Woolwich beheading

[hatzel]

Well ed miliband (our one, not the real one) already mentioned the the Woolwich beheading (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630304) in the Swedish riots thread, but now that the police are apparently treating it as an 'militant Islamist terrorist attack' or words to that effect (the deceased was a soldier wearing a 'Help for Heroes' t-shirt), I thought it deserved a thread of its own because it's probably going to be a major issue...

[Tim Cornelis]

It's not terrorism if it does not involve an attack on civilians. But you have to have a particular lack of empathy to pull this off like that, disgusting either way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck.

[Bronco]

It's not terrorism if it does not involve an attack on civilians. But you have to have a particular lack of empathy to pull this off like that, disgusting either way.

Since when :confused:

[Comrade #138672]

Islamophobia is exploding right now.

Some right-wing nut said in response to all this: "When Muslims start a riot now, they should be shot without hesitation." I don't like where this is heading to.

[union6]

Got a feeling this is going to play right into UKIP's hands, the BBC have already quoted Farage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Got a feeling this is going to play right into UKIP's hands, the BBC have already quoted Farage.

Oh, for fuck's sake. That actually made me feel a little bit sick. Fuck the BBC.

[union6]

Oh, for fuck's sake. That actually made me feel a little bit sick. Fuck the BBC.

I know same here, it seems that the BBC think UKIP is the 3rd largest party or something as they have only quoted Cameron, Milliband and Farage.

[Aurora]

It's not terrorism if it does not involve an attack on civilians.
It's an interesting case actually because i think it probably does qualify as terrorism, the attack was politically motivated and they tried to get as much attention as possible by inviting people to film it and take photos.
That the target was a soldier doesn't matter because the intent was still to influence the opinion of the population by terror.

[GerrardWinstanley]

So the UK just had a taste of the barbarism it exports to Iraq and Libya (and then to Syria) and the media goes into racist meltdown. Well, this is awfully familiar.

I'd wager right now this killer is not, in any way, affiliated with al-Qaeda (wahhabi extremist attitudes to blacks would make a London Met counterterrorism operative blush).

[Tim Cornelis]

Surreal footage of the perpetrator casually talking to a camera.


It's an interesting case actually because i think it probably does qualify as terrorism, the attack was politically motivated and they tried to get as much attention as possible by inviting people to film it and take photos.
That the target was a soldier doesn't matter because the intent was still to influence the opinion of the population by terror.

Yeah but the meaning of terrorism has evolved beyond merely instigating fear for political reasons. If not, breaking into a house of a political opponent is terrorism, or spitting at a political opponent is.


Since when :confused:

Soldiers fighting each other is not considered terrorism because it does not involve civilians.

[rednordman]

I have to admit that i'm crying inside rather badly at the amount of hateful bastards who are already using this horrific act of violence as a way to tar all muslims with the same brush. Really sad scenes from someone living in England. Stormy times ahead:(:crying:

[Bronco]

Soldiers fighting each other is not considered terrorism because it does not involve civilians.

I'm not sure if most people agree with that, nor would I consider 2 extremists running over an off duty soldier before cutting him up in the street to be "soldiers fighting each other"

[ToldYouSo]

U.S. + 9/11 = Bush. U.K. + Woolwich Attack = UKIP. History repeats it's self again.

[hatzel]

Stormy times ahead


EnglishDefenceLeague ‏@Official_EDL - EDL leader Tommy Robinson on way to Woolwich now, Take to the streets peeps ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
EnglishDefenceLeague ‏@Official_EDL - Message from Tommy - Feet on the streets anyone want to go to Woolwich contact him/me, he will be there around 9pmThey're also claiming to have more than 3000 new 'likes'...

[rednordman]

They're also claiming to have more than 3000 new 'likes'...Tell me about. Some people are calling for "civil war". that f**king scares me tbh:(

[RedAnarchist]

Facebook is full of kneejerk morons blaming Pakistanis even though at least one of the attackers is black. Not surprised to see the EDL take advantage of the attack.

[Red Commissar]

Well, if this perpetrator ends up being a Muslim the media'll have a field day with it. With the protests/riots in Sweden and the Boston bombing the anti-immigrant nuts and islamophobes will have a field day.

I'm surprised that this ends up being called an act of terrorism this quick though without actually confirming who did this.

[Comrade Samuel]

Just heard about it from a friend, local radio station apperently made it out to be some kind of horrific world-changing event.

A soldier was murdered- this wouldn't even make news if it wasn't an opportunity for western media to reinforce everybody's islamophobia. It is literally insulting how fast they are to throw around the phrase "terrorism".

[Bronco]

Ehh to be fair the two guys carried out a brutal murder in broad daylight on a busy road, they then hung around the body waiting for police to arrive inviting people to film them and take pictures, ITV news had a clip of one of the attackers justifying it because of what happens back in his country and urging people to overthrow their governments

Ws_HF9qSrYI

It's not really surpising that firstly, it's made the news, and secondly that it's been labelled terrorism


Sorry for coming in an editing this post but I've put it in spoilers because it's really distressing - Sam_b

[rednordman]

Ehh to be fair the two guys carried out a brutal murder in broad daylight on a busy road, they then hung around the body waiting for police to arrive inviting people to film them and take pictures, ITV news had a clip of one of the attackers justifying it because of what happens back in his country and urging people to overthrow their governments

Ws_HF9qSrYI

It's not really surprising that firstly, it's made the news, and secondly that it's been labelled terrorismWere not surprised by that. What's a worry is how people are just going to use this to gain support for their own cause. To push their racist agenda to the fore of British society.

[Bronco]

Were not surprised by that. What's a worry is how people are just going to use this to gain support for their own cause. To push their racist agenda to the fore of British society.

I was mainly responding to the posts above which said it's only made the news because of the media's Islamophobia and that they're applying the word terrorist too quickly

I agree that the anti-Islam frenzy we're gonna see in this country over the next few days is a worry

[slum]

he is very composed for someone who just decapitated a guy

christ the comments on the bbc page in the OP make me want to throw up

[bricolage]

twitter:

EDL marching outside Woolwich DLR. About 60. Throwing bottles. Police lining up. Many black ppl in neighbourhood running away across square

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A soldier was murdered- this wouldn't even make news if it wasn't an opportunity for western media to reinforce everybody's islamophobia. It is literally insulting how fast they are to throw around the phrase "terrorism".

Are you mad?

Terrorism - i.e. to inspire terror. Can you imagine how terrifying it is that people in your city are willing to go around attacking randomers with a machete and a knife for something our country did, not in our name, in other parts of the world? This is the very definition of terrorism, and a justification for a strong opposition to imperialism.

It's not insulting in the slightest to call this an act of terror. I'm certainly terrified by it.

[bricolage]

Can you imagine how terrifying it is that people in your city are willing to go around attacking randomers with a machete and a knife for something our country did, not in our name, in other parts of the world?
wasn't he attacked for being a soldier? I actually haven't heard all the details yet but if this is true then it's not necessarily random..

[Sam_b]

Latest news is a man in Essex has been arrested for attempted arson on a mosque. FFS

[ed miliband]

brian whelan's twitter feed has got a photos from the edl rally / riot:

https://twitter.com/brianwhelanhack

e: video footage too.

[Comrade Samuel]

Are you mad?

Terrorism - i.e. to inspire terror. Can you imagine how terrifying it is that people in your city are willing to go around attacking randomers with a machete and a knife for something our country did, not in our name, in other parts of the world? This is the very definition of terrorism, and a justification for a strong opposition to imperialism.

It's not insulting in the slightest to call this an act of terror. I'm certainly terrified by it.


Most people I know define terrorism as committing violent acts in order to achieve political goals- this is irrational, brutal and sick but certainly not "Britan's 9/11".

I'm offended by the fact that there are already people linking this to Al-Qaeda and ranting/ raving about how we should invade somebody over this in addition to praising this guy for "dying for his country".

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The videos are kinda surreal to watch. Everything is so casual, the act itself, the relatively calm political statements. All filtered through to me by YouTube rather than the news. The world feels more like a dystopian sci-fi novel and less like reality every day.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The videos are kinda surreal to watch. Everything is so casual, the act itself, the relatively calm political statements. All filtered through to me by YouTube rather than the news. The world feels more like a dystopian sci-fi novel and less like reality every day.

I've had those exact same feelings, for about a year now, maybe more. I've tried looking to see if the science of psychology has anything to say about this, but I've turned up nothing so far.

[human strike]

Ehh to be fair the two guys carried out a brutal murder in broad daylight on a busy road, they then hung around the body waiting for police to arrive inviting people to film them and take pictures, ITV news had a clip of one of the attackers justifying it because of what happens back in his country and urging people to overthrow their governments

Ws_HF9qSrYI

It's not really surpising that firstly, it's made the news, and secondly that it's been labelled terrorism


Sorry for coming in an editing this post but I've put it in spoilers because it's really distressing - Sam_b

"Baghdad style violence"? Is he taking the piss? People are killed in knife attacks in London all the time. Baghdad style violence would be a cruise missile falling on your house.

[ed miliband]

i posted about it at the time, but there was a mass brawl down my high street last year that saw two people shot, and various others stabbed and burnt with acid, and it didn't make the news...

i don't like this contrast and compare shit, obviously what happened in woolwich was brutal and fucking disgusting, but the idea that this murder represents some new low in the history of violence on london's streets... hmm.

[nopasaran]

This sucks on just about every level, the only people that benefit from this are the xenophobes and fascists who now have more fuel for their fire

[RedHal]

as gruesome as this act is, they targeted a soldier, and you could say there were no "collateral victims". Unlike say, drone strikes, that indiscriminately kill innocent men, women and children if they happened to be near the intended target. Which is more barbaric?

[Revenant]

Stuff like this makes me ponder the relevance of the Left, maybe we should all become Muslims and just have it out, Islam vs Western Imperialism?:laugh:

People today in 21st century England will kill for money, respect, more rarely religion but apparently not for revolution, I wonder whether the fault lies with the left for neglecting the "pauperised" inner city regions, that they descend into gang culture with Islam apparently serving as some outlet for the more radically inclined.

What the guy was saying to the news cameras seemed like a challenge, I think he highlight a factual point, all this war, exploitation of foreign lands and so on goes on because we as the mass of the population allow it, at some point our chickens will come home to roost.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stuff like this makes me ponder the relevance of the Left, maybe we should all become Muslims and just have it out, Islam vs Western Imperialism?:laugh:

People today in 21st century England will kill for money, respect, more rarely religion but apparently not for revolution, I wonder whether the fault lies with the left for neglecting the "pauperised" inner city regions, that they descend into gang culture with Islam apparently serving as some outlet for the more radically inclined.

What the guy was saying to the news cameras seemed like a challenge, I think he highlight a factual point, all this war, exploitation of foreign lands and so on goes on because we as the mass of the population allow it, at some point our chickens will come home to roost.

I think you should be very careful about expanding on your next point.

Yes, we have fought illegal wars, occupied foreign lands in the most heinous and brutal ways. But this 'eye for an eye' stuff, nah. This army guy wasn't even on duty, he was probably a worker rather than a general. There's no excuse for this shit. Just think about how brutal it was; the war was hardly the fault of the murdered guy.

And in addition, this wasn't an angry Iraqi getting on a plane and coming to avenge his family's deaths; anybody who has seen the video can identify quite clearly the man's accent (the dude with the blood and the two knives in his hand). He's a local, it would seem.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Gillingham's my home town, sickening to see it's name in print in this context (it's a grubby place anyway. but still). Not liking all this reactionary bullshit in response; over the top, mis-directed and just plain stupid.

In footage obtained by ITV News, one of the men was filmed wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements.
"I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same," he said.
"You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."
The other was pictured holding a knife and speaking to a woman at the scene.
The Daily Telegraph says it has spoken to the woman.
According to the paper, Cub Scout leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett asked him: "Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?"
"He was covered with blood," she said. "I thought I had better talk to him before he starts attacking somebody else."
She says the suspect told her the dead man was a British soldier, adding: "I killed him because he kills Muslims over there and I am fed up that people kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The Muslim Council of Britain said the murder was "a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly".
A 43-year-old was held in custody on Wednesday night suspected of attempted arson after reportedly walking into a mosque holding a knife in Braintree, Essex.
Another man was arrested in Gillingham on suspicion of racially aggravated criminal damage as around 250 supporters of the English Defence League gathered in Woolwich and clashed with police.
John Reid, a former home secretary, warned against "playing into the agenda" of the perpetrators.
"The dividing line is not between Islam and non-Islam," he told the BBC. "It is between the terrorists and everyone else."

(BBC News)

[Comrade #138672]

I've had those exact same feelings, for about a year now, maybe more. I've tried looking to see if the science of psychology has anything to say about this, but I've turned up nothing so far.What about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derealization?
Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorders

Not that I think that we should assign disorders to ourselves, but it is more or less in the direction of what you are looking for.

[hatzel]

Stuff like this makes me ponder the relevance of the Left, maybe we should all become Muslims and just have it out, Islam vs Western Imperialism?:laugh:

I'm sure Muslims will be very happy to hear the ultra-relevant Left reducing their entire religion to a mere oppositional political choice. Good job, son!

[Agathor]

I don't remember an anti-Islamist frenzy after the 7/7 bombings or any of the attempts that followed it. I guess it depends on what the tabloids want to make of it. It would be kind of hard to turn it into a campaign against immigration as the people involved probably have multiple generations of British born relatives.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

When two 'terrorists' supposedly hack a guy to death, the majority of the public display their anger on the interwebs and exclaim things such as 'bring back the electric chair' or 'hang the bastards'.

When the leaders of the 'free' world sanction the murder of thousands, the majority of the public give a round of applause or (more likely) ignore the entire thing.

Western Liberal Democracy strikes again.

[Devrim]

When two 'terrorists' supposedly hack a guy to death, the majority of the public display their anger on the interwebs and exclaim things such as 'bring back the electric chair' or 'hang the bastards'.

I don't think they do actually. I looked through the UK papers quickly today, and there were no calls, even from the most right-wing of the tabloids to bring back capital punishment. The Sun had a selection of web comments from the public, none of whom called to bring back hanging or the like.

Oh, and the Brits never used the electric chair in the first place, so they can't bring it back.

Devrim

[Dropdead]

What was the real reason for the beheading? Just for fun? Or were they like ''overthrow your governments !1111111'' or what?

[LeonJWilliams]

What was the real reason for the beheading? Just for fun? Or were they like ''overthrow your governments !1111111'' or what?

overthrow your government

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I don't think they do actually. I looked through the UK papers quickly today, and there were no calls, even from the most right-wing of the tabloids to bring back capital punishment. The Sun had a selection of web comments from the public, none of whom called to bring back hanging or the like.

Oh, and the Brits never used the electric chair in the first place, so they can't bring it back.

Devrim

I made a generalisation but it seems as if you have overlooked the point I was making. My point is that a lot of hypocrisy exists with issues such as the recent 'terrorist' attack and this hypocrisy is a tactic used by western liberal democracy to control the public and distract them from removing what causes terrorism in the first place.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I don't remember an anti-Islamist frenzy after the 7/7 bombings or any of the attempts that followed it. I guess it depends on what the tabloids want to make of it. It would be kind of hard to turn it into a campaign against immigration as the people involved probably have multiple generations of British born relatives.There was certainly a sharp rise in anti-muslim violence (http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/197-London-Bomb-attacks-EN.pdf) after the bombings although, looking at the statistics (see chapter 1.3), it appears more were targeted for the colour of their skin than for their religious persuasion (this is usually the nature of anti-muslim violence).

[barbelo]

Riots in Sweden, beheadings in Britain...

Brb, getting canadian citizenship.

[barbelo]

a tactic used by western liberal democracy to control the public and distract them from removing what causes terrorism in the first place.

And what causes terrorism? Immigration?

[goalkeeper]

When two 'terrorists' supposedly hack a guy to death, the majority of the public display their anger on the interwebs and exclaim things such as 'bring back the electric chair' or 'hang the bastards'.

When the leaders of the 'free' world sanction the murder of thousands, the majority of the public give a round of applause or (more likely) ignore the entire thing.

