The execution of the Romonovs [Archive]

Leo

17th May 2006, 05:37

The killing wasn't of the family was not actually authorized by the Bolshevik authorities so either the executioners acted on their own will or Sverdlov himself, or one of his close associates contacted with the executioners and told them that the execution of the family would be 'unofficial'.
The interesting part of the execution is that two skeletons were not found. There are rumors that Alexei and Anastasia survived. The theory behind Alexei staying alive is that on of the executioners pushed him back so that he felt under his dead parents and stayed alive. Alexei is thought to have taken shelter in nearby villages. Of course, he couldn't have moved anywhere because of his hemophlyia, so ih the story is true, he lived and died in one of the nearby villages.
As for Anastasia, she is told to have survived because of the jewelry she had on her. The jewels might have prevented the bullets from entering her body. There were several people who claimed to Anastasia.
What happened to Tsar's children remains one of greatest mysteries of the twentieth century...

Erythromycin-diazepam

17th May 2006, 06:04

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17 2006, 04:37 AM
The killing wasn't of the family was not actually authorized by the Bolshevik authorities so either the executioners acted on their own will or Sverdlov himself, or one of his close associates contacted with the executioners and told them that the execution of the family would be 'unofficial'.
The interesting part of the execution is that two skeletons were not found. There are rumors that Alexei and Anastasia survived. The theory behind Alexei staying alive is that on of the executioners pushed him back so that he felt under his dead parents and stayed alive. Alexei is thought to have taken shelter in nearby villages. Of course, he couldn't have moved anywhere because of his hemophlyia, so ih the story is true, he lived and died in one of the nearby villages.
As for Anastasia, she is told to have survived because of the jewelry she had on her. The jewels might have prevented the bullets from entering her body. There were several people who claimed to Anastasia.
What happened to Tsar's children remains one of greatest mysteries of the twentieth century...
Yeah i got a book on it, very interesting stuff.

ComradeOm

17th May 2006, 12:46

Originally posted by Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 04:04 AM
I know the killings were a symbol of no turning back, but i think killing the king and queen was enough.
Fine. So they kill the Tsar and Tsarina but leave the children alone... who becomes the next Tsar wise guy? Royalty is heredity. The institution of the Tsar would live on until every last Romanov was dead.

Andy Bowden

17th May 2006, 13:25

I remember reading that Lenin later had some people arrested for the execution of the Romanov family?

:unsure:

Erythromycin-diazepam

17th May 2006, 14:34

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 17 2006, 11:46 AM--> (ComradeOm @ May 17 2006, 11:46 AM)
Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 04:04 AM
I know the killings were a symbol of no turning back, but i think killing the king and queen was enough.
Fine. So they kill the Tsar and Tsarina but leave the children alone... who becomes the next Tsar wise guy? Royalty is heredity. The institution of the Tsar would live on until every last Romanov was dead. [/b]
Then kill them, but do children deserve to die?
She also had younger brothers, so im just not talking about her.

Wiesty

17th May 2006, 15:08

So if its Heredity, and the throne is passed on, if the tzar and tzarina are executed, and bolsheviks take over, its not really a monarchy anymore, and the kids could really do nothing.

Nachie

17th May 2006, 15:32

They should consider themselves lucky they got to go out like that. If a mob had gotten hold of them then they most likely would all have been beaten to death, mutilated, and their bodies displayed publicly. And really it's a shame that's not what happened.

ComradeOm

17th May 2006, 16:00

Originally posted by Erythromycin-diazepam+May 17 2006, 01:34 PM--> (Erythromycin-diazepam @ May 17 2006, 01:34 PM)Then kill them, but do children deserve to die?
She also had younger brothers, so im just not talking about her.[/b]
No one "deserves" to die but you seem to be missing the point here. Due to the nature of monarchy as soon as the Tsar died there would automatically be a new one waiting to be crowned. That's the whole point of having all those princes of royal blood knocking around. In order to eliminate the monarchy you have to eliminate both the Tsar and possible heirs to the throne.

