of a revolution.


The political application of violence is not some simple metric you can paint black and white. What makes combatants worthy of violence inflicted on them, while non-combatants should enjoy complete security? Think deeply about how each person came to be a combatant, too. I think the problem you are dealing with is the distinction between politics and idealism, politics and your personal position on issues.

I am going to be honest here. I am pretty sure that we have a very similar moral vision. Nobody deserves death, pain, suffering. We should be careful that our actions mostly serve to deter these evils.

But that is not what you are doing. You are looking for ideological purity. That is not how politics works. That is not how life works when you are under attack from F18s and Predator drones. What I am hearing from you when you complain about al qaeda and "terrorist" villagers is that, in order to protect the lives of these monsters, the villagers have a responsibility to lay down and die. That is a pathetic level of cowardice that even Gandhi would have detested. Being a hippie, striking idealist poses, does nothing to alleviate the evils you detest.

You're not better than anyone else because you "feel more" for the poor czars, and you're not going to convince a movement - which has been marginalized and executed by capitalists en masse - that the rich deserve special sensitivity. You wont find that kind of sensitivity in any movement against an oppressing class until it achieves some degree of political power. Worry about political and human rights for them then.

For now - its just laughable that you think communists are marginalized because of fiery rhetoric. Communists have been slaughtered across the globe and that didn't slow the capitalist system. But if you want quaint, exotic theories, I guess that works for you.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Personally, I'd probably never participate in any serious violent actions because I'd be shit at it but I'd never condemn a comrade for using such tactics. I might criticise their strategic value and question the particular worth case by case but never outright say its evil. Capitalism is a violent, oppressive weight crushing down on us and forcing us into the drudgery of wage slavery. Destroying capitalism and all its vestiges is a necessity to our survival and I completely empathise with those that strike back using all sorts of methods.

[Rafiq]

I don't see how that is any better than Al Qaeda's ideology. Killing and terrorizing innocent people is never justified. And I don't want revolutionary dictatorship or class-based hegemony, I want a classless world where all people live in peace and harmony. What you describe is monstrous.

Revolutionary terror is done on a systemic, state-based level. The terror will strike the counter revolution, and if in your eyes they are innocent you may very well stop pretending to be a communist and be done with this nonsense. A proletarian revolution isn't about what you want, it isn't about a new and pretty society, it's about one class overthrowing another, it's about the suppression of the class enemy and the emancipation of the proletariat. You want peace and harmony? If you're not willing to accept and recognize what it will take for this, the oceans of blood that will be necessary for your fantasy, then either admit your cowardice or stop identifying with communism all together. Tell me of a revolution that didn't require terror to sustain itself. I know, I know it's very unpleasant. It's scary and it's horrifying, etc. But this is the basis of the transformation of society, all new forms of organization on a super structural and political level, especially in the case of the emancipation of a class (be it a slave rebellion or a proletarian revolution) are built upon terror and destruction. Your bourgeois-moralism is not veiled by your quasi utopianism, the threads and holes from which we see it are sewed from the ideological cowardice you are so reluctant to reinforce upon yourself. We do not ask you to come into personal terms with destructive change. We do not ask that you prepare yourself for violence, that you overcome your fears in regards and so on. But for you to type away, formally denouncing us, attempting not only to display unconscious concerns with terror but attempting to assert what you attempt to disguise which with "rationality" is utterly sickening. In the end, the enemies of the usage of terror have only one substantiation of their position, and that is moralism. The moral framework of the class we seek to liquidate.

[Rafiq]

Monstrous. There is no excuse for killing non-combatants, especially children. I despise all evil, whether it's done in the name of communism, Nazism, radical Islam, or any other ideology. People's lives are more important than some ideology or even the success of a revolution.

