Non-violence and the "revolution"

[The Immortal Emrys]

I have only been on this site for a few days, but I often see reference to the "revolution", usually from individuals who express very strong opinions on the merits of currency.

As a vehement pacifist, I cannot condone violent action unless in defense of the self or another person.

Is there a place for the teachings of Gandhi the Dalai Lama and MLK in this "revolution"? Can it be accomplished through non-violent means?

[Ele'ill]

I suggest reading a book titled "How Non-violence Protects The State"

Calling for a solely pacifistic method of struggle makes about as much sense as suggesting only an armed method of struggle (although it depends on definition of 'armed' I mean it in the sense of having weapons/military/guerrilla/red dawn level of struggle exclusively). It could be said that we are constantly under attack by the every day existence of society there is no need to prove a specific attack has occurred against us in order to justify self defense.

[Sasha]

I suggest reading a book titled "How Non-violence Protects The State"

which can be found for free here: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

[G4b3n]

Revolution is not inherently violent. The immediate task of any worker's revolution is to physically seize the means of production. While revolution may be a breeding ground for violence, you as an individual revolutionary are not obligated to carry out acts of violence in any sense of the word.

Also, I would seriously suggest reconsidering your view in regards to pacifism if you seriously have a desire to abolish bourgeois society. Pacifism or non-violence states that the privileged are entitled to carry out as much violence as they so please (exploitation of workers, imperialist wars of aggression, imprisonment of individuals based on race and class, etc) while the exploited are vicious and mindlessly lust for blood if they even think a violent thought. Also, note that the violence that can be advocated for by the left is a means of liberation, while theirs a means of oppression.

[#FF0000]

I have only been on this site for a few days, but I often see reference to the "revolution", usually from individuals who express very strong opinions on the merits of currency.

As a vehement pacifist, I cannot condone violent action unless in defense of the self or another person.

Is there a place for the teachings of Gandhi the Dalai Lama and MLK in this "revolution"?

Yeah, maybe. I don't think dogmatic pacifism is helpful, though. Like, yo, are the slaves who took over the Amistad and killed the captain wrong for doing that in pursuit of their freedom? Obviously not.

If a social system in place is little more than organized violence on a mass scale against a group of people, is that group justified in using force to overthrow it? In this hypothetical, I'd say it is only if that violence means taking some serious steps to putting an end to the wider, systemic violence.

Plus, the fact of the matter is that people with power are going to use violence to keep every last bit of it and would kill you before giving an inch. People were killed fighting for 8 hour days and higher wages, remember.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have only been on this site for a few days, but I often see reference to the "revolution", usually from individuals who express very strong opinions on the merits of currency.

As a vehement pacifist, I cannot condone violent action unless in defense of the self or another person.

Is there a place for the teachings of Gandhi the Dalai Lama and MLK in this "revolution"? Can it be accomplished through non-violent means?

So, I think your starting point for this is a very narrow notion of violence that privileges invisible, naturalized violence (eg by the prison industrial complex, international capital, environmental degradation, etc.) over direct "subjective" violence (shitkicking somebody). This understanding tends to be hegemonic among "pacifists" at the imperial centre because, after all, in reality they are anything but peaceful: their lives are premised on huge quantities of this "invisible" violence. Their denunciation of subjective violence is, in the final analysis, a defense of the conditions that make this violence (violence which is disproportionately racialized, has a specific class content, etc.) "visible" and code it as "violent".
That it seeks justification in figures of "acceptable" resistance, ripping them from their historical context (there's no Gandhi without a Baghat Singh, no MLK without Robert F. Williams, etc.) speaks to the underlying content of such "pacifism". It is implicitly white supremacist, implicitly bourgeois, and is often explicitly anti-communist and opposed to fundamental social change (one might assume your comment about currency, in this case, is indicative).
'Nuf said.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

This forum got me out of pacifism, and I've been here for less than a month.

My current situation does not help. But I still try to be rational rather than emotional.
Rationally, by vandalizing a bank for example, who does it benefit and prejudice? Is it worth it? Because emotionally I'd love to do that very much.

[Slavic]

This forum got me out of pacifism, and I've been here for less than a month.

My current situation does not help. But I still try to be rational rather than emotional.
Rationally, by vandalizing a bank for example, who does it benefit and prejudice? Is it worth it? Because emotionally I'd love to do that very much.

I think you would get more bang for your buck by "vandalizing" a CEO of said bank.

[Queen Mab]

As a vehement pacifist, I cannot condone violent action unless in defense of the self or another person.

Err, so you can condone violent action then? That's a rather big loophole.

Revolutionary violence is the defence of a class against exploitation.

[BIXX]

This forum got me out of pacifism, and I've been here for less than a month.

