Terrorism

[Brutus]

I would like to know the opinion of rev lefters on terrorism. By this I mean destroying bourgeois property, assassinations of the main oppressors etc.
Please could you also provide why you believe this. Thanks,
Volkov

[Red Banana]

For me it depends on how useful it would be to our movement. Right now, I don't think those types of actions would help us at all, in fact they'd probably alienate us from many working class people.

Though if we had substantial support from the working class already/were in a revolutionary situation, violent actions like those might help us in advancing working class hegemony. Basically, the tactics we employ all depend on how useful they are in relation to the material conditions at hand.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I would like to know the opinion of rev lefters on terrorism. By this I mean destroying bourgeois property, assassinations of the main oppressors etc.
Please could you also provide why you believe this. Thanks,
Volkov

But that's not terrorism...

[Lord Hargreaves]

I think the Left should at least agree that the working class and other oppressed groups have the right to self-defence.

What this means in practice is often difficult to determine in advance, sure. But I think a meaningful distinction can be made between self-defence, even when this is violent or illegal by the given terms of the state and property relations, and the use of terrorism purely for propaganda purposes, which nearly all of us would oppose.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

I would like to know the opinion of rev lefters on terrorism. By this I mean destroying bourgeois property, assassinations of the main oppressors etc.
Please could you also provide why you believe this. Thanks,
Volkov

This, in the actual scenario, accomplishes nothing but brutal repression. It gives the ruling class the perfect excuse to ban parties, to control unions etc.

But if you are implying a revolutionary situation, it might be useful (it's all guessing after all).

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism is a relationship. An idea really. A way of behaving. A set of rules, based on some notions of property. How exactly is killing some people going to change that?

[feeLtheLove]

Killing innocent people is terrorism

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Killing innocent people is terrorism

No it isn't.


Terrorism, when it is the working class inflicting terror upon the ruling class, is a form of class struggle that we should all support. This doesn't necessarily mean that literally the entire class is terrorizing the bourgeois but it can manifest it's self in minor insistences. For example if a group of tenants were go get together and torture their landlord until he agrees to lower rent then that would be an appropriate form of terrorism. Another example would be if a revolutionary party armed the workers in an area and threatened to pillage and loot the capital (assuming they don't have the forces to capture it) if a certain demand isn't meet, say the end of a war or an increase in the minume wage. Recently in Nepal for example, in response to an attempt at privatizing a factory, the CPN-M armed the workers at the factory and formed a mitlia threatening insurrection if the factory was sold off. These are all good examples of terrorism.

The two most famous insistences of terrorism, the Great Terror in France and the Cultural Revolution are good examples how how terrorism ought to be handled once revolutionaries take power. In France the ruling class was beheaded and anyone who sympathized with them was terrorized. While in China the working class themselves took up arms and revolted against the corrupt leadership of the CCP.

The form of terrorism that we want to avoid, is when some dudes who like Che Guvera start to bomb stuff in the name of the proletariat. The reason why this terrorism is negative is not because it is violent, but rather because it subsitutes the role of the working class for a small cadre of guerrillas.

[Regicollis]

I see the word terrorism as little else than a curseword used about the other guys' violence.
When it comes to political violence I would recommend extreme caution. The bourgeois state exercises political violence every day be it through soldiers in Afghanistan or cops at home. Depending on your definition of violence one could claim that all manifestations of the capitalist system works through violence or an implied threat thereof. The bourgeois state is only capable of exercising political violence because it is seen as legitimate by the population.
Political violence done by a leftist group - or any other non-state, non-system entity - will not work given the current circumstances. Such violence will be seen as illegitimate, would alienate the population and would only intensify the oppression of dissent.
Furthermore political violence carries the same moral implications as any other kinds of violence. One has to answer hard questions like "What kind of collateral damage can we justify", "Is our violent act proportional to the guilt of the targets?" and "Who have given us the right to inflict violence on others?".
One should also consider the personal costs of violence. Even soldiers who believe in the war and who have the entire state-media system telling them they are heroes for being violent suffer severe psychological damage.

Sometimes political violence on the left can be justified but these instances are rare and almost always deal with self-defence. I believe a far more fruitful way of advancing the cause of socialism is the slow and boring work of educating, agitating and organising for a brighter world. Building relations to workers is more likely to succeed than blowing up a few capitalists who will just get replaced by other capitalists.

[Aurora]

I oppose individual terror where an unaccountable and non-representative group attempts to spur the masses to action or substitute themselves for the mass action of the proletariat, in such a case terrorism strengthens the repressive institutions of the state and weakens the self-organisation of the working class.

When the proletariat has come to power it may, depending on the situation in each country, be necessary to resort to a state terror to hasten the destruction of the old ruling class and any counter-revolutionary forces while reassuring the position of the proletariat as ruling class.

[Lord Hargreaves]

No it isn't.


Terrorism, when it is the working class inflicting terror upon the ruling class, is a form of class struggle that we should all support. This doesn't necessarily mean that literally the entire class is terrorizing the bourgeois but it can manifest it's self in minor insistences. For example if a group of tenants were go get together and torture their landlord until he agrees to lower rent then that would be an appropriate form of terrorism. Another example would be if a revolutionary party armed the workers in an area and threatened to pillage and loot the capital (assuming they don't have the forces to capture it) if a certain demand isn't meet, say the end of a war or an increase in the minume wage. Recently in Nepal for example, in response to an attempt at privatizing a factory, the CPN-M armed the workers at the factory and formed a mitlia threatening insurrection if the factory was sold off. These are all good examples of terrorism.

The two most famous insistences of terrorism, the Great Terror in France and the Cultural Revolution are good examples how how terrorism ought to be handled once revolutionaries take power. In France the ruling class was beheaded and anyone who sympathized with them was terrorized. While in China the working class themselves took up arms and revolted against the corrupt leadership of the CCP.

The form of terrorism that we want to avoid, is when some dudes who like Che Guvera start to bomb stuff in the name of the proletariat. The reason why this terrorism is negative is not because it is violent, but rather because it subsitutes the role of the working class for a small cadre of guerrillas.

No, I think it would be catastrophic if our only definition of terrorism is a violent act carried out by "cadres" rather than by the working class (and anyway, you can be a cadre and a guerrilla and working class).

The issue isn't simply strategic: there are fundamental moral concerns with using violence, and they don't just disappear if you happen to be working class. They apply to everyone. We can't use "History will exonerate me!" as an excuse for sidelining our moral questions, because communism is far from certain.

I can't see how torturing a landlord to lower his rent would ever be appropriate, especially since rent levels are to a large extent set by broad economic parameters and thus outside the landlord's direct control. And I think torture is wrong, period.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The use of violence, or terror, is not a matter of choice or preference, but one of absolute necessity. Revolutionary terror is the only way to sustain the revolution. Do you think the bourgeoisie will give away their power because you have good arguments and a nice smile or do you think they will defend themselves? The only way to succeed is terror. Revolutionary terror is the only way to end the greater violence, i.e. the exploitation of the proletariat. I think any means for our liberation are justified.

If you want to achieve liberation, equality, freedom etc, you should not shy away from the terror needed to really defend and assert liberation, equality and freedom etc.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

The use of violence, or terror, is not a matter of choice or preference, but one of absolute necessity. Revolutionary terror is the only*way to sustain the revolution. Do you think the bourgeoisie will give away their power because you have good arguments and a nice smile or do you think they will defend themselves. The only way to succeed is terror.*Revolutionary terror is the only way to end the greater violence, i.e. the exploitation of the proletariat. *I think any means for our liberation are justified.*

If you want to achieve liberation, equality, freedom etc, you should not shy away from*the terror needed to really defend and assert*liberation, equality and freedom etc.

But this is not what OP referred to, or is it? He used 'terrorism' in the sense of killing an owner, or destroying property. Our goal is to destroy the private character of property, not the property itself (not sure if I made my point clear).

As for the terreur rouge against terreur blanc, I totally agree.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

The use of violence, or terror, is not a matter of choice or preference, but one of absolute necessity. Revolutionary terror is the only*way to sustain the revolution. Do you think the bourgeoisie will give away their power because you have good arguments and a nice smile or do you think they will defend themselves. The only way to succeed is terror.*Revolutionary terror is the only way to end the greater violence, i.e. the exploitation of the proletariat. *I think any means for our liberation are justified.*

If you want to achieve liberation, equality, freedom etc, you should not shy away from*the terror needed to really defend and assert*liberation, equality and freedom etc.