In the midst of the revolution the lives of the enemy are worthless, almost as worthless as this notion of "evil" being utilized by several different ideologies with several different class basis. Evil of which only exists as such within your bourgeois-liberal ideological unconscious, from which you attribute to all acts, whether they share the same class basis as yours or not. This is a very pure and beautiful demonstration of idealism: This conception of "evil" as universal and objective, of which all other ideologies simply utilize in a different way, instead of recognizing that it is only you who creates the evil, this force you call "evil" exists only in your head, and that these acts were not "different variants of the same form" but done on behalf of very different class interests. That there is only the bourgeois-liberal conception of evil, of which all ideologues recognize and simply make excuses for. In the language of the proletariat, there is no room for your "evil", it simply does not exist, the mechanisms that are utilized to conceive this are extinguished. Instead the only evil is that which stands in the way of the emancipation of the proletariat, that which enslaves and sustains itself through the exploitation of others. This is the ideological moral framework of the proletariat, Communism.

[Rafiq]

Let me say this with uttermost clarity: Let's disregard what people choose to identify as and recognize a basic truth. Anyone with a shred of real life experience knows that what separates a communist from a toadie of the existing order is their position on violence. The liberalists, the superstructural guardians of bourgeois-ideology shudder at the sight of revolutionary violence, whether it be proletarian or not. The french revolution or the south african MK are great examples. They want to adhere to notions of change without being able to conceptualize and come into terms with the mass destruction of the existing order, this is the beauty of the recent development of social pacifists, who come in all shapes and sizes, 'Communist', 'Anarchist' or (more honestly) progressive-liberal. I do not mean to simplify things or to make things black and white, but when it comes to a revolutionary movement, when it comes to political change, you either fully identify with what violence may be necessary or you fuck off.

[Rafiq]

I think I actually heard you climaxing as you finishing typing this statement.

I don't know why there exists this phenomena of attributing a "violence fetish" toward me. I don't even know if I will be able to handle it, I don't know if I'm ready to confront or address all of that. But one thing I do know is that it will be necessary, and no, it will not be pleasant.

[Kindness]

Revolutionary terror is done on a systemic, state-based level. The terror will strike the counter revolution, and if in your eyes they are innocent you may very well stop pretending to be a communist and be done with this nonsense.

Who are you defining as part of the "counter-revolution?" Children (as I mentioned in my previous post that you quoted)? Civilians? If so, then that is absolutely abominable and deserves the sharpest and strongest condemnation.

I am a communist because I advocate the end of the capitalist system of socio-economic organization and its replacement by a classless, moneyless, stateless form of socio-economic organization. That is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a communist, one need not subscribe to Leninist-Stalinist notions of "Red Terror" or even morally accept violence in any sense. I strongly condemn your form of communism, but that doesn't mean I'm not a communist.


A proletarian revolution isn't about what you want, it isn't about a new and pretty society, it's about one class overthrowing another, it's about the suppression of the class enemy and the emancipation of the proletariat.

This is not the 20th century anymore. The "proletariat" is no longer a unified entity, but an umbrella group of many different classes and interests. For instance, a single mother working at Wal-Mart for $8.00/hr and an engineer who works at a large firm for a yearly salary of $250,000 both fall under the original Marxian definition of the proletariat: they lack the means of production and so must sell their labor to the capitalists in order to survive. Yet, they have vastly different skill sets, interests, and yes, class positions. The single mom earning $8.00/hr will probably support the overthrow of capitalism, while the engineer -- although technically a proletarian -- will likely side with the capitalists. This is just one very clear example, but I can raise others: what about the small business owner who earns $10,000-$18,000 per year and can barely put food on the table, the university professor who earns $40,000 per year, the white-collar manager earning $90,000 per year but paying off $200,000 in student debt, the self-employed plumber with a GED who earns $75,000 per year, the unemployed Wall Street executive who used to earn six figures but is now unable to find a job, the billionaire's receptionists who earns $650,000 per year, and so on and so forth.

The fact of the matter is that the class system has changed dramatically since Marx and Lenin drew up their plans, and there is no longer a sharp line between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Instead, there is a scale that runs from more proletarian to more bourgeois, and people fall at various places along the scale depending on the amount of money they earn, the amount of control they have over the means of production, and the amount of power they exercise in their workplaces. These facts make traditional Marxian class analysis almost useless, and call for a need to find a new basis of struggle and revolution other than such outmoded binary definitions of class (this is not to say that class is irrelevant, only that it needs to be reconceptualized in today's terms).

