Maintaining the gains of the bourgeois revolutions

[CyM]

I don't have much time to write this out fully, at work. But I'll quickly get it started.

The basic principles of natural justice: the right to face your accuser, know the charges against you, be assumed innocent until proven guilty, and have the right to defend yourself and prove your innocence; these are rights that were promised by the bourgeois during their revolutions. Obviously, we know that they mean nothing to the working class. A worker is gunned down without any due process, and found guilty because he's too poor to afford proper council. On the other hand, a rich man walks free, or on suspended sentence, cause he has an expensive lawyer.

But these principles defending the individual against the collective remain relevant even when capitalism is overthrown. In fact, they can only truly be implemented when that is the case.

My whole reason for bringing this up is that I'm of the opinion that a large section of the left has already decided to abolish these principles. Something which is dangerous, and even worse, it's been done with no debate or discussion.

What are your thoughts?

[RedWorker]

Certain 'communists' have failed to understand the Marxist analysis of the bourgeois state, and the state in general, and substituted it for phrasemongering.

Communism and revolution won't mean four vigilantes getting together and deciding the fate of someone. Unfortunately it has become common for certain individuals in these forums to forgo actual analysis, in favor of brutish conclusions which are, if anything, the opposite of communism.

The notion that the new form of justice created by bourgeois revolutions - which quite clearly is flawed and not sufficient at all - has been useless for everyone who is not rich is also erroneous.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that there's a distinction to be drawn between what is maybe the ideal purpose of rights - ie collective rules for living that ensure people aren't simply at the whims of whomever can command sufficient violence - and the fundamental problem of "rights" rooted in notions of "the (self-sovereign, universal) individual".

The notion that there can be "rights" that are universally applicable erases the reality of singular subjects with specific social positions and relations. To pick a rather banal example, if the practical exercise of a "right" requires ascending a set of stairs it may be no problem for me, but a significant problem for someone in a wheelchair. Within the framework of bourgeois law, the solution to addressing such inequalities is increasing division - e.g. Those with an income of under $5,000USD shall be permitted to sleep on park benches. Of course, the codification of every possible difference would at best be impossible, and, realistically, any attempt would constitute a nightmarish and dystopian legislation of absurd minutiae.

I recognize that, in a way, I'm taking around the question here. I guess what I'd like to get to is a clarification: Is the problem to be confronted that "the left" is ditching "rights"? Or is it that it is reproducing the worst of "rights" - e.g. one law for those with certain social positions, and de facto another for the poor mook who walked into the room and said a "bad word'?

[Rafiq]

Marx and Engels seldom spoke of the abolition of bourgeois society contrary to many translations. The word "abolition" for them would mean to reduce to a zero-level. The original German word was often "aufheben" or supersession. We do mean to abolish bourgeois society, but while pre-supposing it's achievements. This is what separates petty bourgeois and revolutionary opposition to the state.
Capitalism is not a boogeyman. It is the summation of the lives of men and women. Not everything derived from capitalist society is a reflection of the interests of those in power - it is what we call class struggle. Furthermore, even if something may be in the interests of the bourgeoisie, this does not automatically render it opposed to our interests (I.e. the abolition of feudalism was a good example). Communists are affirmative ideologically, morally and politically. We ought not to be dependent upon the master - and doing the opposite of the enemy in all circumstances is also a form of pathetic dependence.

[CyM]

Essentially, TGDU, I'm arguing that due process has been abolished by much of the left. Anonymous accusations are defended as a right to privacy, and anyone who questions the lack of process is painted as guilty by association.

[synthesis]

Essentially, TGDU, I'm arguing that due process has been abolished by much of the left. Anonymous accusations are defended as a right to privacy, and anyone who questions the lack of process is painted as guilty by association.

Can you provide an example of what you're referring to?

[Hrafn]

CyM, it's sounding an awful lot like you're defending rapists and demanding survivors of sexual abuse to come forward publicly with everything, right now now. Don't make me stop respecting you, c'mon.

[CyM]

OK, see, I obviously did neither of those things. But clearly there's a serious problem on the left if what little I have said is enough for you to accuse me of "defending rapists".

[CyM]

The following needs to be thought about:

1. We do not trust the police or the courts, so it is understandable that the bourgeois criminal justice system is not the way forward.

2. The only other option open to us is to appeal to the movement for justice, hence a whole series of very public accusations and online social media campaigns of exposures of allegations on campuses and in the movement.

