Political retribution

[The Feral Underclass]

Is it ever justified?

By political retribution, I mean acts by working class people that seek some sort of reprisal for acts by the state or by capital taken against them.

In other words, are working class people justified in seeking reprisals against elements of the state or other sections of the ruling class who perpetrate hostilities or hardships against them.

This question does not necessarily relate to a period of time in which there is a wider social struggle, but in times of reaction.

Please try justify any opinion.

[Sasha]

while maybe justifiable i doubt its ever really productive in its consequences (increased repression, loss of millitants through death and incarnation etc etc) , but its basically a form of attentat right? emma goldman and berkman and their contempararies wrote a lot of useful shit on that subject.

[The Feral Underclass]

I've thought a lot about the loss of militants and repression angle to this argument, and it strikes me as a very Western point-of-view. We obviously enjoy the privilege of living in a liberal democracy whereby radical viewpoints (more-or-less) are tolerated under liberal free speech principles. In other countries, however, the left live in states of repression (look at the Naxalites for example). What is it about living in a liberal democracy that is so ideal for revolutionary communists? Why is that state-of-affairs the main factor for arguing against something such as political retribution?

Presumably at any point of escalation the state is going to use repressive methods to put down communists; the point is that communists need to be able to operate under various and dramatically changing dynamics. Only being able to operate effectively under specific liberal democratic conditions seems to me rather counter-intuitive.

[willowtooth]

do you mean like an employee shooting his boss because he was fired, or are you saying the social revolution is nothing but the seeking of reprisals? or maybe that liberal democracies only search for reprisals and not solutions?

[Sasha]

I've thought a lot about the loss of militants and repression angle to this argument, and it strikes me as a very Western point-of-view. We obviously enjoy the privilege of living in a liberal democracy whereby radical viewpoints (more-or-less) are tolerated under liberal free speech principles. In other countries, however, the left live in states of repression (look at the Naxalites for example). What is it about living in a liberal democracy that is so ideal for revolutionary communists? Why is that state-of-affairs the main factor for arguing against something such as political retribution?

Presumably at any point of escalation the state is going to use repressive methods to put down communists; the point is that communists need to be able to operate under various and dramatically changing dynamics. Only being able to operate effectively under specific liberal democratic conditions seems to me rather counter-intuitive.

During the Nazi occupation this debate was actually a hot topic, some of the armed resistance groups wanted to shoot any german soldier and collaboratior they could get too, the insane reprisal system of the Nazis led though after lots of discussion to a "worth the reprisals" classification system where only the targets that actually impacted the war effort and threats to the resistance where executed.

[RedWorker]

This is too vague. But arbitrary violence against individuals does not challenge capitalism. It is useless violence.

"Terror is for the most part useless cruelties committed by frightened people to reassure themselves." - F. Engels

[Guardia Rossa]

Terror has some quite wide interpretation as has reprisal a somewhat wide meaning.
Strategic assassination of key individuals and strategic sabotage of high-cost infraestructure is worth it. Randomly shooting soldiers/bombing barracks/blowing banks up just gives a cause for more repression.

[The Feral Underclass]

do you mean like an employee shooting his boss because he was fired, or are you saying the social revolution is nothing but the seeking of reprisals? or maybe that liberal democracies only search for reprisals and not solutions?

No, I don't mean any of that. What I am talking about is organised political retribution as a class war tactic against the state and capitalism -- like I said in the OP.

[PhoenixAsh]

Before, during or after the revolution?

Because during would be a moot point because it will happen. Before could be seen as events leading up to the revolution and an integral part of the escalation principles.

After the revolution that would defeat the ideological basis of the revolution itself.

[BIXX]

Is it ever justified?

By political retribution, I mean acts by working class people that seek some sort of reprisal for acts by the state or by capital taken against them.

In other words, are working class people justified in seeking reprisals against elements of the state or other sections of the ruling class who perpetrate hostilities or hardships against them.

This question does not necessarily relate to a period of time in which there is a wider social struggle, but in times of reaction.

Please try justify any opinion.

I am not entirely sure I understand the question. Are we talking about revenge?

[The Feral Underclass]

Before, during or after the revolution?

As I said in the OP, I am talking about before.

"This question does not necessarily relate to a period of time in which there is a wider social struggle, but in times of reaction."

[#FF0000]

I think these things have to be looked at on a case by case basis. In the end, reprisals almost always happen with major conflicts whether they're wild and violent, or orderly and relatively peaceful like the South African Truth and Reconciliation or the Nuremburg Trials.

The only reprisals that can be justified are the reprisals that are useful, which would be reprisals against the most ruthless and skilled leaders of the old regime, but not the figureheads. Like, if we were talking about the American Civil War, you wouldn't want to imprison or hang someone like General Lee, necessarily, because he'd just become a martyr in death or in prison. However, the US would've been a much better place if someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest was hanged, since he was a very skilled officer who ended up continuing to cause problems in the South well after the Civil War ended (he was the founder of the KKK, fyi).

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not entirely sure I understand the question. Are we talking about revenge?

I'm not talking about revenge, no. I am talking about retribution. It is a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Revenge implies vindictiveness without any sense of proportion, while retribution implies a proportional and justifiable response.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

what's interesting is that in history, many acts of 'political retribution' have been committed on behalf of the working class by those who have/had a more comfortable position in society. The Red Army Fraktion group is a good example of this.

I'm not sure retribution is characterised correctly as a 'proportional and justifiable response', though. I would say retribution is a form of revenge that seeks justice based on a grievance.

I would say that a proportional and justifiable response to an injustice would be an act of justice, be it social, or legal justice.

[bcbm]

i think these actions will always exist while prorevolutionaries exist and so the task for those carrying them out is to figure out the most effective ways to act in the larger war. actions that move things forward, not just lashing out

retribution should be one option in a much larger set of options, working within an overall strategy

[John Nada]

I think of the question in reverse. Acts by the PTB(in a time of reaction) as reprisals against workers and oppressed people for causing them hardship and suffering. They're the ones who're defining what's justified. From their perspective, is it justified? Would it be lenient, proportional or draconian, or even consistent? <br /><br />It would have to advance, go along with, or a least not obstruct, whatever the goal is.