The Horrors of Concentration Camps

[commiecrusader]

I recently visited Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II-Birkenau, along with a couple of other concentration camps from around Europe, and have come to the conclusion that these camps, and 'Gulags' to give them a Soviet moniker, are completely reprehensible and cannot be allowed to happen again.

Whilst I understand that Soviet gulags were different to Nazi camps, their purpose was similar in this way: to provide cheap slave labour and to eventually kill those sent there. However, these camps are disgusting in every way, whether built by left or right-wing powers.

Therefore I pose this question:

When a revolution takes place and seizes power, what should be done with those who seek to disrupt or oppose the change?

I would suggest environments similar to prison, except that the purpose of these places be to educate and mould the inmates. They could also be put to work on building projects etc, but in humane conditions.

[RedLenin]

We will simply defend ourselves against the reactionaries. We will not imprision, torture or enslave anybody. If we must defend ourselves by force so be it, but nothing else shall be done. Now, class supression will exist and the bourgeosie reactionaries will be exempt from democracy, but we have no justification to imprision or enslave them. Let them live their lives, but if they attack us, we will defend ourselves by force if necessary.

And yes the concentration camps are sick. I visited a holocaust museum and almost threw up. Hundreds of thousands were burned alive and thousands more starved and suffered for years only to be slaughtered like animals. With these horors in my mind I must say this. All nazis and stalinists who advocated this deserve a slow painfull death for the attrocities they commited.

[Enragé]

"bourgeosie reactionaries will be exempt from democracy"

problem is, who wil decide who the "bourgeois reactionaries" are? If i simply scream out loud and say while I point my finger to you "BOURGEOIS REACTIONARY!" would you then be exempt from democracy?

I believe everyone should have a voice, why not? Bourgeois tendencies would be wiped away anyways because they are a minority.

[redstar2000]

It is a bit misleading to compare the USSR's "gulags" with the Nazi prison camps; and the USSR had no death camps like the Nazis did at all.

Setting that aside, it is hardly necessary to imprison people simply because they are known to be opponents of the revolution...all that's required in nearly all cases is to suppress their ideas -- remove those ideas from the realm of acceptable public discourse.

Naturally, they would not be permitted to run for public office or to vote: they are the class enemy, remember?

Of course, active counter-revolutionary endeavors would likely be penalized in some fashion...deportation would be best, if we can find a country willing to take the asshole.

Or we could just shoot him.

A vast prison system has been demonstrated to be not only ineffective but actually demoralizing for the revolution itself...so I don't think we should take that path.

But that should not be construed to suggest that it's "ok" to roll over like puppies before the enemy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

"all that's required in nearly all cases is to suppress their ideas -- remove those ideas from the realm of acceptable public discourse"
No! let them voice their moronic ludacris ideas, and we shall discredit them with our arguments. Victory in a debate with a bourgeois leaves a bigger impression than simply shooting the fuck.

"Naturally, they would not be permitted to run for public office or to vote: they are the class enemy, remember?"

Let them run for office, let them vote..who cares? Not like they'll actually have a say because we are the majority, and they'll just have to deal with that fact.

As long as someone does not violently, or otherwise disruptively, opposes the revolution, let them talk! Let them speak their idiotic thoughts, and they shall be revealed as what they are: complete and utter morons.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
Victory in a debate with a bourgeois leaves a bigger impression than simply shooting the fuck.

But post-revolutionary society is not a "debate" over the merits of the revolution itself.

The revolution ended the "debate. What happens now is that the winning side (us) must press our advantage home...must struggle as best we can to make sure our class enemies never make a "come back", never get a second chance to re-establish capitalism.

The grave danger of your approach is demonstrated by what happened after the American civil war. The new bourgeois ruling class failed to thoroughly suppress the old slave-owning class...which, in turn, allowed the latter to re-establish slavery in all but name. Indeed, the former slave-owners were, over time, gradually integrated into the new ruling class...so that American capitalism was far more racist than it might otherwise have been.

Permitting bourgeois ideology to enter the realm of public discourse cannot help our progress towards communism -- they have nothing constructive to offer in those debates. Their goal would be to demoralize people, trying to encourage people to "give up on communism" because of its inevitable difficulties and problems. Their position would always be "let's do this or that or everything like it was done before the revolution".

We don't need that...and there's no reason that I can see why we should permit it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

"The revolution ended the "debate. What happens now is that the winning side (us) must press our advantage home...must struggle as best we can to make sure our class enemies never make a "come back", never get a second chance to re-establish capitalism."

With "the revolution" do you mean a revolution in one country on itself or in the entire world?