My current situation does not help. But I still try to be rational rather than emotional.
Rationally, by vandalizing a bank for example, who does it benefit and prejudice? Is it worth it? Because emotionally I'd love to do that very much.


Why shouldn't you do things that make you joyful? If there's no joy in your activities, there can be no real conviction behind them.

[Rafiq]

Without violence there can be no revolution. It is violence that sustains the state. The success of the revolution can be measured in the magnitude from which this violence becomes visible to all.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd absolutely LOVE to be able to get to communist society peacefully. Oh, it'd be great! But will the armies of the capitalist imperialist countries williningly stop terrorizing the poor, working populations of foreign countries? Will the ruling class willingly disband their armies, police, and laws that sustain bourgeois society? Revolution by the proletariat is self-defense! Every attack against this society, where most of the world is poor, miserable, and exploited, is self-defense!

[Bala Perdida]

I personally think a violent revolution has to be a last resort movement that should be avoided if possible. A revolution isn't just coups and assassinations, it's a mass movement. So a good revolution will start off with some good old fashion class consciousness. We have to know what we're going to setup post-revolution, otherwise we'll create a power vacuum where a dictator can take the throne. Then comes the resistance which involves civil disobedience, vandalism, protests, lock outs, lock-ins, refusal to work, pay rent, employees giving away merchandise, all that fun stuff. This is how I see workers seizing the means of production. Hopefully the struggle will be big and influential enough to have a significant amount of cops and soldiers on our side. Once they have their property seized, their enforcement wing down, and their money rendered useless, then their basically harmless and effectively overthrown. However, if the enforcement arm still exists and they fire on a crowd or try to exercise martial law, or any other form of repression, then we will be forced into an armed struggle i.e. war and violence. As I see it we're still on phase one and trying to get on the same page. I'm not exactly against violence, but for a genuine people's revolution I don't think violence is the best way to get everyone involved. Hope this helps.

[Ele'ill]

Rationally, by vandalizing a bank for example, who does it benefit and prejudice? Is it worth it? Because emotionally I'd love to do that very much.


maybe it is a common thing to do, an easy thing, but maybe it's not your thing, maybe your own day to day going ons carry you through terrain that offers more enjoyable, more comfortable, less alien, capacity to act but in a similar manner, maybe not though maybe your desire here is something

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Why shouldn't you do things that make you joyful? If there's no joy in your activities, there can be no real conviction behind them.
That's interesting, but there's something called consequences (if I get caught), and again, If there's no real benefit, I don't see many reasons to do it, outside personal joy.


maybe it is a common thing to do, an easy thing, but maybe it's not your thing, maybe your own day to day going ons carry you through terrain that offers more enjoyable, more comfortable, less alien, capacity to act but in a similar manner, maybe not though maybe your desire here is something
Actually I'm already considering making my first act of political vandalism. I live near a train station and there's free parking everywhere, during the day people park their cars to catch the train to work, during the night there are no cars because they go home. What these fuckers did was making the parking paid, so not only they are spending money on train, they will spend on parking too.

The signs were installed a few weeks ago, the parking machine will probably be installed at the start of the new year. I'm considering doing something. (And my parents aren't against it).
I still don't know what to do exactly though.

I don't mind telling this on a public forum because it's a small thing and no one cares.

[The Immortal Emrys]

Without violence there can be no revolution. It is violence that sustains the state. The success of the revolution can be measured in the magnitude from which this violence becomes visible to all.

So by that logic, increasing the amount of violence would increase the power of the state. By your logic, attacks on civilian targets of a capitalist society would be examples of "successful revolution" because of the magnitude of the violence.

I simply don't see that as a reality. Especially in a world where the Arab spring can occur. Imagine what we can accomplish through communication as more and more people are able to share ideas together.

[The Immortal Emrys]

I will never take a human life, nor will I damage someone's livelihood simply because I do not have what they have. If I were to use violence to take something from another person, how am I any better than the Capitalists who take labor from vulnerable workers?

We must lead by example to the generations beneath us. Marx has been dead for just over 150 years, and see how far his philosophy has traveled. Imagine what the world will be like in 150 more years.

Sure, we could all rise up against the corporate masters, we can strike and demand concessions, but a true armed uprising akin the the French Revolution is not a reality for the United States and most of Europe. The people are simply too comfortable being the bourgeois of the world.

When measured against the wealth of most nations, even the middle-class of America are wealthy beyond measure.

[The Immortal Emrys]

In order to have a communist country, the nation would need to be completely self-reliant, which is simply not a reality for any nation in the world currently. It's called Autarky, and it's very difficult to achieve.

In fact the only one I can think if is North Korea, which is a terrible example as they are also a totalitarian state where the military members represent the haves and the "peasantry" represents the labor.