3. If the movement is going to be putting people on trial, we need a process, and at the moment there simply is none. At all. And anyone who even hints at this is "defending rapists". That's a cop out. The movement can hand out justice, I have no issue with that, but then admit what you're doing and let's think of a way to have a logical process. Because you're going to be the state soon, so if you're this quick to dismiss the rights of the accused before you've taken power, I don't want to see you in power.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think having "the movement" (what parties comprise "the movement"? I certainly wouldn't want to find myself in the hands of a Healyite spliter group or the RCPUSA) "handing out justice" is a good idea. Yes, the bourgeois criminal "justice" system is appalling and often harmful to victims. That does not mean "we" can offer an alternative. Our best way of helping victims of sexual abuse, as organisations (of course, personally we can do a lot more), is to fight for conditions where sexual abuse will become impossible. This is not a good thing, and I wish we could do more, but we've seen what the "justice" of ostensible socialist groups looks like, and it's not good.

I do think many people are willing to dispense with things like the presumption of innocence when it comes to rape charges. I can understand them, but this needs to be examined critically. It's particularly important to understand how the charge of rape interacts with oppression of particular groups (here's a hint: I am willing to believe the overwhelming majority of charges brought up by the women themselves, but when the state accuses a black person, a leftist, or a gay person of rape, that is going to raise some eyebrows on my part).

[synthesis]

Again, CyM, can you point to a specific instance that illustrates your point? Because otherwise this:


OK, see, I obviously did neither of those things. But clearly there's a serious problem on the left if what little I have said is enough for you to accuse me of "defending rapists".

is problematically vague in a way that is vaguely problematic.


I do think many people are willing to dispense with things like the presumption of innocence when it comes to rape charges. I can understand them, but this needs to be examined critically.

All of society examines them critically, to a fault. There needs to be a counter-balance to the people who just assume that all accused rapists are innocent and all rape charges are manufactured, and if it comes in the form of people who assume that all accused rapists are guilty, honestly, I can live with that. Just based on personal experience, I think it's also pretty presumptive to assume that people on the left - at least here in the U.S. - aren't able to tell when race, gender and politics have presented us with complicating factors, even if their conclusions are still different to yours or mine.

[BIXX]

I hate these discussions cause I personally believe someone when they tell me they've been raped. However there is a girl I know from work who told me that she once had sex with a guy then regretted it later and said she was raped- which led to me telling her that I think that's fucked up because it delegitimizes rape victims etc...

Really there is no simple answer to this debate and I don't really think there is a correct one. On one hand you have folks who say something that borders on victim denial and on the other hand you have the folks who are like me and more willing to believe all the time when someone says they've been raped.

Is there a correct answer? I don't know. I hope there is.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

All of society examines them critically, to a fault.

The thing is, it doesn't. Refusing to draw the necessary conclusions in the face of sufficient evidence, attacking the victims, focusing on irrelevant details, none of this is the hallmark of a critical engagement with the subject.


There needs to be a counter-balance to the people who just assume that all accused rapists are innocent and all rape charges are manufactured, and if it comes in the form of people who assume that all accused rapists are guilty, honestly, I can live with that.

There are quite a few problems with that.

The first is that, to be blunt, most people who think all accused rapists are guilty can't act as a counterbalance to people who think all accused rapists are innocent because they never interact in a meaningful way; the first group spending most of its time grandstanding in isolated and inconsequential "radical circles".

(And of course, people who believe that all accused rapists are innocent are less of a problem than people who don't believe that, but act as if it were the case, but never mind that for now.)

And of course, even if they did interact in a meaningful way, taking a stupid position and inverting it just results in another stupid position; these people are about as much a counterweight to "men's rights" nonsense as the NOI is to white chauvinism.

And that position - that all accused rapists are guilty - can put one squarely on the wrong side of the class line. Imagine that sort of position being applied to the Scottsboro case.


Just based on personal experience, I think it's also pretty presumptive to assume that people on the left - at least here in the U.S. - aren't able to tell when race, gender and politics have presented us with complicating factors, even if their conclusions are still different to yours or mine.

I don't think it is presumptive. The US left is demonstrably awful about these things, accepting without reservation Iranian claims about executed gay people being guilty of rape for example, a large part of them cooperating with the North cult in slandering Mark Curtis and so on.

[CyM]

I was being vague precisely because I think this goes deeper than the issue of rape, which is a hot topic. But it comes down to notions of justice.

I don't want to discuss specifics, because I want to discuss what justice looks like to you.

There is no room in my book for automatically assuming guilt, or believing anonymous accusations. When I was attacked for this position, I pointed out that I'm an Arab, and secret evidence and guilty until proven innocent are not concepts I am comfortable with since September 11th.

This goes far beyond the question of rape, and people use the emotional dynamite of the touchiness of the subject to justify throwing notions of natural justice out the window.

But isn't that exactly what happens at all times? Whether it's mass war hysteria on September 11th, or a social media storm of accusations, these are poor ways of carrying out justice. They do not serve the victims, they make it less likely that future victims come forward, and they quite clearly fail the test of "how easy would it be to destroy the life of an innocent person".

I would also point out the utter hypocrisy that it is predominantly "libertarian leftists" now taking the "tough on crime" position.

