Violence

[Fawkes]

I'm guessing that this has already been asked here, but i couldnt find it anywhere so.... I know that there are plenty of people here who would be very hesitant to use violence in a revolution but would resort to it if necesary. I was just wondering if there's anyone here totally opposed to violence of any kind, and if so, why?

P.S. i personally have nothing at all against the use of violence, except for of course the stupid lunch room fight type things like "you stole my girlfriend"

[Niall]

this has been thoroughly discussed before, i think the majority of people would use it, not resort to it. for myself it needs to be directed in the right direction

[GWX]

I would never use violence. I think no human is permitted to harm another, no matter who it is..

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:36 AM
I would never use violence. I think no human is permitted to harm another, no matter who it is..
... including revolutionary violence? And the proletariat isn't permitted to harm the bourgeoise? :rolleyes:

[GWX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:44 AM
... including revolutionary violence? And the proletariat isn't permitted to harm the bourgeoise? :rolleyes:
"Proletariat" and "Bourgeoise" are terms that are incorrent these days.. there is no proletariat, anymore. In the Netherlands, our "proletariat" is watching Idols and Big Brother, and isn't waiting for a revolution.

"Bourgeoise?" So you still think "the owners" are all _bad_ people that came from hell and are here to annoy us?

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by GWX+Mar 23 2006, 10:53 AM--> (GWX @ Mar 23 2006, 10:53 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:44 AM
... including revolutionary violence? And the proletariat isn't permitted to harm the bourgeoise? :rolleyes:
"Proletariat" and "Bourgeoise" are terms that are incorrent these days.. there is no proletariat, anymore. In the Netherlands, our "proletariat" is watching Idols and Big Brother, and isn't waiting for a revolution.

"Bourgeoise?" So you still think "the owners" are all _bad_ people that came from hell and are here to annoy us? [/b]
It's intersting to hear that from you. Netherlands must be a "Utopia" which Thomas Moore used to dream. If he relived...... ;)

I guess your routine is: going to school/working everyday, playing games every weekend, talking to likable weathy gentlemen and ladies, sometimes shedding tears because of a poor character of a movie on TV and thinking "Oh, fotunately there's no the poor in Netherlands!" :lol:

[321zero]

In the Netherlands, our "proletariat" is watching Idols and Big Brother, and isn't waiting for a revolution.

No on the whole they're probably not, more's the pity. After all it's so much easier to go with the flow and put the blame for worsening conditions on 'immigrants' who lazily and shiftlessly do all the brute-work.

So if you don't think there is class-war, how do you explain all the shit that goes on?

Human nature?

[dusk]

It's a necesary evil.

[Niall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:44 PM
It's a necesary evil.
could you elaborate on this a bit more

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh violence can be a good effective tactic. However it shouldn't be used just beacause it can be. It's only really effective if its well organised and involves a large amount of people.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by GWX+Mar 23 2006, 10:53 AM--> (GWX @ Mar 23 2006, 10:53 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:44 AM
... including revolutionary violence? And the proletariat isn't permitted to harm the bourgeoise? :rolleyes:
"Proletariat" and "Bourgeoise" are terms that are incorrent these days.. there is no proletariat, anymore. In the Netherlands, our "proletariat" is watching Idols and Big Brother, and isn't waiting for a revolution.

"Bourgeoise?" So you still think "the owners" are all _bad_ people that came from hell and are here to annoy us? [/b]
there still is a proletariat

go read what i posted in the dutch section

Even though the "classic worker" (as in the factory worker, miner, etc) barely exist anymore in the netherlands, the underlying societal structure still does. The miner has been replaced with the bus driver, the factory with the office clerk.

You are proletarian when you have to sell your labour-time to get by to those who own the means of production (offices, factories, companies). You are bourgeois when you own the means of production

And the owners arent all bad, i bet some are "nice". Hell, my uncle is one, he's a nice guy. Still the power he has is criminal, and when the time comes he should give it up, to us, to the people, to whom that power rightfully belongs. If he then refuses to do that...well then...then he is from hell and i wouldnt mind sending him back to where he came from

And if he violently resists us, taking back what is rightfully ours, then he'll soon be on the recieving end of the violence in the world.