I'd love to live in a borderless world where government meant the local community getting together to talk about what we can all do to better the area, sadly, every nation in this world depends upon trade with other nations. So in order to usher in a true Communist or Socialist nation, it would need to be immediate and universal, or extremely gradual and piece by piece.

[The Immortal Emrys]

There are many grey lines between "classes" by the very mention of the term you are giving in to the labeling of individuals based upon monetary wealth.

What if an exceptionally wealthy individual believed in the same ideals as you have expressed here, and hoped to bring about the change you desire? Would you consider them the enemy due to their wealth, or a friend due to their disposition?

It's not all about the wealth, it's about representation in governance.

And anyway, to your point about violence. I do not condone it as a means to effect social change in a democratic system. That being said, in a totalitarian state, violent resistance against oppression might be the only recourse, and no person should suffer violence done unto them when they have the means to defend themselves.

But that does not mean I condone a blanket attack on the wealthy out of envy, or upon institutions that fulfill the needs of my fellow man, even if they support the "state"

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Is there a place for the teachings of Gandhi the Dalai Lama and MLK in this "revolution"?

Ghandi was racist, the Dalai Lama's a dick, and Malcolm X was cooler. So, no.


Can it be accomplished through non-violent means?

No.

[Per Levy]

Is there a place for the teachings of Gandhi the Dalai Lama and MLK in this "revolution"? Can it be accomplished through non-violent means?

lets see gandhi got shot, the dalai lahma did support a bloody guerillia war against china that costs tenthousands of lives and mlk was shot as well.

sounds like pacifism does wonders.

[#FF0000]

In order to have a communist country, the nation would need to be completely self-reliant, which is simply not a reality for any nation in the world currently. It's called Autarky, and it's very difficult to achieve.

I think you're a little confused as to what we actually advocate. A communist "nation" can't exist. We aim to destroy the nation-state. We're internationalists, here.


I will never take a human life, nor will I damage someone's livelihood simply because I do not have what they have. If I were to use violence to take something from another person, how am I any better than the Capitalists who take labor from vulnerable workers?

That would depend on the situation, I suppose. The slave who kills his master still has the moral high ground imo.


There are many grey lines between "classes" by the very mention of the term you are giving in to the labeling of individuals based upon monetary wealth.

Class in the Marxist sense is defined by one's relationship to the means of production -- not income.


What if an exceptionally wealthy individual believed in the same ideals as you have expressed here, and hoped to bring about the change you desire? Would you consider them the enemy due to their wealth, or a friend due to their disposition?

Frederich Engels owned a factory -- so I guess you have your answer there.


And anyway, to your point about violence. I do not condone it as a means to effect social change in a democratic system.

Yo but even democratic systems have limits. The nation-state, no matter what the government form, is a dictatorship of class, and if the interests (or ideology) of the ruling class is challenged strongly enough, the veneer of "democracy" goes out the window. One particularly vivid example of this is Egypt, right now. The Muslim Brotherhood are an awful group for sure, but the banning and repression of the organization doesn't sound all that democratic to me.

[#FF0000]

Also I hate how people uphold Gandhi as some pacifist superhero who booted the English out no problem. Truth is he came in at the tail end of the Indian independence movement which involved hella violence before and during his time including a bunch of Indian soldiers playing "how many colonists can u stuff in a well" (a: not enough)

[Per Levy]

Also I hate how people uphold Gandhi as some pacifist superhero who booted the English out no problem. Truth is he came in at the tail end of the Indian independence movement which involved hella violence before and during his time including a bunch of Indian soldiers playing "how many colonists can u stuff in a well" (a: not enough)

very true, most people who uphold gandhi as a amazing person or something have hardly any knowledge of him, his racism, how he didnt support striking indian workers(who also called for indias independence) and so on.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Sure, we could all rise up against the corporate masters, we can strike and demand concessions, but a true armed uprising akin the the French Revolution is not a reality for the United States and most of Europe.
I find this funny because it was the American revolution that inspired the French revolution and then that in turn inspired the Europe-wide bourgeois revolutions in 1848.
-

Violence isn't the goal of revolutionaries, our goal is to create a classless and stateless society which would make the economic violence forced upon us by capitalism a thing of the past. It's just that we're not so naive as to assume the bourgeoisie is just going to role over and give up their position of privilege. They got to become the ruling class by violently overthrowing the feudal order and they maintained and still maintain their position of power through violent means from massacring striking workers to engaging in imperialist wars that seize resources and labour markets, from infiltrating and disrupting proletarian organisations to creating and promoting a culture that trivialises rape.

We're not luddites who want to smash the machinery of capitalism but proletarians who realise that the only way to free ourselves from the shackles of class society is to smash those shackles. The capitalists won't open the shackles out of good will, not when they believe, just as the Greeks of antiquity did, that slavery is the natural order of things.