But this is not what OP referred to, or is it? He used 'terrorism' in the sense of killing an owner, or destroying property. Our goal is to destroy the private character of property, not the property itself (not sure if I made my point clear).

As for the terreur rouge against terreur blanc, I agree.

[radical_subjectivity]

Paraphrasing Mao, terror tactics that serve the revolution are justified, those that harm it are unjustified.

The question of who is deploying terror is the relevant question. We must work continuously at pushing beyond our liberal moral hesitations and think and act on a higher plane -- not an easy task, certainly.

[Blake's Baby]

The question of who decides what is harmful to the revolution, and what serves the revolution, is also pretty crucial, in that case.

Is the answer 'the party', or 'the working class'?

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism is a relationship. An idea really.
Uh, no, just no.

[Oswy]

I would like to know the opinion of rev lefters on terrorism. By this I mean destroying bourgeois property, assassinations of the main oppressors etc.
Please could you also provide why you believe this. Thanks,
Volkov

This all depends on how you want to characterise the term but keeping the masses in fear for their most basic of needs should they fail to maintain their daily obedience to the violence-backed demands of an illegitimate capitalist-class regime is terrorism as far as I'm concerned.

[Blake's Baby]

Uh, no, just no.

But it is. It's a social relationship, a relationship to the means of production, a set of relationships between people, a generalised set of behaviours, a particular patterning of society. It has no physical components. Machines aren't capitalsm, factories aren't capitalism. Even the products of capitalism - commodities - are not in themselves capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

But it is. It's a social relationship, a relationship to the means of production, a set of relationships between people, a generalised set of behaviours, a particular patterning of society. It has no physical components. Machines aren't capitalsm, factories aren't capitalism. Even the products of capitalism - commodities - are not in themselves capitalism.
I'm not objecting to the charactrerization of social relationship. I'm merely pointing out that you actually contradict yourself, and destroy this assessment, immediately afterwards by claiming that it is "an idea, really". Social relationships are not ideas.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't understand what you think they are then.

[Thirsty Crow]

For instance, I can think about the kite flyers in Auckland New Zealand, but I'm not involved in any kind of a social relationship with them as kite flyers. I can hold whatever idea, yet the fact remains that there is no relationship to speak of (the assumption being that I do not fly kites; pardon my banal example but this is what first came to me as an analogy).

To quote you:


It's a social relationship, a relationship to the means of production, a set of relationships between people, a generalised set of behaviours, a particular patterning of society.

None of that includes the ideas people hold about established relationship. If capital was an idea, then I could very well exorcise it by my own ideas I hold. But I obviously can't and in no time I'll be forced to work for a capitalist.

[Blake's Baby]

You can't excorcise it by your ideas alone. You aren't the only one imagining capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

You can't excorcise it by your ideas alone. You aren't the only one imagining capitalism.
No one's imagining it, that's my point. If all of a sudden all labourers stopped "imagining" it, they'd soon enough be forced to continue. So in this sense, social relationships involve a factor of material force, unlike ideas (which only do so once they inform action). Patterned behaviours in production, exchange and distribution is not a product of an idea, but of historical development of previous patterned behaviours.

All in all, I think it is deeply misleading to conclude that capital is an idea since it is obvious that there is a definite difference between established and ruling relationships and thoughts and ideas.

[Blake's Baby]

But the constitution of those relationships is in itself just a conventional set of ideas. If all the working class stopped imaging capitalism, it could at least start the process of revolution. If the bourgeoisie also stopped imagining capitalism, there'd be no need for the revolution.

[Thirsty Crow]

But the constitution of those relationships is in itself just a conventional set of ideas.
Only if you collapse the distinction between behaviour and thought. Which is not a valid project, I think.

And frankly, this whole deal with imagining capitalism is...well, try to step aside and observe how it sounds, and which connotations it brings forth. You're using the word "imagining" in a wrong way. Here, currently I'm imagining a blue unicorn with a Stalin tatoo on her butt. And I'm imagining capitalism and that I'll be forced to work for a capitalist.

There is a huge difference here.

[Blake's Baby]

Collapsing the distinction between behaviour and thought... possibly. But as I don't think capitalism is instinctive, it's learned (we are socialised into it) I don't really think there is a distinction to collapse. We adopt these forms of behaviour because we think we should, because society tells us to.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

But the constitution of those relationships is in itself just a conventional set of ideas. If all the working class stopped imaging capitalism, it could at least start the process of revolution. If the bourgeoisie also stopped imagining capitalism, there'd be no need for the revolution.

Let me get this straight, if everyone stopped imagining capitalism it disappears. Ideas alone don't change the mode of production. Ideas are reflections of reality, so to just stop imagining capitalism all together is by itself impossible to do, which is why we can't fully say how socialism and communism will look in detail. Only an idealist would think that capitalism will disappear when we stop imagining it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Collapsing the distinction between behaviour and thought... possibly. But as I don't think capitalism is instinctive, it's learned (we are socialised into it) I don't really think there is a distinction to collapse. We adopt these forms of behaviour because we think we should, because society tells us to.
I don't think we adopt these forms of behaviour because we are socialized into thinking we should, but because they are the basis of this very socializatin and are the default, the only existing overarching form of sociability that exists (prior to any thought formation), that is available.

[Blake's Baby]

Let me get this straight, if everyone stopped imagining capitalism it disappears. Ideas alone don't change the mode of production. Ideas are reflections of reality, so to just stop imagining capitalism all together is by itself impossible to do, which is why we can't fully say how socialism and communism will look in detail. Only an idealist would think that capitalism will disappear when we stop imagining it.

As capitalism is a set of behaviours, changing behaviour changes the relationships which changes reality. I really can't see how we can change reality if we can't imagine any other than the reality we have. In fact, that would imply that socialist society is impossible. We don't have it, therefore we can't imagine it; conversely, we do have capitalism, and we can't imagine not having it.

Except, I can, so I disprove your hypothesis.

As capitalism is a relationship between people and things, and things don't have consciousness, those relationships change when consciousness changes. If everyone stopped believing that property laws were legitimate, there would be no property. The property itself wouldn't care (or change), but the people who adopted a different set of behaviours towards each other (no longer enforcing 'property rights' against others, for example) would change the nature of the society through changing their ideas about social relationships.




I don't think we adopt these forms of behaviour because we are socialized into thinking we should, but because they are the basis of this very socializatin and are the default, the only existing overarching form of sociability that exists (prior to any thought formation), that is available.

But that's precisely the nature of the socialisation. Capitalism is seen as natural, people accept it as natural, they've been taught to believe it's natural.

We have changed our ideas about whether capitalism is 'natural', which I guess most of us were brought up with. So can anyone else. That has nothing to do with any change in reality. We haven't become communists in reality and then decided to accept communism in theory (ie, our ideas aren't a mechanical reflection of our reality).

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

As capitalism is a set of behaviours, changing behaviour changes the relationships which changes reality. I really can't see how we can change reality if we can't imagine any other than the reality we have. In fact, that would imply that socialist society is impossible. We don't have it, therefore we can't imagine it; conversely, we do have capitalism, and we can't imagine not having it.

Except, I can, so I disprove your hypothesis.

As capitalism is a relationship between people and things, and things don't have consciousness, those relationships change when consciousness changes. If everyone stopped believing that property laws were legitimate, there would be no property. The property itself wouldn't care (or change), but the people who adopted a different set of behaviours towards each other (no longer enforcing 'property rights' against others, for example) would change the nature of the society through changing their ideas about social relationships.

Ok let's assume this is True, how are the majority of people, even the bourgeoisie as that' what you said as well, going to stop imagining capitalism?
I mean, how do you think people will just forget about the reality they're in and imagine communism?

What I see is the ramblings of a liberal who is afraid of change and revolution so instead starts imagining things.