[Sabot Cat]

I thought this thread was more about how most Marxist political theorists turn their back on an independent judiciary, in favor of the commune directly administrating justice themselves through ad hoc tribunals, as it happened in the Paris Commune and Revolutionary Catalonia. This is despite the less than stellar results with the evacuation of things like 'the burden of proof' and 'due process', etc.

[Rafiq]

I hate these discussions cause I personally believe someone when they tell me they've been raped. However there is a girl I know from work who told me that she once had sex with a guy then regretted it later and said she was raped- which led to me telling her that I think that's fucked up because it delegitimizes rape victims etc...

Really there is no simple answer to this debate and I don't really think there is a correct one. On one hand you have folks who say something that borders on victim denial and on the other hand you have the folks who are like me and more willing to believe all the time when someone says they've been raped.

Is there a correct answer? I don't know. I hope there is.

Behold, an exemplary post which is in fact not "wrong" as it was posted by doxxer.

Except, the fact of the matter is that once again you place significant value on exception. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of cases in which women come forth as victims - ESPECIALLY in the domain of law, they are actually victims. It's cute that you're treating this like some kind of moral deadlock for communists - but then again that's no surprise considering the infantile nature of your understanding of communism.

To add insult to injury, a shocking proportion of rapists get away scott free with victims being forced to undergo humiliating and traumatizing experiences prosecuting their rapists. As an actual societal event. What few exceptions, more importantly what few cases of heresay in which the victim was faking it are absolutely irrelevant and are only further reflective of how commonplace rape actually is in our society.

Is there a correct answer? Yeah, there is. Unconditional ('humane' and not painful of course) castration for rapists as a temporary component of the terror of proletarian dictatorship with the means of assessment just as sophisticated and civil as in bourgeois society - taking into account a new ideological hegemony which is not predisposed to victim blaming. But of course anything doxxer is ignorant of presents itself as a universal dilemma.

[BIXX]

Behold, an exemplary post which is in fact not "wrong" as it was posted by doxxer.

Except, the fact of the matter is that once again you place significant value on exception. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of cases in which women come forth as victims - ESPECIALLY in the domain of law, they are actually victims. It's cute that you're treating this like some kind of moral deadlock for communists - but then again that's no surprise considering the infantile nature of your understanding of communism.

To add insult to injury, a shocking proportion of rapists get away scott free with victims being forced to undergo humiliating and traumatizing experiences prosecuting their rapists. As an actual societal event. What few exceptions, more importantly what few cases of heresay in which the victim was faking it are absolutely irrelevant and are only further reflective of how commonplace rape actually is in our society.

Is there a correct answer? Yeah, there is. Unconditional ('humane' and not painful of course) castration for rapists as a temporary component of the terror of proletarian dictatorship with the means of assessment just as sophisticated and civil as in bourgeois society - taking into account a new ideological hegemony which is not predisposed to victim blaming. But of course anything doxxer is ignorant of presents itself as a universal dilemma.

Unfortunately you failed to notice the part of my post where I mentioned that I believe people when they tell me they've been raped, and I know all those stats.

But what the discussion here seems to be is about how would a communist society would deal accurate justice. I don't know. That's what I mean when I say there is no easy solution.

BTW you have no idea what my definition of communism is so don't even try with me.

I can't believe you managed to ignore the part of my post that agreed with you but managed to jump on the part where I mentioned a coworker who lied about being raped which made me doubt my position. However my position remains unchanged. But then again, anyone who has disagreed with you ever must always be wrong, even when they agree with you (as in this thread).

You fucking idiot.

[socialistlawyer]

:laugh:After the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and the Cuban revolution, the farthest and most effective revolutionary move that one went was that of Arbenz and Hugo Chavez. Also the 51% communist domination of the Italian parliament was also one. Now, if we can find a genius who can come up with ingenious ways and means to completely topple the capitalist state, then Arbenz and Chavez example can come into fruition. That is why I exhort you to 'improvise'. The damage done by Kim Philby was so devastating that it took MI6 to recover only after so many decades. Yes, they make good espionage movies. But reality is that SIS was sc****d, big time, by the Cambridge spies. My last post. Holiday greetings to all! and well-wishes!

[Rafiq]

BTW you have no idea what my definition of communism is so don't even try with me.

I can't believe you managed to ignore the part of my post that agreed with you but managed to jump on the part where I mentioned a coworker who lied about being raped which made me doubt my position. However my position remains unchanged. But then again, anyone who has disagreed with you ever must always be wrong, even when they agree with you (as in this thread).


Oh, one time my co-worker lied about being raped, so it's obviously so significant of a phenomena to be incorporated into thinking about how to deal with it properly

"My definition of Communism". Doxxer's definition of Communism? Tell me, who the fuck are you and why is your individual, unique definition of Communism worth a shit? I don't care about what Communism means for you. Because at the end of the day, there is nothing unique about it. Your understanding of Communism is pretty obvious - infantile and a worthless abstraction laying itself on the background of a wider ruling-class ideology. You and the rest of the petite-bourgeois "anarchists" or postmodern leftists that are responsible for the deterioration of the quality of this forum.