[#FF0000]

very true, most people who uphold gandhi as a amazing person or something have hardly any knowledge of him, his racism, how he didnt support striking indian workers(who also called for indias independence) and so on.

Yeah -- but I mean, I can see some good in the whole Gahndi thing. It's just like, yo, take it in context.

[DasFapital]

Dalai Lama received money from the CIA. Pacifist my ass.

[Queen Mab]

I simply don't see that as a reality. Especially in a world where the Arab spring can occur. Imagine what we can accomplish through communication as more and more people are able to share ideas together.

The 'Arab Spring' was hardly pacifist. The revolutionaries took Tahrir Square on the first couple of days by breaking through lines of cops. Without that violence nothing would have happened.

[consuming negativity]

I will never take a human life, nor will I damage someone's livelihood simply because I do not have what they have. If I were to use violence to take something from another person, how am I any better than the Capitalists who take labor from vulnerable workers?

We must lead by example to the generations beneath us. Marx has been dead for just over 150 years, and see how far his philosophy has traveled. Imagine what the world will be like in 150 more years.

Sure, we could all rise up against the corporate masters, we can strike and demand concessions, but a true armed uprising akin the the French Revolution is not a reality for the United States and most of Europe. The people are simply too comfortable being the bourgeois of the world.

When measured against the wealth of most nations, even the middle-class of America are wealthy beyond measure.

Can someone stop approving these posts and just restrict this person already?

Also:



Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

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

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.Link: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[Sinister Intents]

There is just so much wrong with what this reactionary is saying and I have no clue where to begin in arguing against the shit he's stated.

[hatzel]

There is just so much wrong with what this reactionary is saying and I have no clue where to begin in arguing against the shit he's stated.

Perhaps then you could begin by not beginning, and leave that to people who actually know what's wrong with what he's said?

[Sinister Intents]

Perhaps then you could begin by not beginning, and leave that to people who actually know what's wrong with what he's said?

I do know what's wrong with what he's said, I just don't know where to begin, comrade.

[Rafiq]

So by that logic, increasing the amount of violence would increase the power of the state. By your logic, attacks on civilian targets of a capitalist society would be examples of "successful revolution" because of the magnitude of the violence.

I simply don't see that as a reality. Especially in a world where the Arab spring can occur. Imagine what we can accomplish through communication as more and more people are able to share ideas together.

And look at your Arab spring, absolutely nothing changed.

[The Immortal Emrys]

Ghandi was racist, the Dalai Lama's a dick, and Malcolm X was cooler. So, no.



No.


Again, you greet a newcomer with negativity and venom. you must be one of the forums more prevalent trolls.

Ghandi was racist in his youth, do you not believe people can learn, grow and change for the better? Because you sound like a Stormfront user. I wasn't speaking to Ghandi's religion or his failings, but his teachings of non-violence.

MLK cheated on his wife, according to Herbert Hoover, does that make his message less beautiful?

Karl Marx didn't consider the slaughter of the American Indians to be a wholly negative thing. He considered the westernization of "savages" to be a positive influence. Should we discount his entire philosophy because of that failing? Or do you agree that "educating" the "savages" was a positive thing?

[The Immortal Emrys]

And look at your Arab spring, absolutely nothing changed.

Seeing as it's still happening. I beg to differ.

[The Immortal Emrys]

lets see gandhi got shot, the dalai lahma did support a bloody guerillia war against china that costs tenthousands of lives and mlk was shot as well.

sounds like pacifism does wonders.

But all of them changed the world for the better, especially the men who were shot. And you do realize there have been a few Dalai Lahmas?

[Captain Red]

A non-violent revolution would be impossible maybe the bigger question would be if we should kill or not

[The Immortal Emrys]

There is just so much wrong with what this reactionary is saying and I have no clue where to begin in arguing against the shit he's stated.

Seeing as I didn't say all that much, perhaps you should start at the beginning, if you are able. Or would you prefer to continue with ad-hominem and waste more of everyone's time.

Elitist labeling of someone you just met as "reactionary" for holding a discussion is the expression of your own form of hipster, faux-intellectual classism and hypocrisy.

Try being constructive.

[Ele'ill]

Actually a trend throughout all of these types of struggles is that reforums and policy changes during the peaceful pressure usually only happened immediately after a violent surge of some sort or threat of continued violence, not the threat of continued peace.

[The Immortal Emrys]

[QUOTE=communer;2702457]Can someone stop approving these posts and just restrict this person already?


Restrict someone's replies because you don't like their content? How very freedom oriented of you. How do you expect to propagate your philosophy if you only share your thoughts with those who are already in agreement?

Perhaps you should try to divorce your emotions from this and try again.

