Bloodshed

[STN]

IN order for communism to come to affect. Does there have to be a "Bloody" revolution?

[which doctor]

Government will not give up there power peacefully. Violence will most likely occur.

[ice-picked]

i agree this world is far to anti-communist for us to takeover without force

[More Fire for the People]

Revolutionaries do not reject violence as a means but rather embrace the most peaceful means towards revolution towards socialism. No one would suggest utilizing guerrilla warfare in a situation where a general strike could overthrow the government.

[LSD]

IN order for communism to come to affect. Does there have to be a "Bloody" revolution?

Probably.

None of us can predict the future, and it is clearly possible some sort of peaceful mechanism will be devised. But the balance of historical evidence suggests that that is unlikely.

The one lesson that we can learn from great changes in the past is that systemic benneficiaries will always fight to preserve their privilege.

We often like to think of ourselves as living in "elightened" times, but the materialist truth is that we are as much a class society as we have ever been. The bourgeoisie is not more "enlghtened" than the aristocratic classes, it's just smarter.

But smarts don't a war make, and when it comes down to it, our rulling class will be just as desperate and just as bloody as the aristocrats and feudalists and monarchists and slave-holders were.

Remember, we aren't going to initiate force, they are.

What choice do we have but to respond in kind?

[Orthodox Marxist]

Revolutionaries do not reject violence as a means but rather embrace the most peaceful means towards revolution towards socialism. No one would suggest utilizing guerrilla warfare in a situation where a general strike could overthrow the government

So your a democratic Socialist?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 25 2006, 11:25 AM
So your a democratic Socialist?
No, I said “...most peaceful means towards revolution towards socialism...”

[anomaly]

The question is not so much 'will it be violent' (it certainly will be...no ruling class gives up power very easily, just look at the wars that were fought in order for the bourgeoisie to emerge), but rather 'how violent'.

It may be just a hopeful answer, but I'd say 'not very'. With the overwhelming strength of the proletariat in relation to the bourgeoisie during revolution, I expect rational thinking to prevail on the part of the bourgeoisie...they won't all 'fight to the death'. Certainly, however, some will.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 25 2006, 05:25 PM

Revolutionaries do not reject violence as a means but rather embrace the most peaceful means towards revolution towards socialism. No one would suggest utilizing guerrilla warfare in a situation where a general strike could overthrow the government

So your a democratic Socialist?
Revolution is not fetishism for violence, it is not the cult of the pistol and bomb, The proletarian revolution can and take up various forms depending upon the material circumstances and conditions of each country.
For example, Russia took on a separate path to revolution dependent upon a general uprising organized by the Soviets, China relied on protracted people's war, Cuba followed the focoist method, Albania etc. followed Partisan warfare, etc etc. The method of struggle is always dependant upon material conditions, and not upon the individual will of the Vanguard.
Subsequently, in analysing the course of a revolution, all methods of struggle must be weighed, with the most compatible applied. Of course in all probability, a peaceful revolution will njot be possible, however it would be a crime on the part of the revolutionaries to ignore peaceful revolutions where they are possible and the best course of action. However again, the possibility of this situation arising is extremely slim.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Why is this always a big question? As long as its not proletarian blood, who gives a shit?

[loveme4whoiam]

Because most people care about the lives of other people, proles or not.
Some cappie CEO is sitting in his office now thinking "Why pay them more? They're only workers."
You really want to be associated with that kind of thinking? <_<

[Orthodox Marxist]

a peaceful revolution will njot be possible, however it would be a crime on the part of the revolutionaries to ignore peaceful revolutions where they are possible and the best course of action. However again, the possibility of this situation arising is extremely slim.

Thank you for your Insight Comrade.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:42 AM
IN order for communism to come to affect. Does there have to be a "Bloody" revolution?
That depends on how strong we are. The stronger we are, the less blood will flow.
Revolution subverts more than it kills.



Un seul week-end non révolutionnaire est infiniment plus sanglant qu‘un mois de révolution permanente.
A single nonrevolutionary weekend is infinitely more bloody than a month of permanent revolution.

[VermontLeft]

Yes the revolution will be bloody and good thing too&#33;

Do you really want george bush alive in a communist society? even if the actual revolutionary part is quick and bloodless, maybe cause we have so much support taht the capitalists cant mount a fight, we will still shed blood after.

pacifism is liberal crap :angry:. once the revolution is done, it will be MASS EXECUTION TIME :). murderous exploiters dont deserve to live and communist society cant start until we shed the blood of our oppressors&#33;

im looking forward to the bloody part where we kill capitalists amd anyone who isnt is not ready for revolution.