Really, the only case of a clear ruling class in today's society is those who are quite obviously wealthy, those who exercise significant power in large corporations, and those who hold significant political power in developed nations. They are the "ruling class," they are who the struggle is against. Still, violence is still unjustified, even against this class of people, as they are still human beings, and that humanness overrides any kind of class identity. Obviously, in a communist revolution, they should be stripped of their power and integrated into the new system, but they should not be physically harmed or driven into slavery or serfdom.

The goal of any revolution should be the creation of a better society for human beings and a better world for all sentient life. If that is not the goal, then I don't see the point of revolution in the first place. Why have a revolution just to replace one form of disgraceful oppression with another?


You want peace and harmony? If you're not willing to accept and recognize what it will take for this, the oceans of blood that will be necessary for your fantasy,

Killing for peace is like exploiting for equality: it is contradictory by its' very essence.


then either admit your cowardice or stop identifying with communism all together.

It is not cowardly to oppose violence, especially violence against innocents. Any fool can pick up a gun and kill someone, but it takes a person of character and courage to, in the face of great adversity, find peaceful solutions, honor the lives of her enemies, and make great sacrifices -- even up to her life -- to save life and create a better world. True courage results in kindness and self-sacrifice, not killing and terror.


Tell me of a revolution that didn't require terror to sustain itself.

The American revolution, the end of slavery in Britain and France, the Indian independence movement, the American civil rights movement, and the end of apartheid in South Africa, to name a few.


I know, I know it's very unpleasant. It's scary and it's horrifying, etc. But this is the basis of the transformation of society, all new forms of organization on a super structural and political level, especially in the case of the emancipation of a class (be it a slave rebellion or a proletarian revolution) are built upon terror and destruction.

This is false, as my examples above have shown. And I'm not scared of terror, but I am against it on principle and conviction.


Your bourgeois-moralism

Yes, I am indeed a moralist, but my morality is far from bourgeois. It is based on the desires common to all human beings : the desires to be safe, to be loved, to belong and contribute to a community, to cooperate with others, and to see one's children experience the same. Communities that honor these desires flourish, while those that don't experience internal strife.

This is not a bourgeois desire, but a kind one -- one rooted in what it means to be a member of humankind. Capitalism, based on greed, the ultimate bourgeois "virtue," is dedicated to crushing those desires for the cause of personal profit, and for that reason is anathema to human flourishing. Radical Stalinism, willing to stop at nothing to acheive its' ideological goals, is also damaging to human flourishing, as it is willing to commit any atrocity for the sake of success. It is your brand of communism, not mine, that is close to bourgeois moralism.


We do not ask that you prepare yourself for violence, that you overcome your fears in regards and so on. But for you to type away, formally denouncing us,

I'm not denouncing anyone, only their support for violence.


attempting not only to display unconscious concerns with terror but attempting to assert what you attempt to disguise which with "rationality" is utterly sickening.

I find the attempt to put forth apologetics for the killing of children and other innocent civilians equally sickening.


In the end, the enemies of the usage of terror have only one substantiation of their position, and that is moralism.

Moralism is valuable, and in fact, is utterly necessary to both the success of the revolution and the new society that springs from it. Without moralism, revolution is simply atrocity and communism is simply totalitarian oppression.


The moral framework of the class we seek to liquidate.

The only things I seek to liquidate are injustice and oppression. Capitalism is a source (not THE source) of these, which is why I oppose it, but it is important nt to confuse capitalism with those that perpetuate it. Capitalists are human beings who, like all others, deserve kindness, respect, and full integration into the new post-revolutionary society as equals.

[Kindness]

In the midst of the revolution the lives of the enemy are worthless,

Then damn the revolution. A person's life is more important than the success of some ideological vision, and any "revolution" that regards an entire class of people as "worthless" is one that I will vigorously oppose.


Evil of which only exists as such within your bourgeois-liberal ideological unconscious

I am not a bourgeois-liberal, consciously or unconsciously. I have a multitude of issues with this ideology, which I won't discuss at length here, but in simple terms I find it a hopelessly nihilistic and amoral philosophy that is detrimental to human flourishing. I am a leftist. I don't share your enthusiasm for violence, but I am also against capitalism and the racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, exploitation, violence, poverty, and shattered communities that it brings. Liberals want to reform capitalism, I want to eliminate it and replace it with a kinder socioeconomic system that is conducive to human flourishing.