Wiesty
So if its Heredity, and the throne is passed on, if the tzar and tzarina are executed, and bolsheviks take over, its not really a monarchy anymore, and the kids could really do nothing.
As long as the monarchy survives then it is a threat to the new regime. As long as the children survive then the monarchy survives. They would be a banner for the Whites and counter-revolutionaries to rally around.

Nachie

17th May 2006, 16:03

No one "deserves" to die
They did.

ComradeOm

17th May 2006, 16:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:03 PM

No one "deserves" to die
They did.
By being born into the wrong family?

When you say somebody "deserves" death you're automatically applying moral standards... something I like to stay well clear of.

Nachie

17th May 2006, 16:12

Not killing children because they're children is equally a moral argument (I realize that's not your position)

Amusing Scrotum

17th May 2006, 16:19

Originally posted by Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 03:55 AM
I know people die in revolutions, but children shouldn't, maybe by accident but not on purpose.

The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.

And, aside from that, the ones over 18 are considered, by the standards of nearly every society I've heard of, to be rational adults....so they were therefore rightly considered as guilty by the executioners for the actions of the Romanov Dynasty. And, funnily enough, they never seem to have questioned the actions of said Dynasty whilst it was providing them with a luxurious lifestyle.

Incidentally, some woman living in Monaco (?) has been saying she is the rightful air of the Romanov Dynasty and wants them to be "rehabilitated" and to regain their fortune. Which makes me think that the Bolshevik's should have used a few more bullets on a few more Romanov's.

Put bluntly, fuck the Romanov's and their children.

YKTMX

17th May 2006, 16:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:12 PM
Not killing children because they're children is equally a moral argument (I realize that's not your position)
No, ComradeOm said he realised that it was neccessary to kill all the members of the monarchy. But he accepted it in terms of a class analysis and the needs of the revolution, not because those people neccessarily "deserved" to die.

Slaughter and terror is really nothing to rejoice in.

Actually, it's the kind of thing we want to confine to the dustbin of history.

Vanguard1917

17th May 2006, 17:24

I remember hearing that the Bolshevik leadership opposed the execution of the Tsar's children. Either way, executing the whole family was mainly for symbolic reasons. The children symbolised the old oppressive system of hereditary, feudal tyranny. I doubt many people in Russia lost any sleep over it, and nor should we. On the other hand, i agree with what YKTMX says above.

The Bitter Hippy

17th May 2006, 17:50

yes it is regrettable that bloodshed was necessary, but without the elimination of the Romanov Dynasty, it would be a lot harder for the imperialist powers of the west to eventually have dealings with Bolshevik Russia.

In wartime it is very common for figureheads to flee to friendly countries, and call for resistance from the people in the countried which they fled. It has a noticable difference, one which the Bolsheviks absolutely HAD to remove. The situation was perilous enough as it was.

Wanted Man

17th May 2006, 17:53

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 03:19 PM
The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.
Indeed. If you're raised into a royal family, there's no way to be completely ignorant by the age of 13. Besides, what if they just locked the kids up? Then the Whites could take that city, "free"(kidnap) the brat and start a new monarchy, led by some White regent until the brat's old enough.

ComradeOm

17th May 2006, 20:24

Originally posted by Nachie+May 17 2006, 03:12 PM--> (Nachie @ May 17 2006, 03:12 PM)Not killing children because they're children is equally a moral argument (I realize that's not your position)[/b]
Well YKTMX summed it up. Its really a matter of necessary and unnecessary violence. Morality isn't an issue until you start talking about "deserving" to die.

Now I don't believe that anyone here would have what it takes to kill a 13 year old girl and nor should they ever have reason to. However the reality is that in 1918 the Romanov family had to die. It was a simple necessity.

Vanguard1917
I remember hearing that the Bolshevik leadership opposed the execution of the Tsar's children.
I don't think most of the leadership was informed until after the deed. I remember reading an account by Trotsky in which he was told by Sverdlov that the matter was "finished".

Nachie

17th May 2006, 22:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:24 PM
Well YKTMX summed it up. Its really a matter of necessary and unnecessary violence. Morality isn't an issue until you start talking about "deserving" to die.