There is no "my definition" of Communism. There is recognition of what Communism is, it is not a matter of opinion or perspective. The fact is that your understanding of Communism is a false one. I think it's absolutely hilarious how you try to defend yourself. Booh hoo, cry me a fucking river - "rafiq this and rafiq that" like who the fuck cares? You can't even respond to arguments for what they are. You have to give them some kind of label. "You can't always be right, Rafiq!" - Whatever, but until you actually demonstrate how I am wrong, I am always right as far as you're concerned.

Honestly. Why don't you try and be fucking consistent? Some rape victims are male too. Women aren't unique victims of rape and rape isn't gendered, right? Oh, doxxer! Fuck you for ignoring how often women rape men! Petite-bourgeois moralist! Are you saying only women are capable of being rape-victims? What a sexist mentality!

You know what, I'm just as guilty of the deterioration of the forum's quality. The fact that I have to respond to you, and reduce myself to such a stupid argument - all the while patting myself on the back for destroying such nonsense - this is nothing short of intellectually degenerate. Might as well argue with a child about how the boogyman isn't real and then lament in my victory.

[BIXX]

Oh, one time my co-worker lied about being raped, so it's obviously so significant of a phenomena to be incorporated into thinking about how to deal with it properly.

And yet the guy she slept with had his life ruined. I would consider that significant. While it is in no way common, its something to consider.

Also, regarding the "definition of communism thing" I believe it was actually you who brought it up. So shut the fuck up.

[BIXX]

Oh sorry it was "my understanding of communism" which you also have no idea about so again shut the fuck up.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I'm kind of skeptical of whether rape accusations ruin a mans life given how common it is for people to excuse and defend accused rapists. Hell, people will even bring up the ruined life argument when the rapist has been convicted, like in the Steubenville rape case. This rhetoric really shouldn't be used, it's far more likely that the accuser gets their life ruined. People already paint the issue of rape cases as being an issue of men getting their lives ruined far too disproportionately.

It's just kind of annoying how every conservation we have about rape has to include how it hurts men somehow.

[Rafiq]

And yet the guy she slept with had his life ruined. I would consider that significant. While it is in no way common, its something to consider.

HA! This is from the guy who talks about "moralism"! Boo fucking hoo - some guy might have his life ruined by being struck by lightening and being paralyzed. It doesn't mean shit. stop trying to use this petty sentimentality here, Mr. Edgy Anti-Moralist.

"Oh, fuck your theory! We're talking about REAL lives here!"

Why should we consider it? Because it has impactful effects on individuals? Well this discussion isn't about how harmful being accused of rape is for individuals. It's about properly assessing the validity of rape allegations. Frankly, even if he got castrated for it, it's not significant no matter how much of a sob story it is. Get the fuck out with your MRA trash.

[BIXX]

I'm kind of skeptical of whether rape accusations ruin a mans life given how common it is for people to excuse and defend accused rapists. Hell, people will even bring up the ruined life argument when the rapist has been convicted, like in the Steubenville rape case. This rhetoric really shouldn't be used, it's far more likely that the accuser gets their life ruined. People already paint the issue of rape cases as being an issue of men getting their lives ruined far too disproportionately.

It's just kind of annoying how every conservation we have about rape has to include how it hurts men somehow.

I can't speak for how common it is- I am just going off of what my coworker told me about the situation. Of course I doubt the commonality of this but to me it is significant of it happens period. Again, its that which complicates shit for me, as everyone else who I know whose been raped had gotten their life fucked socially.

It sounds they mainly ran in the same circles and when she said she'd been raped by him she got the better of the situation.

I suppose it is possible she is lying, however, I find that unlikely because for all the shit people get for being raped, it seems they'd get much more for lying about being raped. So shed have to be pretty insane.

Anyway, it is a personal anecdote that implicated the issue in my life because I do approach these things siding with the victim. That's the only reason her story affected me- it made me question what I've been doing. However I do think her story is an anomaly.

[Rosa Partizan]

There is no reason to not believe that you've been told this story. But it's just...redundant. Every time highly gendered phenomena like rape are discussed, there is always someone that knows someone whose life was or will be ruined by a false accusation. How so, when there are always plenty of people saying "oh damn dude, so sorry to have this fake-ass ***** trying to drag you down/get your money/whatsoever". I would really like to have ONE discussion about gendered, structural violence and oppression where it's not about teh menz. I'm far more interested in talking about structures than talking about individuals, but that's maybe just me.

[CyM]

The tough on crime crowd has showed its head.

"Who cares if one innocent person gets castrated for a crime he didn't commit?"

