Punishing the opposing

[{GR}Raine]

Ok, once a communist or socialist system is in place, what about the rest of the people that are against the new system? Would they be sent into exile in an are for them? Will they be put as slaves, almost like Utopia was? Will they be simply murdered? how will it go?

[RedLenin]

We would only do something to them if they attacked us. We do not want to kill them all, rather we want them to be part of a new society. But many will resist with violence and they will have to be stopped. So we will leave them alone unless they attack us. Murdering all opposing sounds like Stalin. We do not want that we want freedom and equality so we can not murder all in opposition. Defensive violence against them would happen if they attacked, nothing more.

[rice349]

Taking a passive approach to reactionaries, capitalists, the bourgeois, and counter-revolutionaries is highly dangerous and unacceptable. They will first have to be dealt with in a Civil War, afterwards, more tactics will be instilled such as exile, labor camps, and when they use violent or militant forces, then clearly execution is the most efficient means.

[RedLenin]

Are you talking about armed terrorist reactionaries or normal citizens who have a different view than you? I don't know I personally would like to avoid violence if possible. There is no sense in putting someone with a different view in a labor camp. Man talk about exploitation! I thought you were against that. Aparently only by capitalists but not by a totalitarian state right?

[Donnie]

Well, i gather by the time we have a communist system in place..we will have mass suspport from the mass's and so most bullshit nazi's and cappies..won't do anything becuase there two scared of the mass support for communism.

But i suspect if such oppostion does happen, then the people will no what to do with the nazi's and cappies.
Becuase in a true communist society we will have no state and, so desions will be taken from below instead of obove.

[rice349]

Are you talking about armed terrorist reactionaries or normal citizens who have a different view than you?

Why not both?

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

We oppose capitalists and the capitalist system because we believe it is oppresive and exploitative. Then, if communists were to gain power, what the hell gives us the right to turn around and be just a opressive to others, that sounds like simple hypocrisy. I agree that it 'we' were to be attacked then it would be correct to use force but to do so against normal citizens, people simply with opposing ideologies is simply evil and is similar to methods Hitler used.

[Raisa]

I hope no one minds but I think this is a question for Theory.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think that they shouyld be aloud their opinions or that would be stalinism, unless they used violence they wouyld have their right to protest etc.

[rice349]

No, using political suppression in the name of nationalism and racism/anti-semitism is the basis for Hitler's ideology; political oppression based on class consciousness is entirely different. This wouldn't necessarily mean executing capitalists, etc., but disallowing them the right to protest and freedom of speech doesn't seem to be counterposed to what our real movement is all about.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

They will first have to be dealt with in a Civil War, afterwards, more tactics will be instilled such as exile, labor camps, and when they use violent or militant forces, then clearly execution is the most efficient means.

I'm sorry, but didn't "we" go down that road before? Hasn't Stalin been one of the largest obstacles to spreading the benefits of socialism to the West? I think the opposition to him is so strong that when socialism is mentioned, he is what comes to mind. People hate him and what he represents. Whether what they know is truth or fantasy, it does not matter. Whether "we" know the "truth" about his deeds or whether it is propaganda again does not matter. His name is poison to the movement. His actions are poison to the movement. Whether "we" like it or not.


... but disallowing them the right to protest and freedom of speech doesn't seem to be counterposed to what our real movement is all about.

Then we are no better than Nazis. I say let them talk, let them yell. Our actions should speak louder than words. We need to realize that people wish to have the right to think differently, and voice their opinions. Who is to say that someone who speaks out is not really just a good comrade who is innocently questioning their government? Is it wrong to question things? I hope not.

I think that we need to show ourselves to be more tolerant and more legitimate than capitalist liberalism. I don't know how, who am I to develop any theory. All I can say is that, given your feelings on the subject, I would more than likely be in your camp or murdered by your police because I like to question, I like to play the devil's advocate. Oh wait, is that ok in your system? ... because it sure doesn't seem to be so. I have one question for you ... where do you draw the line? Where do we draw the line on dissent?

TGOW

[workersunity]

Only the ones that are violently opposing the system will be treated with, most people who are against it, will eventually find out that there is nothing to protest against

[sanpal]

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 25 2005, 03:18 AM
[QUOTE]I have one question for you ... where do you draw the line? Where do we draw the line on dissent?