[loveme4whoiam]

That&#39;s nice. I&#39;ll be sure to add that into my pamphlets designed to win people over to the rightness of Communism - "And afterwards, we&#39;re going to slaughter any and all who oppose us&#33; So you&#39;d better join us, or else&#33;" <_<

[Zero]

Every man and woman are worth the same. CEO or otherwise. However they should be jailed for their crimes, or at least deported.

[VermontLeft]

That&#39;s nice. I&#39;ll be sure to add that into my pamphlets designed to win people over to the rightness of Communism

Good idea :)

I dont know where you work but i cn tell you taht most of the people i know would love to see their bosses killed. my boyfriend works at a department store and he te3lls me that like 90 percent of his fellow employees would love to kill the head manager

pacifism isnt revolutionary. we cant build an equal society with people who dont believe in equality. im not saying that we kill EVERYONE, but there are people who do not deserve to live. ...like BUSH&#33;&#33;

i mean what do you want to do with him? Deport him or shit? FUCK THAT&#33; :angry: we dont want him to set up somje little caliphate with him as ruller again, we need to kill him and all his little buddies so that he can never oppress anyone again, same with all these capialists international exploiters. you really think that the wallmart family is going to accept equality?

sometimes death is the only solution. if you cant accept that, go back to the democrats :rolleyes:


Every man and woman are worth the same.

at birth, yeah but once they start to do shit they start to be worth different amounts. unless youre saying that hitler and che are "worth the same" :o

[Atlas Swallowed]

CEOs, bankers, most members of government and the wealthy should be pulled out into the streets and clubbed to death :) Maybe thier fetish for war will cease when it is thier class that is doing the dying or better yet they cease to exisist. Pacifism only aides those in power.

[loveme4whoiam]

Am I saying that CEOs and the like don&#39;t deserve punishment? Of course not&#33; But I don&#39;t think that splattering someone&#39;s head all over the pavement is the best way to go about it.


he te3lls me that like 90 percent of his fellow employees would love to kill the head manager
Give me a break, I&#39;d "love" to kill my boss too. If you placed a gun in the hands of that 90% and said pull the trigger, I doubt if more than 5% of that 90% would do it. That&#39;s just bullshit exaggeration.

I am no pacifist, and I dislike the accusation. I am all in favour of violence when it is necessary, but not when its violence for violence&#39;s sake. If you are simply picking a guy off the street because he wears a suit and looks like he earns more than you do and killing him, that makes you no better than nazis, or any other fucking ignorant group of savages that make sweeping generalisations about groups of people.

I am thinking practically, with regards to the revolution before and after it happens. Before, we really are not going to win people over if we say that "everyone who earns of £50,000 a year shall die", and the support we do win from that policy is the kind of support we can do without. Post-revolution, re-education is always better than death. I would support trials for those who have committed the grossest acts of capitalism, and re-education of everyone else. A gift economy will be a wonderful thing, and I think you&#39;ll be surprised by how many "committed" capitalists find the amount of effort needed in order to put themselves back on top is too much.

Fair enough, those that really resist communism, those you can kill as extravagantly as you want, to satisfy your blood-thirsty urges. But those that have committed no crime greater than playing the system do not deserve death, they deserve to be taught the grevious error of their ways.

[VermontLeft]

I don&#39;t want to kill every guy in a suit, and i never said anything about 50,000&#036; or whatver. I said SPECIFICALLY that those people whoa are the worst oppressors, like BUSH, like the heads of partcularly oppressive companies like WALmart, dont deserve "reeducation", they deserve death.

i dont want a bloodbath, i just want to make sure that we dont let our more liberal friends divert us from what we have to do. some people can be convinced and yea most capitalists are just capitalists cause it benefits them and theyll probably be convinced to sit down and shut up

but there are some really dedicated really exploitve assholes who just have to go.

reeducationg doesnt work for those types, only death does. and i have no problem with atlas&#39;s beat them with clubs idea&#33; :)

i might of exagerated a little with the everyone kill their boss thing, obviously we cant have every employer in the world die (but my boyfriends boss is REALLY one of the worst out ther, i promise you that a whole lot more than 5 percent would club his fat ass :angry:) but anyway the point is that blood WILL need to be spilled even if the revolution is bloodless ...not that thats likely to happen anyways.

this crap about all people deserve life and life is sacred or whatever is complete crap. when people abuse other people they give up their life-sacredness and we have ever yright to kill them for it.

george busdh will never be reducated and theres no point in trying.