In the Netherlands, our "proletariat" is watching Idols and Big Brother, and isn't waiting for a revolution.

Ofcourse they're not. They dont realise either that they are the proletariat, that they are exploited (because this is covered up). Also, the prevailing ideas in society are always those of the ruling class, because they control education, the media, the government...so ofcourse most people think we live in a democracy, that we actually have a say, that hard work is rewarded, that you can become a wealthy man if only you work hard enough, and that the entire world is going forward even though the situation in most of the world has in fact declined over the past 10 years (that is, for most people, not for the happy, the few, the rich)

It is our task to show people the truth, to pave the way for the revolution, to spread class consciousness.

It might suck being revolutionary in non-revolutionary times; but our work is even more important just because of that

[TC]

Violence and the threat of violence is the essense of the capitalist state, in the police force and the courts and the military, so the question is never of violence vs. non-violence, but rather a question of whether you want to permit your class enemies to use violence exclusively, or whether you want to challange that violence.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I would never use violence. I think no human is permitted to harm another, no matter who it is..

Oh really, who's stopping it then? Is there some kind of god who doesnt "permit" this? :lol:


"Proletariat" and "Bourgeoise" are terms that are incorrent these days.. there is no proletariat, anymore. In the Netherlands, our "proletariat" is watching Idols and Big Brother, and isn't waiting for a revolution.

Yes there are many distractions, but most proles arent watching "idols" thats probably reserved for teens. If the proles are class conscious I doubt they will "wait" for a revolution, they will go out and make one.


"Bourgeoise?" So you still think "the owners" are all _bad_ people that came from hell and are here to annoy us?

"bad" and good are subjective. "Owners" OWN the means of production, therefore they oppress the proletariat. If you think the worse the bourgeoisie do is "annoy" people you are sadly mistaken.

Does this mean we should in a revolution shoot all the owners of the means of production? Well, yes, the ones who dont comply or flee will most likely be executed. :)

[GWX]

"They don't realize they are being exploited.."

Sorry, but that is too easy for me. Off course there are poor people in the Netherlands, and I did not say that I thought there wasn't.

But a revolution? Wake up..

[Wanted Man]

Good post by NKOS. Just because the worker now has a television and a car, does not mean that he is no longer exploited.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:28 PM
Does this mean we should in a revolution shoot all the owners of the means of production? Well, yes, the ones who dont comply or flee will most likely be executed. :)
This is the sad mentality of the so-called 'communists'. Some guy was just referring to 'Utopia', were the world is one big peaceful community where people live in peace, work together, live together, are equal. That is the ultimate goal for every true communist.

You're simply betraying your own ideology by executing other people. I could understand that a riot would get out of hand, but executing people on purpose is just sickening. You're doing something even worse than exploiting someone then: controlling someone's life.

GWX is completely right. You know what it is, even if they would realize that they would be 'exploited', they don't care. In Holland the people listen to Frans Bauer and watching dating shows. And they get some money to live that life, and that's OK for them. I think they would rather prefer to watch tv than to execute production-owners...

[Fawkes]

Mesijs: how do you feel about violence though, as in a guerilla war, because i personally see a big difference between exectuting someone and killing someone in a battle when theyre fighting back

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 23 2006, 10:20 PM
Mesijs: how do you feel about violence though, as in a guerilla war, because i personally see a big difference between exectuting someone and killing someone in a battle when theyre fighting back
Yes that is a big difference. In a guerrilla war there are victims, that's an unavoidable fact.

[piet11111]

Mesijs & GWX why are you here then ?
what are your ideology's ?

this forum has a very nice place for closet capitalists its called opposing ideology's perhaps you will fit in there better.

or perhaps you guys simply dont have close contact with the lower classes that can happen as poverty is driven out of sight.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You're simply betraying your own ideology by executing other people.

Communism is a stateless, classless society. No where does it mean you can't shoot counterrevolutionaries. I want peace for those willing to have it. As long as there are still "owners" there will be class war.


but executing people on purpose is just sickening.