"I doubt these claims that an innocent person being accused of a crime they did not commit ruins their life, it's not that big a deal"

Sorry guys, you are intending to replace the machinery of state, and your flippant attitude towards making sure the person your state castrates is the right one does not make me very confident that you won't be one massive bulldozer crushing people below it.

It is relevant to establish guilt. The person being accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty, because there is no other way to carry out just vengeance. The anonymity of the victim in the eyes of the process, and the actual validity of that process, are two mutually exclusive principles. The accused has the right to face their accuser and to prove their innocence. Finally, it is better in the eyes of any just system to let go of some guilty criminals than imprison, ostracize, socially destroy, or in Rafiq's programme, castrate a single innocent person.

This is the whole reason capital punishment needs to be generally abolished, with small exceptions for Fascist leaders, who are not exactly hiding who they are and are not going to be tough to find guilty without any doubt.

Presumption of innocence for revolutionaries does not require the bourgeois "beyond a shadow of a doubt" principle. We do not set the bar that high, particularly for rape. But we must set a bar.

We are not the state yet, but what is our revolutionary state but an extension of the movement itself once it has arrived at power? Where does that power come from? The workers and youth organized in their general assemblies.

In the case of the Quebec student movement, they are already carrying out public exposures of accused individuals. Fine. The administration, the bourgeois courts, none are useful for this, we know this and place no faith in them.

Then we must admit that we will be administering justice ourselves.

Summon these people, privately, to appear before an elected commission, entrusted to deal with these accusations by the general assembly. Allow them an opportunity to defend themselves, before public exposure. Allow them to face their accuser, which would be stressful on witnesses of any kind of course, but is a necessary part of any process.

Then make a judgment.

And when found guilty, instead of plastering their doors with "accused", plaster their doors with "accused, tried, and found guilty by the movement."

I am not against using the mass movement to exact righteous vengeance. We can and should bring that hurricane down on these people's heads. But let it be done in an orderly and legitimate fashion, to give more weight to it when we do decide to act.

[BIXX]

There is no reason to not believe that you've been told this story. But it's just...redundant. Every time highly gendered phenomena like rape are discussed, there is always someone that knows someone whose life was or will be ruined by a false accusation. How so, when there are always plenty of people saying "oh damn dude, so sorry to have this fake-ass ***** trying to drag you down/get your money/whatsoever". I would really like to have ONE discussion about gendered, structural violence and oppression where it's not about teh menz. I'm far more interested in talking about structures than talking about individuals, but that's maybe just me.
Well, that's why I was talking about how this made me question my course of action- which I still hold to be true (and for clarification to those of you who are looking for any way to jump down my throat (looking at you, rafiq) my course of action is to believe the victim). I am mainly concerned with the actions that I commit as I am never going to see a revolution and I doubt any of you will either. So the only actions that really matter to us are our own actions. So yeah, that's why that anecdote affected me. And I suppose the coworker could have lied I just can't justify why she would have lied. Anyway, that's what brought it up for me.

[BIXX]

HA! This is from the guy who talks about "moralism"! Boo fucking hoo - some guy might have his life ruined by being struck by lightening and being paralyzed. It doesn't mean shit. stop trying to use this petty sentimentality here, Mr. Edgy Anti-Moralist.

"Oh, fuck your theory! We're talking about REAL lives here!"

Why should we consider it? Because it has impactful effects on individuals? Well this discussion isn't about how harmful being accused of rape is for individuals. It's about properly assessing the validity of rape allegations. Frankly, even if he got castrated for it, it's not significant no matter how much of a sob story it is. Get the fuck out with your MRA trash.
You know I'm not a guy

Yeah bro itd suck to have your life being ruined by being struck by lightening

If it was a person who you cared for would you not save them?

I don't know/really care for the dude, but it did shed doubt for me on what I do. Which I continued on doing because it is easy, and I would call it correct.

The only reason youre on about this against me is because of my disagreements with you elsewhere and I am honestly surprised that you seem to find what I have to offer so threatening.

[CyM]

Hey guys, let's keep this political.

[Rafiq]

It is relevant to establish guilt. The person being accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty, because there is no other way to carry out just vengeance. The anonymity of the victim in the eyes of the process, and the actual validity of that process, are two mutually exclusive principles. The accused has the right to face their accuser and to prove their innocence. Finally, it is better in the eyes of any just system to let go of some guilty criminals than imprison, ostracize, socially destroy, or in Rafiq's programme, castrate a single innocent person.