[Thirsty Crow]

As capitalism is a relationship between people and things, and things don't have consciousness, those relationships change when consciousness changes. If everyone stopped believing that property laws were legitimate, there would be no property.
Yet, if they remained passive and sitting at home, not a goddamn thing would change. If they refused to go to work, but fail to organize themselves, again nothing would be done. Not a thing.

So we see that consciousness has its role to play, but in specific ways. The existing relationships will not change by a change in consciousness alone, which assumes that there is a missing link between consciousness and action.

So again, no I'm afraid you're very wrong, capital is decisively not an idea, though it includes specific sets of ideas (legitimation-critique) as its day to day mode of operation. Ideas are expressed either in writing or in speech. Show me a speech act or a piece of writing that is capital.



What I see is the ramblings of a liberal who is afraid of change and revolution so instead starts imagining things.
Is this really necessary? I mean, really, a liberal afraid of revolution? That's some stupid slander.

[Blake's Baby]

Ok let's assume this is True, how are the majority of people, even the bourgeoisie as that' what you said as well, going to stop imagining capitalism?
I mean, how do you think people will just forget about the reality they're in and imagine communism?

What I see is the ramblings of a liberal who is afraid of change and revolution so instead starts imagining things.

I didn't say it would happen like that; I even said in a post to LinksRadikal earlier it would be 'by magic'; that's what happens NC (I much prefer you when you're just 'Creep') if you come into a conversation half way through and start lobbing accusations of idealism around. It was a hypothetical.

How did you 'forget about the reality' you're in and become a communist? Was it through changing your ideas about reality, or was it because you somehow established communism, so you could imagine it as a reflection of your reality?


Yet, if they remained passive and sitting at home, not a goddamn thing would change. If they refused to go to work, but fail to organize themselves, again nothing would be done. Not a thing.

So we see that consciousness has its role to play, but in specific ways. The existing relationships will not change by a change in consciousness alone, which assumes that there is a missing link between consciousness and action.

So again, no I'm afraid you're very wrong, capital is decisively not an idea, though it includes specific sets of ideas (legitimation-critique) as its day to day mode of operation. Ideas are expressed either in writing or in speech. Show me a speech act or a piece of writing that is capital...

I don't think there is a 'missing link betweeen consciousness and action'. I think the problem is firmly in the realms of consciousness. 'Subjective factors' and all that. I would say that any 'anti-capitalist/socialist/proletarian consciousness' that resulted in people doing nothing is no 'anti-capitalist/socialist/proletarian consciousness' at all.




...
Is this really necessary? I mean, really, a liberal afraid of revolution? That's some stupid slander.

It's OK, I'm quite happy that NC has picked up the wrong end of the stick, or the wrong end of the wrong stick even. I'm not talking him seriously.

[Thirsty Crow]

How did you 'forget about the reality' you're in and become a communist?
This very question is indicative of the defect of this approach.

I'll speak from my own experience. Not only did I not forget about the reality, but that very same reality smacked me in the face. That's why I am a communist. I changed my ideas, well not changed exactly but really upgraded it and started to elaborate on it, precisely because of the material force of the existing social relations which cannot be simply scaled down to those being ideas. Ideas by themselves don't have any force.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I didn't say it would happen like that; I even said in a post to LinksRadikal earlier it would be 'by magic'; that's what happens NC (I much prefer you when you're just 'Creep') if you come into a conversation half way through and start lobbing accusations of idealism around. It was a hypothetical.

Well, then you're hypotetically an idealist.


How did you 'forget about the reality' you're in and become a communist? Was it through changing your ideas about reality, or was it because you somehow established communism, so you could imagine it as a reflection of your reality?

I haven't stopped imagining capitalism. Part of the reason I am a communist is because capitalism is very much real.


It's OK, I'm quite happy that NC has picked up the wrong end of the stick, or the wrong end of the wrong stick even. I'm not talking him seriously.

Well, I admit that I misunderstood you.

[Oswy]

But the constitution of those relationships is in itself just a conventional set of ideas. If all the working class stopped imaging capitalism, it could at least start the process of revolution. If the bourgeoisie also stopped imagining capitalism, there'd be no need for the revolution.

I could be wrong but it looks like you're defending an idealist position ('idealist' in the sense Marxists oppose themselves to by adopting a 'materialist' position). Orthodox Marxism posits that in the first instance, and ultimately, there is a material realiity and that the realm of ideas, such as it can be distinguished from that material reality, is an emergent property.

[Blake's Baby]

This very question is indicative of the defect of this approach.

I'll speak from my own experience. Not only did I not forget about the reality, but that very same reality smacked me in the face. That's why I am a communist. I changed my ideas, well not changed exactly but really upgraded it and started to elaborate on it, precisely because of the material force of the existing social relations which cannot be simply scaled down to those being ideas. Ideas by themselves don't have any force.

It's Negative Creep's approach you're attacking. He's the one that thinks that ideas are merely a reflection of reality.

I'd argue that communism, as a political philosophy, praxis, whatever you want to call it, comes from a reflection on reality. It's a rejection of the dominant narrative. You have to reject the dominant narrative to become a communist, because there is no 'communist reality' for you to passively reflect. You have to chose to be a communist.


Well, then you're hypotetically an idealist...

For having the position that capitalism is a matter of convention?



...
I haven't stopped imagining capitalism. Part of the reason I am a communist is because capitalism is very much real...

So, you can imagine the non-existence of the reaity you're in? Didn't you just say that was idealism?



...
Well, I admit that I misunderstood you.

And I only meant that I wasn't taking your comment that I was a liberal idealist scared of revolution seriously; the rest of it I'm happy to discuss.


I could be wrong but it looks like you're defending an idealist position ('idealist' in the sense Marxists oppose themselves to by adopting a 'materialist' position). Orthodox Marxism posits that in the first instance, and ultimately, there is a material realiity and that the realm of ideas, such as it can be distinguished from that material reality, is an emergent property.

I'm a materialist but not a determinist. We can imagine communism, because we can see that there is a gap between 'what is' and 'what can be'. Reflection on material reality allows us to take an active part in changing that reality. The point, after all, is not merely to describe the world (all that is possible if 'reality' meachanistically determines 'ideas'), but as the man said, to change it.

[Thirsty Crow]

And I only meant that I wasn't taking your comment that I was a liberal idealist scared of revolution seriously; the rest of it I'm happy to discuss.
Sorry, but such comments need to be taken seriously. Not in the sense of them being actual accusations in need of refutation, or in the sense of burning personal insult, but as manifestations of a childish, stupid and intolerant tendency towards labelling and fabrication when one finds herself in disagreement with others.

I could point out that your insistence on counsciousness might derive in part from councilism. See the difference?

[Blake's Baby]

The difference is, you might be right, but Creep just jumped in with both feet half-way through a discussion without making himself aware of what had already been said. But I'm getting ahead of myself, I'm still doing a multi-quote edit to my previous post, as I can't answer all three of you at once.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Sorry, but such comments need to be taken seriously. Not in the sense of them being actual accusations in need of refutation, or in the sense of burning personal insult, but as manifestations of a childish, stupid and intolerant tendency towards labelling and fabrication when one finds herself in disagreement with others.

I could point out that your insistence on counsciousness might derive in part from councilism. See the difference?

Who was labelling who again?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

For having the position that capitalism is a matter of convention?

No for saying that if everyone would stop imagining capitalism we wouldn't have capitalism anymore.


So, you can imagine the non-existence of the reaity you're in? Didn't you just say that was idealism?

No I see the contradictions of capitalism. I don't pretend to know in detail what communism will look like and quite honestly think that we can't know.



And I only meant that I wasn't taking your comment that I was a liberal idealist scared of revolution seriously; the rest of it I'm happy to discuss.

I meant that I misunderstood your position as being serious instead of being hypothetical.

[Thirsty Crow]

Who was labelling who again?
That's not labelling, that's an honest assessment.

A good example of labelling is "ramblings of a liberal who is afraid of change". That kind of shit can fly in friends' circles, but in any communication with a communist whom you don't know, this is nothing more than malevolent slander. Actually, you choose yourself, stupidity or bad faith and an axe to grind.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

That's not labelling, that's an honest assessment.