If you mean in one country: the debate will continue at least untill all the countries are communist
If you mean in the entire world: the bourgeois class will disappear, and untill it does the people must be convinced over and over again their ideas are stupid. Not just oppressed, because thats all the people will know if we just shoot them all. You cannot wipe out a Class by shooting every single member of it, classes are not heriditary: a son of a bourgeois can become proletarian, the son of a proletarian can become bourgeois. The only way to eliminate a class is to eliminate their ideals by the only way possible: proving them wrong.


"Their goal would be to demoralize people, trying to encourage people to "give up on communism" because of its inevitable difficulties and problems. Their position would always be "let's do this or that or everything like it was done before the revolution"."

yes and how would be the way to stop these thoughts from demoralizing the people? PROVING THESE THOUGHTS WRONG

"We don't need that...and there's no reason that I can see why we should permit it."

because:

Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden
(freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently)
-Rosa luxemburg

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
With "the revolution" do you mean a revolution in one country on itself or in the entire world?

If you mean in one country: the debate will continue at least until all the countries are communist.

I mean one country. And sure, the "debate" will continue...in other countries.


If you mean in the entire world: the bourgeois class will disappear, and until it does the people must be convinced over and over again their ideas are stupid.

After the revolution, the bourgeoisie are going to disappear from public life right away.

And their ideas will continue to be attacked, of course. But the old ruling class will not be permitted to publicly respond.

Why should they?


You cannot wipe out a class by shooting every single member of it...

Of course not...and I never suggested that. Only those who participate actively in counter-revolution risk the ultimate penalty...and not necessarily all of them.

Recall that I did suggest exile as a humane alternative.


The only way to eliminate a class is to eliminate their ideals by the only way possible: proving them wrong.

I don't understand your outlook. We're not talking here about some arcane academic dispute...we're talking about class struggle.

I'm not even interested in some olympian "proof" that bourgeois "ideals" are "wrong"...I want them utterly destroyed beyond any hope of recovery.


Yes, and how would be the way to stop these thoughts from demoralizing the people?

Eliminating them as a credible option by denying them public expression.


Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden
(freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently)
-Rosa Luxemburg

This remark by the frequently admirable Comrade Luxemburg ignores the class significance of "freedom".

Just as capitalist "freedom" means freedom for the bourgeoisie and despotism for the working class, proletarian freedom means freedom for the working class and despotism for the bourgeoisie.

There's no such thing as "freedom for everybody"...until communism is actually secure.

And that is apt to take a while.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

"I mean one country. And sure, the "debate" will continue...in other countries."

In those other countries the bourgeois might suppress the proletarians trying to speak out. Let us show them that we are different, and make the socialist country one in which everyone can speak their minds, no matter how dumb they are.

You can compare it to what Saladin ("Islam's holiest warrior") did after liberating Jeruzalem from the christians. Instead of slaughtering every single christian, like the christians slaughtered every single muslim when they occupied Jeruzalem, he let them live. Just to prove Islam was better than christianity! Replace saladin with we, muslim with proletarian, christian with bourgeoisie, and islam with socialism and then you have what i think we should do.

"After the revolution, the bourgeoisie are going to disappear from public life right away.

And their ideas will continue to be attacked, of course. But the old ruling class will not be permitted to publicly respond.

Why should they?"

The bourgeoisie will disappear as a power block yes, but their ideas will continue to exist untill we prove them all wrong. And we cant definitively prove them wrong if we dont allow them to respond.

"Of course not...and I never suggested that. Only those who participate actively in counter-revolution risk the ultimate penalty...and not necessarily all of them."

I agree with you on that one. As long as however you mean with actively: violently or disruptively. Not simply disagreeing.

"Recall that I did suggest exile as a humane alternative."

Exile might be counter productive, if you send the bourgeoisie into exile, the only nation willing to except them will be a capitalist one. In that capitalist nation they would be able to organize an invasion of the country (Bay of pigs).

"I'm not even interested in some olympian "proof" that bourgeois "ideals" are "wrong"...I want them utterly destroyed beyond any hope of recovery."

I too want them utterly destroyed etc. but you cannot achieve this by shooting everyone who voices a somewhat bourgeois opinion. Because someone might always think a bourgeois thought once in a while so someone else should convince this person that is a misguided or wrong thought, because it would lead to oppression. If you simply say "thats a wrong thought, to the gulags with you" we're coming awfully close to "thoughtcrime".

"Eliminating them as a credible option by denying them public expression."

Thats what capitalists try to do with communists, and did it work? I guess not or we would not be talking here. Eliminating them as a credible option, yes, but we should do that by making people see that option leads to oppression, suffering, hate.