To each is own. I think you should REALLY rethink your position if you think there would be no resistance to classless society.


You're doing something even worse than exploiting someone then: controlling someone's life.

It's not "controlling" their life, its ending it.


And they get some money to live that life, and that's OK for them. I think they would rather prefer to watch tv than to execute production-owners...

This revolutionaryleft.com if you dont think revolution is possible or going to happen either you belong in opposing idealogies or on liberal.com

If whats happening in France right now is not the perfect example of why you are wrong with the above statement, idk what is.

[Scars]

Violence is a sad necessity. I do not glorify or romantacise violence- it is a horrible thing. In a perfect world humans should not hurt one another, as generally there is little reason to do so. However I think revolutionary violence is necessary as only direct action, insurrection, guerrilla war, revolt and revolution can bring about what we are aiming for. If a pacifist approach was actually viable then maybe I'd be inclined towards it, however it is not.

[cyu]

Executions turn people off and can lose you a lot of support from the general population, not to mention there may be calls from the international community to invade your country to put an end to the violence. Think what capitalists do when you don't follow the orders of your boss: there's no direct violence involved - instead, you lose your job and get put in jail if you steal to survive.

The revolution I imagine is when the capitalist shows up in his office one day and suddenly nobody listens to him. If he physically attempts to force his employees to follow his orders, then he's arrested for assault. If he attempts to take a cut of the sales from the company, then he's arrested for theft. If he insists on bothering employees in the office or factory, then he's arrested for trespassing. In other words, he's like a employee who lost a job. He'll just have to find himself a real job if he wants to earn money and make a living.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Executions turn people off and can lose you a lot of support from the general population

With revolutions come executions, and revolutions generally never lose support of the general populations because of executions, it comes with the territory.


not to mention there may be calls from the international community to invade your country to put an end to the violence

When proletarian revolution comes, there will be shouts from every capitalist country, whether or not we execute the bourgeoisie.


The revolution I imagine is when the capitalist shows up in his office one day and suddenly nobody listens to him.

It's more like he cant show up at his office because he's locked out and would be lynched.

Your flying the syndicalist flag in your avatar, what do you think happened in Spain? Did they give the capitalists, fascists, and priests pats on the back? :lol: No they fuckin shot the assholes!


If he physically attempts to force his employees to follow his orders, then he's arrested for assault. If he attempts to take a cut of the sales from the company, then he's arrested for theft. If he insists on bothering employees in the office or factory, then he's arrested for trespassing. In other words, he's like a employee who lost a job. He'll just have to find himself a real job if he wants to earn money and make a living.

If only it were that easy. I highly doubt a boss thug would come up and ask you nicely to stop occuping they workplace. He'd A.) send in the pigs B.) lock down the workplace C.) send in his own personal thug force

[cyu]

Your flying the syndicalist flag in your avatar, what do you think happened in Spain? Did they give the capitalists, fascists, and priests pats on the back? No they fuckin shot the assholes!

Well, just because I support work-place democracy doesn't mean I support everything anarchists have done in the past. The theory may be the same, if not the tactics.


If only it were that easy. I highly doubt a boss thug would come up and ask you nicely to stop occuping they workplace. He'd A.) send in the pigs B.) lock down the workplace C.) send in his own personal thug force


So I think the people in general should be armed, including the employees. I also believe the police force in each neighborhood should be more democratically accountable. If the boss hires thugs, he should be arrested for inciting violence... of course, if there are a lot of thugs willing to work for the capitalist, you're on the verge of civil war there. It would be important to first establish democracy in the media to cut down on the amount of pro-capitalist propaganda.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The theory may be the same, if not the tactics.

Yes and no anarchist I have ever read was a pacifist. They all realized violent revolution, and the smarter ones class supression.


I also believe the police force in each neighborhood should be more democratically accountable

Police will not exist! If necessary an unarmed community patrol. UNARMED is the bold part :)


If the boss hires thugs, he should be arrested for inciting violence

By who? This is capitalism, they want to supress worker conflict. There will be no bosses in revolutionary society. As a syndicalist you should know this!