This is a very pure and beautiful demonstration of idealism:

I have no problem with the label "idealist." I embrace it. I want us to move beyond violence and hate, and the only way to do that is to appeal to higher ideals.


This conception of "evil" as universal and objective,

I don't believe in objective morality, but I do recognize that certain acts (such as the murder of children) are universally regarded as evil by human beings and cause great suffering, and therefore should be avoided.


of which all other ideologies simply utilize in a different way, instead of recognizing that it is only you who creates the evil, this force you call "evil" exists only in your head, and that these acts were not "different variants of the same form" but done on behalf of very different class interests.

The millions of innocent women, men, and children tortured, imprisoned, and murdered by the "Red Terror" of Lenin, Stalin, and their crazed Bolshevik armies would call such acts evil, but they can't, they're dead. Class is completely irrelevant here. The only class that matters when talking about human life is the human race, and from that perspective, such murderous excesses are evil, vile.


In the language of the proletariat, there is no room for your "evil", it simply does not exist, the mechanisms that are utilized to conceive this are extinguished. Instead the only evil is that which stands in the way of the emancipation of the proletariat, that which enslaves and sustains itself through the exploitation of others. This is the ideological moral framework of the proletariat, Communism.

Why do you claim to speak for the entire proletariat? All humans -- bourgeois, proletariat, or neither -- share something like these values.

[Orange Juche]

But by the same token we should not fucking revel in violence. Chaos? Blood sacrifices? Machetes?

Those aren't the word choices of someone facing up to the unpleasant possibility that they might have to use violence in the defence of themselves or others, but are instead the utterances of a swivel-eyed psychopath who's waiting for an excuse to let themselves go.

This is one fairly large concern I have with certain others on the left. People talking about hanging/killing/beating people simply because of their views (even if insanely wrong, ignorant, and inappropriate) "once the revolution comes" is something that both frustrates and terrifies me. It's a blinding vengeful bloodlust that comes off as sophomoric, unhinged rage at best.

This carnal lust for "revenge", particularly on people who haven't done anything other than be crude, offensive, and ignorant, is extremely counter-productive, and in all honesty, in my humble opinion, makes the left as a whole look like nothing more than a group of people whose political persuasions are built on a childish inability to control angst.

[Comrade Jandar]

This "pacifism" you speak of is violence. You are condemning any potential proletarian revolution to failure by denying it this weapon and the failure of a revolution usually means swift, harsh revenge by the bourgeoisie in the form of thousands of dead workers. I suggest you take a look at what happened after the Paris Commune fell and the White Terror in Finland in 1918.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I am a communist because I advocate the end of the capitalist system of socio-economic organization and its replacement by a classless, moneyless, stateless form of socio-economic organization. That is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a communist, one need not subscribe to Leninist-Stalinist notions of "Red Terror" or even morally accept violence in any sense. I strongly condemn your form of communism, but that doesn't mean I'm not a communist.
It's not 'Leninist-Stalinist', it's simply marxist. "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." - Communist Manifesto. The 'terror' Rafiq talks of is inherent in any revolution. But that doesn't mean we desire it, just that it's most likely inevitable:


— 16 —
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

[Profunc]

Just to clarify, and repeating what I said in another thread, violence is an unfortunate necessity. If we, communists, are to choose, we're for peaceful expropriation of the bourgeoisie. However, the bourgeoisie has never (and will never) let us do that the peaceful way.

Is it not violence to explore and condemn the proletariat to poverty? Is it not violence what the bourgeois state does? The bourgeois state is oppressive by nature, all states are, for that matter. What we advocate for is the proletarian state to suppress the bourgeoisie through democratic ways for the proletariat.

I'm sorry my friend, but your pacifism changes nothing, and never will. The terreur rouge is the self defense of the proletariat.

As for your last question, my answer is yes. I support the use of violence to crush capitalism. I support the use of violence to emancipate humanity. In this case, the ends justify the means, yes.

I couldn't agree with this^ more.

Violence doesn't mean killing or murder either, I think a lot of people forget this. Deaths will be a result of intense fighting and guerrilla warfare, but once we've won, that is to say, once we've stormed their castle and taken control of the means of production and the bourgeois class is essentially destroyed, do we need to execute these people?