Western Liberal Democracy strikes again.

I hardly think selective outrage is a feature of Liberal Democracy only. You can call out the selective rage and hypocrisy of practically any group of people, communists included.

[goalkeeper]

And what causes terrorism? Immigration?

Probably some crude explanation of how bombing Afghani's elicits a response from a guy from london with no real connection to the place other than imagined community.

[BIXX]

Honestly I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand, I feel that the guy who they attacked was military, so I feel it was in a way not an act of terrorism. On the other hand, I feel it will do more harm than good (xenophobes and fascists are gonna have a great time with this). Plus I feel they hurt the leftists when they mentioned how our governments don't care about us, because that is a standpoint held by many leftists, so the liberals will start pointing at this and saying "that's what leftists do".

I think I feel that the act of killing military (for the most part) isn't evil, however, this was an odd case. I feel that we should have expected this, and honestly, I would say any xenophobe or fascist deserve the same.

[Revenant]

I think you should be very careful about expanding on your next point.

Yes, we have fought illegal wars, occupied foreign lands in the most heinous and brutal ways. But this 'eye for an eye' stuff, nah. This army guy wasn't even on duty, he was probably a worker rather than a general. There's no excuse for this shit. Just think about how brutal it was; the war was hardly the fault of the murdered guy.

And in addition, this wasn't an angry Iraqi getting on a plane and coming to avenge his family's deaths; anybody who has seen the video can identify quite clearly the man's accent (the dude with the blood and the two knives in his hand). He's a local, it would seem.
Well hopefully this is careful enough:

likewise this young local lad didn't start any wars, he found himself born into one, a war against poverty as life in any underprivileged community is, a war against inequality, endemic racial prejudice, the police, rival gangs and small minded bigotry, this life is also a war between good and evil in the heart of the individual, for which the young man probably found religion was some help until somebody convinced him killing for god is a good thing to do.

I;m not saying what he did was right or wrong really, just saying I can understand why some people might be drawn to believe in Islam or any religion, if it offers a channel, outlet for their anger and frustration, especially in the absence of any leftist organizations willing to reach out to these youths.

In ways I find it encouraging he wasn't just another young man stabbing somebody up over money or to rob his trainers, but find it discouraging that young impoverished youth find more relevance in Islam than in Marxism or political organization.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I made a generalisation but it seems as if you have overlooked the point I was making. My point is that a lot of hypocrisy exists with issues such as the recent 'terrorist' attack and this hypocrisy is a tactic used by western liberal democracy to control the public and distract them from removing what causes terrorism in the first place.

It's not hypocrisy. It is the British government, the political class - in tow to the capitalist class - who start and continue the imperial expansion into underdeveloped backwaters, in search of profits via political control, itself via social and economic decimation.

It is not the 'job' of ordinary British workers to rank equally one act of terror to another nor, frankly, to moralise about every act of terror or violence that goes on in the globe. Naturally, a British worker - or specifically a London worker - will be more socially and emotionally connected to and affected by terrorism or random violence in London, and an Iraqi worker, or an Afghan worker, or whomever, by terrorism, imperialism and violence orchestrated in their own homeland.

I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the terror perpetrated by our governments in imperial wars and invasions, but let's not get 'moralistic' about this, and further let's not use such moralism to undermine the impact these sorts of acts have on local communities. I find it pretty horrific that this has happened in my home city. The more we have these attacks, the more it scars me and the more I see it scar the people around me. That shouldn't be undermined just because I share a country and a passport with people in government who commit terrible acts of terror and imperialism. It's not in my name, I have no guilt and in condemning terrorism against my imperial country, I am showing no hypocrisy.

[Brutus]

https://www.facebook.com/ash.sarkar/posts/10151404672895877

Brilliant

[goalkeeper]

Well hopefully this is careful enough:

likewise this young local lad didn't start any wars, he found himself born into one, a war against poverty as life in any underprivileged community is, a war against inequality, endemic racial prejudice, the police, rival gangs and small minded bigotry, this life is also a war between good and evil in the heart of the individual, for which the young man probably found religion was some help until somebody convinced him killing for god is a good thing to do.

I;m not saying what he did was right or wrong really, just saying I can understand why some people might be drawn to believe in Islam or any religion, if it offers a channel, outlet for their anger and frustration, especially in the absence of any leftist organizations willing to reach out to these youths.

In ways I find it encouraging he wasn't just another young man stabbing somebody up over money or to rob his trainers, but find it discouraging that young impoverished youth find more relevance in Islam than in Marxism or political organization.

I think you are mistaken in identifying poverty as the cause of why he did this. If i recall correctly, most people who attach themselves to radical Islamist ideology in the West are middle class, often with science degrees (humanities students become marxists obv).

Plus, not every black guy in london is from a tower block filled with bandana waving gangs...

[Revenant]

I think you are mistaken in identifying poverty as the cause of why he did this. If i recall correctly, most people who attach themselves to radical Islamist ideology in the West are middle class, often with science degrees (humanities students become marxists obv).

Plus, not every black guy in london is from a tower block filled with bandana waving gangs...
:rolleyes:

I never said the sole cause of this is poverty.
I never made any racist generalizations.
What do you mean "if you recall correctly", recall from what?

Humanities students who become Marxists seem pretty reluctant to take on a similar role to say the Black Panthers did in their local community, offering young people and poor people in general a productive, class conscious channel for their frustration, anger, anti-authoritarian tendencies.

Everyday people run ultimate risks in these deprived neighbourhoods, everyday they put their lives and freedom on the line in some places, Humanities students have no comprehension of this reality imho and claim the time isn't right for revolution, just keep voting and protesting, have we got to wait until white middle class humanities students are subject to the same material adversity millions of young people in impoverished communities have to endure before a societal change can take place?

[Quail]

Probably some crude explanation of how bombing Afghani's elicits a response from a guy from london with no real connection to the place other than imagined community.

The British government fighting a war to "protect" the public from Islamic terrorists doesn't happen in a vacuum though. There is a lot of anti-muslim sentiment at the moment, from the media and people in general. I definitely wouldn't blame muslims for feeling as though the state and certain sections of the population are out to get them; although I don't condone terrorist acts like hacking a soldier to pieces in the street, or planting bombs to hurt civilians, I can at least understand a bit of where they're coming from. The more hostile the police, the government and the population are towards muslims, the more likely people are to turn to more extreme methods of fighting back.

[Akshay!]

Wait, I don't understand why some people here are talking about this attack as if this was somehow a "bad" thing? :confused:

[Comrade #138672]

"Islam apologists are just as guilty as these terrorists."

Insane.

[Bronco]

Wait, I don't understand why some people here are talking about this attack as if this was somehow a "bad" thing? :confused:

... are you suggesting that this is in any way a good thing? Two men have been radicalised into thinking that it's perfectly rational to chop a man up in broad daylight in a busy road and people shouldn't consider it a 'bad thing'?

Whichever way you look at it this is not a nice thing to happen. Even if you forge a link between the West's imperialism and the actions in Woolwich then even then surely you would see that this is a negative consequence of such a connection. Or do you think we should all be cheerleaders for dead soldiers, whatever the circumstances, whatever the reason, whatever the consequences?

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Wait, I don't understand why some people here are talking about this attack as if this was somehow a "bad" thing? :confused:

You don't understand why anyone might have a problem with someone being hacked to death in the street?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

:rolleyes:

I never said the sole cause of this is poverty.
I never made any racist generalizations.
What do you mean "if you recall correctly", recall from what?

Humanities students who become Marxists seem pretty reluctant to take on a similar role to say the Black Panthers did in their local community, offering young people and poor people in general a productive, class conscious channel for their frustration, anger, anti-authoritarian tendencies.

Everyday people run ultimate risks in these deprived neighbourhoods, everyday they put their lives and freedom on the line in some places, Humanities students have no comprehension of this reality imho and claim the time isn't right for revolution, just keep voting and protesting, have we got to wait until white middle class humanities students are subject to the same material adversity millions of young people in impoverished communities have to endure before a societal change can take place?

I'm not sure that this incident counts as anything 'productive'. In fact, i'd say it's exactly the opposite.

Also, it's kind of idiotic to suggest that people should always be 'doing something', and stereotyping Marxist-leaning humanities students just because they're not 'doing something' is a bit of a non-starter as an argument. Ultimately, voting in a bourgeois democracy is a dead end, but it's a darn sight less harmful (in some ways) than going round with a machete on the streets of cities. Protesting is only productive if it links economic and political struggles; but even struggles confined to the economistic sphere have achieved positives (pay and conditions etc.) for working people. I fail to see how sole acts of terror do anything for working people, or are you about to enlighten me?

Should I be taking to the streets to kill in the name of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism? You know, murder my way to a more humane society. Murder to protest murder. Terrorise to protest terror. ;)1

And yeah, not every humanities student is some posh kid from suburbia, stop with your shitty little stereotypes; once you have managed to release yourself from your keyboard, you'll realise that the world isn't black and white, you can't pigeon hole everything to fit nicely into your world view.

[Akshay!]

You don't understand why anyone might have a problem with someone being hacked to death in the street?


Two men have been radicalised into thinking that it's perfectly rational to chop a man up in broad daylight in a busy road and people shouldn't consider it a 'bad thing'?

He has NOT killed a civilian. He has killed someone in the army and explained why he did so. He also apologized that civilians had to even watch this.


Even if you forge a link between the West's imperialism and the actions in Woolwich

I don't have to. He already did.

This is really weird. I think the west's so called "left" is probably the only group of people in the world who think this is a bad thing. Practically everyone - with zero exceptions in the third world think this is awesome. I wonder why.... I want to explain why but I'm afraid some wouldn't like the truth.

[Bronco]

He has NOT killed a civilian. He has killed someone in the army and explained why he did so. He also apologized that civilians had to even watch this.



I don't have to. He already did.

This is really weird. I think the west's so called "left" is probably the only group of people in the world who think this is a bad thing. Practically everyone - with zero exceptions in the third world think this is awesome. I wonder why.... I want to explain why but I'm afraid some wouldn't like the truth.

Sorry but that's plainly stupid

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

He has NOT killed a civilian. He has killed someone in the army and explained why he did so. He also apologized that civilians had to even watch this.

No, he killed a worker. The guy was a fucking private. Killing someone is not excused just because that person happens to be in the army and you explain your actions. Most army people are workers who go into the army because they have little else to do except live a 'life of leisure'. And explaining your actions doesn't legitimise them.



This is really weird. I think the west's so called "left" is probably the only group of people in the world who think this is a bad thing. Practically everyone - with zero exceptions in the third world think this is awesome. I wonder why.... I want to explain why but I'm afraid some wouldn't like the truth.

No go on, we all know what you're thinking. You may as well out yourself now so we can deal with you, i'm fairly sure your reactionary-as-fuck views will out themselves at some point, you may as well do it now so we can all see your terror-supporting ways in all their glory. C'mon.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-killer-woolwich-suspect-michael-adebolajo-described-as-the-typical-boy-next-door-from-devout-christian-family-8630045.html

yeah, some warrior. petty criminal turned religious reactionary nut more like. What an example for the working class to follow!

[Akshay!]

You think that a person killing someone in an army because millions of his people have been murdered by that army is unjustified?

And worker? wtf?? A person in an army is a worker? HE is the Terrorist!

[Paul Pott]

This is why Britain must withdraw from all imperialist crusades, because they invite Muslim anger and blowback.

[slum]

A person in an army is a worker?

yes

soldiers are generally workers sent to kill other workers

[Lord Hargreaves]

Wait, I don't understand why some people here are talking about this attack as if this was somehow a "bad" thing? :confused:

This is just vile nonsense.

These attackers have bought into the idea that the British population at large, or "The West" in general, is responsible for the deaths of millions of people in their war against "Islam". This is the kind of absolutist essentialism typical of reactionary bigotry (and, at the risk of being controversial, it is a trademark of religion in general - Good and Evil, Love, God, Humanity, Sin, etc.) It is the same idiotic Us versus Them stuff, but just taking a different side.

"We" are not responsible for Britain's wars. We are not a democracy, especially when it comes to international issues: the public exercises no control over foreign policy. It is decided for us. But Islamists seem to accept that we are a democracy,and so it must indeed be our fault after all.

And so they are against democracy, and for Islamic political rule. This Islamism is almost just Samuel Huntington in a 180 reverse. It is not radical in the sense of actually questioning the world and wanting to change it, but rather just to try to get us all to back a different horse in the race as it already exists.

The British political establishment doesn't give a fuck about Islam. They will sponsor Islamic groups and bankroll Islamic states when it is in their interests, and they will wage war against Islamic groups and states when they oppose imperial interests. Yet we are supposed to believe there is a war on Islam? As if there is only one, pure, Islam! And anyway, how can there be a war on a metaphysic?

As The Boss said, the soldier was probably just a working class lad from a council estate trying to earn a living. Should he have perhaps taken a more critical attitude as to what serving in the British armed forces means for people in other countries? Maybe. But such a thing is always far too easy to say. People join the army at 17 without being able to name who the prime minister is and be able to find Afghanistan on a map.

To blame someone, with their having no chance of reprieve, for actions which they could not realistically be said to have controlled or been the author of in full conscience, is itself a form of bigotry. It is certainly authoritarianism. Religious people say we are going to hell when we sin, even though we are born into sin ("original sin") and this is our inescapable nature. Is the form of accountability that this attack on the solider embodied really that much different to this? Wasn't he killed for what his badge represents and not what he actually did as an individual? Vicarious responsibility?

Sorry, end of rant. But seriously dude, your comments are disgraceful.

[Akshay!]

THE GUY IS A SOLDIER IN AN ARMY WHO HELPED IN KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OF THAT SO CALLED TERRORIST.


What part of that sentence do you not get?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Want to address any of my points?

Some more questions:

So revenge killing is OK now? That's fine by you?

How does this stop more people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Does it do anything to strengthen the hand of political reformers and left wing radicals within Islamic organisations? How does it help? Was this an effective political response to UK imperialism in your view?

[Akshay!]

No, because practically everyone who responded is treating that guy as a normal guy of the "British population" or a "worker" or whatever. He's not. He has personally murdered the people of that so called terrorist. He IS a terrorist.

[goalkeeper]

I'm not sure that this incident counts as anything 'productive'. In fact, i'd say it's exactly the opposite.

Also, it's kind of idiotic to suggest that people should always be 'doing something', and stereotyping Marxist-leaning humanities students just because they're not 'doing something' is a bit of a non-starter as an argument. Ultimately, voting in a bourgeois democracy is a dead end, but it's a darn sight less harmful (in some ways) than going round with a machete on the streets of cities. Protesting is only productive if it links economic and political struggles; but even struggles confined to the economistic sphere have achieved positives (pay and conditions etc.) for working people. I fail to see how sole acts of terror do anything for working people, or are you about to enlighten me?

Should I be taking to the streets to kill in the name of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism? You know, murder my way to a more humane society. Murder to protest murder. Terrorise to protest terror. ;)1

And yeah, not every humanities student is some posh kid from suburbia, stop with your shitty little stereotypes; once you have managed to release yourself from your keyboard, you'll realise that the world isn't black and white, you can't pigeon hole everything to fit nicely into your world view.

Just to be sure, my comment about all humanities students are marxists was just a joke related to the fact that a lot of Islamist types have degrees in science and technical stuff and thus an impoverished world-view (which is a joke, btw). I am a humanities student.

[goalkeeper]

No, because practically everyone who responded is treating that guy as a normal guy of the "British population" or a "worker" or whatever. He's not. He has personally murdered the people of that so called terrorist. He IS a terrorist.

British troops are killing guys from Romford? :confused:

[ed miliband]

No, because practically everyone who responded is treating that guy as a normal guy of the "British population" or a "worker" or whatever. He's not. He has personally murdered the people of that so called terrorist. He IS a terrorist.

the "so called terrorist" was a british man of nigerian descent; i highly doubt the victim had killed many british men of nigerian descent.

e: beaten to it by goalkeeper.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

THE GUY IS A SOLDIER IN AN ARMY WHO HELPED IN KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OF THAT SO CALLED TERRORIST.