A good example of labelling is "ramblings of a liberal who is afraid of change". That kind of shit can fly in friends' circles, but in any communication with a communist whom you don't know, this is nothing more than malevolent slander. Actually, you choose yourself, stupidity or bad faith and an axe to grind.

Oh yeah, of course. When I label it's labelling when you do it it's honest.

[Blake's Baby]

No for saying that if everyone would stop imagining capitalism we wouldn't have capitalism anymore...

OK, hypothetically speaking, if all knowledge of ownership, money, wages ad markets was erased from everyone's memories at the same time, how exactly would capitalism replicate itself?



...
No I see the contradictions of capitalism. I don't pretend to know in detail what communism will look like and quite honestly think that we can't know...

Which means that you can overcome the ideological hegemony of the ruling class (ruling ideas of any epoch and all that). How did you do that if your ideas are only a passive reflection of reality?




...
I meant that I misunderstood your position as being serious instead of being hypothetical.

I know - all I was saying after that was when I said to LinksRadikal that 'I wasn't taking Creep seriously' it was about the part that you'd misunderstood, not the otherwise reasonable questions about consciousness that preceeded them.

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh yeah, of course. When I label it's labelling when you do it it's honest.
If you can't engage in self-criticism and instead want to confuse what cannot be actually confused, fine.



For having the position that capitalism is a matter of convention? But Blake, this is definitely not the same as arguing that capital is an idea.

[Oswy]

...

I'm a materialist but not a determinist. We can imagine communism, because we can see that there is a gap between 'what is' and 'what can be'. Reflection on material reality allows us to take an active part in changing that reality. The point, after all, is not merely to describe the world (all that is possible if 'reality' meachanistically determines 'ideas'), but as the man said, to change it.

Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from now. I suppose the tricky part here is in establishing at what point and how far our material conditions 'allow' or facilitate any potential we have to imagine 'what can be'. From the opposite end of the spectrum it can at least be admitted that no idea emerges in a human brain without there being a material history of processes leading to its formation. In my experience plenty of working-class people have unwittingly absorbed, through their socialisation, at home and and school etc along with actual exposure in work (or out of it), capitalism as a norm - both as a process and set of ideas - and will reject socialism or any alternative because such alternatives are, ultimately, encountered through that distorting prism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

OK, hypothetically speaking, if all knowledge of ownership, money, wages ad markets was erased from everyone's memories at the same time, how exactly would capitalism replicate itself?

Erasing that knowledge from the minds is something fundamentally different from imagining. In that case I don't think it would replicate.


Which means that you can overcome the ideological hegemony of the ruling class (ruling ideas of any epoch and all that). How did you do that if your ideas are only a passive reflection of reality?

Allow me to quote Marx: “In the development of productive forces there comes a stage when productive forces and means of intercourse are brought into being, which, under the existing relationships, only cause mischief, and are no longer productive but destructive forces (machinery and money); and connected with this a class is called forth, which has to bear all the burdens of society without enjoying its advantages, which, ousted from society, is forced into the most decided antagonism to all other classes; a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise among the other classes too through the contemplation of the situation of this class.” (the German Ideology)

I agree with that. So yes I think in certain material conditions it can be overcome, but I also think that full "communist consciousness" can only be achieved on a mass scale in a revolution where capitalism is destroyed and communism becomes a practical reality.

[Blake's Baby]

...
But Blake, this is definitely not the same as arguing that capital is an idea.

OK, we're back where we started.

What is 'a convention' if not a set of ideas that people conform to?

[Thirsty Crow]

OK, we're back where we started.

What is 'a convention' if not a set of ideas that people conform to?
Is a specific way of dressing or cooking food a "set of ideas"? Maybe to the extent that the idea behind it is that it is good.

Do yout think that it is meaningful to make the distinction between ideas and practice? That the old adage of the social existence of men determining their ideas (modified for the purposes of this thread :lol:) is useful?

[Monkeyboy]

In some way terrorism, and also crime, has always facinated me - I'm no stranger to it.

Terrorism has many definitions, some politians call some people terrorist while others call them freedomfighters. Of course this is well known.

When I think of terrorism, I'm thinking of spreading fear into the public. I just recently read a book; one psychologist knew the change of a bus blowing up by a suicide bomber was small yet he was very careful when he was close to a bus. This is what terrorism wants to achieve; fear.

Terrorism is psychological warfare against the public in my definition. I'm against this terrorism. And I'm not a fan of violence, as it can be counterproductive, but I can see why some see violence as justified and sometimes it can work. Vandalism - I'm not that materialistic, but again I'm not a fan. Why? Some, possibly most, people are materialistic and by vandalising you're only making them angry.

I'm not against manipulation as many politians use mindgames and advertising does aswell. Manipulation isn't as harmful, and I find it justified if it's done for the greater good, and most people are unaware of manipulation. Sure, terrorism is also manipulation, but done by violence which I do not support.

[Quail]

I'm not against manipulation as many politians use mindgames and advertising does aswell. Manipulation isn't as harmful, and I find it justified if it's done for the greater good, and most people are unaware of manipulation. Sure, terrorism is also manipulation, but done by violence which I do not support.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? What kind of "manipulation" for the greater good would you find justified?

[Blake's Baby]

Is a specific way of dressing or cooking food a "set of ideas"? Maybe to the extent that the idea behind it is that it is good...

Yes. We don't have to get all platonic here, there doesn't have to be an ideal one hiding in a cave, but 'a pancake' or 'a tuxedo' is such because we have in our minds an image of such a thing and we measure how close the object comes... 'that's a nice tuxedo, do you have it in white?' or 'that's not a pancake, it's a dog'. We appreciate the world though our senses, our nervous system stimulates our brains, and that's how we understand.


...Do yout think that it is meaningful to make the distinction between ideas and practice? That the old adage of the social existence of men determining their ideas (modified for the purposes of this thread :lol:) is useful?

Sometimes it's meaningful - as in 'I had the idea of being nice to people, but decided instead to be a shit' - but in general, ideas without practice is quite pointless, whereas practice without ideas I'd claim was impossible. That's not to say that people are always conscious of what they're doing. or rather, they're not always conscious of the reasons they do what they're doing, but they usually know what it is that they're actually doing (I know I'm typing a reply on an internet forum at 2.43am - but I don't really know why I'm doing that rather than sleeping).

[Let's Get Free]

Here's my opinion on "terrorism"-capitalism is a social relationship not a group of bad individuals you can throw bombs at. It is a social and a hierarchical relationship between people that needs to be critiqued and changed through the same directly democratic practices that it aims at establishing between people. Sometimes that involves violence but the kind of organized violence employed by the Communards or the Spanish Revolutionaries to defend their attempts to break out of these exploitative relationships is a far cry from the indiscriminate murder of the general population. Indeed, those are the tactics of the state. Historically, terrorism (and terrorists) was an ideology and practice originally developed by the French Republic in an effort to coerce people through fear into political submission.

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, terrorist violence has been a catastrophic failure- whoever it is practiced by. In Palestine, the suicide bombing of Israeli citizens has thrown away the worldwide sympathy that might otherwise have flowed to the victims of occupation.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

'Terrorism' is relative and what the bourgeoisie call 'terrorism' is really 'class warfare.'

[Monkeyboy]

I want to stress. In certain situations violence, but not terrorism (as I define it), is the only thing that might work. Think of Libya, or the Cuban revolution.


Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? What kind of "manipulation" for the greater good would you find justified?

Good that you asked this. I should have been more precise, and this does seem radical. You would think as I think it's justified I'm lying, decieving and what not on this forum. It seems to go against my own, because I believe in scientific truth.

Let's start with lies. I think lies will haunt you. It's certainly do not advice to use lies, however I think misleading is justified. You can use statistics to your liking, this is done by politians - I have no evidence though that they do it, but I'm certain they do.

Use of words can also be manipulative. I learned at school when we needed to debate a lot of "mind tricks". As words have meanings and they are primed to cause certain emotions you can use this to manipulate. Ad hominem I would not advice to do, but one right wing politian in my country (famous for his anti-islam) uses this succesfully.

When I think of manipulation, I think of propaganda, and I think propaganda is justified.