MASS EXECUTIONS will be nescessary and im looking forwward to them. if it makes you squimish, whatever, no ones making you watch. :P

[RedSabine]

Do you see violent revolution as the only way to freedom for the proletariat? A democratic rise to power seems better to me than murder of countless people. Call me a pacifist or whatever, it&#39;s true. Also, why the hell do you keep talking about Bush as a huge oppressor? Bush is a political figure-head and nothing more. The oppressors are the owners of large buisinesses. You seem like a stalinist, VermontLeft, I hope not. Do you advocate killing everyone who&#39;s had something to do with capitalism? Gulags and "reeducation camps"? Yeah man, lets kill us some cappies&#33; :D

[VermontLeft]

Also, why the hell do you keep talking about Bush as a huge oppressor? Bush is a political figure-head and nothing more. The oppressors are the owners of large buisinesses.

like i said, the worst are the heads of the big oppressive companies and we obviously need to kill them. but bush may be a "figure head" or whatever but he is also directly responsibly for oppression, exploitation and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

i mean are you really saying that he deserves to live??? :o


you seem like a stalinist, VermontLeft, I hope not.

:lol: no, im no stalnist. i don&#39;t want to purge anyone or kill millions of people. i just know that unless we start by getting rid of the tru capitalists we can never build a lasting communism.

most capitalists arent really in it for belief, they just were born into it and want to make money. most of them will be convinced, but the hardliners, the really religious fucks, the bush government types, and the big corporate heads ...they need to GO.

and "reeducation camps" that was NEVER my idea, that was whatshisname, penguine dude up there. I was saying how I DIDNT like the idea&#33;&#33;


Do you advocate killing everyone who&#39;s had something to do with capitalism?

NO&#33;

wow, people seem to be really having trouble understanding me&#33; <_<

look, again, we need to kill the WORST OF THE WORST. i guess i got a little carried about with all the bloodbath stuff :P but I had a bad day and i was particularly pissed with capitalism.

still though the truth is that we are going to need to execute a good number of people after the revolution and i am seriously looking forward to that part.

revolution is not a pacifists game&#33;&#33;

[NovelGentry]

wow, people seem to be really having trouble understanding me&#33;

I highly doubt that, what&#39;s more likely is they just want to protect the capitalists sovereign right to life, why? I&#39;ll never know. There are certain people who deserve death, who do more harm to this world than all previous mass murderers and serial killers combined.. whether this is a product of any existing social constructs is of course a very real probability, but there becomes a point where certain people are forced to be conscious of their own exploiting. The CEO of Wal-Mart for example, or that of Nike, or for that matter all the board members and most of the high level share holders... well they have no excuses anymore.

[Proletar]

Nate.

Because people who isnt commies is still humans. Like the death-penalty is inhuman killing of cappies is also inhuman.

[loveme4whoiam]

Who are you to decide that these people deserve death? I might think that you deserve death (I don&#39;t, I think you are misguided and in need of, haha, re-education), but that doesn&#39;t give me the right to stove your head in. The death penalty (which I approve of, by the way) is definitely a legitimate form of punishment, but there must be some discrimination to the killing.
Fair enough, if you can prove that Bush, and the CEOs of Walmart and Nike or whoever, and all those people have committed crimes deserving of death, go ahead, kill them in whatever sadist means in order to get your gun off. But cutting a swath through an entire section of society and saying that they are all evil and must "be gotten rid of" makes you just as bad as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and whichever crazy sod you might care to mention.

Oh and by the way:

MASS EXECUTIONS will be nescessary and im looking forwward to them.

still though the truth is that we are going to need to execute a good number of people after the revolution and i am seriously looking forward to that part.
That sounds fairly blood-thirsty to me. :mellow:

[Orthodox Marxist]

MASS EXECUTIONS will be nescessary and im looking forwward to them


still though the truth is that we are going to need to execute a good number of people after the revolution and i am seriously looking forward to that part.

Sounds very Stalinist to me I&#39;m sure the working class will support us especially the dillusional rantings of a Sadist.

[NovelGentry]

The death penalty (which I approve of, by the way) is definitely a legitimate form of punishment, but there must be some discrimination to the killing.

Then you think there are people who deserve death. If you approve of the death penalty, there must be someone who deserves it.


Sounds very Stalinist to me I&#39;m sure the working class will support us especially the dillusional rantings of a Sadist.

Around 1877, in the US, there was a massive and disperse uprising amongst railway workers where, when opposed by the national guard after asserting that nothing would get done on the railways or railyards. After a clash between one of the groups and the national guard at a railyard, the workers had them pinned in a single building... they lit up gas and oil filled carts and attempted to burn them alive in it.