Now I don't believe that anyone here would have what it takes to kill a 13 year old girl and nor should they ever have reason to. However the reality is that in 1918 the Romanov family had to die. It was a simple necessity.
I respect that you don't have to be moralistic, but I sometimes do and I think many others do too, or rather let's call it acting subjectively, but this is an inevitable part of the collective wave of proletarian dictatorship.

The symbolism of going after the whole family was effective and someone was bound to do it anyway in the middle of a revolution.

But if you prefer, then "had" to die is indeed a better description than "deserved" to die.

Leo

17th May 2006, 23:13

I remember reading an account by Trotsky in which he was told by Sverdlov that the matter was "finished".

Hmm, I don't know... Sverdlov was superior to Trotsky, I don't think he would report it in that way. Maybe he was talking to Lenin, because if Bolsheviks wanted to keep this a secret and Sverdlov himself handled it, the only other person who would be aware of what happened would be Lenin himself.

Erythromycin-diazepam

18th May 2006, 00:00

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+May 17 2006, 03:19 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ May 17 2006, 03:19 PM)
Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 03:55 AM
I know people die in revolutions, but children shouldn't, maybe by accident but not on purpose.

The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.

And, aside from that, the ones over 18 are considered, by the standards of nearly every society I've heard of, to be rational adults....so they were therefore rightly considered as guilty by the executioners for the actions of the Romanov Dynasty. And, funnily enough, they never seem to have questioned the actions of said Dynasty whilst it was providing them with a luxurious lifestyle.

Incidentally, some woman living in Monaco (?) has been saying she is the rightful air of the Romanov Dynasty and wants them to be "rehabilitated" and to regain their fortune. Which makes me think that the Bolshevik's should have used a few more bullets on a few more Romanov's.

Put bluntly, fuck the Romanov's and their children. [/b]
Cruel and heartless, i wanna make sure i dont end up a crazy,violent,leftist like you.

Anyways, this is more of a moral than a politcal debate for me anyways >.>

Zingu

18th May 2006, 00:25

Originally posted by Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 11:00 PM

Cruel and heartless, i wanna make sure i dont end up a crazy,violent,leftist like you.

Anyways, this is more of a moral than a politcal debate for me anyways >.>
So, how do you justify allowing a family strut around in diamonds and riches while their people starved in the streets and brutally suppressing nationalist movements in European territories?

That deserves a explanation.

Its just as equal as your own "How can you kill children", if not more equal of a question.

chimx

18th May 2006, 00:34

1) the bolsheviks killed 'em out of fear of them being manipulated by the whites. it is doubtful if nicholas would have been into the idea from what i recall reading, but that was the login none-the-less

2) the people who think that anastasia wasn't killed with her family are the same people that think the CIA collaborated with Cuba to assassiante JFK. It is generally considered conspiratorail malarky by historians.

3) if you are looking to attack the morality of the Bolshevik party, the killing of the romanov family should be way way way way way way way way way far down on the list compared to everything else.

Niemand

18th May 2006, 00:40

If Hitler had had children, would it have been alright to kill them after World War Two? They would undoubtedly have been a symbol for the Nazis to rally around and worship, and the Whites would have done the same to the Tsar's children if they survived.

Besides, both of the children were old enough to form their own opinions, make their own decisions, and weren't incapable of becoming future Tsarist leaders which would threaten the CCCP in the future.

Erythromycin-diazepam

18th May 2006, 05:14

Originally posted by Zingu+May 17 2006, 11:25 PM--> (Zingu @ May 17 2006, 11:25 PM)
Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 11:00 PM

Cruel and heartless, i wanna make sure i dont end up a crazy,violent,leftist like you.

Anyways, this is more of a moral than a politcal debate for me anyways >.>
So, how do you justify allowing a family strut around in diamonds and riches while their people starved in the streets and brutally suppressing nationalist movements in European territories?

That deserves a explanation.

Its just as equal as your own "How can you kill children", if not more equal of a question. [/b]
I cant justify that, but people dont deserve to die just because of that.