It would be important to first establish democracy in the media to cut down on the amount of pro-capitalist propaganda.

Do you or do you not want a revolution?

[Niall]

executions are necessary at times. informers anyone? the curse of revolutionaries the world over

[TC]

I think execution as capital punishment is wrong, as it maliciously harms someone for no reason other than spite, but execution as a means to some other end when used on someone who would qualify as a legitimate military target to be killed in the field, is simply political assassination under controlled circumstances.

Like, executing a captive general to prevent them from falling into enemy hands and returning to his command can be acceptable, but executing the same captive general after a war was concluded and he was no longer a military asset is i think morally unacceptable.

[Niall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:05 PM
I think execution as capital punishment is wrong, as it maliciously harms someone for no reason other than spite, but execution as a means to some other end when used on someone who would qualify as a legitimate military target to be killed in the field, is simply political assassination under controlled circumstances.

Like, executing a captive general to prevent them from falling into enemy hands and returning to his command can be acceptable, but executing the same captive general after a war was concluded and he was no longer a military asset is i think morally unacceptable.
i totally agree with you in that last statement, if you do that you become as bad as the peole you were fighting against

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:54 PM
Good post by NKOS. Just because the worker now has a television and a car, does not mean that he is no longer exploited.
:o

we agree

:o

*shocked*

:o

;)


anyway

all those who think revolution is going to happen without the necessary violence

wake up

they wont surrender wihout a fight

[cyu]

Police will not exist! If necessary an unarmed community patrol. UNARMED is the bold part

Who in the country will have arms then? Obviously you have to be able to defend the country against capitalist forces, so someone should have arms. If the country is going to be truly run by the people, then everyone should be armed. If the government (if any) ever becomes corrupt again, I'd want the general population to be able to easily overthrow it, instead of being suppressed under a military dictatorship.



If the boss hires thugs, he should be arrested for inciting violence
By who? This is capitalism, they want to supress worker conflict. There will be no bosses in revolutionary society.

I meant during the revolution itself. (Of course, there would be no bosses after the revolution. :D) If, during the revolution, existing bosses hire thugs, then the employees and their supporters should arrest the boss (assuming they can find him)... but I wouldn't support executing him, just keeping him locked up until he can cause no more harm. After the revolution, he'll just have to get a real job like everyone else.

[Decolonize The Left]

My views on violence:
Violence is the failure of reason. If reason can function, violence is not necessary. If reason cannot function, violence is necessary, and acceptable.

Ex: A man is charging you with a knife and appears to be ready to kill you. There is no room for reason. You must act. Preferably you will not kill him, only disable or subdue him giving yourself enough time to escape safely, but in this situation, violence is necessary and acceptable.

The revolution? I doubt we can have a revolution through reason. Though I will say that it is foolish to discount reason, or to abadon it in favor of violence without giving it a try. Reason can work marvels if employed well. But in the end, the proletariat will inevitably require a violent uprising, coupled with a general strike, in order to achieve the revolution.

Do not be hasty with violence, calling for it now. Such actions are foolish and do not allow for reason. You must first reason as best as you can, and when that has failed, then you may act.

-- August

[321zero]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Not bad for a bunch of slavers.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Who in the country will have arms then? Obviously you have to be able to defend the country against capitalist forces, so someone should have arms. If the country is going to be truly run by the people, then everyone should be armed. If the government (if any) ever becomes corrupt again, I'd want the general population to be able to easily overthrow it, instead of being suppressed under a military dictatorship.

Volunteer workers militias! You need to read up on some syndicalist history my friend. Have you never heard of the Spanish Civil War?

The purpose of a police force is not to defend a country anyways.


If, during the revolution, existing bosses hire thugs, then the employees and their supporters should arrest the boss (assuming they can find him)... but I wouldn't support executing him, just keeping him locked up until he can cause no more harm.

During the revolution they would be shot. I have never heard the idea of "prisons" in communism. That is a much greater violation of human rights than execution, it's also the promotion of hierarchy and fucking fascism in general.