There is nothing Stalinist about the way workers will respond to capitalists and those who defend them.

[Zero]

It is true that power corrupts. This is prooven, and we see it every day. This, however, does not proove that these people need to die. They are simply under-educated on the matter.

When they see no more possibilities for exploitation, they will move abroad. Once the revolution sparks here however, it will only be a matter of time before the EU falls, Russia is taken back, and we can all live in sweet harmony, furthering ourselves as a single human race, rather then killing ourselves in the name of God, state, and country.

[loveme4whoiam]

Then you think there are people who deserve death. If you approve of the death penalty, there must be someone who deserves it.
Indeed I do. I think the people who write the captions for Channel 4&#39;s adverts should be killed (and tortured beforehand). I think footballers who get paid over £60,000 a week for kicking a ball around once a week deserve death, or at least some strict beatings regularly. I think truly useless people like D-list celebrities could do with a sound thrashing once a week to remind them the price of their fame.

But what right do I have to say that these people should die? That&#39;s just my opinion. Now, if a jury of, say, one hundred men and women agreed with me, then yep, let&#39;s lynch &#39;em from the nearest tree. People who have committed crimes that (in the eyes of those who are able to judge) deserve death, then death becomes a legitimate punishment.

Just because I have an irrational (or rational) dislike of someone, that does not give me the right to kill them.

[NovelGentry]

But what right do I have to say that these people should die? That&#39;s just my opinion. Now, if a jury of, say, one hundred men and women agreed with me, then yep, let&#39;s lynch &#39;em from the nearest tree. People who have committed crimes that (in the eyes of those who are able to judge) deserve death, then death becomes a legitimate punishment.

Well now you&#39;re getting quite philosophical. Let&#39;s ignore when you say "But what right do I have" as your right to say they should die or not is a question of speech. The real question would be are you justified in calling for their death, that is, whether the intention of their death is right coming from a single person.

Is a rape victim justified in saying their rapist should die?
Is a slave justified in saying their master should die?

Answer these, and I think you will see why every working class person in the world is justified in saying the capitalists and those who defend them should be put to death, whether they stand as one or one million. I&#39;m not shocked that the railway workers in the later 1800s responded this way, nor am I in any way apologetic for it.


Just because I have an irrational (or rational) dislike of someone, that does not give me the right to kill them.

Dislike..... now I see. Yes, well, you can join the others on this board who simply have a dislike of the capitalists. Maybe you can all get together and draw nasty pictures of them... make them look fat and useless, no doubt they will be embarassed into submission. The rest of us will continue not having the luxury of merely disliking them.

[anomaly]

Loveme4whoiam said:
"The death penalty (which I approve of, by the way) is definitely a legitimate form of punishment"

It is legitimate? Even when it is the state doing the killing, as is the case currently?

I would certainly say that after the fall of capitalism, when judgement will be decided by the people, the death penalty will be legitimate. But I simply cannot support the state killing anyone.

[loveme4whoiam]

you will see why every working class person in the world is justified in saying the capitalists and those who defend them should be put to death,
Indeed, this is getting quite philosophical. You are saying, then, that all those who have been oppressed by, for instance, a factory manager, who has kept wages low for his employees but raised the cost of items, keeping the profit for himself. You are saying that the workers who he exploited deserve to kill him, because they are the victims of his exploitation, yes?
Honestly, I don&#39;t know how to answer this. I am not a philosopher, I just go by what I think is right and what is wrong. A large part of me wants to say "of course they should be able to kill him, they are his victims". But another part tells me that punishment should be objective, that there should be degrees of punishment based on degrees of crime. As I&#39;m undecided, I&#39;ll yield the argument to you. This is for someone much smarter than me to answer :blush: .


Dislike..... now I see. Yes, well, you can join the others on this board who simply have a dislike of the capitalists. Maybe you can all get together and draw nasty pictures of them... make them look fat and useless, no doubt they will be embarassed into submission. The rest of us will continue not having the luxury of merely disliking them.
Oh give me a fucking break, I was talking about the people in my example.
Fair enough, you hate capitalists, despise them with a pure and utter hatred. And yes, perhaps I am in a position where I can be slightly objective about the situation, I&#39;m not going to be apologetic for that. I have not been forced into a situation where that hate has been bred, no doubt you have and I am sincerely sorry for that. But your passion appears to have clouded whatever objectivity you may possess; all these generalisations about people you do not know, what the hell is that? That is vengance, not the pursuit of equality.