Manipulation, the word itself has a bad meaning, worse than I thought, because when I look at wikipedia I see a lot I would not do. Using punishment, being abusive - I would not do this. I learned in school what's called Roman policy, bread and games, this policy doesn't solve the problem, but makes people believe it does. I would say this is manipulation, and I do not at all like this.

Thanks for correcting me, I appreciate that.

[BIXX]

I am gonna have to side with Blake's Baby on this one, if I understand what he's saying correctly. I think he is saying that the proletariat continues to acknowledge capitalism, and that lends it its power. If the proletariat stopped acknowledging it, it would fall apart cause they'd no longer be working to get their wage. Of course, this would require the entire proletariat to stop acknowledging capitalism. Then other systems could (and would) form pretty quickly, just cause capitalism needs the working class to keep working for it.

[Blake's Baby]

Obviously, the perspective of the entire working class suddenly deciding not to submit to capitalism is in itself nothing more than a thought-experiment. It's not a revolutionary strategy. But, becoming a communist means consciously rejecting the dominant ideology and choosing a different set of ideas about the world.

[IrishWorker]

"If we could just find out who's in charge, we could kill him."
George Carlin


Wise words.

[Captain Ahab]

Terrorism achieves nothing. Violence is a last resort and terrorizing the civilian population gives the bourgeois plenty of propaganda to make the common folk fight against you. Groups like the Shining Path should never be imitated.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, terrorist violence has been a catastrophic failure- whoever it is practiced by. In Palestine, the suicide bombing of Israeli citizens has thrown away the worldwide sympathy that might otherwise have flowed to the victims of occupation.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. The Palestinian cause seems to have more international support now than it did 10 or 15 years ago. I don't know what role the bombings played in that, but it certainly hasn't thrown away world opinion. The people who concentrate on nothing but the terrorism coming out of the occupied territories are people who wouldn't have supported the people living there anyhow due to ideological reasons.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"If we could just find out who's in charge, we could kill him."
George Carlin


Wise words.

"You can't fight City Hall, but you can goddamn sure blow it up." - GC

Another good quote. ;)

[Red Economist]

Against. You can kill an individual but not a class and a system of class rule. There's no point in it as it is not compatable with the nature of a popular revolution or the collective nature of a state organisation.

[Comrade Nasser]

I believe that if terrorism is committed as act of revolution and not just an act to harm innocent people, then it can very useful in getting what you want done, and getting it done fast. I have been called a "terrorist", "Commie", "Anarcho-Idiot" you name it just because I carry around a soviet flag and a black anarchy flag and wear a shemagh around my face when I go to school on certain days. I've almost been attacked by "Super-Patriots" for carrying around my black flag. But I don't care it's something I believe in and I fly it high with pride, if that makes me a "terrorist" so be it..

[BIXX]

I think terrorism, if it helps the cause, is justified.

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant) (civilians)" - Wikipedia

If you support this, then could you please stop identifying as communist? You make us look bad. Thanks.

[BIXX]

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant) (civilians)" - Wikipedia

If you support this, then could you please stop identifying as communist? You make us look bad. Thanks.

Just cause someone supports something that could be construed as terrorism, doesn't mean it's the common definition. For example, if some theoretical assassination of someone in power were to take place, it would be called terrorism by the media. I think there's a time and place for almost everything, and if it achieves the goal, that's great.

Also, I honestly feel that specific definition of terrorism is distinctly non-communist.

And, for my final point, I think when people on here refer to terrorism, they probably mean an act of violence against the state, not an act of violence or fear against civilians. I can't confirm that, but that's what I assumed.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry, I'm with User Name here, 'terrorism' refers to acts which are intended to induce terror and either target civilians or do not take their safety into account; not political assassination, unless for instance in blowing up a head of state a large crowd in the vicinity was also endangered.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

No it doesn't. That is a, modern, definition of terrorism. But not the one most people who advocate revolutionary terror use.

[Blake's Baby]

So as far as you're concerned, 'terrorism' means 'force used against the state'?

Isn't that the same as the state's definition of terrorism?

[Art Vandelay]

No it doesn't. That is a, modern, definition of terrorism. But not the one most people who advocate revolutionary terror use.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone here who doesn't support revolutionary terror. If we are to take the common definition of terrorism being an attack on non-combatants that is intended to instill fear into a populace, then without a doubt, no communist are terrorists. If we are to take the historical usage of the word, then all Marxists are terrorists. In the long run I think the whole point is a moot one, as all acts of 'revolutionary terror,' will be construed as terrorism by state and its media apparatuses.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One obviously doesn't need to use violence against civilian populations to be considered a "terrorist". As I remember reading in "Hezbollah: A Short History", the author (AR Norton) wrote that all of Hezbollah's actions during the occupation of Lebanon were against legitimate military targets (even if the methods used to assault such targets are commonly associated with terrorism, like suicide bombings). But Hezbollah is classified as a terrorist organization. And their actions such as the 1983 barracks bombing, would probably be classified as a terrorist attack, even though the target was a legitimate military one.

(That's not to say that all of Hezbollah's actions were non-terroristic, IIRC they assassinated a number of left-wingers and communists back in the 80's.)

Basically I think that any sort of "grassroots" organization that utilizes violence is going to be considered a "terrorist organization", regardless of whether they target civilians or not. This has been very common throughout the modern era...insurrectionaries and guerrillas were always refered to as "criminals", "bandits", etc. The word "terrorist" became popular later on but it's essentially the same idea, to delegitimize a political opposition by using the language of criminality.

[Art Vandelay]

One obviously doesn't need to use violence against civilian populations to be considered a "terrorist". As I remember reading in "Hezbollah: A Short History", the author (AR Norton) wrote that all of Hezbollah's actions during the occupation of Lebanon were against legitimate military targets (even if the methods used to assault such targets are commonly associated with terrorism, like suicide bombings). But Hezbollah is classified as a terrorist organization. And their actions such as the 1983 barracks bombing, would probably be classified as a terrorist attack, even though the target was a legitimate military one.

(That's not to say that all of Hezbollah's actions were non-terroristic, IIRC they assassinated a number of left-wingers and communists back in the 80's.)

Basically I think that any sort of "grassroots" organization that utilizes violence is going to be considered a "terrorist organization", regardless of whether they target civilians or not. This has been very common throughout the modern era...insurrectionaries and guerrillas were always refered to as "criminals", "bandits", etc. The word "terrorist" became popular later on but it's essentially the same idea, to delegitimize a political opposition by using the language of criminality.

Obviously, I would agree with this; however do you see no reason to differentiate among ourselves (Marxists/Anarchists) between revolutionary terror and terrorism, to perhaps see if any within our ranks do indeed support attacks on civilians?

I mean I would hope that it wouldn't be necessary, but you never know with some of the people we have running around here.

[blake 3:17]

Re: terrorism -- Don't do it!

[Ele'ill]

The question of who decides what is harmful to the revolution, and what serves the revolution, is also pretty crucial, in that case.

Is the answer 'the party', or 'the working class'?

Was this discussed further in this thread?

[BIXX]

So, what we are saying is that revolutionary terror is violence against the state, and general terrorism is against the people?

[Art Vandelay]

So, what we are saying is that revolutionary terror is violence against the state, and general terrorism is against the people?

I think that would be a fair assessment, yes.

[BIXX]

I do not support violence against the people. In fact, I think it could be argued that violence the people is distinctly not left wing, even if the intentions are.

[Art Vandelay]

I do not support violence against the people. In fact, I think it could be argued that violence the people is distinctly not left wing, even if the intentions are.

I don't think that anyone here supports violence against the people and if they do, they shouldn't be here. I think where the whole confusion arises is through the historical usage of the word 'revolutionary terror' as opposed to the modern connotations which are attached to the word terrorism.

[Comrade Nasser]

I think that would be a fair assessment, yes.