[Scars]

<<Volunteer workers militias&#33; You need to read up on some syndicalist history my friend. Have you never heard of the Spanish Civil War?>>

They did not work particularly well- the Republicans lost remember? As popular as it is, you cannot blame Stalin for that one. Yes, he could have given more support (mainly weapons), but a weapon is only as useful as the person using it and the militias were largely populated by people who were politically dedicated, good people, but who were militarially incompitant. There are some notable exceptions though.

In the intial stages of the revolution, and the beginnings of the new society (when counter revolutionaries are still resisting in pockets around the place and when society as a whole is getting its shit worked out) a degree of professionalism is absolutely necessary, bearing in mind that often counter-revolutionaries will have control of large sections of the armed forces who, one on one, are far superior to your average militia fighter. Plus strength of numbers is no longer as important- the Somali Incident anyone? About a dozen marines slaughtered several thousand militiamen.

The FAI failed, it was TOO decentralised and thus stupid individuals at the edges of the organisation could pull the whole lot along in stupid actions, for instance minority insurrections that were defeats from the outset, that served only to populate prisons and graveyards with tens of thousands of Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarchists.

Another thing that many people fail to understand is that our enemies will have to be intergrated into society. Would I shoot a boss who accpeted that his lot had lost, but was perfectly willing to work as a member of whatever workplace as a member of the workplace democracy? Certainly&#33; The workers would be able to keep an eye on them themselves, but we can&#39;t just go through and blow the brains out of all of them. To do so would not only be horrible on a moral level, but would go against the principles of the revolution. Everyone who works and is willing to exist and adhere to the principles of the new society should be welcomed, no matter their pre-revolutionary background.

[cyu]

I have never heard the idea of "prisons" in communism. That is a much greater violation of human rights than execution, it&#39;s also the promotion of hierarchy and fucking fascism in general.

That&#39;s interesting. Well, if my band of anarchists ever capture a capitalist working against the revolution, we&#39;ll ask him, "Would you rather be executed or imprisoned?" Which do you think he&#39;ll pick?

To me, anarchism is decentralized democracy. The people most affected by the decision should have the most say in it. If nobody else is affected, then it&#39;s a democracy of one. Obviously execution affects the executed more than anyone else. If the person chooses to live, I would not support overruling his decision. However, if by allowing the person to go free, he will result in the deaths of others, then he should be imprisoned until he&#39;s no longer a threat to society.

[violencia.Proletariat]

"Would you rather be executed or imprisoned?" Which do you think he&#39;ll pick?

The answer is obvious. His actions afterwards are also obvious they will A.) flee the country B.) wait until they have the power to kill you


Obviously execution affects the executed more than anyone else. If the person chooses to live, I would not support overruling his decision. However, if by allowing the person to go free, he will result in the deaths of others, then he should be imprisoned until he&#39;s no longer a threat to society.

I dont think you got my point about prisons. Prisons are hierarchy, something anarchists are against. Guards are fascists who beat people for a living. Thats not something I will ever promote.

[FinnMacCool]

I&#39;m no stranger to violence but I would have a very difficult time actually advocating violence as an immeditae means for a few reasons.

1) Obvious strategic problems.

2)Propaganda wise, it is extremely difficult to convince people to support your cause if your violent. It might work if the whole country was in poverty but that is not the case in a lot of places.

3) A general strike is an extremly affective weapon against the State because if the workers don&#39;t work, the system cannot function.

4) violence inevitably leads to attrocties, regardless of the cause.

[violencia.Proletariat]

2)Propaganda wise, it is extremely difficult to convince people to support your cause if your violent. It might work if the whole country was in poverty but that is not the case in a lot of places.

This would be the case if the masses do not have your support. We are speaking of revolution, the masses of course would support the revolution or else it wouldnt be happening. In other words, its not a battle winning support as the lines have already been drawn.


3) A general strike is an extremly affective weapon against the State because if the workers don&#39;t work, the system cannot function.

Yes general strikes are important, but the pigs will be out in force&#33; Are you prepared to stand your ground and fight them?


4) violence inevitably leads to attrocties, regardless of the cause.