"There's no such thing as "freedom for everybody"...until communism is actually secure."

this is no excuse to suppress those who think differently. Look, just because the bourgeois oppresses us today gives us no right to do the same to them, show them that we are right, show them that our way of thought is morally superior, let them talk, who cares, their ideas will be dealt with in the only way they can be correctly dealt with; proving them wrong (proving those thoughts lead to oppression, suffering, hate etc)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
In those other countries the bourgeois might suppress the proletarians trying to speak out.

Not "might"...will!

They understand, far better than many of us, that this is not a "debate"...it's a struggle over which class rules.


Let us show them that we are different, and make the socialist country one in which everyone can speak their minds, no matter how dumb they are.

But we (those of us who are serious) are not "different"...we also understand that this is about which class rules.


You can compare it to what Saladin ("Islam's holiest warrior") did after liberating Jerusalem from the Christians.

An utterly bizarre parallel. We are not "liberators" of a "foreign land". We are certainly not "holy warriors".

And, to repeat, it's not proposed (by me or anyone) that everyone with bourgeois ideas should be slaughtered.


The bourgeoisie will disappear as a power block, yes, but their ideas will continue to exist until we prove them all wrong. And we can't definitively prove them wrong if we don't allow them to respond.

Do you think that ideas cannot disappear "until" they have been "proven definitively wrong"?

Historically, that has not been the case. Why is there no "Temple of Zeus" or "Shrine of Isis" in your neighborhood? Did Christianity "prove" that the classical faiths of antiquity were "definitively wrong"?

No, the Christians just took them out of the realm of public discourse.

Without public celebration and approval, the old religions just "withered away".

The Christians also killed a few "prominent pagans"...but left most of them unmolested.


Exile might be counter productive; if you send the bourgeoisie into exile, the only nation willing to accept them will be a capitalist one. In that capitalist nation they would be able to organize an invasion of the country (Bay of Pigs).

They might try to organize such an invasion...but without direct intervention by a more powerful capitalist country, the exiles simply don't have a prayer. And if a more powerful capitalist wants to invade us, they don't need surrogates...they can do it on their own.


I too want them utterly destroyed etc., but you cannot achieve this by shooting everyone who voices a somewhat bourgeois opinion.

How many times do I have to say it? No one is going to "get shot" for having bourgeois opinions.

It's simply that there will be no public outlet for those opinions -- just as the capitalist class excludes us from the realm of acceptable public discussion.


That's what capitalists try to do with communists, and did it work? I guess not or we would not be talking here.

Most of the time it has worked very effectively. Note that we are talking on an internet message board that is read by a few thousand people -- not on Fox News in front of millions of people.

Big difference.

Furthermore, at various times in the past, it has been a crime simply to advocate communist ideas...people have gone to prison for it.


This is no excuse to suppress those who think differently.

They are not being suppressed; their ideas are being suppressed. I don't even care what they babble to each other...I just don't want their crap in the public arena.


Look, just because the bourgeois oppresses us today gives us no right to do the same to them.

Oh yes it does...if we want to win.


...show them that our way of thought is morally superior...

:o :o :o

We are not obligated to demonstrate our "moral superiority" to barbarians (who would not be convinced in any event)...we are obligated to defeat them permanently!

Good grief!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

"They understand, far better than many of us, that this is not a "debate"...it's a struggle over which class rules."

Got me there, true.

"But we (those of us who are serious) are not "different"...we also understand that this is about which class rules."

true.

"An utterly bizarre parallel. We are not "liberators" of a "foreign land". We are certainly not "holy warriors"."

No its not. We are liberators of the world, Saladin was the liberator of his part of the world. He was fighting for Islam, we are fighting for communism. What i meant by it is that we should not do the things the enemy does simply because they do it.

"Did Christianity "prove" that the classical faiths of antiquity were "definitively wrong"?"

Well actually, from their point of view they did.....then they wiped them out....

"Most of the time it has worked very effectively. Note that we are talking on an internet message board that is read by a few thousand people -- not on Fox News in front of millions of people."

Still, from a few thousand people a great movement can arise. And because still no one has proved able to prove US wrong..there will always be people who support communism. And untill we prove, in front of the eyes of the world, that the bourgeois ideologies do not work..there will always be people who support those ideologies.

"I just don't want their crap in the public arena."

Why not? What, you arent actually afraid that they'll prove to be right are you? Cuz they are not.

"Oh yes it does...if we want to win"

perhaps...

"who would not be convinced in any event"

some could be convinced. I know for sure. Parts of the bourgeois machine arent that convinced of their own right. And nobody is more willing to fight for a cause, than a convert.

"we are obligated to defeat them permanently"

true