The line must be drawn between capitalist and communist economic systems which could be existed in society simultaneously as an economic sectors. Such kind of society could be most democratic one: everyone could voluntary choose economic sector where he wants to work and to get products of consumption. If he doesn't agree with the one way of social relation he could move for another (opposite) one. It will allow to exclude a problem of dissidents, and also dictatorial "communist" regimes like Stalin's regime and theirs gulag.

[NovelGentry]

The line must be drawn between capitalist and communist economic systems which could be existed in society simultaneously as an economic sectors. Such kind of society could be most democratic one: everyone could voluntary choose economic sector where he wants to work and to get products of consumption. If he doesn't agree with the one way of social relation he could move for another (opposite) one. It will allow to exclude a problem of dissidents, and also dictatorial "communist" regimes like Stalin's regime and theirs gulag.

Not possible. You're scratching the nature of capitalism itself, barring the idea that no significant amount of population was wiped out for the communist "sectors" freedom, you'd maintain an advanced market growth within the capitalist sector, before you know it, you'd be back on your feet fighting away their imperialism.

Assuming of course there would actually be workers foolish enough at this point to voluntarily walk into a capitalist sector and be exploited by the bourgeoisie.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:24 AM

..., barring the idea that no significant amount of population was wiped out for the communist "sectors" freedom, you'd maintain an advanced market growth within the capitalist sector, before you know it, you'd be back on your feet fighting away their imperialism.


Sorry, I don't understand it, could you repeat it pls again more accessible to foreigners


Assuming of course there would actually be workers foolish enough at this point to voluntarily walk into a capitalist sector and be exploited by the bourgeoisie.

Look around! Masses of workers go VOLUNTARY into capitalist sector not because they are foolish enough, but they still are not able to be organized in a commune. Because it was/is not be a true example to repeat and they must try in the "new field" at the first time. Not all workers would be courageous and resolute to try because they are responsible for theirs families.
Freedom of a choice is that it is necessary less resolute worker.

Pro-capy workers could be expelled from communist sector into capitalist sector (which is "gulag" :lol: ) on re-education.

Everyone could be free to leave communist sector, but not everyone could be accepted in it, only after loyalty check

[NovelGentry]

Sorry, I don't understand it, could you repeat it pls again more accessible to foreigners

From what I understand, you're promoting the possibility of capitalism working alongside socialism. If I have this correct, my initial point was very simply that we will see socialist revolution when capitalism has already broke it's bounds.

This is a material reality -- it is a condition of technological advancements in the means of production, changes in material conditions for the population, and changes in the size of population itself, as well as other things.

What I am saying is quite simply that if indeed you have seen a move towards socialism, and thus the possibility of socialism even coming into existence, you have already expelled the possibility of capitalism working. So unless somehow that "sector" is reverted to a previous material condition, it has no more room to grow within the capitalist mode.

If you are proposing we form these sectors before that point arrives, good luck convincing the capitalists that they should cut the socialists some of the resources to build a socialist nation along side their capitalist ones, and good luck to us trying to survive any onslaughts they throw at us after that.


Masses of workers go VOLUNTARY into capitalist sector not because they are foolish enough, but they still are not able to be organized in a commune.

On the condition that it is impossible to have a sovereign commune amongst capitalism. It's bad enough communal organization efforts that gear themselves towards shared housing projects have been a) burned to the ground and b) shot to shit by the capitalist machine in the past, under the guise that those trying to live such lives are conspiring -- and then of course targetted with false accusations to justify confrontation.

People do not voluntarily go into capitalism, you're born into it, and once you are, there's little chance of actually jumping ship and living/working outside of the system. By chance that you make an initial effort, it will be crushed soon after.

Lastly mostly any such effort does not actually resemble the types of shift that we're talking about, as there is no socialized control within these systems over a significant means of production (other than possibly the communes growing their own food and making their own clothes). It's closer to a return to primitivism than actually seeking a modern existence outside of capitalism. If by chance people work, and the money is pooled, they still have not changed their conditions as wage slaves to the capitalist system to acquire that money.


Not all workers would be courageous and resolute to try because they are responsible for theirs families.

Precisely why large portions of society (incluiding whole nations) should move together. Families tend to share class relations on top of blood relations, what serves the interest of working class parents serves the interest of their children who too would grow up working class.