[NovelGentry]

You are saying that the workers who he exploited deserve to kill him, because they are the victims of his exploitation, yes?

We&#39;re not talking about a single instance where they thought, "oh, I&#39;ll get some profit off them for a bit." We&#39;re talking about an entire class of people who live off the labor of others, not only that, they oppress them in the worst ways in order to maintain that.


Fair enough, you hate capitalists, despise them with a pure and utter hatred.

Glad to see you&#39;ve come to accept that.


And yes, perhaps I am in a position where I can be slightly objective about the situation, I&#39;m not going to be apologetic for that.

I don&#39;t see what is objective about determining punishment ever. Punishment is always a subjective thing... again, use my examples from before. The slave is not any less objective in saying they wish to kill their master than is the onlooker (who has not experienced) who says they should merely be forced to free their slave and give some property to him.

Your standing which allows you to say that you would "objectively" punish the capitalists, one can only assume, stems from the idea that you think you are neither oppressed by them, or part of them. If you are oppressed by them, you certainly couldn&#39;t make any claim to being objective, nor could you if you were part of them. But being where you are (wherever that is), your opinion is perhaps even more subjective as you don&#39;t have to live with the consequence either way, only difference is that it is far more whimsical. You said it yourself, "I just go by what I think is right and what is wrong." Well that&#39;s all any of us can go by, what makes you think what you think is right is actually right. To the capitalist, there is nothing wrong with what they do, to their wage-slaves, there is plenty.


But your passion appears to have clouded whatever objectivity you may possess; all these generalisations about people you do not know, what the hell is that? That is vengance, not the pursuit of equality.

For someone reprimanding about generalizations you sure are swell at making them. Don&#39;t mistake hatred for blind hatred. So long as the ruling class has breath they will attempt to keep "what is theirs." You will find it difficult to reconcile class struggle with the idea that someone&#39;s life who is a product of exploited and oppressed peoples does not inevitably fall into their hands.

Whether we shoot them, burn them alive, or starve them with their own stubbornness at some point the working class is going to refuse their "right" to syphon from its masses and they are not going to give up that "right."

[Gaius]

If Hitler can pass Nazism democratically, then we can pass communism democratically.

[RedAnarchist]

NO&#33;


The bourgois system has a cancer running through it. We cannot use such a corrupt tool of the ruling classes. Our only option is violent revolution. We don&#39;t want violence for violence sakes, but the ruling classes are not just going to surrender without a fight.

Anyway, Socialism is more democratic than Capitalism, which puts way too much value on wealth.

[RedSabine]

I agree, socialism is more compatable with democracy than capitalism.

But, I am against a democracy, at least a pure democracy. Then you have a dictatorship of the majoraty. It limits personal rights. But then, what other option is there, but democracy?

[anomaly]

If we do not have a dictatorship of the &#39;majority&#39;, then we certainly will have a dictatorship of the minority. Which do you want? I&#39;d certainly prefer the former.

And remember that every person is simply a working person under communism. Hence, we need not worry about it being &#39;ruled&#39; by any faction. The majority of which I speak will only be a majority on the issue at hand.

Now, it really depends upon the size of the commune whether I support direct democracy or demarchy. Essentially, I support whichever one is practical.

[Punk Rocker]

Why is this always a big question? As long as its not proletarian blood, who gives a shit?

Thank you.


I agree, socialism is more compatable with democracy than capitalism.

Sorry but, no shit?


But, I am against a democracy, at least a pure democracy. Then you have a dictatorship of the majoraty. It limits personal rights. But then, what other option is there, but democracy?

You could have direct democracy but break it down into regions so minorities could have their own power.

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:15 AM
NO&#33;


The bourgois system has a cancer running through it. We cannot use such a corrupt tool of the ruling classes. Our only option is violent revolution. We don&#39;t want violence for violence sakes, but the ruling classes are not just going to surrender without a fight.

Anyway, Socialism is more democratic than Capitalism, which puts way too much value on wealth.
You are assuming that it will only be a small lobbiest group who proposes Socialism.

Once the mass is educated, theres no stopping all 3 million of us (minus teh hickzors.)

[red team]

If we do not have a dictatorship of the &#39;majority&#39;, then we certainly will have a dictatorship of the minority. Which do you want? I&#39;d certainly prefer the former.


Oh, you mean a blunderocracy of the majority or a tyranny of the minority. Sorry, I would really rather have meritocracy. At least they would know what they were doing and blunders would be kept to a minimum. By your example you would take a vote to tell a surgeon which body part to operate on. :lol:

[Gaius]

Really now gentlemen, I don&#39;t see how executing those we disagree with (As one lunatic suggested earlier) is in any way compatibable with the ideals of socialism.