We are not talking of the long-term goals of some kind of distant bright future. We are talking about the immediate tasks of revolutionary terror which does not and has never lasted for longer than it needs to. Castration as a consequence of rape must be incorporated into the terror if we are to seek a revolution in sexual relations. Abolishing the conditions of sexual slavery only disallow its systemic perpetuation - steps toward consciously abolishing its remnants must be taken. Frankly, and evidently, the existence of rape as a consequence of revolutionary fervor, from revolutionary france to the rapes in Berlin by the Red Army are evident that unique steps must be taken to enshrine the new sexual order, just as the new order itself in general. Existing sexual relations are perpetuated by fear, and must be uprooted by fear.

Playing some abstract ethical game, of course you are correct. However the reality of the situation makes the expression of this abstract game impossible. Yes, as a long-term, ends - sure we seek an end to capital punishment. But there are no social predispositions to the abolition of capitalism except the conscious will of the proletariat - meaning that history henceforth would be made as pleased.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We are not talking of the long-term goals of some kind of distant bright future. We are talking about the immediate tasks of revolutionary terror which does not and has never lasted for longer than it needs to.

Yep, the Stalin-sponsored terror in the USSR only lasted for several years, gays were only persecuted in Cuba for decades, and North Korea only continues to terrorise its population because of those evil imperialists at its door.

The arrogance you show, talking about the need for 'revolutionary terror', is breathtaking. Good luck trying to convert other workers to this idea of 'revolutionary terror'. Easy enough for you to sit there keyboard bashing your way into some angry fit, but you show a total lack of empathy and social understanding if you think that a better world comes about through chopping men's bollocks off.


Castration as a consequence of rape must be incorporated into the terror if we are to seek a revolution in sexual relations.

I imagine this will work about as well as the 'death penalty as a result of death must be incorporated into capitalism if we are to seek a revolution in crime reduction'.

If you're going to un-original and borrow ideas from the most authoritarian elements of capital, at least borrow ideas that haven't been an overwhelming and tragic failure.


Abolishing the conditions of sexual slavery only disallow its systemic perpetuation - steps toward consciously abolishing its remnants must be taken.

What does this even mean? Are you just feeding your 'edgy' ego again, and shoehorning in some way to advocate destructive policies again?


Frankly, and evidently, the existence of rape as a consequence of revolutionary fervor, from revolutionary france to the rapes in Berlin by the Red Army are evident that unique steps must be taken to enshrine the new sexual order, just as the new order itself in general. Existing sexual relations are perpetuated by fear, and must be uprooted by fear.

Aside from the burning desire I have to ask what the fuck is a 'sexual order'?, another outstanding example of your illogical thought process. After all, if rape is perpetuated by an environment of fear, then the way to eleminate systematic rape from society must be...an environment of fear. Never mind education, never mind empowering women to protect themselves. No, what we need is more men turning the dials on the state machine to 'absolutely fucking batshit insane'.


Yes, as a long-term, ends - sure we seek an end to capital punishment. But there are no social predispositions to the abolition of capitalism except the conscious will of the proletariat - meaning that history henceforth would be made as pleased.

This makes no sense.

In addition, you do realise that if you want to tap into that 'conscious will of the proletariat', you might want to modify your language so that it doesn't sound like it came from an 18th century period drama!

[Redistribute the Rep]

Easy enough for you to sit there keyboard bashing your way into some angry fit, but you show a total lack of empathy and social understanding if you think that a better world comes about through chopping men's bollocks off.

I assumed he meant chemical castration. I'm not totally convinced of Rafiqs proposed method, though. But I wouldn't really mind it honestly


After all, if rape is perpetuated by an environment of fear, then the way to eleminate systematic rape from society must be...an environment of fear. Never mind education, never mind empowering women to protect themselves. No, what we need is more men turning the dials on the state machine to 'absolutely fucking batshit insane'.


Empowering women to protect themselves is important, but it doesn't prevent rapes. Rapists are opportunistic, so some people being able to protect themselves would, at best, only result in rape displacement. Not prevention. And the causes of rape and gender inequality can be found in the fundamental social relations of capitalism, education alone does not abolish these relations



And the comparison to the death penalty in capitalism is just strange. Revolutionary violence during a time of social change is not comparable to peace time violence in capitalism, I can't think any any major social movement that did not involve any coercion

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And the comparison to the death penalty in capitalism is just strange. Revolutionary violence during a time of social change is not comparable to peace time violence in capitalism, I can't think any any major social movement that did not involve any coercion

It's not strange at all. Every social movement that invoked, in effect, state-sponsored violence under the guise of 'revolutionary terror' has in effect just terrorised its own [working] population. That has nothing to do with emancipation and everything to do with authoritarians securing their own position in society, thus wilfully continuing a class society based on social division.

[Rafiq]

Yep, the Stalin-sponsored terror in the USSR only lasted for several years, gays were only persecuted in Cuba for decades, and North Korea only continues to terrorise its population because of those evil imperialists at its door.