The Grey Blur

18th May 2006, 15:45

Originally posted by Erythromycin-diazepam+May 18 2006, 04:14 AM--> (Erythromycin-diazepam @ May 18 2006, 04:14 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:25 PM

Erythromycin-[email protected] 17 2006, 11:00 PM

Cruel and heartless, i wanna make sure i dont end up a crazy,violent,leftist like you.

Anyways, this is more of a moral than a politcal debate for me anyways >.>
So, how do you justify allowing a family strut around in diamonds and riches while their people starved in the streets and brutally suppressing nationalist movements in European territories?

That deserves a explanation.

Its just as equal as your own "How can you kill children", if not more equal of a question.
I cant justify that, but people dont deserve to die just because of that. [/b]
See the above post for the reasons the Bolshies killed them

Can't you read?!

Janus

18th May 2006, 17:25

the people who think that anastasia wasn't killed with her family
She simply may not have been buried with her family since two bodies were missing from the graves.

Axel1917

18th May 2006, 18:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:59 AM
They weren't sick or twisted people. It was more of a symbol that there was no turning back. And like Miles pointed out, they would be rallying points for the Whites which was a concern when the Czech Legion approached the city.

Come on, a little girl who is 18, what the fuck is she gonna do.
A lot. That's an adult.

Why shed a tear for a royal family that allowed their people to go hungry and starve while they lived in luxury.
Not to mention the anti-Jewish pogroms this family helped organize as well. :angry:

It is really laughable how the Bourgeois hypocrites get up in arms about this. They whine about a few people being killed, yet at the same time, what capitalism does to the world's population in one year makes the entire Stalinist regime look like an episode of the Care Bears.

Mesijs

18th May 2006, 21:39

Originally posted by Matthijs+May 17 2006, 04:53 PM--> (Matthijs @ May 17 2006, 04:53 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 03:19 PM
The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.
Indeed. If you're raised into a royal family, there's no way to be completely ignorant by the age of 13. Besides, what if they just locked the kids up? Then the Whites could take that city, "free"(kidnap) the brat and start a new monarchy, led by some White regent until the brat's old enough. [/b]
You're just some disgusting people. What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person. It's just disgusting. And you still wonder why people give communism a bad name? Just because of morons like you.

Mesijs

18th May 2006, 21:41

Erythromycin-diazepam

18th May 2006, 21:46

Originally posted by Mesijs+May 18 2006, 08:39 PM--> (Mesijs @ May 18 2006, 08:39 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:53 PM

Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 03:19 PM
The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.
Indeed. If you're raised into a royal family, there's no way to be completely ignorant by the age of 13. Besides, what if they just locked the kids up? Then the Whites could take that city, "free"(kidnap) the brat and start a new monarchy, led by some White regent until the brat's old enough.
You're just some disgusting people. What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person. It's just disgusting. And you still wonder why people give communism a bad name? Just because of morons like you. [/b]
Thank you, this guy is exactly right.

The Grey Blur

18th May 2006, 22:00

What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person.
1) We're not saying it was okay, we're saying it was neccessary. If this makes us evil then so be it

2) This topic is irrelevant - the reason we have a History forum is so that we can learn from the past mistakes or glories of the Left-Wing movement - not to moralise

Mesijs

18th May 2006, 23:19

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 18 2006, 09:00 PM

What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person.
1) We're not saying it was okay, we're saying it was neccessary. If this makes us evil then so be it

2) This topic is irrelevant - the reason we have a History forum is so that we can learn from the past mistakes or glories of the Left-Wing movement - not to moralise
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.

Mesijs

18th May 2006, 23:21

sorry for double... there's an error on the site

Fistful of Steel

19th May 2006, 00:15

I really don't know how I feel about this. Class struggle is definitely necessary, but the thought of killing any children makes me queasy. I'm sure that they could've been used as a figurehead by monarchists and other whites but I don't believe the sins of the father pass on to the children. However, I'm pretty A-OK with the execution of the the Czar and Czarina. Considering the amount of deaths they're responsible for...

Dreckt

19th May 2006, 01:49

Doesn't anyone think about the image of the left? How will people view us when we talk about killing children who belong to rich families? "To make sure" isn't a good argument. People have rightist views, then they develop, learn and realize that rightist views are wrong. Some people figure out their lives at 10 or 13 - some won't until they're older. Not all people are the same or think exactly like one another.