Not necessarily. If the militia is the people and responsible to the people, they control what action is taken by it.

[FinnMacCool]

This would be the case if the masses do not have your support. We are speaking of revolution, the masses of course would support the revolution or else it wouldnt be happening. In other words, its not a battle winning support as the lines have already been drawn.

True



Yes general strikes are important, but the pigs will be out in force&#33; Are you prepared to stand your ground and fight them?
Interesting question. I suppose so, but if you did, you better have a gun on you.



Not necessarily. If the militia is the people and responsible to the people, they control what action is taken by it.
Yes but the people don&#39;t always do the right thing. Their feverent zeal for the revolution might end up with them, say, slaughtering a capitalist and his family. I don&#39;t really think capitalists, with exception to the ruling class, really deserve to die.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Interesting question. I suppose so, but if you did, you better have a gun on you.

Hopefully a during revolutionary period following a general strike the workers will arm themselves and start forming militias, its the smart thing to do.


Their feverent zeal for the revolution might end up with them, say, slaughtering a capitalist and his family. I don&#39;t really think capitalists, with exception to the ruling class, really deserve to die.

Why is that a bad thing? If they do not flea and do not give up their position voluntarely I don&#39;t see the problem. Of course the rules of war against torture, etc, would be accepted because we dont want those bad things happening to our workers either.

[FinnMacCool]

Why is that a bad thing? If they do not flea and do not give up their position voluntarely I don&#39;t see the problem. Of course the rules of war against torture, etc, would be accepted because we dont want those bad things happening to our workers either.
Because I think a revolution has to respect individual dignity as well as collective dignity. Capitalists are human beings too. A communist/anarchist revolution can only survive if we retain our own human empathy. At worst, they should be detained and forcefully exiled. If they fight, then thats just what happens but killing unarmed people just because you feel like it isn&#39;t right.

If you understand the complexities of human nature, you will realize that it is extremely difficult to gain acceptance from capitalists without a forceful rebellion. Once that rebellion has been undergone, and the capitalist has nowhere else to go, he still should be respected because he, though a sorta of enemy of the proles, he is only such in an economical sense. Economics can&#39;t always be the root cause in everything because that just goes against common sense.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Capitalists are human beings too.

And if the knowingly support the exploitation of the proletariat, they have sealed their own fate as far as I&#39;m concerned.


At worst, they should be detained and forcefully exiled.

This is an option, but most will do this on their own terms when workers start collectivizing and occupying


If they fight, then thats just what happens but killing unarmed people just because you feel like it isn&#39;t right.

The wealthy are the most armed people&#33; Who do you think controls the cops? :lol:


If you understand the complexities of human nature, you will realize that it is extremely difficult to gain acceptance from capitalists without a forceful rebellion.

Human nature eh? Have you figuered out a way to isolate and test human behavior, I&#39;m sure many scientists would be interested in this development&#33;

Why would I want to gain acceptance from capitalists? It&#39;s our terms not theirs.


though a sorta of enemy of the proles

"Sort of"? :blink: :o :o :o


Economics can&#39;t always be the root cause in everything because that just goes against common sense.

Your right, the capitalist is also socially opposed to us. They want to make human relations a commodity&#33; :(

[FinnMacCool]

And if the knowingly support the exploitation of the proletariat, they have sealed their own fate as far as I&#39;m concerned.
Not all of them see it that way. It is only a matter of chance that they were born a capitalist.



This is an option, but most will do this on their own terms when workers start collectivizing and occupying
true


The wealthy are the most armed people&#33; Who do you think controls the cops? :lol:
Just because people are capitalists doesn&#39;t always make them wealthy.



Human nature eh? Have you figuered out a way to isolate and test human behavior, I&#39;m sure many scientists would be interested in this development&#33;

Why would I want to gain acceptance from capitalists? It&#39;s our terms not theirs.
Not everything has to be scientifically proven.

As to your latter question, I think it would depend on how many capitalists there are. Obviously, if the revolution was spurred on for the common good it has to first and foremost benefit the workers but after that it should benefit the rest of them.



