Can you be a non-militant communist

[Dune Dx]

hey I was wondering in the manifesto Marx completey regets the name of Socialist and only wants to be known as the more militant "communist". So are all communists militants?

[James]

how do you define militant?
And communist

[Dune Dx]

Militant - someone who is prepared to take military action for what he believes ie guerilla warfare

Communism - The belief that everyone is equal (defined by Marx)

[James]

i think it depends on the situation.
Being militant in the UK for example, would be simply stupid.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Che Guevara himself said that guerilla warfare should only be used when peacefull means have been exausted.

[James]

good point.

[elijahcraig]

You defined Communism wrong.

Militancy means the readiness to take military action if need be.

Communism is the theory outlined by Marx, and better known as Marxism because of various other "Communist" theories put forth by Utopian Communists. Dialectical historical materialism is the basis for Communism.



I do not believe Communists can be non-militant, therefore being dreamy idealists who turncoat and run every time military might is needed to destroy the order of the Capitalist nature.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:01 PM
Che Guevara himself said that guerilla warfare should only be used when peacefull means have been exausted.
Thats a good point. And then also there is the idea that violence alone is not going to cut it. A revolution is so much more then violence. You got to be active in the communities and be some body besides a shooting fool.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by Raisa+May 13 2004, 12:00 AM--> (Raisa @ May 13 2004, 12:00 AM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 10:01 PM
Che Guevara himself said that guerilla warfare should only be used when peacefull means have been exausted.
Thats a good point. And then also there is the idea that violence alone is not going to cut it. A revolution is so much more then violence. You got to be active in the communities and be some body besides a shooting fool. [/b]
You've also got to do more than run around waving your guns shouting communist slogans.

Pet hate ;)

[SittingBull47]

yes. think of all the writers, philosophers, and poets. They strive for a revolution in a peaceful way (most). If a revolution can be achieved with education and knowledge, then why resort immediately to violence?

[BuyOurEverything]

Nobody in their right mind would think that we can have serious change without violence. So, you are correct in saying that all communists must be militant, to a degree.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

a militant movement in the usa (especial MINNESOTA :| ) is just not realistic

[Salvador Allende]

I think it is impossible to be an effective Communist and be non-militant. As Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". No major change has ever occured without some form of violence. As said by Engels and Mao, a revolution is not a beautiful or fun thing, but it is neccesary.

[Dune Dx]

are you saying that communism isnt an ideolgy where evryone is equal and it is not defined by marx?

[Tchuncly]

Marx was a non-militant communist <_<


a militant movement in the usa (especial MINNESOTA :| ) is just not realistic

and is there a peaceful way to communism in the USA?
I mean, are there communists parties there?

[VincentValentine]

I think all communists should be militant, weather they are are not is a differant matter.

[elijahcraig]

yes. think of all the writers, philosophers, and poets. They strive for a revolution in a peaceful way (most). If a revolution can be achieved with education and knowledge, then why resort immediately to violence?

This isn’t so. Sartre, Auden, and many others were supporters of violent struggle from Cuba to Spain to Russia and China.


a militant movement in the usa (especial MINNESOTA :| ) is just not realistic

If it was militant in the Black Panther Party sense of building a base around a militant organization without starting a guerilla war in an Imperialist country (something both Mao and Che opposed), then it would not be unrealistic.


are you saying that communism isnt an ideolgy where evryone is equal and it is not defined by marx?

Everyone being equal doesn’t fit into historical materialism, which merely contains the idea of dialectical revolution between classes. Everyone being equal is an ideal which Communists normally assert to be wanted in a future society.


Marx was a non-militant communist

No.

[bunk]

i was under the expression that, at least in Britain people call leftists militan just because they go to protests or whatever.

[pedro san pedro]

you will find that the people that are most active and efficent in the 1st world are non-violent.

they realise that violence is going o be very very negatively portrayed in the media, while their messaging is going to be completely lost.

the people that tell you that violence is the only solution tend to say so from their armchairs <_<

[Salvador Allende]

if you really believe that Socialism can succeed in an imperialist age through peaceful elections then look at Chile. They voted on a Marxist leader only to have the US intervene and give them General Pinochet.