I disagree with your opinions on representative democracy though I do realise it is in its essence corrupt and needs major reform.

As I said somewhere else if 90% of the people want socialism (which should be the base standard for any revolution anyway) then it will happen through the will of the people.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:11 AM
If Hitler can pass Nazism democratically, then we can pass communism democratically.
:huh:

hitler used a loophole in the german constitution to get into (absolute) power, then he banned all democratic rights, burned books he didnt like, and then he put people he didnt like in concentration camp


as far as violenence for a rev. goes;
we will demand a communist society, we will seek to establish one, we will strip the elite of all privileges

Now...
the elite will not let this be done without a fight...they will attack us to regain their power and priviliges...and what will we do? We will kill the bastards. They initiate violence against us, and violence they shall recieve, untill they are either dead or too scared to do anything ever again against the will of the people.

[Gaius]

You sir, are both dangerous and a fool. A dangerous fool is truly terrifying.

It shows a fundamental weakness in someones argument when they have resort to brute violence to get it done. Whatever bad things you can say about Hitler at least he gained power without killing a soul.

I am emphatically NOT a Nazi, by the way.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:08 AM
You sir, are both dangerous and a fool. A dangerous fool is truly terrifying.

It shows a fundamental weakness in someones argument when they have resort to brute violence to get it done. Whatever bad things you can say about Hitler at least he gained power without killing a soul.

I am emphatically NOT a Nazi, by the way.
Actually I do believe the Nazi party killed quite a lot of communists before they even gained power.

Of course it is not too often you hear about this.

[Gaius]

proof...

[Atlas Swallowed]

Some Anarchists were killed before the Nazis took power.

http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/ana...rmany/index.php (http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/anarchism-in-nazi-germany/index.php)

Comparing a Nazi revolution to a workers revolution is like comparing apples and oranges. The Nazis aligned themselves with the elite and was not for the working class. The Elite should be accountable and should pay for the misery they have brought to billions. The beheading of Charles II of England did alot to weaken monarchy. The slaughter of the elite could do the same for capitalism. Peoples actions change when they are held accountable, the elite have alot to account for. Let them feel fear.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:08 PM
You sir, are both dangerous and a fool. A dangerous fool is truly terrifying.

It shows a fundamental weakness in someones argument when they have resort to brute violence to get it done. Whatever bad things you can say about Hitler at least he gained power without killing a soul.

I am emphatically NOT a Nazi, by the way.
:huh:

why?

i am only saying "if they resist, we shoot them". They just shouldnt resist. They got privileges they shouldnt have, we&#39;re just "relieving" them of their priviliges...if necessary by force. How else?

Look i dont like violence...but sometimes it is necessary.

And as other people said, hitler did kill people. AND aligned himself with the state aparatus + elite which makes things a shitload easier...we are fundamentally opposed to both.

I never said you were one... :huh:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:46 PM
Because most people care about the lives of other people, proles or not.
Some cappie CEO is sitting in his office now thinking "Why pay them more? They&#39;re only workers."
You really want to be associated with that kind of thinking? <_<
Why am I associated with that thinking. I owe nothing but agression towards the bourgeoisie. I have no responsibility to take care of them if they oppose the proletariat.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:23 AM
Nate.

Because people who isnt commies is still humans. Like the death-penalty is inhuman killing of cappies is also inhuman.
This is not an arguement. Its moralism. The bourgeoisie human or not treat people like fucking shit and will continue to do so given the oppertunity. We must prevent that :)

[loveme4whoiam]

Indeed, we shall preventing that, by having revolution and a Communist society. I hate the way people are treated under capitalism, that is one reason why I&#39;m a Communist, but does mean it is a necessity to kill people who do not comply with our point of view. Perhaps that is morality, but I&#39;m not convinced that morality is irrelevant.

You are advocating the killings of committed, dyed-in-the-wool Capitalists who are definitely going to be a threat to a Communist society, yes? Fair enough, that is a practical argument and I can see the reasoning behind it. I may not like it because of moral reasons, but I can see your point.

But I don&#39;t think it is practical to go around waving such thoughts about when the principal task of Communists at the moment is to win support; as I said before, the kind of support we would attract with such beliefs is the kind we do not need, and would most certainly scare away people who have morals.

And nate, by that I meant that by grouping an entire class of people and labelling them "bad" is exactly the same as that type of thinking. We should be discriminatory in our vilification.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 1 2006, 05:01 AM

If we do not have a dictatorship of the &#39;majority&#39;, then we certainly will have a dictatorship of the minority. Which do you want? I&#39;d certainly prefer the former.