And who recognizes Stalinist terror as revolutionary terror? You don't even know what revolutionary terror is - not even these states themselves designate this as revolutionary terror. Revolutionary terror never lasts long, but if we are to designate all state-based terror as revolutionary terror, we might as well add in the United States, Italy, or whatever you fucking want. By the 1930's, there could be no revolutionary violence. The Bolsheviks had completely consolidated power of the state a decade earlier. What made terror possible was attempting to maintain this power on the backdrop of a world which was almost completely hostile to its existence not only politically but socially.

Stalinist terror is inter-bureaucratic masturbation, sorry to hurt your sensitivities but the power of revolutionary terror is not judged by how horrific it is - or how many lives are lost. That would make the terror of Stalinist states thoroughly weak and insignificant. Honestly, I don't care for your sob stories. I don't. You can go ahead and explain to me how North Korea's state repression is comparable to any form of revolutionary terror in history, however. That's something I'd like to hear.


The arrogance you show, talking about the need for 'revolutionary terror', is breathtaking. Good luck trying to convert other workers to this idea of 'revolutionary terror'. Easy enough for you to sit there keyboard bashing your way into some angry fit, but you show a total lack of empathy and social understanding if you think that a better world comes about through chopping men's bollocks off.


No Communist is true to the cause of the revolution if they view it merely as a game of chess - of how to manipulate, deceive and "convert" workers. The cause of Communism is true - we have no room for lies or for sugar-coating. And we never have, throughout all circumstances in which the revolutionary movement was alive and well, no principled Marxist ever shyed away from discussing the inevitability of terror. Marx did, Lenin did (DECADES before the October revolution) and even your Left-Communist heroes like Luxemburg did. The very fact that this distresses you suggests that you don't even take it seriously to begin with. Revolutionary terror is an inevitable consequence of any social revolution. Nay, of any REAL political revolution. Never in history was this not the case. To say otherwise would be an act of deceit and gross dishonesty. People speak of the "American revolution" but in reality, this wasn't a revolution in the traditional sense, it was a war of independence wherein the enemy was a foreign power and not a specific class native to the nation. Who am I to empathize with, Innit? You're right, however. I don't empathize with the enemy. At all. I seek their utter and complete destruction, through means of social liquidation or direct violence. Speaking of empathy, do you really think the revolution is an act of empathy? Where is the empathy for those poor bourgeois families who will have to renounce their lives of luxury and splendor? You can talk of how just it is - but at the end of the day, it certainly will be a traumatic experience for them. Empathy can never be a basis for revolutionary fervor. You pick a side. And to prattle of empathy in the backdrop of a class struggle - is to assume the side of whomever is in power, whomever possesses a monopoly on empathy.


I imagine this will work about as well as the 'death penalty as a result of death must be incorporated into capitalism if we are to seek a revolution in crime reduction'.

If you're going to un-original and borrow ideas from the most authoritarian elements of capital, at least borrow ideas that haven't been an overwhelming and tragic failure.


You obviously don't understand revolutionary terror and have a poor understanding of history - revolutionary fervor, these outbursts are not calm or peaceful transitions to a new order. It is absolutely tiring trying to get this through your head - and I have been through this a billion times before. Revolutionary terror is not a long-term goal that must be established but an inevitable result of the fundamental change in relations of power - to destroy the power of the enemy is to unleash the violence which sustains our present order.

And really, do you even know why capital punishment is a failure? It's immensely expensive and it is impractical in enforcing laws that pertain to everyday life, not cataclysmic historical changes. And I am highly doubtful that the executions which would inevitably follow terror would be nearly as complicated as those which are carried out in the US. Again, you honestly don't know anything about what you're talking about. Literally nothing. The fact that you compare capital punishment today with the violence that follows revolutionary terror suggests that your understanding of a revolution is that it is some kind of orderly, calm and peaceful occurrence.

You're in for a surprise.


What does this even mean? Are you just feeding your 'edgy' ego again, and shoehorning in some way to advocate destructive policies again?


It means that destroying the elements of a "base" which perpetuate the superstructure (in stupid, pseudo-Marxist terms) is only the first step. Conscious efforts to destroy the remnants of thing which were systemically perpetuated must be taken, or they would linger.

Conversely, to leave intact the social conditions of sexual slavery while taking conscious efforts to destroy sexual slavery would be a lost cause. get it? Leave your petty sentiments behind - it's pathetic. What a drama this must be for you - some kind of horror-like spectacle. No, innit, the revolution just HAS to appeal to your every day fears.

Why don't you get this through your head: The revolution doesn't care about your insecurities or your fears. The revolution doesn't care about what you find horrifying or repulsive. The revolution will triumph independently of your thoughts. If you want to reduce social upheavals throughout history to these sentiments, be my guest: But don't act like you're some kind of authority on the subject.


Aside from the burning desire I have to ask what the fuck is a 'sexual order'?, another outstanding example of your illogical thought process. After all, if rape is perpetuated by an environment of fear, then the way to eleminate systematic rape from society must be...an environment of fear. Never mind education, never mind empowering women to protect themselves. No, what we need is more men turning the dials on the state machine to 'absolutely fucking batshit insane'.