[Lardlad95]

this belongs in theory

[pedro san pedro]

why would it have been any different if chile had occured through violent revolution?

[Tchuncly]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 14 2004, 08:53 AM
why would it have been any different if chile had occured through violent revolution?
because people wouldn&#39;t accept the new government, and would fight against it, just as they did to put the socialist one

[elijahcraig]

you will find that the people that are most active and efficent in the 1st world are non-violent.

they realise that violence is going o be very very negatively portrayed in the media, while their messaging is going to be completely lost.

the people that tell you that violence is the only solution tend to say so from their armchairs

1. Non-violence does not mean non-militancy, as long as you recognize that you WOULD fight for the revolution if it ever was the requirement, then you are militant. I would say Martin Luther King marching in great non-violent marches is not communist, but it is militant.
2. Wrong. Look at the Anarchist Blocks and Communist blocks in the 60s.


if you really believe that Socialism can succeed in an imperialist age through peaceful elections then look at Chile. They voted on a Marxist leader only to have the US intervene and give them General Pinochet.

The US also intervened in Nicaragua, where violent revolution occurred. It matters little to the US whether it is one or the other.

[pedro san pedro]

i had been under the impression that martin luther king was a strong advocate of non-violence?


which groups are you referring to in the 60&#39;s? people like the weather underground?

[Dune Dx]

"I would say Martin Luther King marching in great non-violent marches is not communist, but it is militant."

by your definition every one is a militant. Militants believe that violence is a better stratagy than peacefull means to get your way.

Just because you fight for your country doesnt make someone militant.

[Dune Dx]

oh yeah and Marx was a militant he took part in Revolutions.

[elijahcraig]

i had been under the impression that martin luther king was a strong advocate of non-violence?


which groups are you referring to in the 60&#39;s? people like the weather underground?

What Martin Luther King did was to march into the capitol of any given enemy and cause the enemy to have to act against them. This is not non-militant. A non-militant wouldn&#39;t have done this, where he could easily be assassinated. A non-militant would have sent petitions around and wrote letters to the governor.

Groups in the 60s which were militant: Black Panther Party, Communist Party (who fought with the Nazi Party on many occasions), other groups related to the student antiwar movement.

THe Weather Underground were mostly in the 70s were they not, and mostly rich white kids who were condemned by the people they spoke of speaking for.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 13 2004, 06:26 PM
are you saying that communism isnt an ideolgy where evryone is equal and it is not defined by marx?
I believe what he is attempting to say is that "communism" cannot be described with a six word sentence.

Good grief.

[Guest1]

Militancy does not mean military action. No, you cannot be a communist without being militant.

Militancy means direct action, taking over factories, striking, organizing with no regard to the law or fear of "upsetting the social order". Most fear of militancy amongst leftists is that in reality, the fear that your actions may start conflict with the Capitalist class and the state. This conflict, of course, is inevitable. Avoiding it is stupid and counterproductive.

That being said, militancy does not mean taking up the gun to jump straight to the highest form of inevitable conflict with a state better armed and organized than you.

Militancy means taking control of what is rightfully ours, thereby weakening the state and growing stronger every day and with every strike, collectivization and revfolutionary act.

When the time comes to pick up the gun, it will be when the state lashes out at us for a revolution already under way.

[pedro san pedro]

so by this defination non-violent direct action groups would be militant?

anyone that is prepared to put there body on the line to stop an injustice?

the plowshear activists come to mind - do you feel they are militant?

( not trying to refute, just understand your point of view ;) )

the word militant to me definately has conotations of violence - and i feel it is very important to keep non-violent and violent activists in 2 different catergories.


Non-violence does not mean non-militancy, as long as you recognize that you WOULD fight for the revolution if it ever was the requirement, then you are militant

i dont think you can ever say that you would fight in a violent revolution, unless you have been in a violnt sitiuation before.

noone knows how they will react.


ps- sorry about the spelling, i&#39;ve been up all weekend

[spoonmon]

I think that is unfair to say that all communists are millitant. It depends on the surroundings to the person in question. I believe that force should only be applied in dire circumstances.