What part of that sentence do you not get?

Ah, so you don't care about imperialism from a working class perspective, only from a what, nationalist perspective? Religious perspective? Third-worldist perspective?

You are so thoroughly displaying your anti-Marxist views, your anti-worker sentiment, your anti-communist ideals. Why are you on a revolutionary leftist forum if you don't give a shit about much of the working class?

Do you even understand what working class is? A soldier owns no means of production. They sell their labour power to the bourgeoisie. They are, in fact, as alienated from the production process (the production of death, of war) as any other worker, in any factory, in any country. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend for a so-called communist.

[Akshay!]

You guys are so thoroughly brainwashed by western exceptionalism or whatever you call it that it's impossible to even to discuss these things. It doesn't matter if he was "British" (And you call ME a "nationalist"? lol @ the irony). Nidal Hassan was an "American" too but he killed the troops that were being deployed for Iraq. Why? Because he doesn't like the fact that his brothers are being murdered along with their women and children. He doesn't think in terms of "the soldier is a person of the working class", "on his side" or "British" or whatever - for good reason. The soldier is the Real terrorist. He kills innocents in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. This guy (who is being called a "terrorist") didn't kill any civilians. He could've but he didn't. I feel ashamed to even debate this. I mean it's really sad that all the "left" wants to do is to maintain comfort and privilege and keep shouting things like "working class", this, that and the other and then do NOTHING. Yes, you people do NOTHING. You only TALK TALK TALK and then TALK some more. If you can't DO something in the real world at least don't oppose people who do. How do you even look at yourself in the mirror? After 50 years, you'll have spent 50 years talking on an internet forum. Congrats!

[Comrade #138672]

Cops and soldiers are in an odd position. They are perhaps more working class than bourgeoisie, but... their survival relies on selling their services to protect the private property of the bourgeoisie against the working class.

Leon Trotsky wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p5):


The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker. Of late years, these policemen have had to do much more fighting with revolutionary workers than with Nazi students. Such training does not fail to leave its effects. And above all: every policeman knows that though governments may change, the police remains.

[goalkeeper]

You guys are so thoroughly brainwashed by western exceptionalism or whatever you call it that it's impossible to even to discuss these things. It doesn't matter if he was "British" (And you call ME a "nationalist"? lol @ the irony). Nidal Hassan was an "American" too but he killed the troops that were being deployed for Iraq. Why? Because he doesn't like the fact that his brothers are being murdered along with their women and children. He doesn't think in terms of "the soldier is a person of the working class", "on his side" or "British" or whatever - for good reason. The soldier is the Real terrorist. He kills innocents in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. This guy (who is being called a "terrorist") didn't kill any civilians. He could've but he didn't. I feel ashamed to even debate this. I mean it's really sad that all the "left" wants to do is to maintain comfort and privilege and keep shouting things like "working class", this, that and the other and then do NOTHING. Yes, you people do NOTHING. You only TALK TALK TALK and then TALK some more. If you can't DO something in the real world at least don't oppose people who do. How do you even look at yourself in the mirror? After 50 years, you'll have spent 50 years talking on an internet forum. Congrats!

Basically we are not buying into the Islamist view of the world (mirrored and inverted by the far right) which says that all Muslims are part of some monolithic community that supersedes all else. We are rejecting this narrative of Muslims vs. The West.

[slum]

i think a distinction needs to be made between police and infantry

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

mean it's really sad that all the "left" wants to do is to maintain comfort and privilege and keep shouting things like "working class", this, that and the other and then do NOTHING. Yes, you people do NOTHING. You only TALK TALK TALK and then TALK some more. If you can't DO something in the real world at least don't oppose people who do. How do you even look at yourself in the mirror? After 50 years, you'll have spent 50 years talking on an internet forum. Congrats!

I think the question is whether or not a bunch of fundamentalists chopping some poor chap's head off with a meat cleaver is "doing something" in any kind of constructive way.

by the way defecting soldiers from the Imperialist army of Russia were a necessary part of the Bolshevik revolution. You can't write someone off just because they work in an imperialist institution. That guy was not responsible for those wars in Afghanistan, no matter how much rationalization goes into it. He did not set British state policy from 2001-2013 any more than some Muslim who prays in a Saudi-financed mosque is responsible for the acts of al-Qaeda. Revolutionaries should work to agitate against the institutions which indoctrinate people in these ideologies, not commit bloody, pointless, ruthless attacks on some soldier unlucky enough to cross the street at the wrong time because his government happens to kill co-religionists. Aside from the fact that it is morally repugnant, it strengthens the hand of lunatics like the EDL who would love nothing more than an all out race/religion war between Christian Anglos and the Islamic world.

[Rugged Collectivist]

i think a distinction needs to be made between police and infantry

The police defend the interests of capital in their own countries while soldiers do it abroad.

[Rafiq]

Islamists, fascists, libertarians. Makes little difference to me. They're bourgeois degenerates. With systemic degeneracy, they are to be expected. We must not adhere to petty notions of justice or apologia, but move beyond this and ask a simple question: Doubtless, it was tragic. But does this signify any new developments as far as the barbarity and reactionary nature of Islamism, in our lovely world at the moment? No, it doesn't. Shit like this is to be expected.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Akshay!]

Basically we are not buying into the Islamist view of the world (mirrored and inverted by the far right) which says that all Muslims are part of some monolithic community

Muslims ARE a community. That's a fact unrelated to Islamism.


community that supersedes all else.

When did he say that it supersedes everything else? He just happens to hate the fact that his people are being slaughtered - specially women and children.


We are rejecting this narrative of Muslims vs. The West.

What's "The West"? I repeat, he didn't kill any civilian - he killed a person in the army, who is directly involved in killing his people.


I think the question is whether or not a bunch of fundamentalists chopping some poor chap's head off with a meat cleaver is "doing something" in any kind of constructive way.

poor chop? Seriously? The guy killed was a MASS MURDERER. A TERRORIST. WHO KILLED INNOCENTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. DO YOU GET IT?

I think all of this "we're not Islamists" is a farce because everyone here knows pretty well that this has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with the fact that US, and "The West" (whatever that means) has, in fact, murdered millions of Muslims. If you don't like that fact, go to some other planet!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Muslims ARE a community. That's a fact unrelated to Islamism.


It's a "community" but that's not at all relevant to the discussion. Thinking that it is "just" or "necessary" for one community to kill in response to killing from another community is precisely the kind of reactionary nonsense which gives ideological cover for vile sectarian violence. A reactionary cycle of violence between two communities defined along some man-made ideological and cultural lines is just about the furthest thing from the liberation of the toiling masses.



poor chop? Seriously? The guy killed was a MASS MURDERER. A TERRORIST. WHO KILLED INNOCENTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. DO YOU GET IT?
Yes, every innocent civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by this particular soldier. He should be held personally accountable for it.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003664477/5836649544_300px_Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_s tatue_xlarge.png



I think all of this "we're not Islamists" is a farce because everyone here knows pretty well that this has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with the fact that US, and "The West" (whatever that means) has, in fact, murdered millions of Muslims. If you don't like that fact, go to some other planet!https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS72Vk1CqP0hyXDF2EdxC9sNNRhaTthC fLI7XD4zyjVx9tIucrz

I didn't see anyone denying the fact that the government of the US and UK kill Muslims. What I did see was a bunch of posters rejecting your hyper-moralistic analysis of the problem, which is totally devoid of any understanding of the role which individual workers, peasants, soldiers etc (of all faiths and across the globe) actually play in the system of domination and exploitation. You're offering up a cliche mix of Maoist Third Worldist extremism and twisted quasi-Christian moralism which has nothing to do with a proper analysis of the world.


Again, you obviously need a reminder - the soldiers of the Russian army, one of the most brutal and violent machines ever invented by European Imperialists, who spilled the blood of Caucasians, Central Asians, Fins, Poles and Turks to spread Romanov power, an institution which participated in what was until then the worst bloodbath in Continental history, played a critical role in providing an armed with for the revolution. Soldiers do fight and kill for imperialism, but they don't deserve your petty moral condemnations for it. They are as much cogs in the machine as the worker in the third world who sells his labor power to mine the iron that will someday go into the rifles and tanks of the Imperialist government. The whole system is interconnected, and as Marx makes explicitly clear, it is not by the "cogs in the machine" chopping each other's heads off for bullshit sectarian and communitarian issues but by those "cogs" chopping the heads off of the ruling class (figuratively or literally depending on your preferred flavor of revolution).

[Akshay!]

Yes, every innocent civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by this particular soldier. He should be held personally accountable for it. (sarcasm)


This is completely illogical. Nobody personally went and killed every single one of those 2 million people. Does that mean nobody is responsible? Doesn't matter if he killed 2 people or 2000 - if he participated in those wars, nobody should be surprised if some of their people respond. (as opposed to sitting on a forum and defending soldiers in an army as being "workers" and calling people who're actually responding to imperialism as "terrorists".)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is completely illogical. Nobody personally went and killed every single one of those 2 million people.?

You say I am "illogical" for pointing out the "logical conclusion" of your histrionic "he was A MASS MURDERER" for all you know he replaced helicopter parts.


Does that mean nobody is responsibleYes but we here like to call them the "bourgeoisie" not "twenty year old infantryman."

Also I think a big part of being a revolutionary is moving beyond the petty sense of "justice" for "responsibility" you seem to be throwing around.


Doesn't matter if he killed 2 people or 2000 - if he participated in those wars, nobody should be surprised if some of their people respond."their people" ... that's the problem with your reasoning right there. You are accepting the in-group out-group dichotomy which the Imperialists and the Islamic fundamentalists alike want everyday European Christians and Muslims to fall into. In fact, that is where those people get their power. They use their influence to play off of the fear and ignorance of people from one group who fear another. It's just another self-feeding cycle of violence.


(as opposed to sitting on a forum and defending soldiers in an army as being "workers" and people who're actually responding to imperialism as "terrorists".)Where did I ever call those men "terrorists"? I called them brutal, fundamentalist and repugnant, and I might add the words "pathetic", "idiotic", "small minded" and "utterly ignorant", but not "terrorist".

The whole fucking tragedy of this situation is these people are killing each other for these inane sectarian reasons instead of organizing as a class. You don't get that because you're caught up in some silly moralistic duality between light and dark, except White European Imperialists are the devil and two morons with a car, some knives and no sense of human decency or shame are the heroes. Except it's doubly pathetic because it's leading you to actually laud the fucking tragic actions of these two men as some kind of authentic revolutionary act. Insofar as it is a "response" to imperialism it is a wholly reactionary one, which prioritizes moralistically justified violent outbursts by lone individuals over any attempt to build a program based on solidarity between communities to overcome the ruling class.

[Comrade #138672]

Yes, the Bolsheviks were recruiting from the Russian imperialist army, but weren't most soldiers forced to serve (conscription) as opposed to Western soldiers nowadays? I think that might be a significant difference. The latter group is bound to be more reactionary.

No. I am not claiming that the killers were revolutionaries or something like that, but I am opposed to the idea that these soldiers are just like us.

[Akshay!]

You say I am "illogical" for pointing out the "logical conclusion" of your histrionic "he was A MASS MURDERER" for all you know he replaced helicopter parts.


Eichmann arranged bus schedules for the holocaust - doesn't mean he wasn't responsible.


Yes but we here like to call them the "bourgeoisie" not "twenty year old infantryman."


No, you like to "call" and "talk" and "type" and then do nothing to fight imperialism in the real world.



Also I think a big part of being a revolutionary is moving beyond the petty sense of "justice" for "responsibility" you seem to be throwing around.


A "big part of being a revolutionary" for you is to type on internet forums and sound like a communist, not try to change the material conditions of anyone in the real world. And if someone does something in response to what is being done to other muslims, you oppose him and defend a person in the army who's job description is to kill innocent civilians.

[ed miliband]

A "big part of being a revolutionary" for you is to type on internet forums and sound like a communist, not try to change the material conditions of anyone in the real world. And if someone does something in response to what is being done to other muslims, you oppose him and defend a person in the army who's job description is to kill innocent civilians.

this is fucking insane pal. how the fuck does hacking a man to death in the name of a religion "change the material conditions of anyone in the real world"? the only people who have had their conditions changed are the family (inc. two year old son) of the young man, british muslims who now face a potential backlash from violent groups like the edl, the innocent by-standers who had to witness the attack, and these two twats who will be locked up for the rest of their lives.

quite aside from buying into the islamist notion of a global muslim "community" vs. the west, which others have called you out on, your idea of what constitutes "struggle" is profoundly reactionary and anti-communist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Eichmann arranged bus schedules for the holocaust - doesn't mean he wasn't responsible.
.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k7RYJbWgXbk/TWTwx2zagII/AAAAAAAAAKE/gBZNm_1L3p8/s1600/Red%2BHerring.gif

I think it's safe to say that the kind of institutional role played by someone like Eichmann is distinctly different from the kind of institutional role played by the average German WWII soldier.



No, you like to "call" and "talk" and "type" and then do nothing to fight imperialism in the real world.
I see and what are you doing right now? Put your money where your mouth is, turn off your computer and go do something revolutionary ... oh right, you' rather "call" and "talk" and "type" and then do nothing to fight imperialism.


A "big part of being a revolutionary" for you is to type on internet forums and sound like a communist, not try to change the material conditions of anyone in the real world. And if someone does something in response to what is being done to other muslims, you oppose him and defend a person in the army who's job description is to kill innocent civiliansThe only "material conditions" which stabbing some soldier will do is rob a family of a loved one and a breadwinner and increase the ratio of EDL lunatics to sane people in Woolwich. The British army can find another grunt, more Muslims will die as the government plays of "anti-terror" rhetoric, and we're back where we started. Take your fucking lectures about "changing the material conditions" and stuff it up your ass. You have no fucking clue what I do in my life off this message board, but I can tell you that it's a lot more useful to people of all classes and backgrounds than shanking a man with a knife.

Those two clowns were not revolutionaries, they did nothing to actually end the institutions which make war possible, they just added to a pointless, sectarian, communal shitstorm between ignorant Muslim fanatics and ignorant European bigots. The first thing most Muslim leaders in the UK did was condemn this attack - not because they support British Imperialism in the Muslim world but because they know that this kind of shit is much more likely to increase bigotry against their community than end war. Talk about defending "communities" - murdering someone in the street is not an act of self defense, no matter how you cut it.

[crazyirish93]

Footage showing the two "terrorists" charging and getting shot by the police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TvddMY7VATg#!

[goalkeeper]

Muslims ARE a community. That's a fact unrelated to Islamism.



When did he say that it supersedes everything else? He just happens to hate the fact that his people are being slaughtered - specially women and children.



What's "The West"? I repeat, he didn't kill any civilian - he killed a person in the army, who is directly involved in killing his people.



poor chop? Seriously? The guy killed was a MASS MURDERER. A TERRORIST. WHO KILLED INNOCENTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. DO YOU GET IT?

I think all of this "we're not Islamists" is a farce because everyone here knows pretty well that this has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with the fact that US, and "The West" (whatever that means) has, in fact, murdered millions of Muslims. If you don't like that fact, go to some other planet!

You seem to be incredibly and painfully unaware of the sort of ideology people like Michael Adebolajo hold.

[Revenant]

You seem to be incredibly and painfully unaware of the sort of ideology people like Michael Adebolajo hold.

Why do you think in 21st century England there are people who adhere to Islamist Ideology?

Do you think it offers youths an escape or alternative from crime/gangbanging/poverty etc?

[ed miliband]

Why do you think in 21st century England there are people who adhere to Islamist Ideology?

Do you think it offers youths an escape or alternative from crime/gangbanging/poverty etc?

given the end result of involving yourself in islamist extremism is either death or jail, i hardly think it offers much of an alternative to "crime/gangbanging/poverty etc".

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

..ugh...the dull, nauseating predictability of it.