[Sinister Intents]

Seeing as I didn't say all that much, perhaps you should start at the beginning, if you are able. Or would you prefer to continue with ad-hominem and waste more of everyone's time.

Elitist labeling of someone you just met as "reactionary" for holding a discussion is the expression of your own form of hipster, faux-intellectual classism and hypocrisy.

Try being constructive.

Well I'm not for non violence, I am not a pacifist, I highly doubt a revolution will or would be non violent. I don't think I can really add a whole lot to this thread that more eloquent posters haven't already stated. Everyone holds some kind of reactionary belief in some way or another I think. Hipster? Faux-intellectual classism? I'm being hypocritical? I'm not a hipster, I don't consider myself an intellectual, and I'm for the dissolution of classes. Please tell me how I'm being hypocritical.

[The Immortal Emrys]

The 'Arab Spring' was hardly pacifist. The revolutionaries took Tahrir Square on the first couple of days by breaking through lines of cops. Without that violence nothing would have happened.

I never suggested it was, only that it came about not because of the violence, but because of communications technology. The will to fight was always there, but the populace had no idea there was so much support, until the advent of twitter, comically enough.

[hatzel]

And look at your Arab spring, absolutely nothing changed.Seeing as it's still happening. I beg to differ.

Not to turn this into a thread about that, but the longer it goes on, the more time you get to realise how disappointing it is. I admittedly don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but if you consider the outcome of all that positive (or potentially positive) then I feel a need to seriously question your judgement...

[ed miliband]

i always find it weird and funny how people are so eager to defend violence and go to great lengths to do it. it's as dumb as people who bang on about pacifism. and as banal. what could anybody learn from a text called 'how non-violence protects the state'? how many words need to be written about something so obvious? and it's not like we're currently in a position where the classes violence threatens the state and capital (at least not in the west, and even elsewhere, when it does, it's only temporary) - and when we are in that position, we won't be reading and writing tracts about nonviolence or violence, it'll be irrelevant.

i think bmh said it right:


dogmatic “violentism” is as counterrevolutionary, or if not more than dogmatic “pacifism”. in my experience, radicals who raise violence as a matter of principle, are deeply disturbed individuals. i want to live in a world where we are softer to each other and chill in an eternal weekend and i think a lot of people obsessed with the aesthetics of violence are not looking for that. i understand the temptations of nihilism better than a lot of people, but one has to understand the complete line of march, not only the destruction aspect. if i had a dime for every white college kid posturing about how “violence is the only solution” i could purchase all the whole damned detroit ‘burbs. There is a whole history of college kid dropouts from philosophy depts. going to the countryside, adopting maoist/marxist-leninist theology, and trying to manipulate some miserable peasants into shooting some cops/soldiers. i don’t want to be part of that shit.

i love this too, of course:


Power does not come from the barrel of a gun any more than it comes from a ballot box. No revolution is peaceful, but the military dimension is not the central one. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armories, but whether they unleash what they are: commodified beings who no longer can and no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes the logic of capitalism. Barricades and machine guns flow from this "weapon". The more vital the social realm, the more the use of guns and the number of casualties will diminish. A communist revolution will never resemble a slaughter: not from any non-violent principle, but because it will be a revolution only by subverting more than by actually destroying the professional military. To imagine a proletarian front facing off against a bourgeois front is to conceive the proletariat in bourgeois terms, on the model of a political revolution or a war (seizing someone's power, occupying their territory). In so doing, one reintroduces everything that the insurrectionary moment had overwhelmed: hierarchy, a respect for specialists, for knowledge that Knows, and for techniques to solve problems, in short for everything that diminishes the common man. In the service of the state, the working- class "militia man" invariably evolves into a "soldier". In Spain, from the fall of 1936 onward, the revolution dissolved into the war effort, and into a kind of combat typical of states: a war of fronts.

[The Immortal Emrys]

Not to turn this into a thread about that, but the longer it goes on, the more time you get to realise how disappointing it is. I admittedly don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but if you consider the outcome of all that positive (or potentially positive) then I feel a need to seriously question your judgement...

Let's just let time decide which of us is right, so as not to derail the thread into a discussion of the merits of an ongoing political movement. Until then feel free to question whatever judgement you like. That's the entire point of this forum.

[The Immortal Emrys]

Well I'm not for non violence, I am not a pacifist, I highly doubt a revolution will or would be non violent. I don't think I can really add a whole lot to this thread that more eloquent posters haven't already stated. Everyone holds some kind of reactionary belief in some way or another I think. Hipster? Faux-intellectual classism? I'm being hypocritical? I'm not a hipster, I don't consider myself an intellectual, and I'm for the dissolution of classes. Please tell me how I'm being hypocritical.

By labeling someone as a "reactionary" and using ad-hominem language.