I believe our weapon is that of an idea, we must convince people, not kill them - else, we become just like any other group who uses violence. And this will only lead people into ignoring "people like us" and our arguments. Don't let "kill them!" become the everyday argument for the left.

But yes, under the circumstances, maybe that was necessary. Have in mind of all the children that died during the tzar's rule, all parents who were executed for pity things like stealing a loaf of bread, or mothers who were raped. In comparison, one royal family is nothing to what the majority of Russia went through.

Intelligitimate

19th May 2006, 01:55

Intelligitimate

19th May 2006, 01:55

double post

Fistful of Steel

19th May 2006, 02:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:55 AM
You take this position because you are not serious about revolution. To you, socialism is just an abstract moral system. You care more about your own petty sense of idealism than you do about the people capitalism is destroying. You care more about a 13 year old kid getting shot than you do about the lives of millions of people affected by imperialism and capitalist exploitation.

What the communist movement doesn't need is worthless little pretty-bourgeois twits like yourself.
Tell me, how exactly was the child responsible for the ills of capitalism by what... Being born? :huh:

Not recklessly murdering children isn't "petty bourgeoise" it's called not being a dickhead. Go around murdering people because they're the children of capitalists and see how much popular support you get for it.

Vanguard1917

19th May 2006, 05:47

Class struggle is definitely necessary, but the thought of killing any children makes me queasy.

That's because you're a sane human being.

Doesn't anyone think about the image of the left? How will people view us when we talk about killing children who belong to rich families?

You must understand that the Romonov family was a very special case.

Amusing Scrotum

19th May 2006, 06:34

Originally posted by Erythromycin-diazepam+--> (Erythromycin-diazepam)Cruel and heartless....[/b]

I have my moments. :D

Originally posted by Erythromycin-diazepam+--> (Erythromycin-diazepam)Anyways, this is more of a moral than a politcal debate for me anyways >.>[/b]

Wrong board for that kind of debate....maybe try a social-liberal orientated board; they'll likely have debates on "morals".

Originally posted by Mesijs
You're just some disgusting people.

But, as a good point, at least I can manage to operate the boards functions properly and not double post all the time.

We all have our faults.

[email protected]
What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person.

They weren't just "guilty" of being the "wrong person"; they were "guilty" of taking part in Tsarist despotism. As I pointed out, even the youngest of the children was old enough to formulate their own political beliefs....and if they were disillusioned by the bloody practices of the Romanov Dynasty, then they should have said so.

However, as far as I know, not one of the "heirs" found the practices of Russian Tsarism reprehensible; and they were certainly happy enough to live of the proceeds of that brutal regime. They were, to borrow a famous phrase, as guilty as sin!

At the very least, you must concede that the children over 18 were "fair game". After all, by any standard I've heard of, 18 year olds are considered rational adults and therefore, those particular 18 years can be fairly considered willing accomplices to one of the most brutal regimes around.

Or perhaps you think they should have been "spared"? Well, tough luck....cause no Court would accept "moral" reasons as acceptable when determining the sentence of obviously guilty bastards.

Fistful of Steel
Go around murdering people because they're the children of capitalists and see how much popular support you get for it.