Boris Johnson has added his voice to suggestions the Communications Data Bill could be revived following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby.
The London mayor said it was "too early" to say whether the bill - dubbed a "snoopers' charter" by critics - would have prevented the attack.
But he said police arguments for the proposed law were "pretty compelling".
The bill, allowing the monitoring of all UK citizens' internet use, was dropped after Lib Dem opposition.
But according to The Independent newspaper, Home Secretary Theresa May is coming under pressure from senior figures in the Conservative Party to revive it.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22652051)

[goalkeeper]

Why do you think in 21st century England there are people who adhere to Islamist Ideology?

Do you think it offers youths an escape or alternative from crime/gangbanging/poverty etc?

Perhaps for some, not for many others. I mean, this guys parents moved him to a village outside of London in his teenage years yet he decided to return to London for university at Greenwhich (according to the newspapers), so I hardly think this was some sort of escape for him from gangs and crime. This guy was not some prison convert or reformed gangster. Likewise with previous people such as the Nigerian "underpants" bomber. He was from a wealthy family and attended University College London.

I don't have an explanation for why people turn to Islamism, but I don't think poverty, gangs, or crime is at all an adequate explanation considering the sociological backgrounds and prospects of many of adherents of Islamism in Britain. That's not to deny crime, poverty and gangs a role in some people gravitating towards Islamist groups, but in this case and many others it seems to have played no part.

I'm not saying you have in particular, but I wonder if the guy was a white convert rather than black, people would attempt to explain him as a result of gangs and poverty still?

edit: while I was talking about the guy from Romford who spoke to the camera I should say that I have since heard that his accomplice (the shaggy looking guy in the long coat) was actually a prison convert. My point remains though; people in the UK joining radical Islamist groups is not simply explained by poverty or gangs, although it can in certain cases.

[Sasha]

"to understand why well educated angry youths turn to jihadism the west should read a history of the Rote Army Fraction not the Koran." - Tariq Rammadan

[The Douche]

How often to people die from knife crime in the UK? Isn't it sort of common? How can they use this incident to justify monitoring the internet activity of every single citizen? Its just another dude that got killed in England, shit happens every day...

[hatzel]

How often to people die from knife crime in the UK?

Not sure about the actual number who die, but each year there are about 12-15,000 knife crimes in London alone, about 4000 of which involve some kind of knife-inflicted injury, up to and including death.

I also happen to know that 7 teenagers have been killed in London in 2013, 4 by stabbing, 3 by shooting:

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/smallimages/champion-ganda17.jpghttp://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/smallimages/kadar-hussein19.jpghttp://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/smallimages/derek-boateng16.jpghttp://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/smallimages/mohammed-hussein19.jpghttp://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/smallimages/peter-hagan16.jpghttp://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/smallimages/jospeh-burke-monerville19.jpghttp://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/smallimages/hani-el-kheir16.jpg

Needless to say I don't remember any of these killings resulting in too many publicised calls for increased surveillance, or all that much of anything, really...

[Revenant]

I mean, this guys parents moved him to a village outside of London in his teenage years yet he decided to return to London for university at Greenwhich (according to the newspapers), so I hardly think this was some sort of escape for him from gangs and crime. This guy was not some prison convert or reformed gangster. Likewise with previous people such as the Nigerian "underpants" bomber. He was from a wealthy family and attended University College London.

I think he was more trying to reform gangsters, there's stories about him leafleting and selling literature etc, I heard police saying yesterday they should have been paying more attention to this side of his "terrorist activities", he was obviously a fairly intelligent guy from his speech, I don't think he was necessarily trying to escape himself, maybe his motivations for joining Islam were less selfish than that, maybe he found community, shelter and a sense of purpose in Islam and wanted to share that and his passion for it with other people? ;)

People around him who he saw flirting with danger falling victim to crime, poverty addiction, and maybe others around him who just carry on with their lives without regard for the reality of capitalist/imperialist exploitation.

Maybe the left just isn't as relevant in inner city communities or people in poverty as it is to Middle class humanity students?

Maybe he was all action and we're all theory?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Knife crimes may be prevalent in London, but how often does the government get to wave the terrorist bogeyman around in everyone's face?

It's not that the beheading is a logical justification for the bill, but that it may be the justification parliament needs to get it passed.

I get the impression that these questions are rhetorical, but I don't understand or like subtlety so...

[The Douche]

Knife crimes may be prevalent in London, but how often does the government get to wave the terrorist bogeyman around in everyone's face?

It's not that the beheading is a logical justification for the bill, but that it may be the justification parliament needs to get it passed.

I get the impression that these questions are rhetorical, but I don't understand or like subtlety so...

Yeah, well, I mean, I understand the use of the event as a tool to pass laws, and I'm sure most on here understand that as well. I just think its strange that somebody gets cut up by a knife and the "logical response" (of the state) is... to track people's internet habits.

"Shit some guys chopped a dude up with a cleaver" "IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE SEARCHING ON GOOGLE?!?! OH WHYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!".

[Revenant]

Breaking news, interesting that this has occurred so soon after that beheading:

Passenger onboard the diverted plane tells Sky News the captain informed passengers upon landing that there was indeed a terrorist threat. Police then boarded and arrested the two suspects
thecommentator.com

Also read this on the same website:


FROM MR ALAIN FISSORE OF THE PARTITO COMUNISTA, ITALY:
“Death in Woolwich: stop British Capitalism’s poisonous narrative on the people of Britain.”
The tragic death of a British soldier in Woolwich on the 22nd of May clearly shows the people of Britain what are the consequences of Capitalist wars in the Middle East. The main responsability for the soldier’s death in Woolwich must be given to US and British Imperialism in its attempt to expand US and British economical and political influence in areas of the World which are not interested in Western Capitalist corrupted values. The illegal wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the Western responsability in the so-called ‘Arab Springs’, the Western weapons, money, and training given to extremists in Syria in order to destroy Assad’s legitimate Government represent a modern form of colonialism. The death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in countries like Palestine, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria by the hands of Western armies is the reason why the people of the Middle East are now angry with the illegal wars that are being fought there at the moment .
The British people are too intelligent to fall for the lies of the Capitalist Middle class which is now asking to the whole country to fight together against what they call terrorism. The wars in the Middle East are being paid with the ultimate sacrifice of many British young lives belonging to Proletarian families, while the huge and useless cost of those wars is paid entirely by the working class of Britain. It is time to condemn British wars in the Middle East carried out only to preserve the failures of Capitalism in Britain. It is time to stop the poisonous narrative of British Capitalism on the people of Britain.
Mr. Alain Fissore.
British branch “Pietro Secchia”
Comunisti Sinistra Popolare
Partito Comunista


sorry I can't add direct links yet.

[ed miliband]

Maybe he was all action and we're all theory?

http://ncconstructionandbusinessdisputelaw.files.wordpres s.com/2011/01/banging-head-against-wall.jpg

well, if "we're" (who are "we"? i don't want anything to do with your shite) all theory and that means we stay inside reading books and arguing on the internet rather than hacking people to death with meat cleavers, thank fuck for that; if action is brutally murdering somebody, action can fuck off.

and have you even stopped to think about the ideology that guides this action? you seem to fuckin think this guy was a communist or something.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I think he was more trying to reform gangsters, there's stories about him leafleting and selling literature etc, I heard police saying yesterday they should have been paying more attention to this side of his "terrorist activities", he was obviously a fairly intelligent guy from his speech, I don't think he was necessarily trying to escape himself, maybe his motivations for joining Islam were less selfish than that, maybe he found community, shelter and a sense of purpose in Islam and wanted to share that and his passion for it with other people? ;)

Yeah, he shared them alright. With a machete. And now a guy is dead, almost every mosque is going to be harassed by their neighbours because they think that they are associated with loons like that 'intelligent reformer' you love so much.

He's also fed into the false caricature of Muslims being the metaphysical crusaders that he embodied so well, so that's a plus for you I guess (not so much a plus for the muslims who aren't fascists who need to be thrown into asylums, which the bigoted British nationalists are going to blame for this).



Maybe the left just isn't as relevant in inner city communities or people in poverty as it is to Middle class humanity students?


Maybe he was all action and we're all theory?

Oh fuck off you Islamist loving shit. Don't conflate Islam with this dog, you stupid fucking apologist. Tell me, pig - what would be more preferable: radical, pro-working class movements, or a movement enforcing strict dress code and astronomically cutting wages into dust with religion as an excuse? Because this stupid populism you seem to be kissing the arse of happened in Egypt and just look what's happening to the working class there now - the entire government has corrupted all legal unions and is driving worker concessions into the fucking ground. But hey! Islamists who actually do something (chop people up and lower living wages) are obviously preferable to those nerdy leftists, right?

Also, I see the One Nation party giving out leaflets to workers in the streets telling them to go around attacking Chinese people - I guess they're 'all the action' and we should totally look up to a bunch of right-wing monsters as inspiration.

Shit, I'm taking a break from this website. Islamist lovers claiming that left wing politics are worthless, fuck me :laugh:.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

THE GUY IS A SOLDIER IN AN ARMY WHO HELPED IN KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OF THAT SO CALLED TERRORIST.


What part of that sentence do you not get?

How many soldiers are brainwashed or people who didn't have anywhere else to go? No one deserves to be hacked to death in the street. If this solider had killed civilians then he should have been tried and if convicted then punished.

Soldiers are victims of Capitalism too and it's not that this is especially awful because he was a soldier, it's just awful in itself.


Yeah, he shared them alright. With a machete. And now a guy is dead, almost every mosque is going to be harassed by their neighbours because they think that they are associated with loons like that 'intelligent reformer' you love so much.


I think this is an important point. This attack isn't going to make anything better, just play into the hands of racists and authoritarians.

[Revenant]

yeah ok , sorry Ed I know nothing is completely "black and white":laugh:

Ed why don't you do something radical in parliament and criticise the war, or reach out to the masses of impoverished youth legalize cannabis and decry Neoliberalism?

[Sasha]

How many soldiers are brainwashed or people who didn't have anywhere else to go? No one deserves to be hacked to death in the street. If this solider had killed civilians then he should have been tried and if convicted then punished.

Soldiers are victims of Capitalism too and it's not that this is especially awful because he was a soldier, it's just awful in itself.


yeah, economic conscription (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_conscription) is a thing you know, but i guess Askhay! is to busy with his "material conditions" to be bothered with actual material conditions... (how is that spanking new "marxist" identity going anyways, last week you where still all about quoting emma goldman)

[Sasha]

also, the origin of the term; http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1915/12/econscr1.htm

damn those marxist james connoly and his materialist analysis...

[WelcomeToTheParty]

also, the origin of the term; http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1915/12/econscr1.htm

damn those marxist james connoly and his materialist analysis...

Thanks for the link, I didn't even know there was a term for or literature about that.

[Revenant]

Yeah, he shared them alright. With a machete. And now a guy is dead, almost every mosque is going to be harassed by their neighbours because they think that they are associated with loons like that 'intelligent reformer' you love so much.

He's also fed into the false caricature of Muslims being the metaphysical crusaders that he embodied so well, so that's a plus for you I guess (not so much a plus for the muslims who aren't fascists who need to be thrown into asylums, which the bigoted British nationalists are going to blame for this).



Oh fuck off you Islamist loving shit. Don't conflate Islam with this dog, you stupid fucking apologist. Tell me, pig [:laugh: ] - what would be more preferable: radical, pro-working class movements, or a movement enforcing strict dress code and astronomically cutting wages into dust with religion as an excuse? Because this stupid populism you seem to be kissing the arse of happened in Egypt and just look what's happening to the working class there now - the entire government has corrupted all legal unions and is driving worker concessions into the fucking ground. But hey! Islamists who actually do something (chop people up and lower living wages) are obviously preferable to those nerdy leftists, right?

Also, I see the One Nation party giving out leaflets to workers in the streets telling them to go around attacking Chinese people - I guess they're 'all the action' and we should totally look up to a bunch of right-wing monsters as inspiration.

Shit, I'm taking a break from this website. Islamist lovers claiming that left wing politics are worthless, fuck me :laugh:.

You've totally misrepresented me here.

I'm lamenting the fact there's an absence of the bolded in deprived inner city communities and amongst the underclass in general, in the absence of the bolded it's my opinion people become susceptible to "false consciousness" or reactionary ideology etc, I think you're right to bring up metaphysics, in my local community lot's of kids are interested in these conspiracy theories you see truth movement groups and "freeman movement" groups having meetings, so I'm just trying to convey my pessimism about the situation here in the UK.

I know personally from experience how difficult it is to introduce somebody in these situations to marxism, revolutionary praxis etc, there's very little tradition of it in the UK and you're competing with 24hr entertainment on drip and the reality that crime put's food on the table, more people have watched spike jonez and tarantino than mike leigh.

Religion is another outlet, religion provide food for poor people in almost all communities, left wing groups are confined to university intellectuals it seems imho?

Hope you don't go I like people who speak their mind!

[Sasha]

Thanks for the link, I didn't even know there was a term for or literature about that.

It's a really intresting subject, esp the way how the US forces young immigrant males to enlist to be legible for citizenship is quite horrific, just another example how "starship troopers" had a lot more dept than met the initial eye...

[Per Levy]

No, you like to "call" and "talk" and "type" and then do nothing to fight imperialism in the real world.

A "big part of being a revolutionary" for you is to type on internet forums and sound like a communist, not try to change the material conditions of anyone in the real world. And if someone does something in response to what is being done to other muslims, you oppose him and defend a person in the army who's job description is to kill innocent civilians.

allright then akshay, what did you do so far to "change material conditions" or "fight imperialism"? please tell us since your holier than thou attitude seems to imply that you do tons of stuff to "change material conditions" and "fight imperialism, right?

also let me ask, what are you doing on here? if you cant stand the "call" and "talk" and "type"stuff, why did you post in 2 months more posts then i did in the last 10 months? if you keep this up you'll have more posts than me by the end of summer.


(how is that spanking new "marxist" identity going anyways, last week you where still all about quoting emma goldman)

i think he fell in love with maoism a bit, if he isnt careful he'll end up as an hoxhaist by the end of the year.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Yeah, well, I mean, I understand the use of the event as a tool to pass laws, and I'm sure most on here understand that as well. I just think its strange that somebody gets cut up by a knife and the "logical response" (of the state) is... to track people's internet habits.

"Shit some guys chopped a dude up with a cleaver" "IF ONLY WE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE SEARCHING ON GOOGLE?!?! OH WHYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!".

It would be ridiculous if they truly believed that, which I doubt. Whether or not the people will buy this is what really interests me.

[ind_com]

EWWW islamic fundamentalist terrorists!!!! soldiers are workers. soldiers fought for communists in the russian revolution. poor soldiers dont know what they are doing they just have to kill brown men to pay their college fees. they are just innocent minds following orders. no one should harm soldiers!!!

[Sasha]

nah, not islamic fundamentalist terrorist but neither revolutionary hero's, just another shade of bloom: http://bloom.jottit.com/

[brigadista]

this has been a gift for the tories just when they were all fighting with each other - no wonder cameron came back from france like a shot -

teresa may is barking mad

[Bronco]

Well I suppose the rationale isn't that this will prevent knife crime at all but that the internet is where most young Muslims are radicalised

Not that this isn't a fucking terrible idea but yeah

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, he shared them alright. With a machete. And now a guy is dead, almost every mosque is going to be harassed by their neighbours because they think that they are associated with loons like that 'intelligent reformer' you love so much.

He's also fed into the false caricature of Muslims being the metaphysical crusaders that he embodied so well, so that's a plus for you I guess (not so much a plus for the muslims who aren't fascists who need to be thrown into asylums, which the bigoted British nationalists are going to blame for this).



Oh fuck off you Islamist loving shit. Don't conflate Islam with this dog, you stupid fucking apologist. Tell me, pig - what would be more preferable: radical, pro-working class movements, or a movement enforcing strict dress code and astronomically cutting wages into dust with religion as an excuse? Because this stupid populism you seem to be kissing the arse of happened in Egypt and just look what's happening to the working class there now - the entire government has corrupted all legal unions and is driving worker concessions into the fucking ground. But hey! Islamists who actually do something (chop people up and lower living wages) are obviously preferable to those nerdy leftists, right?

Also, I see the One Nation party giving out leaflets to workers in the streets telling them to go around attacking Chinese people - I guess they're 'all the action' and we should totally look up to a bunch of right-wing monsters as inspiration.