No, not at all.

Let's exile them, throw them away, let them stumble back to some other society without their property and without their capital... so they can see what it's like to live with nothing to lose but their chains.

That being said, mass groups of revolutionaries with AK's aren't always going to be so rational gripping the collar of the people who've been choking them since they were born, when they've just been through an adrenaline-fueled euphoria on the battlefield.

Violence to overthrow is wholly necessary, as soon as it presents itself, if there is no other foreseeable way to achieve freedom from the bourgeoisie. But, we do need to educate people that the bourgeoisie are not sub-human, and post-war "training" to help people cope with what they've just been through should also be a revolutionary necessity.

[bcbm]

Still, violence is still unjustified, even against this class of people, as they are still human beings, and that humanness overrides any kind of class identity.

i envision communism as the realization of our species-being, the overcoming of all prejudice to become truly human, a humanity-for-itself but 'this class of people' will very likely not be persuaded, certainly not with moral arguments and will put up one hell of a fight and we must be prepared to resist and return that fight.


Obviously, in a communist revolution, they should be stripped of their power and integrated into the new system, but they should not be physically harmed or driven into slavery or serfdom.

how will you strip the most powerful people on the planet with the full force of state and private violence behind them and no pacifist compulsions against using it without physically harming them?


The goal of any revolution should be the creation of a better society for human beings and a better world for all sentient life.

yes. but there is some distance between where we stand and that goal and some of the roadblocks on the way won't mind using drone strikes against us.


It is not cowardly to oppose violence, especially violence against innocents. Any fool can pick up a gun and kill someone, but it takes a person of character and courage to, in the face of great adversity, find peaceful solutions, honor the lives of her enemies, and make great sacrifices -- even up to her life -- to save life and create a better world. True courage results in kindness and self-sacrifice, not killing and terror.

we are not in it to be courageous and morally strong, we are in it to win.


The American revolution

not a revolution in the sense of one class overthrowing another in the way the french revolution was.


the end of slavery in Britain and France

not a revolution


the Indian independence movement

not a revolution and marked by a great deal of violence before. and after, lets be real the communal riots after the separation of india and pakistan for one


the American civil rights movement

not a revolution, and a very flawed victory


and the end of apartheid in South Africa

not a revolution, marked by a great deal of violence before and a very flawed victory

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

The people that I, assume, all of us speak of using violence against are people who use violence against innocent people. Cops who beat people, politicians whose wars kill people, capitalists who cause people to starve. Why is it more important for them to live, than for us to be free and a create a fair society?

[Vanguard1917]

"As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the 'sacredness of human life'. We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can only be solved by blood and iron."
- Trotsky

http://www.hdwallpapersarena.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sylvester-Stallone-as-Rambo.jpg

[SuchianFrog735]

Been reading through this thread and it definitely raises some interesting moral questions. I consider myself opposed to violence, but do view it as necessary. Not right, but perhaps necessary in certain scenarios to have some flexibility.

I think the problem with some of the situations that have been listed in this thread is that they create something of a binary. There's the assumption that because people have problems with committing violence, they're condoning that the oppressed deserve to die. Or that having some sympathy for the enemy means they're worth more.

I can see where Kindness is coming from; in order to commit these acts of violence there is a level of demonization which would be required, and we're convincing ourselves that "this is the right/best/necessary way". Just get rid of the people who disagree, and we all will be able to uphold a new order...until the next people disagree?

[Die Neue Zeit]

This topic has certainly brought an "inner Sorel" out of some posters.

[Brutus]

Look at the American Revolution, in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence, and the only way they could get it, was bloodshed. The French Revolution, what was it based on — the landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land! How did they get it? Bloodshed! There was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you you don't know what a revolution is, because when you find out you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution. What was it based on? Land — the landless against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed, and you're afraid to bleed. [Commotion] I said you are afraid to bleed."

"Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. And you, sitting around here like a knot on the wall, saying, "I'm going to love these folks no matter how much they hate me." No, you need a revolution. Whoever heard of a revolution where they lock arms, singing "We Shall Overcome"? You don't do that in a revolution. You don't do any singing, you're too busy swinging."

