Better way to deal with anti-revolutionaries

[FidelCastro]

Stalin and yes, even Fidel, killed those who opposed them. I was thinking of how I would combat them and I figured out the best way to do it. Take them for 1 month to a camp where they would be well fed, treated well, like a rehab clinic. There I would show extreme amounts of left wing things to them and a bunch of hateful right wing things to them. It won't work for all but it will work for some and it is way better than killing people. If they do not reform, they will be released in society and not hassled anymore. I am also oppsed to censorship.

[amanondeathrow]

I was thinking of how I would combat them and I figured out the best way to do it. Take them for 1 month to a camp where they would be well fed, treated well, like a rehab clinic. There I would show extreme amounts of left wing things to them and a bunch of hateful right wing things to them.
One month in a well conditioned reeducation camp will change few people's minds. If someone is posing a legitimate threat to any revolutionary government, then the only solution is to either kill them or imprison them. And even if they claimed to have shed their convictions, how would you know whether or not they are lying? Will you simply release possible counter revolutionaries just because they tell you they are now on your side?

If they do not reform, they will be released in society and not hassled anymore.
So why even bother to reeducate them in the first place?

[FidelCastro]

keep in mind that if I had a communist country then I would have surveillence everywhere and would know if someone was going to stage a coup. I have no problem with people with other opinions but when they take matters into their own hands then they shall perish on the battlefield.

[amanondeathrow]

keep in mind that if I had a communist country then I would have surveillence everywhere and would know if someone was going to stage a coup.
There is no such thing as a communist country.

[Clarksist]

Take them for 1 month to a camp where they would be well fed, treated well, like a rehab clinic. There I would show extreme amounts of left wing things to them and a bunch of hateful right wing things to them. It won't work for all but it will work for some and it is way better than killing people


keep in mind that if I had a communist country then I would have surveillence everywhere and would know if someone was going to stage a coup.

:huh:

That is the worst idea I have ever heard.

Big brother? Brainwashing clinics for the disenfranchised?

Are you fucking insane?

That isn't liberation! That isn't even a change. That isn't freedom!

The best way to discourage reactionaries... is to show them that our way is better. Give it time. Imprison those who are violent, and do so for short times, and treat them well.

Once we get the ball rolling, and everyone realizes its a better way of life... there is no need for a counter-revolution.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The maoists already do this, its nothing new. Brainwashed former counterrevolutionaries does not sound like a stable person. :(

[La Comédie Noire]

Counter -reveloutionarys will become Irrelavant when the majority is for a reveloution. But If they pose a big threat then kill them, it would be better than making some kind of jail.

[Vincent]

Your plan stinks of someone who's under the illusion that only an iron-fisted, great leader, oppressive party blah blah type of approach to revolution is plausible in which there are no favourable conditions for revolution required.

The leftists will not rise because the right-wing falls. The leftists will rise when everybody else agrees with them.

And why is this in philosophy forum?

I guess it does question the doctrine of libertarianism. And anything remotley concerned with the protection of human life. Mills would be crying, and Devlin would be laughing at him.

Mods?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:57 PM


keep in mind that if I had a communist country

Keep in mind that no one person can have a Communist country; it is run by the people of the nation. Just be aware of what you say.

I think people are inclined to their political convictions. There is no "right way", only the most effective way to do something. We shouldn't control others; if we do that, we're just as bad as Hitler.


then I would have surveillence everywhere and would know if someone was going to stage a coup.

Kind of like a "big brother" situation? :huh: I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable.


I have no problem with people with other opinions but when they take matters into their own hands then they shall perish on the battlefield.

Doesn't that make you a counter-revolutionary (in a sense)?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:57 PM
keep in mind that if I had a communist country then I would have surveillence everywhere and would know if someone was going to stage a coup. I have no problem with people with other opinions but when they take matters into their own hands then they shall perish on the battlefield.
censor ship is the right to express one's opinions without threat. what you propose is positively orwellian. just do to them what they currently do to us: divide them throughout the land so they are of little threat.
and you say of people "taking matters into their own hands", what is the purpose of this site. dont think im some kind of counter-rev, i just dont agree with violations of rights. like i say, they should be divided. and besides, when the people run their own land, there will be no counter-revolution.
furthermore, how can you "have" a communist country? everyone owns it and its fruit.
one last thing: you say they will "perish on the battlefield", but you disagree with killing people.

[James]

Stalin and yes, even Fidel, killed those who opposed them. I was thinking of how I would combat them and I figured out the best way to do it.

Who? Stalin and Fidel, or all those who opposed them (for a vast range of reasons)?


The problem comes from the fact that everyone has a different perspective of what the "good life" is. As che-lives intro page shows, all that the members of this relatively undiverse leftwing forum agree upon, is that capitalism needs to be overthrown: beyond that, all is debated.

I think there is a massive danger when rule of law (as in, equality under law) is replaced by arbitary "law of rule".