I believe for our movement revolutionary "terror" as in protesting, hunger strikes, and rebellion are very useful to our movement. I DO NOT agree with terrorist act's that harm civilians those are counter-productive to our cause in my opinion. We are not Nazi's like the idiots on Stormfront, we should not condone violence against civilian's like those scumbags do. The only time any violence should be used is against corrupt governments and fascists. NOT Innocent civilian's. That's just my two cent's :D

[Art Vandelay]

I believe for our movement revolutionary "terror" as in protesting, hunger strikes, and rebellion are very useful to our movement. I DO NOT agree with terrorist act's that harm civilians those are counter-productive to our cause in my opinion. We are not Nazi's like the idiots on Stormfront, we should not condone violence against civilian's like those scumbags do. The only time any violence should be used is against corrupt governments and fascists. NOT Innocent civilian's. That's just my two cent's :D

While I agree with your assessment that we should not partake in attacks on civilians, I would have to say that our movements revolutionary terror will include alot more then 'protesting, hunger strikes and rebellion', namely a brick wall and a bullet or perhaps some rope.

[Comrade Nasser]

While I agree with your assessment that we should not partake in attacks on civilians, I would have to say that our movements revolutionary terror will include alot more then 'protesting, hunger strikes and rebellion', namely a brick wall and a bullet or perhaps some rope.

I think you have the right idea 9mm. I'm not big on revolutionary violence though :D but if the time comes and we have to do the things you've mentioned for the revolution, i'm down for the cause.

[Blake's Baby]

Was this discussed further in this thread?

No, it wasn't. It seems that there's a general assumption that as long as 'we' are doing it it's OK, without any real attempt to explore who 'we' are.

[Art Vandelay]

No, it wasn't. It seems that there's a general assumption that as long as 'we' are doing it it's OK, without any real attempt to explore who 'we' are.

Well it kinda seems like a pointless discussion to me. All it would entail would be anti-partyists claiming those like me of enacting violence on behalf of the working class and being substitutionists and the pro-party side attempting to explain how the party would be a mass party enacting the will of the proletariat.

[Art Vandelay]

I think you have the right idea 9mm. I'm not big on revolutionary violence though :D but if the time comes and we have to do the things you've mentioned for the revolution, i'm down for the cause.

Food for thought:


"...the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism."
- Karl Marx, "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.


"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung", Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849


"We stand for organized terror -- this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life.
-Felix Dzerzhinsky, interviewed in Novaia Zhizn (14th July, 1918)


To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty.
-Maximilien Robespierre.

[LeonJWilliams]

For me, terrorism is targeting civilians.

[ellipsis]

The term doesn't really mean much as its used in popular discourse. The definition isn't really agreed upon, but a commonly accepted definition is "the use of violence for political ends by non-state actors."

If you read the blog, green is the new red, you'll realize how often this term is bandied about by us politicians, even more so on the local level. I have a comrade in virginia whose anarchist collective was going to show up at a women's right rally, and had a state senator call them "admitted anarchist terrorists" despite the fact that there activities include a food bank distribution and craft time for neighborhood kids.

[Blake's Baby]

Well it kinda seems like a pointless discussion to me. All it would entail would be anti-partyists claiming those like me of enacting violence on behalf of the working class and being substitutionists and the pro-party side attempting to explain how the party would be a mass party enacting the will of the proletariat.

So in this the working class has no agency at all? What if the working class bypassed the party and started orgainising its own terror? So, I think 'who controls the terror' is among the most important question to be faced in the revolution. Do the workers councils' have a monopoly of force, or not?

By the way, I'm pro-party, just anti-substitutionist.

[Aurora]

Obviously, I would agree with this; however do you see no reason to differentiate among ourselves (Marxists/Anarchists) between revolutionary terror and terrorism, to perhaps see if any within our ranks do indeed support attacks on civilians?

I mean I would hope that it wouldn't be necessary, but you never know with some of the people we have running around here.
Me for example, Trotskys kidnapping of former Czarist officers families was an act of terrorism, it was inflicted on civilians to instill terror in said officers and keep them loyal.
Lenins order to publicly hang no fewer than 100 kulaks was an act of terrorism, it was inflicted on civilians to terrorise others away from rebellion.
Both thoroughly justified and essential to the revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's important to distinguish what we mean by terror. What people have been saying about how "terrorism" is used in mainstream political discourse is totally correct: what they seem to find most abhorrent about it is the breech of the normal "monopoly on violence" by modern states. There are also more specific political connotations such as the ones connected with Islamophobia and war-propaganda in the US.

The quotes by 9mm are a different kind of "terror" I think. Obviously Robbspierre, but also Marx, was talking about the kind of political "terror" associated with the French Revolution. On some level all revolutionaries must support this kind of terror when used by working class forces in a Revolution - it was certaintly "terror" when the Spanish anarchists exaccuted Franco sympathizers while organizing worker's control in cities and I think it was certaintly necissary in general to forcibly supress the fascists.

Then there's "terrorism" as a strategy and I think this is severly flawed as a way forward for those who want working class self-emancipation. Harming the state alone does not help workers take power in society, it treats workers as passive recipiencts of a liberated society. On the other hand sometimes as a general resistance, this strategy might be effective because the goal is the more immediate effort to drive out an invading army.

"Terror" as a tactic though can be useful in revolutions, but the application is always a "tactical" question of means and ends. If there is a rail strike, for example, and it is bitter enough that some of the workers go off and blow up the rail lines of a scabbing company (or their own rail lines because they have been legally prevented from using strike-tactics to shut down the line) then it's a question of if this tactic helped or hindered the goals of that movement. Likewise in a revolution, the question becomes: is terror used by the worker's formations in order to protect and advance worker's power? In the case of "terror" acts being used as a tactic to "spark" an uprising, I think it's also a question of means and ends, but in that case I just don't think those ends can actually result from those means: some spectacular act doesn't cause mass consiousness and organization to emerge.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

One person's terror is anothers justice etc

My gut reaction to any violent act is a negative one (anyone who ever shouted any party's slogan and then shot someone dead thought they were doing it for the 'right' reasons along with every suicide bomber, building bomber or whatever).
In a truly revolutionary situation, such violence would no doubt be unavoidable and justified. As a means to start the revolution, my own personal gut feeling is one of 'what good could it possibly do'? Many groups throughout history felt that if they targeted the right people, the right places, spread the right message with some brutality thrown in, the 'masses' would somehow be inspired and rise up behind their cause.
I can't think of that many instances where this is has happened successfuly (happy to hear some examples)

[Ele'ill]

So in this the working class has no agency at all? What if the working class bypassed the party and started orgainising its own terror? .


What's your opinion on this?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that slaughtering a bunch of civilians to make a population cower in terror is pretty fucked up, honestly, and it replicates everything that I hate in this society. I can understand why it happens in certain scenarios (like why guerrilla organizations murder public officials in order to destroy civil society), but I can't detach myself from feeling that it's just wrong. Maybe that's not materialist of me or something, but there you have it. There are many people in society who I wouldn't mind seeing spit-roasted, of course, like the people who torture and kill for regimes, but this idea of "mass executions are awesome just as long as we come out on the other side in a glorious socialist society" makes me uncomfortable for a couple different reasons.

[Let's Get Free]

How many lives should we be willing to sacrifice for our "revolution?" Shall we stack them for barricades? Fill the trenches with them after the tanks roll in? Use their blood to write the history books that tell of our glorious time?

[Ele'ill]

I still think this conversation is a bit off because terrorism has been used as indiscriminate killing of civilians or intentional killing of civilians or just allowed collateral deaths (all same categorically and all I am opposed to) but also as I think as escalation of action against the state and the disruption of capital which a lot of people and users on this forum in the past have compared to being terortastic etc..

[Art Vandelay]

So in this the working class has no agency at all? What if the working class bypassed the party and started orgainising its own terror? So, I think 'who controls the terror' is among the most important question to be faced in the revolution. Do the workers councils' have a monopoly of force, or not?

The working class does have an agency, its party. The workers councils would subjugated to the party.


By the way, I'm pro-party, just anti-substitutionist.

So against the party seizing state power, gotcha.

[BIXX]

Another question: is terrorism pre-revolution, or are we saying terrorism also is part of the revolution? Cause a lot of what we're saying is terrorism is things that'd happen during the revolution, but in my opinion most of it seems just to be "war" tactics, that would inevitably occur during a revolution. For example, if I were to attack a bank now, that would be terrorism. But would it be terrorism if I did the same thing during a revolution? Or would it be war?