From these two Malcolm X quotes, we can see that you cannot have a peaceful revolution! If a revolution is peaceful, then it's no revolution at all. How do you overthrow all existing social conditions? Violence! How do you get power from the ruling class? Not by pacifism that's for sure!

[SuchianFrog735]

Then what? What kind of order are imposing?

Nobody is saying "suicidally love your enemies", but certainly there can be a way to reach a consensus. I think we also need to address the context of history, where yes, alternative views were suppressed and the only way to really get your view across was to usurp an older order. Is it not rather conservative to think that just because revolutions have happened this way, it means they must happen this way?

And perhaps I'm using the wrong moral standards here. Fine. But really are you not just pushing your own priorities? Priorities which overlap with others sure, but priorities which mask themselves to be universally shared for some good.

[cyu]

There are those who prevent hungry people from accessing food. There are those who throw people into the streets when there is perfectly usable housing lying around vacant. There are those who prevent the sick from accessing health care.

We call these people "the enforcers of private property".

When people die because of their actions, it is no less than murder. And those responsible for attempting to justify these deaths to the general population are apologists for murder.

For every person that has died of poverty in the entirety of human history, if a king or capitalist was sleeping on his velvet pillows while their minions protected "their property", those were the years of mass murder.

[SuchianFrog735]

Part of my problem with violence is the whole legitimacy of establishing a system after violence and maintaining it, along with the forced assumption that "they will NOT let go of their powers without a fight"; likely, but account for all possibilities.

Let's be idealistic and say that the violent revolution succeeds and all that needs to happen is the suppression of reactionaries. Does the cycle continue of violently oppressing those views? Is it the views themselves that matter or the manner in which dissent happens?

[cyu]

establishing a system after violence and maintaining it

I prefer self-defense. That is, union members show up at work - armed. If the boss tries to order them around, they ignore him. If the boss tries to attack them, or sends his minions to attack them, then the rest is self-defense.



reactionaries. Does the cycle continue of violently oppressing those views?


The reactionaries can continue to try to order union members around and union members can continue to ignore them. But since capitalists can never get anything done without actual employees, they will be forced to either abandon capitalism or try to re-enslave the employees, at which point we return to self-defense.

[MarxSchmarx]

This topic has certainly brought an "inner Sorel" out of some posters.

Would you be able to elaborate on that comrade? I've never read Sorel's own writing but I still get the impression he is like a Roscharch test - what others see in him often says more about the people invoking him than what Sorel himself involved himself in.

[conmharáin]

Sorel is like the grandfather of fascism, particularly in his notions of violence as a force to "morally rejuvenate" society. His ideas about violence and war more or less formed the ideological basis for fascist imperial conquest and social terror.

[conmharáin]

I prefer self-defense. That is, union members show up at work - armed. If the boss tries to order them around, they ignore him. If the boss tries to attack them, or sends his minions to attack them, then the rest is self-defense.

That sounds like it could potentially cost more human life. Consider the more "violent" method: if the boss and his pigs are likely to pull something, it would be much smarter to try to get the drop on them. Taken by surprise, they'd be more likely to surrender than to fight when the workers have the clear advantage. Violence becomes self-defense in the strictest sense when someone already poses a direct and immediate threat. Why not defend ourselves more intelligently when we can? It's not exactly like the bourgeoisie are putting flowers into our barrels.


The reactionaries can continue to try to order union members around and union members can continue to ignore them. But since capitalists can never get anything done without actual employees, they will be forced to either abandon capitalism or try to re-enslave the employees, at which point we return to self-defense.

Why not skip all that crap in the middle and just kill 'em so we can get back to work?

[Deity]

It doesn't sound like you guys want a communist society, but a "glorious revolution" instead.

[cyu]

Why not skip all that crap in the middle and just kill 'em so we can get back to work?


Doesn't play as well in the media. Less likely to win you supporters. More likely to get you more enemies. Not a good strategic move I'd say =]

...but if that's something you want to try, I'd just take the path of the political wing of the IRA - meaning, "We don't support the car bombing that happened over the weekend, but the continuing violence happens in an environment of perpetual attempts by capitalists to re-enslave us. While the loss of life is regrettable, until the attempts at re-enslavement are stopped, we don't expect a decrease in violence."