Rather than addressing the statement I made and the ideas I presented, you chose to take the path of dehumanization and devaluation to try and further your perceived worth and strengthen your personal conviction.

You used a type of intellectual elitism (often used by hipsters when discussing music) to make yourself seem above another person.

By reading only one post, you filed me into a nice, neat little folder "reactionary" to make it easier to devalue me as a person and build up your own belief system, which you seem incapable of expressing.

Instead of offering a counter-point, you chose to let others do it for you, but you still sought to dehumanize and devalue me without contributing anything yourself.

You wasted time and effort on the glorification of the self. Perhaps when you let go of that ego, we can discuss things without the tinge of intellectual superiority in your language.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Restrict someone's replies because you don't like their content? How very freedom oriented of you. How do you expect to propagate your philosophy if you only share your thoughts with those who are already in agreement?

Perhaps you should try to divorce your emotions from this and try again.This forum is designed for discussion amongst revolutionary leftists, with the exception of the Opposing Ideologies. Adhering to that isn't a violation of your "freedom," but rather to ensure that we have a place to discuss without having a ton of anti-communists flood our forum and halting our discussion.

Also, propagating socialist ideas is best done in the real world, not online. The goal of this forum is not to spread socialism.

[Sinister Intents]

By labeling someone as a "reactionary" and using ad-hominem language.

Rather than addressing the statement I made and the ideas I presented, you chose to take the path of dehumanization and devaluation to try and further your perceived worth and strengthen your personal conviction.

You used a type of intellectual elitism (often used by hipsters when discussing music) to make yourself seem above another person.

By reading only one post, you filed me into a nice, neat little folder "reactionary" to make it easier to devalue me as a person and build up your own belief system, which you seem incapable of expressing.

Instead of offering a counter-point, you chose to let others do it for you, but you still sought to dehumanize and devalue me without contributing anything yourself.

You wasted time and effort on the glorification of the self. Perhaps when you let go of that ego, we can discuss things without the tinge of intellectual superiority in your language.

I consider liberals reactionaries, I've read several of your posts. First off I don't see how I'm devaluing or dehumanizing you in anyway. I didn't choose to let others argue points for me, I came to this thread late, and many people already added many relevant things. Secondly, Music may be a big interest of mine, but I'm not a fucking hipster :mad:. Everyone is egotistical, it's a very human thing. I'm no ones fucking superior, I consider others to be equal to me, often greater than me because of my inferiority complex. Honestly, you're rather judgemental yourself.

[Ele'ill]

~


Actually a trend throughout all of these types of struggles is that reforums and policy changes during the peaceful pressure usually only happened immediately after a violent surge of some sort or threat of continued violence, not the threat of continued peace.

[Ele'ill]

and when we are in that position, we won't be reading and writing tracts about nonviolence or violence, it'll be irrelevant.

cool (but that's what the book was about lol)

[The Immortal Emrys]

This forum is designed for discussion amongst revolutionary leftists, with the exception of the Opposing Ideologies. Adhering to that isn't a violation of your "freedom," but rather to ensure that we have a place to discuss without having a ton of anti-communists flood our forum and halting our discussion.

Also, propagating socialist ideas is best done in the real world, not online. The goal of this forum is not to spread socialism.


The idea of the forum is to discuss the ideas. What you want is someone to tell you how right you are.

I am a leftist, though not a communist. If you have an issue with my questions, you don't have to answer them, but I would not be welcome in opposing ideologies.

What you want to do is halt the discussion because it's not the discussion you personally want to have. Why not just ignore this particular thread?

[Sinister Intents]

The idea of the forum is to discuss the ideas. What you want is someone to tell you how right you are.

I am a leftist, though not a communist. If you have an issue with my questions, you don't have to answer them, but I would not be welcome in opposing ideologies.

What you want to do is halt the discussion because it's not the discussion you personally want to have. Why not just ignore this particular thread?

Not particularly, debating is fun. We like to be questioned so we can practice our beliefs, et cetera. What kind of leftist are you? what tendency/ies do you ascribe to the most?

[Fourth Internationalist]

The idea of the forum is to discuss the ideas. What you want is someone to tell you how right you are.

Yes, clearly what I want O holy omniscient one.


I am a leftist, though not a communist. If you have an issue with my questions, you don't have to answer them, but I would not be welcome in opposing ideologies.

Leftist, perhaps maybe, but not revolutionary leftist, which is the purpose of this forum.

I don't have an issue with them. I am only explaining why that person wanted you restricted to the OI section.


What you want to do is halt the discussion because it's not the discussion you personally want to have. Why not just ignore this particular thread?