[Guest1]

so by this defination non-violent direct action groups would be militant?
Militancy does not necessarily have to be violent, but it has to mean you are willing to become violent if necessary. It means, off the bat, no respect for stolen property or false authority.

That&#39;s what makes groups that take over factories militant and illegal, or groups that squat commercial buildings for the homeless, or groups that organize a general strike when the government has declared it illegal.

These are all actions that will provoke the government to respond, that is what makes them militant. That response is understood by militants to be most likely violent. Yet they don&#39;t shy away from the possibilities of watercannons, teargas, clubs to the head or even plain old arrest.

[pedro san pedro]

That&#39;s what makes groups that take over factories militant and illegal, or groups that squat commercial buildings for the homeless, or groups that organize a general strike when the government has declared it illegal.


Yet they don&#39;t shy away from the possibilities of watercannons, teargas, clubs to the head or even plain old arrest.

none of these things mean that a group is prepared to become violent - many of the activists that engage in these forms of civil disobedience have undertaken extensive non-violence training.

a lot are infact never prepared to use violence to achieve their aims, feeling that violence solutions only lead to more violence

[Guest1]

Yes, but they are not going to avoid taking actions like that in order to avoid the violence that will come from it.

Furthermore, they would resort to violence if the situation called for it. For example, the government declares martial law and begins killing their comrades.

[Dune Dx]

Martin Luther didnt cause the enemy to have to react against him it was a peacefull protest violence was not needed.

A militant is someone who believes that in the situation they are in the use of military actions is the best/only way to get change.

Military ie use of military like forces/groups

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 19 2004, 03:39 PM
Martin Luther didnt cause the enemy to have to react against him it was a peacefull protest violence was not needed.
Bullshit.

While I don&#39;t consider Martin Luther King a militant, he did cause them to react.

They fucking killed him.

He avoided conflict and look where it led him.

[STI]

Well, there is a difference between &#39;violence&#39; and &#39;militancy&#39;. I&#39;ve always looked at &#39;militancy&#39; as &#39;agressiveness&#39;. Yes, it is possible for militant action to be non-violent.

And Engles said, in "The Pricniples of Communism", that, if a non-violent communist revolution were occurring, communists would be the last to oppose it.

Knowing Dune DX, though, he&#39;s just a Liberal Christian trying to reconcile his newfound psuedo-communist beliefs with "God&#39;s Will" and "What his parents would want".

Not to defame Dune DX or anything. I just know where he&#39;s at. I was there just over a year ago, and now look at me.

It&#39;s time to liberate yourself, buddy. You can do it. Fear is your only god. Don&#39;t let meaningless Christian nonsense keep your mind in chains any longer. PM me if you would like more guidance.

[Zmal]

Seems to me that its sort of case sensitive. In a thrid world country where its realistic to fight, the govornment doesnt control such a hopelessly large, well trained and loyal army that to fight is simple suicide and the political system and media are so hopelessly corrupt that any attempt at reform is useless then to fight a war is the only option. However, in a first world country you have to approach the problem differently. Ill take america as an example. The military is very large, extremly well trained and funded and there is a general sense of patriotism in the vast majority of the population that you probably wouldnt get more than a few criminal lunatics willing to fight for you. As this is the case it seems that a better course of action would be a non-violent movement (think Gandhi and MLK jr). This will lead to a larger number of people willing to take part and makes it likely that youll end up with a few martrys on your hands (the civil rights movement had a good number of these they helped gain a LOT of sympathy and just generaly pissed people off). The real importance of martyrs though is that for someone to be wrongly killed by your enemy allows you to take the moral high ground and present your enemy as bad in the eyes of the general public. But its very important that if one takes this path that one stays on it. To preach non-violence and then retaliate violently to the unjust murder of a member of the movement is counter productive. Essentialy what Im saying is that for a movement calling for drastic change to get anywhere in the united states the only way it can get the support and attention it needs to bring about change is for some of the members must die unjustly at the hands of the govornment. Just my two cents.