Shit, I'm taking a break from this website. Islamist lovers claiming that left wing politics are worthless, fuck me :laugh:.

I appreciate the emotive nature of the topic, but please refrain from using language such as the above, which is only going to flame other users. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Rafiq]

"to understand why well educated angry youths turn to jihadism the west should read a history of the Rote Army Fraction not the Koran." - Tariq Rammadan

I beg to differ. Doubtless Islamist terrorism is not rooted in a 1400 year old book with no modern context, but the RAF, Brigate Rosse and so on did what they did as a desperate last resort to raw violence, when they deemed the struggle hopeless after 68'. Islamists on the other hand resort to violence as a result of capitalism's degeneracy, and from a lack of existing proletarian consciousness.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[TheEmancipator]

I beg to differ. Doubtless Islamist terrorism is not rooted in a 1400 year old book with no modern context, but the RAF, Brigate Rosse and so on did what they did as a desperate last resort to raw violence, when they deemed the struggle hopeless after 68'. Islamists on the other hand resort to violence as a result of capitalism's degeneracy, and from a lack of existing proletarian consciousness.


No, Baader-Meinhof, like so many dangerously do here, thought Marxism was some kind of religion they must serve by blowing up innocent people.

"last resort" excuse for terrorism is an excuse I could only accept for victims of imperialism (à la French Resistance). It is totally unnecessary in both ideological and class warfare.

[Rafiq]

No, Baader-Meinhof, like so many dangerously do here, thought Marxism was some kind of religion they must serve by blowing up innocent people.

"last resort" excuse for terrorism is an excuse I could only accept for victims of imperialism (à la French Resistance). It is totally unnecessary in both ideological and class warfare.

I do not morally oppose the acts of the Red Army Faction. No Communist should. I quite personally sympathize with them. But their struggle was a doomed one.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[uk_communist]

Whilst I will never sympathize for killers, what [the killer] said has stuck in my mind: "Remove your governments, they don't care about you!"

There he made a good point; the governments *don't* care about us.

Either way, what he did was unacceptable, and he should be punished duly.

[Sasha]

No, Baader-Meinhof, like so many dangerously do here, thought Marxism was some kind of religion they must serve by blowing up innocent people.

"last resort" excuse for terrorism is an excuse I could only accept for victims of imperialism (à la French Resistance). It is totally unnecessary in both ideological and class warfare.

To be fair, the RAF never was really into blowing people up,they where more gun assassins

[ToldYouSo]

Low rank soldiers are workers doing work for the rich. There no different to normal workers.

[bricolage]

A Muslim family are in shock after their fried chicken shop was viciously attacked last night by vengeful thugs following the murder of a soldier in Woolwich.

Two men entered Dixy Chicken on Green Street, Upton Park at 9.30pm where staff claim they banged on the serving counter, shouting, “You killed one of our soldiers, we’ll kill you” before vandalising the shop.http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/court-crime/thugs_attack_chicken_shop_run_by_muslim_family_in_ upton_park_1_2209782

also this graffiti turned up in merton:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLBV9eBCUAECn-q.jpg

plenty of other reports coming through as well.
fuck this country.

[Quail]

Ugh, I don't want to live on this planet anymore. I know racist thugs aren't exactly the sharpest tools, but this is just insane. If a white Christian murdered someone, there would be no attacks on churches, no attacking of random Christians who had nothing to do with the fucking murder.

[Dropdead]

What the fuck is wrong with people? Should all muslims be killed now since the murderer was a muslim? I just don't get it.. What if a jew did it? What if an atheist did it? Should they all be killed too? What the fuck is this!?

[Questionable]

EWWW islamic fundamentalist terrorists!!!! soldiers are workers. soldiers fought for communists in the russian revolution. poor soldiers dont know what they are doing they just have to kill brown men to pay their college fees. they are just innocent minds following orders. no one should harm soldiers!!!

Literally nobody has said 90% of these things here.

[Vanguard1917]

The key question is not about whether the British military is a legitimate target for violence (i'm sure most here would agree that, under certain circumstances, it most certainly is), but whether there's anything positive about two deeply confused men chopping up an off-duty soldier in south London for no good reason.

[Akshay!]

EWWW islamic fundamentalist terrorists!!!! soldiers are workers. soldiers fought for communists in the russian revolution. poor soldiers dont know what they are doing they just have to kill brown men to pay their college fees. they are just innocent minds following orders. no one should harm soldiers!!!

There's no point explaining these things to people here. They won't understand unless their comfort and privilege is under threat. Now only black and brown "Moslems!!" are being slaughtered - that doesn't really matter. Obviously if someone from their family was cut into pieces or burned alive - they would react the same way that guy did (or even worse) - but that didn't happen. People from his community were murdered - the "left" (in US, etc..) couldn't care less about it. Obviously, it can pretend to care - by saying things that make them sound moral and courageous and shouting things like "He's Islamist!!", the soldier is "working class!!" "we need him on the day of the revolution!!" but nothing else. I'm not saying that everybody should go out and repeat what he just did - obviously his actions didn't make much difference by themselves (unless followed up) but at least we shouldn't oppose people who're attacking people in an army (and NOT civilians).

[Sasha]

There's no point explaining these things to people here. They won't understand unless their comfort and privilege is under threat. Now only black and brown "Moslems!!" are being slaughtered - that doesn't really matter. Obviously if someone from their family was cut into pieces or burned alive - they would react the same way that guy did (or even worse) - but that didn't happen. People from his community were murdered - the "left" (in US, etc..) couldn't care less about it. Obviously, it can pretend to care - by saying things that make them sound moral and courageous and shouting things like "He's Islamist!!", the soldier is "working class!!" "we need him on the day of the revolution!!" but nothing else. I'm not saying that everybody should go out and repeat what he just did - obviously his actions didn't make much difference by themselves (unless followed up) but at least we shouldn't oppose people who're attacking people in an army (and NOT civilians).

he said posting from his western university computer

[Akshay!]

he said posting from his western university computer

Again, you can feel good about what you said even though it happens to be factually inaccurate. Nobody can prevent you from living in your own bubble.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's no point explaining these things to people here. They won't understand unless their comfort and privilege is under threat. Now only black and brown "Moslems!!" are being slaughtered - that doesn't really matter.

That's bullshit and you know it, considering that the existence of this very thread indicates that there are people here who do think it matters. I also think it's fair to say that most here also oppose imperialist warfare, especially that perpetrated by the US and their junior partners in crime the United Kingdom. Thus your characterisation of the board is baseless and grossly unfair.


Obviously if someone from their family was cut into pieces or burned alive - they would react the same way that guy did (or even worse) - but that didn't happen. People from his community were murdered - the "left" (in US, etc..) couldn't care less about it.

His "community"? One worker butchered another. I don't see much community there.


Obviously, it can pretend to care - by saying things that make them sound moral and courageous and shouting things like "He's Islamist!!", the soldier is "working class!!" "we need him on the day of the revolution!!" but nothing else.

1) Whether or not the guy is an Islamist, his politics are not obviously workerist and his stated motivations for his actions aren't communist.

2) Are you denying the murder victim was working class?

3) What exactly is achieved by murdering an off-duty grunt? That wouldn't be effectively cancelled-out by the backlash?


I'm not saying that everybody should go out and repeat what he just did - obviously his actions didn't make much difference by themselves (unless followed up)

Who's going to "follow up" what happened in Woolwhich?


but at least we shouldn't oppose people who're attacking people in an army (and NOT civilians).

The guy wasn't even in uniform. You don't have to be in the military to wear a "Help for Heroes" t-shirt. Which means that if you're using that to identify targets, you're not just going to strike military personnel.

[The Douche]

nah, not islamic fundamentalist terrorist but neither revolutionary hero's, just another shade of bloom: http://bloom.jottit.com/

To sort of go off topic, I don't think this is an example of bloom. When bloom lashes out, he does so to attempt to assert his control over life, he wants to be acknowledged as the individual, not the nothingness that is bloom.

But these people connected their action to something larger (radical islam), this was not the ultimate tantrum (ala school shooting, an empty assertion of pure power), it was a calculated act inspired by thought and related to something bigger.

There is something within Islam (maybe within all Abrahamic religions) that has the potentiality of the war machine (ala Deleuze), I'd like to expound upon that, but I haven't really been able to work out where I'm going with it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There's no point explaining these things to people here. They won't understand unless their comfort and privilege is under threat. Now only black and brown "Moslems!!" are being slaughtered - that doesn't really matter. Obviously if someone from their family was cut into pieces or burned alive - they would react the same way that guy did (or even worse) - but that didn't happen. People from his community were murdered - the "left" (in US, etc..) couldn't care less about it. Obviously, it can pretend to care - by saying things that make them sound moral and courageous and shouting things like "He's Islamist!!", the soldier is "working class!!" "we need him on the day of the revolution!!" but nothing else. I'm not saying that everybody should go out and repeat what he just did - obviously his actions didn't make much difference by themselves (unless followed up) but at least we shouldn't oppose people who're attacking people in an army (and NOT civilians).

Nobody here, and I mean nobody, supports British and American Imperialist intervention in the Islamic world. That is not what is at stake here. The issue is a type of analysis which views the soldier as a part of a broader Capitalist institution and sees the revolutionary potential in raising his consciousness, and a kind of analysis which justifies bloody, communitarian revenge attacks against individuals. One has revolutionary potential, the other is just a petty act of pseudo-moralist revenge against a party not responsible for the structural problems in question.

If these guys lived in a third word village and they were being attacked by helicopters from the US and Britain, that would be one thing. But they're not. These are two men who go on revenge attacks against grunts because they fail to see that these grunts are not morally responsible, and their acts are not acts of self defense nor acts which will actually end the cycle of violence but petty communitarian revenge. The same emotion going through their heads is the same emotion which fueled the bloodbath in Yugoslavia, and that fills the vacuous heads of the EDLers who use this very kind of act to gain influence.

If you want to stop British Imperialism, why not go organize a strike at the factory that makes bullets? Or is the only kind of "revolutionary act" the kind that has a blood soaked knife? The socialist revolution is not a perverted, ahistorical, idealistic, sectarian and theocratic inversion of revolutionary violence. The murder was not a revolutionary act, but a pointless crime with some idealistic "moral" garb. This is not the kind of revolutionary violence which liberates people because it replaces a material analysis of what must actually be done to liberate the colonized with some sort of bizzaro third-worldist revenge fantasy.

[Hiero]

Nobody here, and I mean nobody, supports British and American Imperialist intervention in the Islamic world. That is not what is at stake here. The issue is a type of analysis which views the soldier as a part of a broader Capitalist institution and sees the revolutionary potential in raising his consciousness, and a kind of analysis which justifies bloody, communitarian revenge attacks against individuals. One has revolutionary potential, the other is just a petty act of pseudo-moralist revenge against a party not responsible for the structural problems in question.

If these guys lived in a third word village and they were being attacked by helicopters from the US and Britain, that would be one thing. But they're not. These are two men who go on revenge attacks against grunts because they fail to see that these grunts are not morally responsible, and their acts are not acts of self defense nor acts which will actually end the cycle of violence but petty communitarian revenge. The same emotion going through their heads is the same emotion which fueled the bloodbath in Yugoslavia, and that fills the vacuous heads of the EDLers who use this very kind of act to gain influence.

If you want to stop British Imperialism, why not go organize a strike at the factory that makes bullets? Or is the only kind of "revolutionary act" the kind that has a blood soaked knife? The socialist revolution is not a perverted, ahistorical, idealistic, sectarian and theocratic inversion of revolutionary violence. The murder was not a revolutionary act, but a pointless crime with some idealistic "moral" garb. This is not the kind of revolutionary violence which liberates people because it replaces a material analysis of what must actually be done to liberate the colonized with some sort of bizzaro third-worldist revenge fantasy.

The revenge explanation does not account for the complexities of imperialism in the current context. You have nations that are vasitly superior in military technology andother capabilities where they can completly subjugate a nation's standing army and decimate any armed civilian attempt to remove the foreign army. You have millions of people stuck in a situation of helplessness. You also have a huge polarisation in terms of living conditions between thoose engaging in war and thoose countries living under occupation and war.

Then you also have developments in information technology that can spread developments and news from all around the world, and create international ideologies.

I don't believe this individuals acts should be seen as missguided revenge. What they were talking about to the cameras and people witness the event was about bringing the war home. It is an attempt to equalise the suffering between two countries at war (whether thoose men belong to thoose countries is irrelevant in that context). They are saying "this is what live through every day, do you really want war?". If it was revenge they would have used a bomb, or a firearm. Why would they butcher him and stand around speaking calmly to civilians?

[bcbm]

To sort of go off topic, I don't think this is an example of bloom. When bloom lashes out, he does so to attempt to assert his control over life, he wants to be acknowledged as the individual, not the nothingness that is bloom.

But these people connected their action to something larger (radical islam), this was not the ultimate tantrum (ala school shooting, an empty assertion of pure power), it was a calculated act inspired by thought and related to something bigger.

There is something within Islam (maybe within all Abrahamic religions) that has the potentiality of the war machine (ala Deleuze), I'd like to expound upon that, but I haven't really been able to work out where I'm going with it.

idk i think the bloom model still fits in situations like these. even though they are loosely connecting themselves to something larger they are ultimately lashing out individually in a way i think fits more with a profile of a school shooter than a 9/11 hijacker or whatever. this wasn't a meticulously planned event to bring glory to islam, this was a lashing out against the world, albeit from an islamist lense. but i dont think the ideological lense is as important as the nature of the action.


The revenge explanation does not account for the complexities of imperialism in the current context. You have nations that are vasitly superior in military technology andother capabilities where they can completly subjugate a nation's standing army and decimate any armed civilian attempt to remove the foreign army. You have millions of people stuck in a situation of helplessness.

the 'armed civilians' in afghanistan and iraq have done a pretty good job against 'vastly superior' western countries. given that only one of these is pulling out right now

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The revenge explanation does not account for the complexities of imperialism in the current context. You have nations that are vasitly superior in military technology andother capabilities where they can completly subjugate a nation's standing army and decimate any armed civilian attempt to remove the foreign army. You have millions of people stuck in a situation of helplessness. You also have a huge polarisation in terms of living conditions between thoose engaging in war and thoose countries living under occupation and war.

Then you also have developments in information technology that can spread developments and news from all around the world, and create international ideologies.


Except these two men were not some Afghan tribesmen whose village was being bombed. There is no self defense, nor were they living under occupation. These aren't men driven to fight imperialism by the necessity of force. This was some British bloke who was a convert who seemed to not have a particularly fulfilling life and his buddy. They were driven by sectarian loyalty to people who share a religious identity.


I don't believe this individuals acts should be seen as missguided revenge. What they were talking about to the cameras and people witness the event was about bringing the war home. It is an attempt to equalise the suffering between two countries at war (whether thoose men belong to thoose countries is irrelevant in that context). They are saying "this is what live through every day, do you really want war?". If it was revenge they would have used a bomb, or a firearm. Why would they butcher him and stand around speaking calmly to civilians?I think running a man over with a car and decapitating him is as much an act of bloody, violent revenge as a bomb or firearm. Why is a knife attack any less an act of revenge?

People get influenced by a hardline religious ideology that teaches them to resent the British state, but because religious, sectarian resentment is a reactionary ideology they lash out in a reactionary manner instead of being motivated to change the institutions of oppression. There is no analysis of our institutions or class society and no program to change that, just "Some of your people killed some co-religionists, so now I am compelled to kill some of your people too."

Most Muslims in Britain do not want idiots like these guys bringing "war" to the British streets for religious sectarian reasons. There are good reasons for this aside from any moral reservations they may have. There's a lot of Muslims in London but relative to the non-Muslims they're still a smaller community, and as far as most are concerned they do not want to burn bridges with the rest of the British population. Idiocy like this only brings "the war" to the streets of England insofar as people from the EDL and other groups justify intimidation of Muslims. There are much better ways of ending the war than particularly bloody acts of sectarian violence.