Very few people I know actually like Paris Hilton. <_<

KickMcCann

19th May 2006, 08:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:39 PM

You're just some disgusting people. What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person. It's just disgusting. And you still wonder why people give communism a bad name? Just because of morons like you.
Typical bourgoise sentiment. The death of an aristocatic, famous 13 year old is a protestable outrage, but the deaths of thousands of nameless 13 year olds in Western-owned African diamond mines, or by Western-trained death squads in Central America is only worth a sigh and shrug of the shoulders.
When John Lennon gets shot and dies, we should all get together and hold a candle-light vigil, but if hundreds of poor folks get suckered into gangs and drugs and kill each other by the hundreds in the ghettos, we should just sigh and shrug our shoulders.
Alexi Romanov could not help being born into the Romanov dynasty any more than the millions of young Russians who died in trenchs and progroms or of starvation at the hands of the Czar. Death is an emotional tragedy for everyone, but bu-hu, you have to face reality and accept it in order to change it for the better.
As the son of the Czar and his Heir Apparent you have to face certain realities, the same realities the children of all rich and powerful people must face. As the personification of the state, it's wealth, and its power, the Czar is entitled to its riches and oppulence, regardless of the condition of the common people. But there are risks to enjoying this-- if the state goes down, you go down with it. That's the nature of leadership. If you do not want to face the potential burdeon of being overthrown and killed, or if you do not wish to place this burdeon on your children, you disassociate yourself and your family from from the position of Czar. But if you don't, and your rule comes to an end, you have to accept the repercussions to the actions you made in power, and since it is a heritical system so does your Heir Apparent. The Czar had a choice, and he chose being the Czar over the safety of his family. Celebrities make the same choice, endangering their family members to kidnapping and extortion and the intrusion of their privacy by being famous.

Mesijs

19th May 2006, 10:35

Excuse me, but a lot of 13 year old kids could not formulate an opinion. Especially not while being indoctrinated and seeing not of the outside world. If you're 13, and you're being taught everything is OK, and you only see the beatiful palaces, then you think everything is ok.

And it's not petty bourgeois to be against killing children. Damn, we're talking about killing children because they're children of exploiters. Please, leftists, get some brains and get some moral standards.

Wanted Man

19th May 2006, 14:14

Wah, fucking wah. Always interesting to see how a liberal's heart bleeds for the oppressors firstly and foremostly. Go find a forum that cares, libbie.

Mesijs

19th May 2006, 14:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:14 PM
Wah, fucking wah. Always interesting to see how a liberal's heart bleeds for the oppressors firstly and foremostly. Go find a forum that cares, libbie.
Excuse me? Firstly, my heart bleeds for everyone that's killed, so that means people in Stalin's gulag, Romanovs and poor African exploited children.

Secondly, I'm not a liberal, I've never said I was.

Thirdly, sad to see how a dogmatic dumb-ass like you can't even reply something with regard to the topic, but only speak in terms of ideologies, losing the real world.

But if you think killing 13-years old is for a good cause, please keep on dreaming. But when you get a little older and become mature, hopefully you will develop some moral standards and get rid of your tunnel-vision.

EDIT: by the way, the 13-year old didn't opress anyone. Hopefully you read my previous post well, but I understand that's difficult with a tunnel-vision.

Erythromycin-diazepam

19th May 2006, 14:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:35 AM
Excuse me, but a lot of 13 year old kids could not formulate an opinion. Especially not while being indoctrinated and seeing not of the outside world. If you're 13, and you're being taught everything is OK, and you only see the beatiful palaces, then you think everything is ok.

And it's not petty bourgeois to be against killing children. Damn, we're talking about killing children because they're children of exploiters. Please, leftists, get some brains and get some moral standards.
+1

So what you people are saying is, because i dont believe in killing a children i'm the one in the wrong?

Wanted Man

19th May 2006, 15:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:58 PM
Thirdly, sad to see how a dogmatic dumb-ass like you can't even reply something with regard to the topic, but only speak in terms of ideologies, losing the real world.
What's there to reply to? I already gave my views, and you answered with "OMG U FUCKIN SICKO1111!1!!!!11". If you have given any arguments other than "OMIGOSH THEYRE JUST CHILDREN U HEARTLESS BASTARD!1!11", point me to them.

Mesijs

19th May 2006, 15:13

Originally posted by Matthijs+May 19 2006, 02:06 PM--> (Matthijs @ May 19 2006, 02:06 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 01:58 PM
Thirdly, sad to see how a dogmatic dumb-ass like you can't even reply something with regard to the topic, but only speak in terms of ideologies, losing the real world.
What's there to reply to? I already gave my views, and you answered with "OMG U FUCKIN SICKO1111!1!!!!11". If you have given any arguments other than "OMIGOSH THEYRE JUST CHILDREN U HEARTLESS BASTARD!1!11", point me to them. [/b]
Well that's not what I said, very funny...