Except I have never expressed I don't want to have this discussion. I merely explained why the poster said what they said, and why it isn't an infrigemnet of your freedom.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I want to make a quick comment on violence. I don't really have a problem with opposition to mindless violence. I understand why mindless violence is kinda prevalent, especially in groups that have been most alienated in current society and have developed a sort of 'fuck it' disconnect from society. And I think that it's perfectly easy to understand how this attitude develops.

But it seems to me as though somewhere along the line, there has been a movement from the view that we can understand why and how such an attitude develops, to the view that this should somehow be supported, and this hacks me off. Just because we can empathise with people who have been SO alienated from society that mindless violence has become something they don't really give a shit about, it doesn't make it a productive use of our time or efforts, or a good political strategy. In actual fact i'd argue that it's a waste of our time, and a terrible political strategy. We can't build a society of peace and respect out of violence and dis-respect. So I think, in that respect, it is perfectly understandable to oppose violence fetishism in all its forms.

However (and this is to the OP, who I think deserves a bit more respect than what they've received in some replies so far - this is after all the learning forum!), not all violence is mindless, and there is little logic in simple-mindedly equating violence with 'bad'. Violence is bad when it results in people being hurt or worse, I think that it's a basic principle that many people would share that we don't want to hurt our fellow humans.

But what about when violence is emancipatory and/or defensive? In the latter case, it's quite simple: how can you argue that, if we are attacked by the cops, we shouldn't defend ourselves, and fight back to show that we won't be bullied into accepting the continuation of the status quo?

In the case of violence being emancipatory, let's think about how we can actually achieve a change in the base social relationship (that between the exploiting capitalist and the exploited worker) that exists under capitalism. Can we vote it in? Well, who designed the voting system? Did we? No. The capitalists designed it, they control it - legislators are in almost all cases highly paid lackeys of the bourgeoisie, are financed by the bourgeoisie, lobbied extensively by the bourgeoisie. Just like the capitalist will always seek to extract surplus from the worker in order to keep their social position (as a capitalist, who lives off what they extract from the worker), the elected politician knows that if they deviate from the path of the continuation of capitalism, they will lose funding and thus probably their elected position, or worse (Allende, for example).

So, voting in a change of system is a no-no. That effectively means that extra-parliamentary methods will need to be utilised to demolish the existing social order. And how will the bourgeoisie react to this? Our ancestors fought hard to acquire even basic rights of association, i.e. in a trade union, or in a political protest/demonstration/march. And these legal rights are under constant attack by the bourgeoisie. In Britain, for example, the right to strike (wildcat strikes, for example) has been under a process of progressive curtailment for the past 3-4 decades, and will probably continue to be unless we fight this. And how can we fight this? Not in the elected parliament, because as we've already discussed, they're not on our side. And not in the legal system, because the judiciary aren't even elected - they have even less incentive to side with us! So, just to even maintain basic legal rights under capitalism, we are forced to use probably illegal methods, i.e. striking in solidarity, utilising more persuasive methods of protest than just standing around with slogans in to-be kettled space having a moan for a couple of hours and then going home to discover that nobody in fact gave a shit, least of all those who make the laws.

So if that's the case for just defending the most basic workers' rights, how can we possibly NOT use some violent means to achieve the monumentally more difficult task of achieving a change in the exploitative social relationships that govern society? It's inevitable. What is important is that, unlike mindless violence - violence against fellow workers, and violence just for violence's sake -, any means we do employ are used as a tactic as part of a broader political strategy. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that, in any public action, we will defend ourselves if attacked by the cops, or by fascists for example. There are other methods of violence that can be used as part of a sound political strategy, that have a clear and meaningful purpose, and that cause no harm to other people. So why is it that this word 'violence' has such negative connotations, when our elected leaders utilise it so often in their foreign wars, and daily to maintain law and order against their own people? Because, as has been said already, pacifism leads only to the maintenance of current social relationships in society; society continues to be based primarily on the exploitative capitalist-worker class relationship.

[Ele'ill]

I'd like immediate clarification on the rough definitions behind 'mindless violence'

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I purposely didn't use the word vandalism because i'm not saying I don't understand the reasons behind mindless violence, or empathise with people engaged in mindless violence, and I don't really give a shit personally if someone else wants to go and damage property, but I was also making the point that it's not something to glorify as 'cool' or even useful, politically, if it isn't used as a tactic as part of a wider political strategy.

[Ele'ill]

yeah the civilized route def. is legit

[F9]

Back on topic now, and stop using learning forum as your playground!!Stop derailing threads with stupid shit, and if you are going to come in here to answer some questions, do so in a respectful manner, no other approach is acceptable in here.The main point of this forum is to learn, not to fight, get over it!If you continue derailling and acting disrespectfully, warning points shall follow...:glare:

[Ritzy Cat]

I think the Communists, and Revolutionaries in general do not want to create violence. However, revolution in any bourgeois country will lead them to want to protect their power, thus responding to political unrest with violence, because the revolutionaries threaten their very lifestyles, means of subjugating the proletarian.