Pro-capy workers could be expelled from communist sector into capitalist sector (which is "gulag" laugh.gif ) on re-education.

Pro-Cappy workers? I'm wholeheartedly convinced there can be no such thing. It's a contradiction for someone to say "I want to be exploited." What is more often the case is they do not realize this position, they have a lack of self awareness as they relate to others in similar position i.e. they have no class consciousness.

On top of lacking this, they do not see socialism as a solution based not on the practical or ideological situtation it presents, but based on what they've been told by the earlier capitalist society by the bourgeois controlled media, school system, and government.

The minute one becomes aware of the nature of capitalism when compared truthfully with socialism, the answer is a no-brainer.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

dude, there are pro-cappy workers, hell I know some, even if I consider them a bit mad at times. However, I agree with you about the fact that, if socialism is achieved and enacted, you have already destroyed capitalism and, in constructing socialism, what supports capitalism would no longer be present thus, it could not opperate. Yet, to tie this all back to the original question of this thread, this doesn't mean those with cappie ideas shouldn't be able to express them, tis just that once they get violent, so do 'we'.

[rice349]

Why should we allow capitalists who have exploited and abused the working class the simple right to freely express themselves? If we allow them to do so, we not only run the risk of them infecting society with their lies and rightist propaganda, but also are in some way admitting that we might be wrong, and giving legitimacy to their campaign...by allowing an alternative to communism, we are in effect saying their might be better options out there---and if there is it most definitely is not capitalism. The capitalists and counter-revolutionaries have to be dealth with in an effective manner in whcih they ultimately cease to be a problem. What this entails exactly at the moment i'm not quite sure; hwoever, their role in a post-revolutionary society will diminish with the utmost speed and severity.

[waltersm]

we wouldn't punish people just for not supporting us, that would be facist, ideally, we would put all the former rich people to work on farms and other hard jobs, but that would just add to the confusion and I think that no action of punishment should be taken, just make them equal.

[Prol]

I guess it depends what exactly they are doing, I mean some can be put in prison. None should be exiled because then they can just be lke the miami mafia of Cuban exiles who can in part use the government to put pressure on the left-wing country.

Personally I dont see anything wrong with shooting all the capitalist that will not change to communists.

It's simple, comply or die. :D

[Colombia]

Doing something such as shooting all the capitalists will be incredible unpopular among the people at the time. We are all still humans. Only those who have seen the evils of capitalism may be for the idea, but in the industrialized world if we were to do such a thing, we may be facing a counter-revolutionary. Therefore we should allow LIMITED representation for the capitalists.

Just to make them feel special of course.

[rice349]

Doing something such as shooting all the capitalists will be incredible unpopular among the people at the time. We are all still humans. Only those who have seen the evils of capitalism may be for the idea, but in the industrialized world if we were to do such a thing, we may be facing a counter-revolutionary. Therefore we should allow LIMITED representation for the capitalists.

Just to make them feel special of course.

we could use secret police to secretly kill the capitalists.

[Colombia]

That is true but if word were to ever leak out of what we were doing, the outcome would be horrible. Massive support for the oh so poor capitalists will ring out and in the end it will not even be worth it.

Like I said let us only pretend to give them some form of represention.

[rice349]

Like I said let us only pretend to give them some form of represention

hmm...now i'm interested, i'd like to hear your ideas on this?

[viva le revolution]

The first order of business would be to take all the ill-gain capital from the bourgeois. This will definitely weaken their standing and appeal.(who would want to hear a bitter man complain about his lost wealth?), only other bourgeois. These form a very small part of society even now. Would they stand up against the masses penniless?, they should be inculcated into the workforce just as any one of the masses. If, then they pursue any counter-revolutionary activity, they should be punished like any common criminal in front of the masses and asked what they were fighting for, more capitalism?
This should serve as an example to dissuade other counter-revolutionaries.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:36 PM

Are you talking about armed terrorist reactionaries or normal citizens who have a different view than you?

Why not both?
that is not communist or marxist, its bullshit, you dont just kill ordinarly citizens,

[sanpal]

I'm surprised how can the same RL members, who are angrily blaming Stalin and Stalin's regime in "gulags" and mass murders, offer the analogous methods what to do with opposing.