[Art Vandelay]

Me for example, Trotskys kidnapping of former Czarist officers families was an act of terrorism, it was inflicted on civilians to instill terror in said officers and keep them loyal.
Lenins order to publicly hang no fewer than 100 kulaks was an act of terrorism, it was inflicted on civilians to terrorise others away from rebellion.
Both thoroughly justified and essential to the revolution.

Picking an arbitrary number and then finding enough people to fill it, sits uneasy with me; I'm unsure what I think. Holding the families hostage is one thing, since it was a real possibility that the former Czarist officers would join the whites, however what if they had? Kill the women and children? I don't think that I could support that, especially not the children. Again I can see why they did it and ultimately all that mattered was preserving the revolution, however I guess I wouldn't know what I would of done in the situation unless I was there.

[Ele'ill]

The working class does have an agency, its party. The workers councils would subjugated to the party.


But to what extent is the party or the councils going to attempt to control or direct actions that 'the working class' desires to carry out? Not at all?

[Art Vandelay]

I think that slaughtering a bunch of civilians to make a population cower in terror is pretty fucked up, honestly, and it replicates everything that I hate in this society. I can understand why it happens in certain scenarios (like why guerrilla organizations murder public officials in order to destroy civil society), but I can't detach myself from feeling that it's just wrong. Maybe that's not materialist of me or something, but there you have it. There are many people in society who I wouldn't mind seeing spit-roasted, of course, like the people who torture and kill for regimes, but this idea of "mass executions are awesome just as long as we come out on the other side in a glorious socialist society" makes me uncomfortable for a couple different reasons.

I don't think that anyone here considers 'mass executions to be awesome.' I mean look at the Cheka, most of the people involved with it developed severe psychological problems and alcoholism cause they couldn't deal with what they were doing and seeing. No human is 'okay' with killing another human, it has lasting effects on their persona. However what I'm trying to get across is to avoid useless displays of moralizing. When push comes to shove, what is needed to protect the revolution and see it to its completion, will be done. Violence used to end an extremely violent and inhumane system, is not violence in my eyes; however a lack of violence during a revolutionary period, useless displays of moralism that will in the long run help the counter revolution, is violence to me, since it will help re-implement a system that allows a person to starve to death every 5 seconds, despite having enough food to feed everyone.

[Art Vandelay]

How many lives should we be willing to sacrifice for our "revolution?" Shall we stack them for barricades? Fill the trenches with them after the tanks roll in? Use their blood to write the history books that tell of our glorious time?

How many lives is too many? The question goes both ways and it is a stupid one, because there is obviously no arbitrary number.

[Art Vandelay]

But to what extent is the party or the councils going to attempt to control or direct actions that 'the working class' desires to carry out? Not at all?

The party and councils will both play a roll in directing the actions the working class desires to carry out. I'm also not talking about some sect, but a mass party with majority support of the working class.

[Ele'ill]

The party and councils will both play a roll in directing the actions the working class desires to carry out. I'm also not talking about some sect, but a mass party with majority support of the working class.


Ok but this doesn't really float with reality as we've seen condemnation of all sorts of radical actions by allegedly radical parties and organizations in an effort to act as a brake to autonomous escalation by workers or individuals carrying out the various actions and even of organizing outside of their bureaucracies so what roll will party and councils play?

[Art Vandelay]

Ok but this doesn't really float with reality as we've seen condemnation of all sorts of radical actions by allegedly radical parties and organizations in an effort to act as a brake to autonomous escalation by workers or individuals carrying out the various actions and even of organizing outside of their bureaucracies so what roll will party and councils play?

As I said earlier the workers councils will be subjugated to the party. There are reasons for this, although it is kinda getting off topic, but I'll go over a couple of them briefly. The centralized party, is highly organized and efficient and will be better suited to fight off any counter-revolutionary movements. Again, to me, centralism and federalism are tactics not principles and there will undoubtedly be times for both, but in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, a centralized party is of utmost necessity. Another important reason is because workers councils can allow reactionary sections of the working class to gain popularity and decision making power. While for any successful socialist revolution a huge majority of the working class will have indeed gained socialist class consciousness, I think it would be absurd to propose that literally of it the proletariat will have. There are always going to be backwards and reactionary elements of the proletariat which will capitulate to the counter-revolution. The party will contain membership restrictions, which the workers councils won't have, which will ensure these segments of the proletariat are not allowed to hinder the revolution.

Now I know that as an anarchist, you're not going to agree with all of that, however I'd appreciate not being called a reactionary or some suppressor of the proletariat, just cause we have different views on what is a necessity during times of revolution.

[Ele'ill]

which will ensure these segments of the proletariat are not allowed to hinder the revolution.

Now I know that as an anarchist, you're not going to agree with all of that, however I'd appreciate not being called a reactionary or some suppressor of the proletariat, just cause we have different views on what is a necessity during times of revolution.

I didn't call you a reactionary but the idea that the mass support of the working class is behind a party (which isn't a mass thing it is a party) in order to avoid 'counter revolution' doesn't make much sense to me and it would seem that if the mass of the working class was behind the party it wouldn't need a single lick of agency in a formal structure designed to control and direct based on a very limited set of needs or desires. Anyways we were talking about the role of party or council in directing or controlling actions carried out by the working class.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

As I said earlier the workers councils will be subjugated to the party. There are reasons for this, although it is kinda getting off topic, but I'll go over a couple of them briefly. The centralized party, is highly organized and efficient and will be better suited to fight off any counter-revolutionary movements. Again, to me, centralism and federalism are tactics not principles and there will undoubtedly be times for both, but in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, a centralized party is of utmost necessity. Another important reason is because workers councils can allow reactionary sections of the working class to gain popularity and decision making power. While for any successful socialist revolution a huge majority of the working class will have indeed gained socialist class consciousness, I think it would be absurd to propose that literally of it the proletariat will have. There are always going to be backwards and reactionary elements of the proletariat which will capitulate to the counter-revolution. The party will contain membership restrictions, which the workers councils won't have, which will ensure these segments of the proletariat are not allowed to hinder the revolution.

Now I know that as an anarchist, you're not going to agree with all of that, however I'd appreciate not being called a reactionary or some suppressor of the proletariat, just cause we have different views on what is a necessity during times of revolution.

Yeah, because, historically, the centralized party has been such a successful bulwark against reactionary sections of the working class (or, even, like, against opportunist petite-bourgeois bureaucrats). As if.
If anything, the terror practiced by centralized parties (France, Russia, Spain) has spelled the beginning of the end for emancipatory projects. On the other hand, diffuse class violence has tended to mark an escalation of struggles, qualitative leaps in consciousness (like, moving beyond bourgeois legalism, capacity for autonomous class organization, etc.).

[Art Vandelay]

I didn't call you a reactionary but the idea that the mass support of the working class is behind a party (which isn't a mass thing it is a party) in order to avoid 'counter revolution' doesn't make much sense to me and it would seem that if the mass of the working class was behind the party it wouldn't need a single lick of agency in a formal structure designed to control and direct based on a very limited set of needs or desires. Anyways we were talking about the role of party or council in directing or controlling actions carried out by the working class.

Oh I know you didn't call me that, I was more just anticipating what my be the response to my views from an anarchist perspective. Can you elaborate on the bolded part, I am unsure of what exactly you are asking me.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, because, historically, the centralized party has been such a successful bulwark against reactionary sections of the working class (or, even, like, against opportunist petite-bourgeois bureaucrats). As if.
If anything, the terror practiced by centralized parties (France, Russia, Spain) has spelled the beginning of the end for emancipatory projects. On the other hand, diffuse class violence has tended to mark an escalation of struggles, qualitative leaps in consciousness (like, moving beyond bourgeois legalism, capacity for autonomous class organization, etc.).

The terror in both revolutionary France as well as Revolutionary Russia, was of the utmost necessity.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that anyone here considers 'mass executions to be awesome.' I mean look at the Cheka, most of the people involved with it developed severe psychological problems and alcoholism cause they couldn't deal with what they were doing and seeing. No human is 'okay' with killing another human, it has lasting effects on their persona.

I don't really buy into the belief that those who torture and kill are somehow "victims" too. That was the BS logic that some movie reviewer said about "Zero Dark Thirty" recently, that oh the poor CIA was just doing what it had to do, and look at how it affected our boys!