Your nickname, title is "overthrower of government": thus esentially an anti establishmentarian. What happens when the establishment is more to the left?
Or is your name perhaps better described as "overthrower of capitalist government"?

[James]

"guess it does question the doctrine of libertarianism"


Can someone summaries the main differences between liberialism (as in locke, Mill etc), and libertarianism?
Is the difference purely economic? (thats me assuming there is a difference in economic philosophy between the two. Indeed, this is all based on my assumption that libertarian is different to liberalism. Although i strongly suspect that it is).

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:30 PM
"guess it does question the doctrine of libertarianism"


Can someone summaries the main differences between liberialism (as in locke, Mill etc), and libertarianism?
Is the difference purely economic? (thats me assuming there is a difference in economic philosophy between the two. Indeed, this is all based on my assumption that libertarian is different to liberalism. Although i strongly suspect that it is).
my understanding is that libertarianismis right wing anarchism. its chief philosopher is robert nozick. hesaid that nobody should be taxed and the only use ofa state is as a night guard.you canread about it in "anarchy, state and utopia", and my philosophy teacher lent me a book by gerry cohen which set out to refute this.

[James]

Well that to me, is basically old fashioned liberalism. Take Hayek for example.

EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

"Classical liberalism (also called classic liberalism or simply liberalism) is the original form of, and is today a tendency within, liberalism. It is a political school of thought that first emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, upholding individualism and free market economics. Classical liberalism focuses on concepts of individual autonomy and private property, and argues that the sole legitimate function of government is to defend these. Classical liberals promote the use of precisely delineated constitutions that are difficult or impossible to modify, intended to prevent governments from assuming an interventionist role.

The term "classical liberalism" itself was coined in the 20th century, and applied retroactively to pre-1850 liberalism, to avoid confusion with an accepted modern definition of liberalism. Modern libertarians see themselves as having revived the original doctrine of liberalism, and often call themselves "libertarians", "classical liberals" or "market liberals" interchangeably.
...
Classic Liberals include all original liberals such as John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Stuart Mill with his work On Liberty, and even more modern liberals such as Von Mises, Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Classical liberal institutions include the Frasier Institute (Canada), The Hoover Institution (Stanford University), and The Cato Institute to name a few.

In Hayek's book The Constitution of Liberty, in the chapter, "Why I am not a Conservative" Hayek tells us that he was not a conservative because he was in fact a liberal; and had refused to give up that label. In the United States the term liberal had changed meaning, and according to Hayek this was because Franklin D Roosevelt had been labeled a socialist and a leftist because of his New Deal Policies. Fearing the consequences of that label, FDR called himself a Liberal instead. Since that day, Liberal in the United States has had a different meaning from the orginal, 18th and 19th century meaning of the word. People who stayed close to this orginal meaning label themselves often "Classic Liberal", "Classical Liberal" or "Libertarian" to avoid confusion (especially in America ).
"


So according to the above, libertarians are basically Classical Liberals.
If so, thats what i am!
hurrah

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:52 AM
Stalin and yes, even Fidel, killed those who opposed them. I was thinking of how I would combat them and I figured out the best way to do it.
Stalin was the greatest counter-revolutionary who ever lived.

[cbm989]

i storngly disagree with the original poster. Constant surveillance on the public...imprsoning people for having an opinion you dont agree with? sounds like a dictatorship. which is why i became a leftist in the first place, to get away from shit like that....dissapointing people think like that

[Gonzo Journalism]

In a perfect world, that might work. However, there are many people who would be a very dangerous threat to you so you'd have to do something a little more extreme. Personally, I would just imprison them rather than kill them, because to say that something like a rehab clinic would change everyone is to envision a world that could never exist.

[Iepilei]

You can't liberate people by forcing them to do what you want. You merely reverse the role.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+Feb 10 2006, 07:35 PM--> (Ulster Socialist @ Feb 10 2006, 07:35 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 02:52 AM
Stalin and yes, even Fidel, killed those who opposed them. I was thinking of how I would combat them and I figured out the best way to do it.
Stalin was the greatest counter-revolutionary who ever lived. [/b]
He was an ass.

[barista.marxista]

"Libertarian" is a term coined by anarchists in the late 19th century. Only in the US does it denote the socially-left/economically-right idiots -- everywhere else it is a term referring to anarchism and left communism. Libertarian communism is the opposition to authoritarian communism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.). It's thinkers include Nestor Makhno, Isaac Puente, Anton Pannekoek, Harry Cleaver, Paul Mattick, David Guerin, Mario Tronti, and others. It has been implemented in many councilist, autonomist, and anarchist movements through history -- and has been suppressed almost exclusively by the authoritarian communists in the USSR and PRC.

I'm a libertarian Marxist, of the councilist/autonomist variety. I'd recommend the sources located here: LibCom Library -- Libertarian Communism (http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism?from=30). Notable works include "Council Communism", "The Struggle Against the State", and "Workers and Capital".