"Sort of"? :blink: :o :o :o
In an economic sense, they are. But they don&#39;t viciously look down upon you, or at least those of them that aren&#39;t members of the ruling class.


Your right, the capitalist is also socially opposed to us. They want to make human relations a commodity&#33; :(
That can depend.

[Mujer Libre]

Don&#39;t mean to step on your toes nate... :P


Originally posted by FinnMacCool+--> (FinnMacCool)Not all of them see it that way. It is only a matter of chance that they were born a capitalist.[/b]

Fair enough, but how many people who are born capitalists become revolutionaries? It&#39;s negligible. How many even become liberals? Some, but even their number are small, and what do they do? Donate money to charities&#33;

Most capitalists try to re-produce their wealth by going to work for their parents (or one of their parents friends) or by starting their own businesses, making their own investments... or they just live off their parents wealth and employ people to serve their every whim.


Originally posted by FinnMacCool+--> (FinnMacCool)Just because people are capitalists doesn&#39;t always make them wealthy. [/b]

Poor capitalists? Some examples?

Poor capitalists are still capitalists, they still control something they do not produce, they still appropiate and exploit. It doesn&#39;t matter how much money they have, if they&#39;re controlling the means of production they&#39;ve got to go one way or another.


[email protected]

Not everything has to be scientifically proven.

Well, no, but don&#39;t expect people to believe you without some kind of evidence.


FinnMacCool
but they don&#39;t viciously look down upon you, or at least those of them that aren&#39;t members of the ruling class.

It doesn&#39;t really matter what they think about us, their thoughts don&#39;t make them our enemy (though ruling class hegemony is hardly a progressive social force) --&#62; their position as exploiters make them our enemy. Their interests lie with the maintenance of the exploitation of working people and the maintenance of an oppresive bourgeois state --&#62; they can think what they like about us, but as long as our class relationship remains the same they will be our enemy.


That can depend.

What kind of capitalist doesn&#39;t use workers as a commodity? And how many of these sorts of capitalists are there?

[Enragé]

"Poor capitalists? Some examples?

Poor capitalists are still capitalists, they still control something they do not produce, they still appropiate and exploit. It doesn&#39;t matter how much money they have, if they&#39;re controlling the means of production they&#39;ve got to go one way or another."

I think he meant people who believe that capitalism works, as in a proletarian who is pro-capitalist

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:58 AM


I think he meant people who believe that capitalism works, as in a proletarian who is pro-capitalist
No one is suggesting violent action be taken against these people, unless of course they armed action against the revolutionary society.

[Sentinel]

Violence is of course a necessity in a revolutionary situation, because the oppressors will be the first ones to use it. It&#39;s in their class interest to fight for the old system with any means.

A revolutionary who doesn&#39;t fight fire with fire will soon be a dead revolutionary.

[Body Count]

I&#39;m down for whatever needs to be done....

[dislatino]

Violence during a revolutionary process is 100% inevitable, its needed, unfortunately, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

[Mujer Libre]

I think he meant people who believe that capitalism works, as in a proletarian who is pro-capitalist

Supporting capitalism doesn&#39;t make someone a &#39;capitalist&#39;, especially if that person is poor.

Perhaps if he was talking about &#39;middle manager&#39; types, people who hold authority over workers, who are obscenely overpaid and who have aspirations to be capitalists --&#62; but are not yet actually property owners and so forth... but a poor person supporting capitalist doesnt make them a &#39;poor capitalist&#39;- they&#39;re still working class or lumpen.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 26 2006, 02:34 AM

I think he meant people who believe that capitalism works, as in a proletarian who is pro-capitalist

Supporting capitalism doesn&#39;t make someone a &#39;capitalist&#39;, especially if that person is poor.

Perhaps if he was talking about &#39;middle manager&#39; types, people who hold authority over workers, who are obscenely overpaid and who have aspirations to be capitalists --&#62; but are not yet actually property owners and so forth... but a poor person supporting capitalist doesnt make them a &#39;poor capitalist&#39;- they&#39;re still working class or lumpen.
i know

but i was just saying what he meant

not what the word really means