[Dune Dx]

Im not a liberal Christian&#33;

"PM for guidance" so listening to the Bible is irational but listening to some guy off the internet isnt lol socialist tiger you do make me laugh.

and If it was "meaningless christian nonsense" I wouldnt be folowing it.

and I really cant see how my mind is in chains if im asking questions to grasp what I believe.


Im probably wrong but to me it sounds like redstar has brain washed you.

[Revolt!]

I believe ytou can be a &#39;non-militant&#39; communist and in fact in this day and age its required as violence will solve nothing.

[STI]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 20 2004, 07:54 PM
Im not a liberal Christian&#33;

"PM for guidance" so listening to the Bible is irational but listening to some guy off the internet isnt lol socialist tiger you do make me laugh.

and If it was "meaningless christian nonsense" I wouldnt be folowing it.

and I really cant see how my mind is in chains if im asking questions to grasp what I believe.


Im probably wrong but to me it sounds like redstar has brain washed you.
You are a liberal christian. A real Marxist wouldn&#39;t be trying to reconcile communism with non-militancy.

Your mind is clearly in chains. I&#39;ve been there, I know. A simple look at the way you try to justify your religion (ie quoting the religious text or stuff from it as evidence) proves this.

And RedStar had nothing to do with this. I thought this way long before I&#39;d ever heard of him.

And, you don&#39;t have to take everything I&#39;d tell you as dogma or absolute truth. I would have to support everything I said and it would be subject to rational criticism

...unlike the bible.

[Dune Dx]

you dont Understand im not a Marxist and im not a Liberal Christian im a Christian but not a liberal one.

I take the Bible as truth because i belive what it says, I belive what it says because it makes sense.

[DaCuBaN]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Now we all know the bible teaches that adultery is a sin.


Ex.20:14, Dt.5:18
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Heb.13:4
"Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."


Or does it...


Num.31:18
"But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Hos.1:2
"And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms...."

Hos.3:1
"Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress."

Or how about this: should we drink alcohol?


Num.6:3
"He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried."

Pr.20:1
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."

Pr.23:20-21
"Be not among winebibbers.... For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty."

Pr.23:29-30
"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine."

Pr.23:31-32
"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."

Is.5:11
"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them&#33;"

Is.5:22
"Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink."

Is.28:7
"But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment."

Dan.1:8
"But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king&#39;s meat, nor with the wine which he drank."

Hab.2:15
"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken."

Lk.1:15
"For he [John the Baptist] shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink."

Rom.13:13
"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness."

Rom.14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Gal.5:21
"Drunkenness ... and such like ... they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Eph.5:18
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess."

or


Jg.9:13
"Wine, which cheereth God and man."

Ps.104:15
"Wine that maketh glad the heart of man."

Pr.31:6-9
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."

Jn.2:3-10
"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. ... His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. ... Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine ... the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."

1 Tim.5:23
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach&#39;s sake."

These are but a few examples, some of which aren&#39;t even particularly good - but that site is filled with hilarious examples from both the Bible and Quran

Give it a read, and come back and tell me if it still makes sense to you. I have no objections whatsoever to you retaining your deluded beliefs but do not try to apply reason where it does not work.

[STI]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 22 2004, 07:28 AM
you dont Understand im not a Marxist and im not a Liberal Christian im a Christian but not a liberal one.

I take the Bible as truth because i belive what it says, I belive what it says because it makes sense.
If you&#39;re not claiming to be a Marxist, what are you claiming to be?

[Dune Dx]

If you&#39;re not claiming to be a Marxist, what are you claiming to be?
I dont really know, I tell people Im communist because I hold alot in common with communists and its easier to just say that also its fun to argue infront of 30 people that communism can work

[STI]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 23 2004, 03:19 PM
If you&#39;re not claiming to be a Marxist, what are you claiming to be?
I dont really know, I tell people Im communist because I hold alot in common with communists and its easier to just say that also its fun to argue infront of 30 people that communism can work
Ok, then. You&#39;re a liberal communist tween pretending to be a "communist" (whatever you think that means).

I&#39;m not trying to be mean. I&#39;m really not. It&#39;s just that one must be firm when prying people from the hands of religion and tweenism.