Oh, you mean a blunderocracy of the majority or a tyranny of the minority. Sorry, I would really rather have meritocracy. At least they would know what they were doing and blunders would be kept to a minimum. By your example you would take a vote to tell a surgeon which body part to operate on. :lol:
Why would a vote ever be held on the issue of surgery? Do you not think the people of communist society will have a little thing called reason?

But, my point is that unless you approve of &#39;consensus&#39;, we will have a so-called &#39;dictatorship of the majority&#39;. It is simply naive to think that schisms on certain issues will not exist in communist society.

For example, the issue of punishments for criminals will probably be very controversial. And so a vote will be held and the people themselves (or the people of the demarchy body, if that is the situation) will decide the punishments. Obviously, the majority wins (now we could force a 2/3 majority, but I think we can use simple majority as long as this vote is held at any time the people choose, so as to account for changing attitudes).

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:11 PM




but does mean it is a necessity to kill people who do not comply with our point of view. Perhaps that is morality, but I&#39;m not convinced that morality is irrelevant.

Never said it was. But the people who dont like us arent just gonna sit around and *****. If they take armed action against the revolution they must be dealt with.


But I don&#39;t think it is practical to go around waving such thoughts about when the principal task of Communists at the moment is to win support; as I said before, the kind of support we would attract with such beliefs is the kind we do not need, and would most certainly scare away people who have morals.

I dont know about you but I&#39;ve met that has had a problem with "killing the rich man and taking his stuff" are petty-bourgeois people.


And nate, by that I meant that by grouping an entire class of people and labelling them "bad" is exactly the same as that type of thinking. We should be discriminatory in our vilification.

So if one capitalist who owns a factory gives his workers healthcare, we should let him keep it after the revolution? I&#39;m afraid not.

[loveme4whoiam]

I dont know about you but I&#39;ve met that has had a problem with "killing the rich man and taking his stuff" are petty-bourgeois people.
Fair point, and I&#39;d probably agree with you (most of my friends are probably in this category, or at least upper-workign class like I think I am). But I think that this group is the one most likely to be in favour of revolution - they are generally less discriminatory than the working class (at least, my generation is) and have time in their heads for the ideals of Communism. I&#39;d not want to scare them off with this talk.


If they take armed action against the revolution they must be dealt with.
Indeed, I agree 100% with this view. A threat to post-revolutionary society must be dealt with. But is pre-emptively killing everyone who admits to opposing Communism the best (or at least, the most moral) way of preventing that threat?


So if one capitalist who owns a factory gives his workers healthcare, we should let him keep it after the revolution? I&#39;m afraid not.
Certainly not. But perhaps we should let him keep his life.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:23 AM
Because people who isnt commies is still humans.
Just about.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:50 AM

I dont know about you but I&#39;ve met that has had a problem with "killing the rich man and taking his stuff" are petty-bourgeois people.
Fair point, and I&#39;d probably agree with you (most of my friends are probably in this category, or at least upper-workign class like I think I am). But I think that this group is the one most likely to be in favour of revolution - they are generally less discriminatory than the working class (at least, my generation is) and have time in their heads for the ideals of Communism. I&#39;d not want to scare them off with this talk.


People like this have never lived through poverty and are afraid of losing what they have. They might mouth support but when push comes to shove they will back the ruling class. Screw the middle class and thier pascifist ideals. The ruling class have always subjected the worker to misery and fear. That misery and fear should be brought to them ten fold and if the middle class do not like it, they better stay out of the way :angry:

The middle class is just as discrimentory if not more so than the working class, besides being judgmental about someones financial status. You and your petty friends would probably label me as a loser which is fine with me because I am not playing the Cappie game. The working class is more tolerant than the middle class because we know how it is to suffer. When someone in my community needs help is it the middle class in thier SUVs and nice houses that come to help. Hell no. If you need help you are better off going to the working class we are not as wrapped up in our own shallow exisistence and since we have a hell of alot more expierence with tough times we have more empathy. Why do you judge a class that you probably have little or no contact with?

[loveme4whoiam]

I do not judge you a loser, nor would my "petty" friends, and I&#39;d rather you&#39;d refrain from making crass judgements about me or them when you do not know us whatsoever :angry:.

And as for having no contact with the working class - bullshit. Just because I do not live on a council estate (I used to) you think I have no contact with them? I have grown up among the working class, hell, I AM working class, or at least have a working class background. I make my judgements based on what I have experienced - clearly, you have had better experiences than I with the working class, which has led to your opinion of them, just as mine have led me to my opinion. Neither of us is capable of judging who is right in this.