Rape isn't perpetuated by an environment of fear. Fear has existed for all of our existence - and yet the perpetuation of rape is unique to certain sexual relations unique to specific social epochs. Rape is perpetuated by unique relations of sexual domination and slavery, not something as vague as "fear". Unless of course you want to categorize rape as "natural" (just as you do prostitution), an inevitable consequence of the male sex drive. Be my guest, I'll have a field day with you.

Educate women to defend themselves? Why don't we encourage themselves to wear the veil or cover up, Innit. After all, men are just naturally predisposed to rape, it's inevitable. What's next, women who don't articulate education well enough deserve rape? The fact of the matter is that rape is indeed perpetuated by fear - a feminine fear of men. The only means by which patriarchy in its present form can be annihilated is through fear - terror against male chauvinism.

The male "gender" in its present form cannot have a monopoly on fear or power, jhust as the bourgeoisie cannot. But I am not surprised. Once again another Leftist with their innate fear of power or actually utilizing affirmative force.

No, no innit. The revolution will be flowers and sunshine. Violence is for the state - we're simply the Yin of it's Yang. Don't you know that violence and peace are two sides of the same coin? We're a different coin, Innit.


In addition, you do realise that if you want to tap into that 'conscious will of the proletariat', you might want to modify your language so that it doesn't sound like it came from an 18th century period drama!

You, gentlemen, who are so much concerned about the “average worker”, as a matter of fact, rather insult the workers by your desire to talk down to them when discussing working-class politics and working-class organization. Talk about serious things in a serious manner

[Subversive]

No Communist is true to the cause of the revolution if they view it merely as a game of chess - of how to manipulate, deceive and "convert" workers. The cause of Communism is true - we have no room for lies or for sugar-coating. And we never have, throughout all circumstances in which the revolutionary movement was alive and well, no principled Marxist ever shyed away from discussing the inevitability of terror. Marx did, Lenin did (DECADES before the October revolution) and even your Left-Communist heroes like Luxemburg did. The very fact that this distresses you suggests that you don't even take it seriously to begin with. Revolutionary terror is an inevitable consequence of any social revolution. Nay, of any REAL political revolution. Never in history was this not the case. To say otherwise would be an act of deceit and gross dishonesty. People speak of the "American revolution" but in reality, this wasn't a revolution in the traditional sense, it was a war of independence wherein the enemy was a foreign power and not a specific class native to the nation. Who am I to empathize with, Innit? You're right, however. I don't empathize with the enemy. At all. I seek their utter and complete destruction, through means of social liquidation or direct violence. Speaking of empathy, do you really think the revolution is an act of empathy? Where is the empathy for those poor bourgeois families who will have to renounce their lives of luxury and splendor? You can talk of how just it is - but at the end of the day, it certainly will be a traumatic experience for them. Empathy can never be a basis for revolutionary fervor. You pick a side. And to prattle of empathy in the backdrop of a class struggle - is to assume the side of whomever is in power, whomever possesses a monopoly on empathy.
"Revolutionary Terror"?
He is right to call you on that. It is a horrible thing to suggest.
The term alone is silly unless you're a Trotskyian with only a love for the 'Terrorism and Communism' polemic and have no bravery for linguistics.

The rest of us mere state it as a fact: It is revolution. There is terror in every war, but the plight of "revolutionary terror" is by no means a tactic. Terror is what causes oppression. It is the instrument of the bourgeois. They beholden it like a torch and the workers yield to it's flame.
How then does a Communist hold the flame and guide the workers? They fear it.

Any Communist "true to the cause of the revolution" would steer away from "terrorism", but will merely fight the war. Acts of this war may be seen and expressed as "terrorism" by those whom still maintain power, but as you point out, we do not look back and suggest the "American Revolution" and state they were all terrorists. We look back and state they were revolutionaries fighting a war.
It was not "terrorism" to put tea in the ocean, but an act of defiance against oppression. Nor was it "terrorism" to bombard English ships with canons day and night

This is simply what we call "war", as outrageous as it may be.
"Terrorism" is left for the people who desire fear. For those who want to oppress and suppress voices.

Communists "true to the cause of the revolution" do not oppress. They free. They unshackle. They cut the bonds.

It is a cold play on your semantics.

Must a war be fought? Yes, sadly.
Must a war be violent? Naturally, by definition.

Must we aim to cause fear, destruction, and devestation and destroy the image of the plight of the workers and dismantle ourselves from becoming a viable source of leadership? Absolutely never.
To do so is to relinquish any form of power that we may have ever held. There is a very fine line, so we must observe it closely.

P.S. Why do you believe Communists can not play Chess?
My Queen stares at your King with cold eyes. Your move.