I think very few communists are outright desiring of violence... It may be somewhat cliche, but "Freedom isn't free" is a good way to put this.

Anything that theatens the authority of a state WILL be responded to with violence, I can't imagine the US Congress being like "Ok, we don't like this idea, but you can have control of all government property now. Good luck!"

If you so say you only act in violence out of self defense, as a revolutionary you ARE advocating for the deletion of class, private property, etc. You aren't creating the violence, you are spreading your opinion.

I can assure you, if a proletarian revolution ever were to happen, they would not be the ones to start the violence. They would act in self-defense from the state that wishes to preserve its power.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have only been on this site for a few days, but I often see reference to the "revolution", usually from individuals who express very strong opinions on the merits of currency.

As a vehement pacifist, I cannot condone violent action unless in defense of the self or another person.

Is there a place for the teachings of Gandhi the Dalai Lama and MLK in this "revolution"? Can it be accomplished through non-violent means?
Most probably not, judging from the historical experience of radicalizing workers' movements which almost invariably ran into violent repression on behalf of the ruling class (capitalists, the military/police apparatus and its associated political apparatus).

[Os Cangaceiros]

*shrug* If violence is useful then it should be used. However, there are many situations in which it is counter-productive, and in those cases it shouldn't be used.

People should attempt to make their best judgment on what a situation calls for and act accordingly. Simple as that IMO

[Yuppie Grinder]

In order to have a communist country, the nation would need to be completely self-reliant, which is simply not a reality for any nation in the world currently. It's called Autarky, and it's very difficult to achieve.


Sorry but I think you should become a little more familiar with communist thought before making proclamations like this.
The goal of communists isn't to form an isolationist, self-reliant nation. Communism by the traditional definition has no nations states.
The folks here on revleft would argue there is no such thing as a communist country.

[Rss]

Dogmatic pacifism is complete waste of time, even counterproductive. Heck, personally I think it should be restriction-worthy offense. ;)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Again, you greet a newcomer with negativity and venom.

Negativity and venom? Huh?


you must be one of the forums more prevalent trolls.

It's not wise to throw around baseless insults at people. ;)

Word to the wise, I use humor to convey points no less worthy of posting as yours. The horror, I have a brain and a sense of humor, you're right; troll.


Ghandi was racist in his youth, do you not believe people can learn, grow and change for the better?

Sure but did he?


Because you sound like a Stormfront user.

How?


I wasn't speaking to Ghandi's religion or his failings, but his teachings of non-violence.

Alright, and what exactly were those teachings, how did they manifest in reality and how did they directly contribute to the toppling of the British empire in India? Was his gut directly tied to British coffers so thereby starving himself they lost tremendous moneys, said fuck it, and left? Are you wanting to overlook any facts that might make him look like a douche and succumb to this "naan-violent," martyr cult?


MLK cheated on his wife, according to Herbert Hoover, does that make his message less beautiful?

Yeah, pretty much, definitely cheapens the whole image. I actually didn't know that but you are right in that him being a philandering doucher is irrelevant. What's relevant? His "message." Right? What was that message? Begging the white man for freedom? What did he actually accomplish?

"He got the peace prize, we got the problem.... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over."-Malcolm X.

"Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."-Malcolm X.

"I don't favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I'm also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are black people."-Malcolm X.

"Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you'd be within your rights - I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job. That's all."-Malcolm X.

"It doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."-Malcolm X.

Listen to this:

f2S3ShBexMs

^This is why I reject King's message of so called "non-violence." You can never beg master to set you free. You kill master and make yourself free.


Karl Marx didn't consider the slaughter of the American Indians to be a wholly negative thing. He considered the westernization of "savages" to be a positive influence. Should we discount his entire philosophy because of that failing? Or do you agree that "educating" the "savages" was a positive thing?

No but then again, the crux of my argument wasn't necessarily the flaws in characters in the individuals previously mentioned though; it doesn't help there cause. Marx said a lot of things, and I happen to disagree with said things so provided this is true, it's ultimately irrelevant and meaningless to me. Marx also supported the violent overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

I also, don't get this whole violence vs. non-violence thing. Surely the revolution will involve acts against the state which are not physically violent such as counter-intelligence, sabotage, espionage, false-flag operations, etc. Are they "non-violent," means of revolution? Or does "non-violence," only include starving yourself, sitting places, etc? Why I kind of agree with Ed, in that this whole "violence vs. non-violence," dichotomy is kind of racket. Either your a douche who thinks sitting somewhere and getting maced in the face is "fighting the powers that be," or your a douche who screams "omfg, please be dead cops, fap, fap, fap," anytime some shit goes down.