I see there is necessity to go on the talk about Proletarian Socialism i.e. about
Socialism of Class Democracy and Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Guerrilla22]

In Cuba they let the people determine what happened to such people. There were numerous people who were part of the Batista regime that were guilty of crimes against humanity. Castro asked the people what should be done with them and the people decided they should be put on trial and executed in some circumstances.

[drain.you]

Jeez, I still can't get my head around leftwingers who wish to punish people if their views conflict with us. Everyone is entitled to their views even the Nazis. Under a communist state I would let them protest,etc and when they cross the line into illegal territory then arrest them, just like we are aloud to protest as long as we don't start committing crimes.

[Hiero]

It's not about punishiment. What is happening is one class, the proletariat, having complete control over society.

So anything in the bounds of socialist society should be allowed to be said, anything outside that is reactionary and should be suppressed. Taking private property and placing it in public property is the first and biggest way you suppress the enemies of the proletariat. You follow that with the suppression of the enemies of the proletariat in the political, social and cultural feild.

There is no legitimate opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:12 PM

From what I understand, you're promoting the possibility of capitalism working alongside socialism.
More exactly my point is - the possibility of communism working alongside capitalism within some society. Under capitalism I consider capitalist mode of production which is typical whether for traditional capitalism or for different kinds of socialism (i.e. from modern bourgeois socialism to future proletarian socialism as a transition stage to communism).


If I have this correct, my initial point was very simply that we will see socialist revolution when capitalism has already broke it's bounds.

In Israel capitalism has not broke yet but kibbuts with its primitive communism are existed for a long time.
And yeah, I agree with that that if communist sector would include large-scale industry the bourgeois government wouldn't let to hand the means of production to proletariat free of charge. It could be possible only after proletarian revolution, after reorganization of State power and creating the State of Class Democracy and Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[sanpal]

Deleted post.

[Le People]

I say every should say what they want to say. If we don't agree with it, that is fine. The socailist government should only attack dissents when the dissents take up arms and attack.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 16 2005, 02:15 AM
I say every should say what they want to say. If we don't agree with it, that is fine. The socailist government should only attack dissents when the dissents take up arms and attack.
Then I hope you don'y mind if I cave in the head of any fascist who dares speak out in your hypothetical society.

[Le People]

Originally posted by NoXion+Nov 15 2005, 10:57 PM--> (NoXion @ Nov 15 2005, 10:57 PM)
Le [email protected] 16 2005, 02:15 AM
I say every should say what they want to say. If we don't agree with it, that is fine. The socailist government should only attack dissents when the dissents take up arms and attack.
Then I hope you don'y mind if I cave in the head of any fascist who dares speak out in your hypothetical society. [/b]
I donot understand what this witty statement is supposed to mean.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Le People+Nov 16 2005, 08:36 PM--> (Le People @ Nov 16 2005, 08:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:57 PM

Le [email protected] 16 2005, 02:15 AM
I say every should say what they want to say. If we don't agree with it, that is fine. The socailist government should only attack dissents when the dissents take up arms and attack.
Then I hope you don'y mind if I cave in the head of any fascist who dares speak out in your hypothetical society.
I donot understand what this witty statement is supposed to mean. [/b]
It means that in a communist society, expect people to violently object to any fascist or racist that speaks their mind.

[Le People]

A communist society rules on majority will. It balances a fineline between personal and indivdual liberty. If you give anyone the right to react violently to a view, they ussauly begin to react violently to all views contrary to their own thinking.

[Hiero]

A communist society rules on majority will.
Do you mean Communist as the highest stage? That society would rule by "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

And in a Socialist country you rule according to whats best for the Proleteriat. There is no wishy washy half way between where we listen to people talk about the benifits of liberal democracy or what not.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:04 AM

Like I said let us only pretend to give them some form of represention

hmm...now i'm interested, i'd like to hear your ideas on this?
Hey if this leaks out too, then your just as sunk as if you were secretly killing cappies. Now you have a dishonest and corrupt regime.

[Le People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:45 PM
That society would rule by "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."


For the love of God, soceity needs to be organized. Anarchism is what I call impacient communism and they believe in majority rule to organize soceity, without a state. That Marx quote is for the means of production and economic relations, not socail.