[The Douche]

idk i think the bloom model still fits in situations like these. even though they are loosely connecting themselves to something larger they are ultimately lashing out individually in a way i think fits more with a profile of a school shooter than a 9/11 hijacker or whatever. this wasn't a meticulously planned event to bring glory to islam, this was a lashing out against the world, albeit from an islamist lense. but i dont think the ideological lense is as important as the nature of the action.

How did he lash out individually when he directly connects his actions to the oppression of muslims/muslims who resist occupation? He connects himself to a broad tradition and living movement.

You say it wasn't planned, but did you watch the video? The guy is lucid as fuck, so aware of what he's doing that he apologizes that women would have to see it, but makes a logical defense of his actions. Bloom can't justify their actions.

Also, his method is advocated in one of the Al-Quaeda "Inspire" magazines, it instructs followers to get a car and run people over with it, or to mount a blade to the front of the car so they can cut people up. So I think that you're sort of poo-pooing his connection to something larger than himself (even if this connection is only in his head, it still doesn't reconcile with bloom). The dude who speaks in the video is intelligent, he is present, and he's articulate. Those are not the qualities of the school shooter.

Look at the way Dorner's manifesto (not to mention his action) was rife with contradiction, but not this guy.


Also, the "ideological lense" (and I disagree with calling radical islam an "ideological lense", because I think there is more to radical islam than that) does matter, because how is there the nothingness of bloom if the individual really does connect to other things?

[kakovsky]

U.S. + 9/11 = Bush. U.K. + Woolwich Attack = UKIP. History repeats it's self again.

first as tragedy then as farce...

[Sasha]

To sort of go off topic, I don't think this is an example of bloom. When bloom lashes out, he does so to attempt to assert his control over life, he wants to be acknowledged as the individual, not the nothingness that is bloom.

But these people connected their action to something larger (radical islam), this was not the ultimate tantrum (ala school shooting, an empty assertion of pure power), it was a calculated act inspired by thought and related to something bigger.

There is something within Islam (maybe within all Abrahamic religions) that has the potentiality of the war machine (ala Deleuze), I'd like to expound upon that, but I haven't really been able to work out where I'm going with it.

but many school shootings have superficial "motivations" too, revenge on the bully jocks, infamy etc etc. i really believe that the actions of these two are not that different, nihilist lashing out against the system motivated by alienation, going for the ultimate schock value, attempted suicide by cop etc etc.
its all very similair to the murder of theo van gogh here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Murder) where the killer was in the end shown to be the mentally unstable hangaround to the real jihadists network that he wanted to impress.

[Lenin1986]

The British ruling class has been using the British army for hundreds of years to invade countries all over the world robbing and murdering the people of the countries they have invaded. The killing of the british soldier by the two men was horrorfic but it is no where near as horrorfic as what the Btritish ruling class as done and is doing all over the world.

[The Douche]

but many school shootings have superficial "motivations" too, revenge on the bully jocks, infamy etc etc. i really believe that the actions of these two are not that different, nihilist lashing out against the system motivated by alienation, going for the ultimate schock value, attempted suicide by cop etc etc.
its all very similair to the murder of theo van gogh here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Murder) where the killer was in the end shown to be the mentally unstable hangaround to the real jihadists network that he wanted to impress.

But school shooters don't have a historical tendency to contribute to/be a part of. They are individuals lashing out in an assertion of themselves as individuals. These dudes did not, they make a big point about tying themselves into something larger. That is not very bloom.

Also, what was nihilistic about this attack? I don't think its nihilistic at all.


And a "mentally unstable hangaround" of "real jihadists", ceases to be a hangaround, and becomes a "real jihadist" when he carries out jihad, doesn't he?

Plus, isn't that just part of empire, labeling people as "crazy" for attack? Bonanno spends some time on that issue in armed joy:



Capital will give the last word to the white coats. Prisons will not last for long. Fortresses of a past that survives only in the fantasies of some exalted old reactionary, they will disappear along with the ideology based on social orthopaedics. There will no longer be convicts. The criminalisation capital creates will be rationalised, it will be processed through asylums.

When the whole of reality is spectacular, to refuse the spectacle means to be outside reality. Anyone who refuses the code of commodities is mad. Refusal to bow down before the commodity god will result in one’s being committed to a mental asylum.

There the treatment will be radical. No more inquisitorial-style torture or blood on the walls; such things upset public opinion. They cause the self-righteous to intervene, give rise to justification and making amends, and disturb the harmony of the spectacle. The total annihilation of the personality, considered to be the only radical cure for sick minds, does not upset anyone. So long as the man in the street feels he is surrounded by the imperturbable atmosphere of the capitalist spectacle he will feel safe from the asylum doors ever slamming shut on him. The world of madness will seem to him to be elsewhere, even though there is always an asylum available next to every factory, opposite every school, behind every patch of land, in the middle of every housing estate.

In our critical obtuseness we must take care not to pave the way to the civil servants in white coats.

Capital is programming a code of interpretation to be circulated at mass level. On the basis of this code public opinion will get used to seeing those who attack the bosses’ order of things, that is to say revolutionaries, as practically mad. Hence the need to have them put away in mental asylums. Prisons are also rationalising along the German model. First they will transform themselves into special prisons for revolutionaries, then into model prisons, then into real concentration camps for brain manipulation, and finally, mental asylums.

[Beeth]

Except these two men were not some Afghan tribesmen whose village was being bombed. There is no self defense, nor were they living under occupation. These aren't men driven to fight imperialism by the necessity of force.

Are you saying that only those suffering directly under imperialism have the right to fight back?

[bcbm]

french soldier stabbed in neck while on patrol (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/25/world/europe/france-soldier-stabbing/index.html)

[Rafiq]

Akshay throws the Middle East, a region with a strong history of communism (Or Marxism Leninism, whatever) to the Islamist hounds with talk of the "Islamic World" and so on. There is no Islamic world. The struggle between "Islam and the Imperialist west" is a manifestation of false consciousness. The only struggle is that between the proletariat and it's enemies, whether they strike up either the banner of Islamism or European chauvinism, it makes little difference.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[helot]

These are two men who go on revenge attacks against grunts because they fail to see that these grunts are not morally responsible

How aren't soldiers morally responsible for their actions? Sure, you can understand what can drive someone to kill people for the glory of the ruling class, there are tons of reasons, but being a grunt as you put it does not relinquish you of moral responsibility and neither does ignorance.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The British ruling class has been using the British army for hundreds of years to invade countries all over the world robbing and murdering the people of the countries they have invaded. The killing of the british soldier by the two men was horrorfic but it is no where near as horrorfic as what the Btritish ruling class as done and is doing all over the world.

Do you see anyone saying "What these people did is morally more repugnant than everything every British Imperialist in history combined has done"?


Are you saying that only those suffering directly under imperialism have the right to fight back?

No I'm saying only those suffering directly CAN fight back, by definition. People in Afghanistan may be fighting in self defense, but not people in the UK. People in the UK can find better ways of fighting Imperialism than murder. People who actually live in the countries being imperialized have no such luxury.


How aren't soldiers morally responsible for their actions? Sure, you can understand what can drive someone to kill people for the glory of the ruling class, there are tons of reasons, but being a grunt as you put it does not relinquish you of moral responsibility and neither does ignorance.

A critical idea we get from Marxist analysis is that one does not fight these institutions by placing "moral blame", especially not on the people at the bottom. Everyone who works on some level can be "blamed" for upholding the system. We don't change that system by applying moral blame and acting on it. We change it by people from soldiers to workers to Muslims in the 3rd world all agreeing that they have no self interest in maintaining the system. Applying moral blame to infantrymen and pretending that is politically relevant is a kind of rampant moral idealism which is at best useless for actually changing the world. Again, imagine if the Bolsheviks had excluded soldiers from the Russian army because those soldiers were blamed for all the innocents which it had slaughtered across the world ...

The good old school anarchists knew that you had to throw a bomb at the Tzar or shoot McKinley if you actually wanted to take out the person responsible, not take out some infantry private out on leave. And even then, it turns out a lone-wolf assassination was often as counterproductive as anything else.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How aren't soldiers morally responsible for their actions? Sure, you can understand what can drive someone to kill people for the glory of the ruling class, there are tons of reasons, but being a grunt as you put it does not relinquish you of moral responsibility and neither does ignorance.

It's not a big step in logic to go from this nonsense stating that every worker - particularly in the developed world - is morally responsible for their actions.

Presumably workers at nuclear factories are also morally responsible? And clerical workers in a number of industries; security, gas, oil etc. All morally responsible, right? :rolleyes:

[Beeth]

No I'm saying only those suffering directly CAN fight back, by definition. People in Afghanistan may be fighting in self defense, but not people in the UK. People in the UK can find better ways of fighting Imperialism than murder. People who actually live in the countries being imperialized have no such luxury.




What about identification? A well-off person could identify with the oppressed and fight on their behalf. Evidently, this well-off person isn't oppressed himself, yet he will perform actions which an oppressed person may perform. Point is, there are many factors that determine a person's action, and identification is a very strong one - identification with nation, ideology, etc.

[Lucretia]

Context is everything, folks, and it's a fucking joke that some "leftists" in this thread fail to see that. Too many people here are lining up on opposing sides of this situation as though the problem here were "violence" or "violence used against a soldier" or "violence used against a soldier by people with quasi-anti-imperialist motives." These are useless abstractions. The question is, was this a reasonably productive way of forwarding an anti-imperialist agenda? I think the reaction itself, that many here have noted in justified disgust, suggests an obvious answer to that question. So then why did the two guys engage in this act? Because they rationally believed it was forwarding some anti-imperialist cause? No. Because they're twisted religious nutcases brainwashed by their religious ideologies to do stupid and fucked up shit. Exactly like the "Christian crusaders" they claim to be fighting against. That anybody here would presume to justify this in anything remotely resembling leftist garb exposes once and for all the political, intellectual, and moral bankruptcy of whatever "tendency" that person claims to uphold.

Any leftist with a modicum of common sense would realize that one doesn't advance the struggle against either fanatical anti-Muslim or fanatical Muslim stupidities by accepting the framework laid down by both sides, and then lining up with one of them.

[helot]

A critical idea we get from Marxist analysis is that one does not fight these institutions by placing "moral blame", especially not on the people at the bottom. Everyone who works on some level can be "blamed" for upholding the system. We don't change that system by applying moral blame and acting on it. We change it by people from soldiers to workers to Muslims in the 3rd world all agreeing that they have no self interest in maintaining the system. Applying moral blame to infantrymen and pretending that is politically relevant is a kind of rampant moral idealism which is at best useless for actually changing the world. Again, imagine if the Bolsheviks had excluded soldiers from the Russian army because those soldiers were blamed for all the innocents which it had slaughtered across the world ...

The good old school anarchists knew that you had to throw a bomb at the Tzar or shoot McKinley if you actually wanted to take out the person responsible, not take out some infantry private out on leave. And even then, it turns out a lone-wolf assassination was often as counterproductive as anything else.

and you're arguing against a point i didn't make. You put far too much effort into destroying a strawman.


Btw, the way soldiers can aid the working class is the same as the police... to cease to be soldiers. Their role is the same, the only difference is where they operate. Wait, i take it back.. the military differs slightly from the police in that they're also a scabbing organisation.



It's not a big step in logic to go from this nonsense stating that every worker - particularly in the developed world - is morally responsible for their actions.

Presumably workers at nuclear factories are also morally responsible? And clerical workers in a number of industries; security, gas, oil etc. All morally responsible, right? :rolleyes:

and it's not a big step in logic to go from this nonsense stating that fascists, the police and scabs aren't morally responsible for their actions. You can't have it both ways.

[Hiero]

Except these two men were not some Afghan tribesmen whose village was being bombed. There is no self defense, nor were they living under occupation. These aren't men driven to fight imperialism by the necessity of force. This was some British bloke who was a convert who seemed to not have a particularly fulfilling life and his buddy. They were driven by sectarian loyalty to people who share a religious identity.I already answered this in my original post when I talked about international ideology. But both were British Nigerians, one born in Nigeria and converts. They are both 'subaltern', 'third-world looking' and in the context of 'the war on terror' they can choose to be either enemies or subservient. Pretty much everything they said was true, about the high level of violence and the public spectacular of violence in Muslim countries. I didn’t equate this action with the action of fighting occupation.


I think running a man over with a car and decapitating him is as much an act of bloody, violent revenge as a bomb or firearm. Why is a knife attack any less an act of revenge?They went to a large effort to make a violent spectacle, it was a highly symbolic murder rather than a revenge killing. It wasn't purely about revenge, they went to the trouble of butchering a man in a public street in the middle of the day. The target just had to be a member of a nation’s army (regardless of rank), the audience was the public, making them as much the target of violence. This is different to a revenge killing like for instance the sectarian war in North Ireland where you kill one of mine I will kill one of yours mentality. The killers were threatening the British public to becoming daily witnesses of high levels of grotesque violence.



People get influenced by a hardline religious ideology that teaches them to resent the British state, but because religious, sectarian resentment is a reactionary ideology they lash out in a reactionary manner instead of being motivated to change the institutions of oppression. There is no analysis of our institutions or class society and no program to change that, just "Some of your people killed some co-religionists, so now I am compelled to kill some of your people too."I don't know who this aimed at? You are merely painting over the complexities of this style of politically motivated murder. Why do we need to analyse its effectiveness as means to motivate change of the institutions of oppression? What if this style of attack indicates lack of feeling of change and its just an attempt to spread the level of suffering that people face day to day in warzones?

You're evaluating in terms of political effectiveness (in my opinion in an outdated WW1 Marxist party ideology about strikes at the munitions factory and discussions on imperialism) rather in terms of violence in its practical and symbolic forms. This violence works to break the sense of peace in the countries that are waging war, where war is more spectacle rather than blood and guts paving the street.
And don’t assume I am taking the romantic view on violence. I don’t want to see people getting hacked to death, I don’t want to be or have any of my friends and family become a target of this violence. But then on the other hand, if I was a leader of a nation I would go around invading other nations, so I wouldn’t be in this situation. It’s just some other assholes have created this situation that I am a part of.

Edit: To make my point as clear as possible, your evalating it and not analysing. And the position Marxists are in at the current time is not a position of evaluation.

[Hiero]

Akshay throws the Middle East, a region with a strong history of communism (Or Marxism Leninism, whatever) to the Islamist hounds with talk of the "Islamic World" and so on. There is no Islamic world. The struggle between "Islam and the Imperialist west" is a manifestation of false consciousness. The only struggle is that between the proletariat and it's enemies, whether they strike up either the banner of Islamism or European chauvinism, it makes little difference.

False consciousness is the most idealist concept Marxist have come up with.

[ed miliband]

There are some challenging results, such as the finding that the number of citizens who think that conflict between groups is "largely inevitable" has risen by seven points to 40%, or that agreement with the suggestion that there will be a serious clash between British Muslims and white Britons has also risen, by nine points to 59%. But these buck the broader trend.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/26/public-attitude-muslims-complex-positive

[blake 3:17]

but many school shootings have superficial "motivations" too, revenge on the bully jocks, infamy etc etc. i really believe that the actions of these two are not that different, nihilist lashing out against the system motivated by alienation, going for the ultimate schock value, attempted suicide by cop etc etc.
its all very similair to the murder of theo van gogh here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29#Murder) where the killer was in the end shown to be the mentally unstable hangaround to the real jihadists network that he wanted to impress.

I'm inclined to to agree with a diagnosis of nihilism and alienation here. Basic social exclusion, lack of social solidarity, authoritarian comformism, lack of meaningful work and leisure are more immediate causes.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I hardly think selective outrage is a feature of Liberal Democracy only. You can call out the selective rage and hypocrisy of practically any group of people, communists included.

Communists are hypocrites for not being outraged by violence toward a ruling class? Am I reading this right? (Not saying acts like this should be supported, though---it's well-established that revolution cannot and will not come about through individual acts of violence like this).


In any case: If soldiers are working class, then cops are working class. Cops are not working class, therefore, soldiers are not working class.