This is what I said:

Excuse me, but a lot of 13 year old kids could not formulate an opinion. Especially not while being indoctrinated and seeing not of the outside world. If you're 13, and you're being taught everything is OK, and you only see the beatiful palaces, then you think everything is ok.

Damn, we're talking about killing children because they're children of exploiters.

So, what's your opinion on that, 'comrade'?

Amusing Scrotum

19th May 2006, 15:38

Originally posted by Matthijs+--> (Matthijs)Always interesting to see how a liberal's heart bleeds for the oppressors firstly and foremostly.[/b]

Nope, it seems his icky bricky heart bleeds for everyone! <_<

One wonders whether he has to receive regular blood transfusions. :lol:

Originally posted by [email protected]
Excuse me, but a lot of 13 year old kids could not formulate an opinion.

The children of the Romanov's went to the best schools in Russia where they were effectively taught how to govern. Indeed, had it not been for Alexei's hemophilia, he would have taken the throne in 1917....aged just 12.

Granted, he would have had numerous helpers, flatterers and so on, but so do all rulers....and that the Russian ruling class thought that he would be a suitable despot were it not for his illness, indicates to me that he was able to formulate an opinion; and that opinion was one of continued support for Tsarist despotism.

Mesijs
If you're 13, and you're being taught everything is OK, and you only see the beatiful palaces, then you think everything is ok.

The same could probably have been said of Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lothringen, otherwise known as Marie Antoinette. I rather doubt she was a "horrible" person, she, in my opinion, was just astoundingly ignorant.

Yet she was still an active participant in a ruthless and cruel despotism, and for that reason, and that reason alone, she deserved to be tried by the Revolutionary Court....and, most likely, their punishment was wholly suitable.

Indeed, I'm unaware of any Court that that accepts ignorance as an excuse for the participation in brutal crimes....and other than considerations about peoples mental health coming into play, people are, generally speaking, held responsible for their actions....no matter how "ignorant" or "indoctrinated" they are.

Do you, for instance, oppose the punishments dealt out by the Nuremberg Trials? Because the case could pretty easily be made that many Nazi Officials were "indoctrinated"; and as we've determined that Alexei was in a position to be treated as a rational adult, I don't see how, if you were being "morally" consistent, you could not oppose the punishments dealt out to former Nazi Officials.

Yet I don't think even you wold argue that the lives of Nazi Officials were "sacrosanct". Or would you? :unsure:

Mesijs

19th May 2006, 15:47

We're talking about a little kid here, dude. That's something else than Marie Antoinette and something completely different than nazi's at Nurenberg.

A 13 year old kid did not govern or did not have influence on policy. And the kid knew nothing about the reality of czarism.

Please stop making absurd comparisons.

Amusing Scrotum

19th May 2006, 16:19

Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)We're talking about a little kid here, dude.[/b]

No, we're not. As I pointed out in my last post:

Originally posted by Me; May 19 2006+ 02:38 PM--> (Me; May 19 2006 @ 02:38 PM)
[email protected]
Excuse me, but a lot of 13 year old kids could not formulate an opinion.

The children of the Romanov's went to the best schools in Russia where they were effectively taught how to govern. Indeed, had it not been for Alexei's hemophilia, he would have taken the throne in 1917....aged just 12.

Granted, he would have had numerous helpers, flatterers and so on, but so do all rulers....and that the Russian ruling class thought that he would be a suitable despot were it not for his illness, indicates to me that he was able to formulate an opinion; and that opinion was one of continued support for Tsarist despotism.[/b]

Mesijs
And the kid knew nothing about the reality of czarism.

Well what do you think he was taught at those fancy schools? Knitting? :lol:

Ruling class kids, are taught how to rule; where as the rest of us are taught to eat shit....so, from time to time, when one of those ruling class kids experiences the taste of metal, I frankly don't care.

All the Tsar's kids likely knew exactly what Tsarist despotism entailed; and yet they didn't even offer a murmur of discontent. Like their parents, they were rotten to the core.

Nachie

19th May 2006, 16:52

This discussion is pointless.

Angry mobs of proletarians have been dismembering, murdering, mutilating, setting on fire, stomping, shooting, stabbing, trampling, dropping out of high windows, beheading, hanging, and otherwise ending the lives of rich people's children for as long as there have been rich people around to have children.