I am saying that we should not judge an entire class of people by their stereotypes, why is that viewed as a bad thing?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:50 AM
Fair point, and I&#39;d probably agree with you (most of my friends are probably in this category, or at least upper-workign class like I think I am). But I think that this group is the one most likely to be in favour of revolution - they are generally less discriminatory than the working class (at least, my generation is) and have time in their heads for the ideals of Communism. I&#39;d not want to scare them off with this talk.
How is saying that the middle class is less discriminatory than the working class not making a steriotype? I do steriotype the middle and elite classes and gladly admit to it. My efforts and goals have nothing to with what they want or desire. I made a judgement by what you have posted I might be incorrect but if talk will scare them off will they piss thier panties when it comes time for action? What is upper working class? Is it office pukes or managment? Never heard that term before. You seem unsure as to what class you belong, how is that?

If I was somewhat harsh sorry I only have two writing styles ranting and raving. Thats just the way I get my point across, not the best way and probably not even a good way but mine none the less :)

[loveme4whoiam]

If I was somewhat harsh sorry I only have two writing styles ranting and raving. Thats just the way I get my point across, not the best way and probably not even a good way but mine none the less :)
That&#39;s cool, its just that you mentioned my friends and that flicks my "rage" switch. I should really learn to curb it, but oh well :)

Fair enough, maybe I have displayed a tiny bit of double standards, although I did qualify my remark about the middle class with generally and reserving the generalisation to my generation. But I don&#39;t like stereotyping in general, and I&#39;m perfectly happy accepting that both the middle and the working class can be discriminatory bastards at times :lol: just as both the working class and the middle class can also be nice guys. This is why I think we shouldn&#39;t judge people by what class they are in, but by what they as individuals believe. If their beliefs are all identical and all counter-revolutionary, then I am 100% behind you. But if there is one person in that group who does not think in those terms, but is actually totally FOR revolution, then why should he die as part of his class?

I am indeed conflicted about my class. I most definitely have a working class background, but I have been brought up with what I perceive as middle-class ideals and aspirations; that is, education, family, equality and the like. I say that these are middle-class values because all my experience with the working class people that I know have no such ideals, although in truth these people are probably more representative of the "underclass" that has emerged, the most recent of these being the chav culture that has infected the streets. Thus, I think of myself as upper-working class, which probably is a made-up subclass :).

Just as an aside, what are educators classed as? Since this is my chosen career path (with a little luck), does this effect my class now?

[violencia.Proletariat]

But I think that this group is the one most likely to be in favour of revolution - they are generally less discriminatory than the working class (at least, my generation is) and have time in their heads for the ideals of Communism.

:lol: If revolution depends on these fools, I quit. I&#39;ve heard many stories of "trust-fund babies"/petty bourgeois in the 60&#39;s being "revolutionary" until they "grew up" and went back home.


But is pre-emptively killing everyone who admits to opposing Communism the best (or at least, the most moral) way of preventing that threat?

I never said this, but I wouldnt give them a national memorial if it happened :lol: :lol:

Moral? I dont follow moralism.


But perhaps we should let him keep his life.

Yes, if he surrenders it without opposition and expects to do productive labor for the rest of his able years.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:50 PM
That&#39;s cool, its just that you mentioned my friends and that flicks my "rage" switch. I should really learn to curb it, but oh well :)

But if there is one person in that group who does not think in those terms, but is actually totally FOR revolution, then why should he die as part of his class?
Nothing wrong with defending your friends but I agree with Nate people like you have described it will be just a fad. Once they get out of college most of them will get wrapped up in thier career and become conservative with age.

I am not for killing all of any class. I am for killing those who are in power not just in government also financial as an example for those in the future who wish to aquire power.

From what I have read on the Chav thread it seems you are judging the entire working class by them and that seems foolish. From what I have read about Chavs I would imagine they are in the minority of working class. They sound like alchoholic thugs and probably do not work much and live off the welfare system. We have people like this in the US also but don&#39;t have a slang name for them but they are a minority and are viewed with contempt by most workers I know.

[loveme4whoiam]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+--> (Atlas Swallowed)From what I have read about Chavs I would imagine they are in the minority of working class.[/b]
True enough, and that thread has actually pointed out to me that fact.


Atlas Swallowed
I am not for killing all of any class. I am for killing those who are in power not just in government also financial as an example for those in the future who wish to aquire power.
I&#39;d prefer no killing at all :D. But from a practical point of view I must agree with you.