[ed miliband]

what the icc have to say about it all: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201305/7835/false-justifications-murder

[Sasha]

Communists are hypocrites for not being outraged by violence toward a ruling class? Am I reading this right? (Not saying acts like this should be supported, though---it's well-established that revolution cannot and will not come about through individual acts of violence like this).


In any case: If soldiers are working class, then cops are working class. Cops are not working class, therefore, soldiers are not working class.

You can be workingclass yet still be an enemy of it as a whole, and yes cops and military are both. The difference though is that the military, esp their lowest ranks has a long track record of being able to get swayed to join our side, while for cops that is practically unheard of.
Which is an important difference and tells a lot about the subtle differences in the role cops and soldiers furfill in society and their motivation to join.
Though i will give you that its very likely that this is under change now armies move from conscription to enlistment. Though since for the military economic conscription is a bigger fqctor plus soldiers are more likely to resent their job as they are more likely to have to do things they didn't expect when they enlisted there is still a difference.

[Revy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/26/public-attitude-muslims-complex-positive

"British Muslims and white Britons"?

The two are not mutually exclusive. There are white British Muslims. And what about Britons who are neither white nor Muslim?

[Questionable]

David Cameron is planning new powers to muzzle Islamic hate preachers accused of provoking terrorist outrages such as the killing of soldier Lee Rigby.

The Prime Minister wants to stop extremist clerics using schools, colleges, prisons and mosques to spread their ‘poison’ and is to head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) made up of senior Ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders.

The high-powered group will study a number of measures, including banning extremist clerics from being given public platforms to incite students, prisoners and other followers – and forcing mosque leaders to answer for ‘hate preachers’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330945/David-Cameron-launch-new-terror-task-force-stamp-religious-extremism.html

I've got a bad feeling about this...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The EDL have been taking advantage of the odd public mood to lash out in various communities and, of course, no one particularly likes them for it. Short video of them getting chased out of a neighbourhood:

mP2mY6Ts58Q

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

and it's not a big step in logic to go from this nonsense stating that fascists, the police and scabs aren't morally responsible for their actions. You can't have it both ways.

Well, fascism is an ideology. It's not necessary to be a fascist to survive. It is, however, necessary to sell one's labour power to survive. Now, if the choice is between selling your labour power to a capitalist war general, or a nuclear company or whatever, and destitution, then who the fuck are you to judge the 'morality' of such an action?

Socialism isn't some sort of moralistic diktat of what society should look like. There's no room for morality in the struggle for survival, i'm afraid.

[Bronco]

The EDL have been taking advantage of the odd public mood to lash out in various communities and, of course, no one particularly likes them for it. Short video of them getting chased out of a neighbourhood:

mP2mY6Ts58Q

That video's from two years ago

[Akshay!]

Akshay throws the Middle East, a region with a strong history of communism (Or Marxism Leninism, whatever) to the Islamist hounds with talk of the "Islamic World" and so on. There is no Islamic world. The struggle between "Islam and the Imperialist west" is a manifestation of false consciousness. The only struggle is that between the proletariat and it's enemies, whether they strike up either the banner of Islamism or European chauvinism, it makes little difference.


Funny thing - Akshay never mentioned the "Islamic World" in any of his posts so why don't we make up something that he never said so that we can refute it and then like each other's posts? Why don't we justify ourselves not doing anything by using meaningless complicated language and then even oppose people who actually do something in the real world to fight against imperialism? I never said "Islamic World" - I said that he was a muslim and millions of muslims have been slaughtered by western imperialism - responding to that is not Islamism. It's being human. If you don't respond to it, you're not only an active supporter of imperialism - you're not even human. The question whether this will have an impact or not is irrelevant. As I said, it probably won't (unless followed up).

[WelcomeToTheParty]

If you don't respond to it, you're not only an active supporter of imperialism - you're not even human. The question whether this will have an impact or not is irrelevant. As I said, it probably won't (unless followed up).

That's complete bollocks. Whether it makes an impact is incredibly relevant.

The only way to justify an action like this is if it directly contributes to a radical change and if was the least violent reasonable option. Could these two guys have made their point without violence? They definitely wouldn't have gotten the same publicity so I will accept that there is an argument to be made that it was the least violent option, but will it make a difference? Absolutely not and in fact it will probably make things worse. So all we're left with is the pointless brutal killing of a working man leading to attacks on muslims across England.

It's not about just doing something, it matters what you do.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

That video's from two years ago
It was posted on my facebook as being from today and I didn't think to check. Argh. D:

[The Douche]

I'm inclined to to agree with a diagnosis of nihilism and alienation here. Basic social exclusion, lack of social solidarity, authoritarian comformism, lack of meaningful work and leisure are more immediate causes.

Where is the nihilism? Did you guys watch the man speak? Fucking nihilism?

He is being almost the opposite of nihilistic in the video.

If he was running around like a madman, sure, but he wasn't, he picked a target, planned an operation, and carried it out, with no collateral damage, then he explained his motivation, and apologized for having done it in public, but reminded the viewer that this is the daily experience of other people (he specifies muslim's in occupied countries).

I still haven't seen anybody describe anything nihilistic about this...

[Hermes]

Where is the nihilism? Did you guys watch the man speak? Fucking nihilism?

He is being almost the opposite of nihilistic in the video.

If he was running around like a madman, sure, but he wasn't, he picked a target, planned an operation, and carried it out, with no collateral damage, then he explained his motivation, and apologized for having done it in public, but reminded the viewer that this is the daily experience of other people (he specifies muslim's in occupied countries).

I still haven't seen anybody describe anything nihilistic about this...


Sorry for the ignorance, but can't nihilism be rational? That is, couldn't he still calmly explain his actions according to the 'purpose' he subjectively ascribes to life and still be a nihilist?

Also sorry for the tangent, and again for the ignorance.

[MarxArchist]

On the one hand capital and it's state subjugating people in order to expand profits- on the other religious resistance to that profit/market expansion/cultural shift. I'm no fan of capital, their state or the church so taking sides is, well, not in my interests. I'll take the side of the subjugated but not support religious resistance. I'll condemn capital and their state for murder and exploitation but I find it hard to support religious resistance to capital. If resistance took the form of class struggle and not jihad it would be different- this doesn't mean I support capital's various wars or the subjugation of entire populations it means Islam isn't the answer to resisting war/capital nor is cutting peoples heads off in the middle of western cities.

They have and will resist communism in the same manner (funded by capital). Is the enemy of our enemy our friend? When communists were in Afghanistan what do you think was happening? A warm welcome? If capital ceased to exist tomorrow and communists took power in the advanced capitalist nations Islamic resistance would remain a problem. Religious resistance of all types would seek to maintain their silly dogmatic societies/culture be it capitalism or communism they're resisting. In the west the 'enlightenment' softened the impact of religious idiocy but not all regions have undergone that process. Also, the people in here supporting this are suggesting communists should take to the streets with the same tactics? Absurd.

[helot]

Well, fascism is an ideology. It's not necessary to be a fascist to survive. It is, however, necessary to sell one's labour power to survive. Now, if the choice is between selling your labour power to a capitalist war general, or a nuclear company or whatever, and destitution, then who the fuck are you to judge the 'morality' of such an action?

Socialism isn't some sort of moralistic diktat of what society should look like. There's no room for morality in the struggle for survival, i'm afraid.

I made no claims about socialism nor the relevance of morality to politics just that people are responsible for their actions. The level of misrepresenting other people's views on this forum is astonishing.


You can understand the choices people make, you can sympathise because of the various social forces at play that led to it but to go and relinquish any sort of responsibility is ridiculous.


As you'd know it's not necessary to join the military to survive here in the UK and it's pretty obvious that people dont just decide one day that they'll join the military for a wage. If that was the case there'd be millions of people besieging the recruitment offices because they're unemployed. It's a huge decision and people who take it lightly drop out because of the highly regimented lifestyle well before they'd pass the threshold for being sent to a military prison. Generally, people who join the military wanted to well before they felt the pressures of the labour market.


Maybe if i joined the police and caved in the skulls of protesters i'd also not be morally responsible for it.


You're right though, who am i to judge the morality of such an action? It's not like ive ever felt the economic compulsion to do things that could be considered morally reprehensible. Afterall, i sit here comfortably in the giddying heights of... oh wait, no i dont. I dream of having the same income as a level 1 private.

[blake 3:17]

Well, fascism is an ideology. It's not necessary to be a fascist to survive. It is, however, necessary to sell one's labour power to survive. Now, if the choice is between selling your labour power to a capitalist war general, or a nuclear company or whatever, and destitution, then who the fuck are you to judge the 'morality' of such an action?

Socialism isn't some sort of moralistic diktat of what society should look like. There's no room for morality in the struggle for survival, i'm afraid.

You're entering slippery slopes. Or straight up nihilism which I don't think is where you are at all. What we need is mass refusal to participate in the death machine.

[Per Levy]

Why don't we justify ourselves not doing anything by using meaningless complicated language and then even oppose people who actually do something in the real world to fight against imperialism?

so you still havnt told us what you do to fight imperialism or to come back to one of your earlier posts, what have you dont to "change material conditons"?


If you don't respond to it, you're not only an active supporter of imperialism - you're not even human.

so the overwhealming majority of the human kind is not human, do i get your meaning here? that also brings me to the question are you human akshay? have you fought imperialism?


The question whether this will have an impact or not is irrelevant.

yeah, screw the impact this useless act did. screw the british muslims and anyone with a darker skin tone who will have now a harder time thanks to this act, screw it that the edl get more popular this way, screw it that the 2 guys who killed the soldier will be in jail for probally the rest of their lifes, screw it that this act will be used to justify more policestate policies, and so on.


As I said, it probably won't (unless followed up).

if that would've been followd up it would've lead to burning mosques and maybe murder of suspected muslims, you probally wouldnt care about this either. seriously akshay, the major critique is that this act didnt do anything positve in any way.

but still im waiting for your amazing tales of how you faught imperialism and how you changed material conditons. and if you dont have those drop you holier than thou attitude you like to throw around, you sound like a moralistic, arrogant hypocrite.

[Slavic]

*Hyperlink* (I can't reply hyperlinks with my post count)

I've got a bad feeling about this...

Would the banning of religious extremist hate speech be any different then the banning of fascist hate speech.

I don't think a socialist society should tolerate any hate speech based on fascist ideology and religious fundamentalism.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Well, fascism is an ideology. It's not necessary to be a fascist to survive. It is, however, necessary to sell one's labour power to survive. Now, if the choice is between selling your labour power to a capitalist war general, or a nuclear company or whatever, and destitution, then who the fuck are you to judge the 'morality' of such an action?

Socialism isn't some sort of moralistic diktat of what society should look like. There's no room for morality in the struggle for survival, i'm afraid.

Yes, because the only option was join the military or starvation. They couldn't work literally anywhere else.

[RATMfan1992]

unless British foreign policy changes atrocious crimes like this will continue happen.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Would the banning of religious extremist hate speech be any different then the banning of fascist hate speech.

Yes it would, because such legislation is usually fuzzy enough to encompass speech opposing capitalism, or at least it can be twisted in that manner.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Yes, because the only option was join the military or starvation. They couldn't work literally anywhere else.

For some perhaps they couldn't. Others have just been brought up in a society where they're taught being a soldier is a good career. Maybe they didn't really know what to do with their life and were drawn in by recruiters. The point is that they're human beings, workers and victims of capitalism.

[Craig_J]

For some perhaps they couldn't. Others have just been brought up in a society where they're taught being a soldier is a good career. Maybe they didn't really know what to do with their life and were drawn in by recruiters. The point is that they're human beings, workers and victims of capitalism.

Good post. We're constantly getting adverts saying "Join the RAF" and things like that. They make it seem like a video game to try and intice you in.

It's not even a good career move even if you live. The pay often ends up less than miminum wage and you're told you're fighting some kind of evil enemy when in fact your fighting a small band of guys to clear way for the oil companies.

If we in the UK didn't even have an army I don't think it would affect us much at all. Let alone the digusting waste of money which is Trident.

[Questionable]

Would the banning of religious extremist hate speech be any different then the banning of fascist hate speech.

I don't think a socialist society should tolerate any hate speech based on fascist ideology and religious fundamentalism.

The fact that Cameron chastised moderate Islamists for not condemning the attack strongly enough leads me to believe this legislation will target all individuals who identify with the religion, not just fundamentalists.

[Craig_J]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331598/War-memorial-defaced-EDL-prepare-march-Downing-Street-tensions-rise-country.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

- So two war memorials have been defaced - they're not sure whether it's by far right troublemakers or Islamists - My personal opinion is far right ahte stirirs from the simple word 'Islam' and nothing else.

- 1,000 people have gone on a EDL march from Trafalgar square to downing street

- A mosque has been firebombed

This isn't good news at all. When things like this happens it brings up the two worst types of evils and nothing good ever happens.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, because the only option was join the military or starvation. They couldn't work literally anywhere else.

You're going down the route of blaming a worker for what the worker produces (in this case, war).

The whole point of capitalism is that the working class is alienated; they sell their labour power to the capitalist, they do not own what they produce and, largely, they do not produce to consume, nor to sell. They sell their labour power to the capitalist, and produce to earn a wage.

It's thoroughly un-Marxian to lay moral blame for the output of the capitalist production process at the foot of the worker's door.

[goalkeeper]

Communists are hypocrites for not being outraged by violence toward a ruling class? Am I reading this right? (Not saying acts like this should be supported, though---it's well-established that revolution cannot and will not come about through individual acts of violence like this).


In any case: If soldiers are working class, then cops are working class. Cops are not working class, therefore, soldiers are not working class.

No, no, not my point at all. The poster I was replying to was disparaging over how in Liberal Democracies people get worked up over the killing of certain people (the soldier in Woolwich in this case) and not over others (such as Pakistani villagers killed by drones). My point in response was that all in-groups seem to have a selective outrage over the killings of certain people. When Israel bombs Gaza, Muslims (and people attached to the Palestinian cause) get rightfully angry, yet when Turkey was bombing Kurds many of these same people did not really care. In the case of Communists, there are often certain massacres and killings which provoke more outrage, for example in the 20th century if a right wing dictatorship crushed a local communist party and its allied unions (Indonesia for example?), the outrage around the world was greater than, say, if some nationalist political movement was as brutally crushed by an opposing one in some other part of the world. Among some Anarchists the crushing of the anarchist groups by the Bolsheviks was historically a great crime, where as the crushing of other anti-Bolshevik socialist groups is not so much. People will have greater outrage when people they identify with, either on political, class, religious, or ethnic grounds, are killed.

[Rafiq]

False consciousness is the most idealist concept Marxist have come up with.

Elaborate. False consciousness is the ideology of the ruling class in relation to classes whose consciousness as a class are opposed.

[Rafiq]

F I said that he was a muslim and millions of muslims have been slaughtered by western imperialism - responding to that is not Islamism.

By asserting that this man has absolutely any political relations to the people who are being slaughtered that you 'recognize' as legitimate (who happen to be Muslim) on the simple grounds that he is also a Muslim is precisely Islamism. There is no Muslim community. "Muslims" aren't a species separate from homo sapiens sapiens. They are organized into classes, a grand majority of which are manifested in the form of capitalist social relations. The hand of Communism will see to the systemic execution of hundreds of thousands of Muslims (but the fact that they are Muslims will be irrelevant). All enemies of the revolution, be they Muslim or otherwise will suffer at the hand of the revolutionary proletariat. Will you then, come to the defense of Islamists who hack comrades to death in the street for "killing millions of Muslims"?

The point is simple: It is not that I am attempting to justify the murderous excesses of Western Imperialism, I am simply demanding that you recognize Imperialism, and the Islamist backlash within the context of class struggle. We oppose Western Imperialism because it strengthens the grip of the class enemy, it feeds the hunger of capital, not because 'Holy lands are being invaded' or 'Muslims are being fed down western values'. This infuriates me. What 'Muslims'? Only four decades ago, those in the supposed 'Islamic world' who opposed Western Imperialism themselves were more westernized than the imperialists, in the sense that they upheld western concepts: secularism, feminism, bourgeois socialism and so on. They are not a bunch of mindless drones of whom we must be careful around when speaking of Islam and so on.