Also there are plenty of people who are totally fine with killing. Like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin). He became a crazy alcoholic when he stopped killing.


However what I'm trying to get across is to avoid useless displays of moralizing. When push comes to shove, what is needed to protect the revolution and see it to its completion, will be done. Violence used to end an extremely violent and inhumane system, is not violence in my eyes; however a lack of violence during a revolutionary period, useless displays of moralism that will in the long run help the counter revolution, is violence to me, since it will help re-implement a system that allows a person to starve to death every 5 seconds, despite having enough food to feed everyone.

There are real reasons why people find the mass murder of innocent people to be offensive, and they aren't just moral in nature. They're biological, as well. Plus the fact that when we look back at major social upheavals, revolutions more often than not drown in blood. Violence may achieve some sort of limited objective, like the temporary ascension to power and prevention of outside forces from invading, but the ultimate end result is pretty much always the same. Live by the sword die by the sword I guess.

[Blake's Baby]

What's your opinion on this?

The working class (not the party, which can only be a fraction of the class, even if it can be a large fraction) must keep a monopoly on violence. The mass organs of the class are the workers' councils, and it is the councils that must control the militia.


The working class does have an agency, its party. The workers councils would subjugated to the party...

Careful, your DNZ is showing.

Completely wrong. The party is subordinate to the working class. The class organises itself through the councils. The party is the organisation of revolutionary militants. The party serves the working class, it doesn't rule it.



...

So against the party seizing state power, gotcha.

Indeed. The class takes power, not the party (though Bordiga would agree with you, not me).

[Ostrinski]

Institutions such as councils and soviets are the most organic and direct expression of the proletarian dictatorship. A set of circumstances in which the party is managing everything is not an ideal situation for the prospects of the continued healthy and democratic nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, not even Trotsky disagreed with me.

I don't think this negates the roll that the party can play in the proletarian dictatorship, it merely posits that the leadership of the party must be democratically accountable to the working class. We can talk about the leadership of the party being democratically accountable through the party itself, but the purpose of the party is to be a central organ, and all central organs necessarily require a degree of bureaucracy and the councils and soviets provide a healthy check to any layer of grease that may crystallize at the top.

I think if the sustainment of the dictatorship of the proletariat requires excessive amounts of violence then I think that is indicative a poor standing of the revolutionary movement and government. Terror is used under disagreeable conditions, wherein the health of the revolutionary government is considerably weak. Perhaps certain parts of the revolutionary class have had second thoughts, maybe the revolution was never that popular to begin with. But one thing is certain, the working class cannot be represented by unaccountable actors. Political substitutionism is the historical foundation of the creation of the social basis of a state-capitalist class.

[Art Vandelay]

Careful, your DNZ is showing.

:rolleyes:


Completely wrong. The party is subordinate to the working class. The class organises itself through the councils. The party is the organisation of revolutionary militants. The party serves the working class, it doesn't rule it.

The class not only organizes itself through the councils, but also through the party (I'm not talking about a minoritarian party of 'revolutionary militants' but a mass proletarian party. The working class, through their party, rules the dictatorship of the proletariat. There will indeed be a large amount of decentralization and control in the workers councils (as much as possible given the material circumstances) however there must be a degree of centralization for certain tasks; tasks which only the party should be in control of.


Indeed. The class takes power, not the party (though Bordiga would agree with you, not me).

Exactly, so my views aren't stemming from DNZ and I am hardly a 'DNZite', I hate it when I get labeled as such; nothing against the guy. I know alot of people here have issues with him, but personally I don't; that is not to say I don't disagree with him on certain issues.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Exactly, so my views aren't stemming from DNZ and I am hardly a 'DNZite', I hate it when I get labeled as such; nothing against the guy. I know alot of people here have issues with him, but personally I don't; that is not to say I don't disagree with him on certain issues.

Are you claiming that your views stem from Bordiga?

[Art Vandelay]

Are you claiming that your views stem from Bordiga?

No although I do quite like alot of Bordiga's writting; my point was that many people, over history, have advocated the party seizing the state, so to assume that my view on this matter comes from a person that I have never met, on an internet forum, seems silly.

[Blake's Baby]

'A lot' of people have said that the councils should be subordinated to the party? Can you name some of them? Quite honestly, the only person I can think that I've ever heard express this view is DNZ.

[Ostrinski]

I think Bordiga had a very negative view toward worker's councils. He even chastised Gramsci for calling for soviets to be formed if I recall correctly. But I don't even think the Bolsheviks, after they took the substitutionist route, held that soviets and councils should be subordinate to the party in theory, although the actual policies of the party tell us otherwise.

[Art Vandelay]

In practice the Bolsheviks were clearly supporters of soviets being subordinated to the party. This would only be in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and as the material conditions allowed, the role played by the party would no longer be necessary. But for any situation where organized resistance is needed to quell counter revolution, resources allocated to help supply this resistance etc.., the party taking control in a centralized manner is a necessity.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No it isn't.


Terrorism, when it is the working class inflicting terror upon the ruling class, is a form of class struggle that we should all support. This doesn't necessarily mean that literally the entire class is terrorizing the bourgeois but it can manifest it's self in minor insistences. For example if a group of tenants were go get together and torture their landlord until he agrees to lower rent then that would be an appropriate form of terrorism. Another example would be if a revolutionary party armed the workers in an area and threatened to pillage and loot the capital (assuming they don't have the forces to capture it) if a certain demand isn't meet, say the end of a war or an increase in the minume wage. Recently in Nepal for example, in response to an attempt at privatizing a factory, the CPN-M armed the workers at the factory and formed a mitlia threatening insurrection if the factory was sold off. These are all good examples of terrorism.

The two most famous insistences of terrorism, the Great Terror in France and the Cultural Revolution are good examples how how terrorism ought to be handled once revolutionaries take power. In France the ruling class was beheaded and anyone who sympathized with them was terrorized. While in China the working class themselves took up arms and revolted against the corrupt leadership of the CCP.

The form of terrorism that we want to avoid, is when some dudes who like Che Guvera start to bomb stuff in the name of the proletariat. The reason why this terrorism is negative is not because it is violent, but rather because it subsitutes the role of the working class for a small cadre of guerrillas.
Agree about the Great Terror, not about the GPCR. But I think the op's question here is not about post-revolutionary terror, but terrorist acts as a strategy or tactic to make revolution. The main problem is that it does not work. People who try to overthrow capitalism using terrorism are either naive or despairing.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The terror in both revolutionary France as well as Revolutionary Russia, was of the utmost necessity.

I didn't say it wasn't necessary - only that it was a poor model for contemporary communists, coincided with the end of popular upheaval, and neatly preceded the suppression of the working classes generally by the respective state machines. No Napoleon without the Jacobins, no Stalin without Lenin and Trotsky. It's not a dig at the latter in either case (since, obviously, it speaks to the historical moment), but, strictly speaking, it's true.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Revolutionary terror did not lead to Stalinism in the USSR, it kept the the monarchy aided by the bourgeoisie from regaining power. The degeneration of the Bolsheviks and USSR was caused by very different factors. Same with the French Terror -- kept the aristocrats and monarchists from coming back into power. Even under "Emperors, Napoleon I, II & III, France remained a republic. A bourgeois republic, that is.

[Art Vandelay]

I didn't say it wasn't necessary - only that it was a poor model for contemporary communists, coincided with the end of popular upheaval, and neatly preceded the suppression of the working classes generally by the respective state machines. No Napoleon without the Jacobins, no Stalin without Lenin and Trotsky. It's not a dig at the latter in either case (since, obviously, it speaks to the historical moment), but, strictly speaking, it's true.

I think that is a pretty vulgar historical analysis.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that is a pretty vulgar historical analysis.

I mean, it's all of three sentences - of course it's vulgar.
I'm lazy, and it's my friend Isabella's birthday, so I'm going to go party but . . . the short version of the less vulgar version goes something like this:
The apparatus of centralized terror, unless it is abolishing capitalist relations (esp. wages, money), inevitably constitutes itself as capitalist by the process of using capitalist relations as the means of carrying out said terror. The result is a centralized apparatus of capitalist terror. See: Stalin.