It's being human. If you don't respond to it, you're not only an active supporter of imperialism - you're not even human. The question whether this will have an impact or not is irrelevant. As I said, it probably won't (unless followed up).

Then woe unto humanity.

If responding to western imperialism through means outside of the interests of the revolutionary proletariat revoke us of our human identity, then I declare the human race as counter revolutionary, let these "humans" you speak of be put to the sword of the proletarian dictatorship.

[human strike]

You're going down the route of blaming a worker for what the worker produces (in this case, war).

The whole point of capitalism is that the working class is alienated; they sell their labour power to the capitalist, they do not own what they produce and, largely, they do not produce to consume, nor to sell. They sell their labour power to the capitalist, and produce to earn a wage.

It's thoroughly un-Marxian to lay moral blame for the output of the capitalist production process at the foot of the worker's door.

Saying it is "thoroughly un-Marxian" isn't an argument. Your version of capitalism is one with the working class as victim and always on the defensive from the attacks of the exploiting capitalist class. This is the working class as only a spectator to the global waltz of capital’s autonomous self-activating development. Capital exists because workers reproduce it. It is essential to appreciate this fact and the fact that the developments of capital are also often (if not always) in defence against the autonomous movement of the working class against it.

If war happens because workers produce it, then they must stop producing it. Would you argue that we shouldn't resist the actions of the police simply because they are workers and have no choice but to work? That seems like a ludicrous argument but the logical conclusion from what you said. Resisting capital is resisting the work that reproduces it.

None of that is necessarily a justification for the random murder of soldiers, but it is I think important to approach the subject from this kind of perspective.

[Rugged Collectivist]

For some perhaps they couldn't. Others have just been brought up in a society where they're taught being a soldier is a good career. Maybe they didn't really know what to do with their life and were drawn in by recruiters. The point is that they're human beings, workers and victims of capitalism.

We also live in a society where being a cop is considered a good (or at least decent) career, but I don't see many leftists weeping bitter tears when cops get firebombed in Greece.

Of course soldiers are victims of circumstance but so is everybody else. If we can't hold soldiers morally responsible for their actions, we can't hold anybody morally responsible for their actions.


You're going down the route of blaming a worker for what the worker produces (in this case, war).

The whole point of capitalism is that the working class is alienated; they sell their labour power to the capitalist, they do not own what they produce and, largely, they do not produce to consume, nor to sell. They sell their labour power to the capitalist, and produce to earn a wage.

It's thoroughly un-Marxian to lay moral blame for the output of the capitalist production process at the foot of the worker's door.

I would respond to this but I can't decipher all the jargon (Seriously, producing war?)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Of course soldiers are victims of circumstance but so is everybody else. If we can't hold soldiers morally responsible for their actions, we can't hold anybody morally responsible for their actions.


Marxist agitation has nothing to do with making people feel morally guilty for the role that they have in the economy and everything with convincing them to take economic and social control over their lives as a class.


I already answered this in my original post when I talked about international ideology. But both were British Nigerians, one born in Nigeria and converts. They are both 'subaltern', 'third-world looking' and in the context of 'the war on terror' they can choose to be either enemies or subservient. Pretty much everything they said was true, about the high level of violence and the public spectacular of violence in Muslim countries. I didn’t equate this action with the action of fighting occupation.


I dont know if I'm confusing your point but "Muslim" was not the ideology which they adhered to but "Muslim fundamentalist". These people are different than the Algerians fighting the French, where the Algerian rebels really did represent the people of Algeria for the most part. Salafism wants women, religious minorities, alternative interpretations of Islam, sexual minorities, etc to face oppression just as bad if not worse than that which the European Imperialists dish out. Salafis are just as responsible for the high and public level of violence in Muslim countries. Salafis want to exploit the violence which Muslims suffer by Western powers to improve their own standing in the Muslim world, by positing themselves as the only valid defenders of Islam. They do this by striking vulnerable targets in other countries, however, and just increasing the divisions between the Islamic and European worlds.



They went to a large effort to make a violent spectacle, it was a highly symbolic murder rather than a revenge killing. It wasn't purely about revenge, they went to the trouble of butchering a man in a public street in the middle of the day. The target just had to be a member of a nation’s army (regardless of rank), the audience was the public, making them as much the target of violence. This is different to a revenge killing like for instance the sectarian war in North Ireland where you kill one of mine I will kill one of yours mentality. The killers were threatening the British public to becoming daily witnesses of high levels of grotesque violence.


I think it's a case of revenge against a "civilization" and it is so precisely because of the public spectacle.



I don't know who this aimed at? You are merely painting over the complexities of this style of politically motivated murder. Why do we need to analyse its effectiveness as means to motivate change of the institutions of oppression? What if this style of attack indicates lack of feeling of change and its just an attempt to spread the level of suffering that people face day to day in warzones?

You're evaluating in terms of political effectiveness (in my opinion in an outdated WW1 Marxist party ideology about strikes at the munitions factory and discussions on imperialism) rather in terms of violence in its practical and symbolic forms. This violence works to break the sense of peace in the countries that are waging war, where war is more spectacle rather than blood and guts paving the street.



Well that's what makes it motivated by vengeance. Why would anyone want to make the British "feel" the way that Muslims around the world "feel", except either (1) to convince them not to fight the war (and as we both agree, this tactic is simply not effective at that) OR (2) to make the British feel terrible, disgusted, powerless and terrorized the way Muslims felt terrible, disgusted, powerless and terrorized.


And don’t assume I am taking the romantic view on violence. I don’t want to see people getting hacked to death, I don’t want to be or have any of my friends and family become a target of this violence. But then on the other hand, if I was a leader of a nation I would go around invading other nations, so I wouldn’t be in this situation. It’s just some other assholes have created this situation that I am a part of.

Nobody is arguing that. If we lived in a Communist utopia obviously nobody would be getting hacked to death (or, hopefully, far fewer than are today). We live in a society of massive productivity, international trade and global exploitation, making Imperialism inevitable, but the way to stop that isn't through cycles of spectacular violence between communities, but by those communities abandoning their sectarian divisions and uniting around a coherent economic and political program.

[Akshay!]

There is no Muslim community.

You may or may not like the fact that there's a Muslim community but changing the facts that you don't like doesn't really help. There IS a Muslim community and some members of that community happen to hate the fact that other members of that community (specially women and children) are being murdered.

Another example - China is a country. Suppose US killed five Chinese people, other Chinese would get really angry - some because of nationalism, some simply because of the fact that humans were killed. Now, disagreeing with the reasons given by the nationalists is fine but saying that "China doesn't exist" is delusional.


You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

And the shameless exploitation of events by control-freak right-wing politicians continues...how anyone can claim Labour as a socialist party of any stripe is beyond me.

Labour and the Conservatives could unite to push through the controversial communications bill despite Lib Dem objections, a former Tory leader says.
The bill, allowing the monitoring of all UK citizens' internet use, was dropped after a split in the coalition.
But Lord Howard said David Cameron had "to act in the national interest" following the Woolwich murder.
Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said Labour would work with the government but only on a revised bill.

(BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22673156)

[WelcomeToTheParty]

We also live in a society where being a cop is considered a good (or at least decent) career, but I don't see many leftists weeping bitter tears when cops get firebombed in Greece.

Of course soldiers are victims of circumstance but so is everybody else. If we can't hold soldiers morally responsible for their actions, we can't hold anybody morally responsible for their actions.

I laid out a formula earlier in reply to Ashkay that violence must be necessary and the minimum if it is to be justified. I accept the fact that the police and the army are likely to be targets of revolutionary violence, but I would oppose firebombing an off duty policeman for being a policeman as much as I would oppose hacking to death an off duty soldier for being a soldier. I don't see soldiers or policemen as monolithic blocs of capitalism warriors, but as individual people.

You can certainly hold the soldier responsible for the actions they committed, but I've yet to see any evidence that the Woolwich soldier was involved in killing anyone but other soldiers. The fact that he was a soldier is not sufficient justification to take a life because there are a lot of reasons people end up in the military.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Marxist agitation has nothing to do with making people feel morally guilty for the role that they have in the economy and everything with convincing them to take economic and social control over their lives as a class.

What if the guilt is a side effect of the revelation that they have class interests?


I laid out a formula earlier in reply to Ashkay that violence must be necessary and the minimum if it is to be justified. I accept the fact that the police and the army are likely to be targets of revolutionary violence, but I would oppose firebombing an off duty policeman for being a policeman as much as I would oppose hacking to death an off duty soldier for being a soldier. I don't see soldiers or policemen as monolithic blocs of capitalism warriors, but as individual people.

You can certainly hold the soldier responsible for the actions they committed, but I've yet to see any evidence that the Woolwich soldier was involved in killing anyone but other soldiers. The fact that he was a soldier is not sufficient justification to take a life because there are a lot of reasons people end up in the military.

I'm sorry. This post warrants a response but I can't think of one as I'm conflicted over the point that I'm arguing for.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I reeeeally hope these aren't connected, it's gonna give the reactionaries another string to their 'international crackdown' bow.

A 21-year-old suspect arrested earlier over the stabbing of a French soldier near Paris on Saturday has admitted to the crime, officials say.
The man, named only as Alexandre, was a convert to Islam who had "wanted to attack a representative of the state", Prosecutor Francois Molins said.
Police arrested the man on Wednesday morning in the Yvelines region, 45km (28 miles) southwest of the capital.
He was traced thanks to evidence left behind at the scene, authorities said.
French anti-terrorist investigators are handling the case.
The stabbing took place three days after the killing of British serviceman Drummer Lee Rigby outside a barracks in the Woolwich area of London.
French President Francois Hollande said that while all theories would be investigated, there was no evidence to link the two attacks.
The suspect, who stabbed the soldier with a "fairly clear intent to kill", had probably acted based on his "religious ideology", Mr Molins told reporters.
The prosecutor said the man was seen on video surveillance camera "saying a Muslim prayer" minutes before the attack.
The suspect had already been known to police for petty crimes, correspondents say.
Interior Minister Manual Walls earlier warned against drawing hasty conclusions while the investigation was still in its early stages.
"We need to know more about his motives, his background, his family environment," he said during a TV interview.
Pfc Cordier was approached from behind and stabbed in the neck with a small-bladed knife in La Defense business district on Saturday.
The attack took place in a busy underground hall where shops and public transport lines converge.
The 23-year-old victim was in a stable condition after the attack, police said.
Witnesses had described the attacker as a bearded man of North African origin.

(BBc News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22699156)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=whatever singularity;2623176]Saying it is "thoroughly un-Marxian" isn't an argument. Your version of capitalism is one with the working class as victim and always on the defensive from the attacks of the exploiting capitalist class.

That is, in general, the nature of capitalism. Workers generally take actions (strike action, for example) in protest at the actions of capitalists. Rarely do workers take the initiative, which almost always rests with capital. It does happen, but it is rare, and not often successful. The great movements that have won better living and work conditions for working people didn't come out of thin air or as a result of working class political demands, they almost always arose out of an economic struggle on the part of workers borne out of necessity. The root of chartism was in the poor laws and in-house relief, the root of the factory acts in britain came from the brutal working conditions imposed on men, women and children during the industrial revolution. The welfare state was born in the UK as a response to the great unemployment of the period between the world wars, and before that the economic stagnation that left many people outside London and the South East without work or the ability to supply their labour power.


This is the working class as only a spectator to the global waltz of capital’s autonomous self-activating development.

That's not what I said. Workers resist, they rarely initiate. There's a difference, and the former shouldn't be taken to mean that workers never organise, protest or win a battle.


Capital exists because workers reproduce it.

Workers don't have free choice on this issue, though. It is the neoclassical economists who build their economic models on the axiom that workers are free to supply and withdraw their labour power. I mean, it's basically true, but is a choice really a free choice when the alternative is destitution?

Of course, the existence of welfare distorts this relation somewhat, but it's still basically true that if a worker is unemployed, there are severe economic and social costs imposed upon them. Thus, while workers are free from the legal bondage of serfdom that existed in the feudal period, it's really a myth to suggest that workers freely reproduce capitalism. They do so, but under great social and economic stress and pressure from the ruling class.


It is essential to appreciate this fact and the fact that the developments of capital are also often (if not always) in defence against the autonomous movement of the working class against it.

Do you have any evidence of this? Or even any cogent argument to back this up? I hate resorting to 'prove it', but what you've said here really strikes me as something of an assertion, permeated with a very obvious bias.



If war happens because workers produce it, then they must stop producing it.

It's that easy, right? I mean, I do appreciate the sentiment of what you're saying, but it's kinda like the prisoner's dilemma: the socially optimal decision would be for all soldiers to co-operate and produce peace, but the individually optimal decision is actually for soldier to 'defect' and produce war. In other words, it's difficult to (literally, in this case) be the first person to put your gun down.


Would you argue that we shouldn't resist the actions of the police simply because they are workers and have no choice but to work? That seems like a ludicrous argument but the logical conclusion from what you said. Resisting capital is resisting the work that reproduces it.

At least in the UK, it's quite difficult to become a police officer, actually, so as far as the UK is concerned, i'm not sure that there is any equivalency here.



None of that is necessarily a justification for the random murder of soldiers, but it is I think important to approach the subject from this kind of perspective.

I agree, I don't celebrate war, or the actions of soldiers, of course. But let's not pretend that soldiers are making a 'free' choice to kill people. I'm fairly sure that, whilst the armchair generals of the political class will happily send some people to their death, and essentially play 'god' with people's lives on both sides, soldiers don't sign up to the army with the aim of 'enabling or creating death' in the forefront of their mind.

[Craig_J]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22725999

Lee Rigby's family have come out and said his death should not be used as an excuse for hate violence. I'm glad they've said this, but I doubt it won't make the slightest bit of difference in any way.

The reaction from the paper's has been very predictable. The Daily Mail hasn't even mentioned Lee Rigby's family asking for no violence.

Also, the papers have a CCTV shot of who ever it was who defaced those war memorials. Again, predictably they have no evidence of it being an Asian man or White man yet they automatically assume it was a Muslim who did this. All you can see is him in his hood. Could be anyone yet they're making it seem as if it's definantly a muslim.

[Anti-White]

Ah, so you don't care about imperialism from a working class perspective, only from a what, nationalist perspective? Religious perspective? Third-worldist perspective?

For me, from a Black nationalist perspective.

[MarxArchist]

We also live in a society where being a cop is considered a good (or at least decent) career, but I don't see many leftists weeping bitter tears when cops get firebombed in Greece.

Of course soldiers are victims of circumstance but so is everybody else. If we can't hold soldiers morally responsible for their actions, we can't hold anybody morally responsible for their actions.


I agree with you. During a draft people are forced into the military and thrown onto the battle field in a kill or be killed scenario with a prison sentence hanging over their heads if they 'opt out' but I'm not so sure the choice, for most who join the military today, is 'join the military or starve' (although I'm also sure that dichotomy exists for some people). The situation isn't that deterministic, people who join the military who otherwise wouldn't usually do so for college funds. Many do so not to avoid starvation/homelessness but because they don't understand the overall system and they feel it would be easier to join the military rather than choose the path of subordination to a boss for very little pay. Some have a misguided sense of patriotism. I would think very few are faced with the 'choice' of 'join the military or starve'. This is applicable to wage labor, the 'work for a boss or starve' scenario is real and unavoidable for most of the earths population. There are alternatives to joining the military but as I said, for a few, I'm sure there wasn't but painting that as universal condition for everyone who joins the military is off base.

People by in large should be morally held accountable for joining such a corrupt part of this system, so long as they defend it and don't see the folly in the decision to join the global capitalist army. People do make mistakes and many politically mature at different levels but volunteering to invade another peoples land and shoot them dead is not a defensible choice even if made in ignorance or in the face of material need. And more times than not it is a choice although, as I do understand, the choice is taken out in some cases if the person is extremely poor with little to no education but even then one can get a minimum wage job, get roommates, apply for welfare or partake in black market 'illegal' economic activity. One could chose to panhandle or even commit some minor crime and sit in jail rather than fly to Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Syria wherever in order to kill people. The choice is, essentially, kill people or starve. That's a false dichotomy are there are other options.