What I feel about it, what you feel about it, whether these positions are taken ideologically or morally, doesn't matter. It's gonna happen anyway.

Best not to get too attached to the "intrinsic value of human life" because during any uprising you'll find yourself suddenly having to worry about your own.

Fistful of Steel

19th May 2006, 19:06

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+May 19 2006, 05:34 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ May 19 2006, 05:34 AM)
Fistful of Steel
Go around murdering people because they're the children of capitalists and see how much popular support you get for it.

Very few people I know actually like Paris Hilton. <_< [/b]
A) Paris Hilton is an adult.
B) Paris Hilton is too stupid to know what the word "exploitation" means, anyway.

The Grey Blur

19th May 2006, 21:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?

Intelligitimate

19th May 2006, 21:25

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+May 19 2006, 08:13 PM--> (Permanent Revolution @ May 19 2006, 08:13 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts? [/b]
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does.

Erythromycin-diazepam

19th May 2006, 23:05

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+May 19 2006, 08:25 PM--> (Intelligitimate @ May 19 2006, 08:25 PM)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does. [/b]
So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?

The Grey Blur

19th May 2006, 23:46

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+May 19 2006, 08:25 PM--> (Intelligitimate @ May 19 2006, 08:25 PM)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does. [/b]
You shut up

So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?
And you shut up

Erythromycin-diazepam

20th May 2006, 01:55

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+May 19 2006, 10:46 PM--> (Permanent Revolution @ May 19 2006, 10:46 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does.
You shut up

So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?
And you shut up [/b]
Hey this isn't a flame war, get the fuck back on topic.

Fistful of Steel

20th May 2006, 03:46

Originally posted by Erythromycin-diazepam+May 19 2006, 10:05 PM--> (Erythromycin-diazepam @ May 19 2006, 10:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does.
So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ? [/b]
Yep. If you don't want to kill children you own the means of production. It's clearly logical.

Intelligitimate

20th May 2006, 04:46

Originally posted by Erythromycin-diazepam+May 19 2006, 10:05 PM--> (Erythromycin-diazepam @ May 19 2006, 10:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does.
So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ? [/b]
Bourgeois is an adjective, dumbass.

Look, no one wants to shoot children, that's a given, but there are other things to consider. Revolution isn't fun and games. If you think revolutions are supposed to be some kind of bloodless grass-roots bourgeois 'get out the vote' campaigns, you need to stop calling yourself a revolutionary right now.

Fistful of Steel

20th May 2006, 05:27

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+May 20 2006, 03:46 AM--> (Intelligitimate @ May 20 2006, 03:46 AM)
Originally posted by Erythromycin-[email protected] 19 2006, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does.
So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?
Bourgeois is an adjective, dumbass. [/b]
bour·geois Audio pronunciation of "bourgeois" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhwä)
n. pl. bourgeois

1. A person belonging to the middle class.

No need for name calling, especially when you're calling someone a dumbass and correcting them when they were in fact right.

Erythromycin-diazepam

20th May 2006, 08:01

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+May 20 2006, 03:46 AM--> (Intelligitimate @ May 20 2006, 03:46 AM)
Originally posted by Erythromycin-[email protected] 19 2006, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does.
So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?
Bourgeois is an adjective, dumbass.

Look, no one wants to shoot children, that's a given, but there are other things to consider. Revolution isn't fun and games. If you think revolutions are supposed to be some kind of bloodless grass-roots bourgeois 'get out the vote' campaigns, you need to stop calling yourself a revolutionary right now. [/b]
Who the fuck said i was a " Revolutionary", i like politics but i'm not going around shooting children to prove my point.

Mesijs

20th May 2006, 14:12

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+May 19 2006, 08:13 PM--> (Permanent Revolution @ May 19 2006, 08:13 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts? [/b]
I'm clearly not stupid.

And you think that with the presence of a 13-year old kid, the revolution could be crushed? Again, very strong movement then.

Clearly, if the kid wasn't shot dead, the revolution had failed...

The Grey Blur

20th May 2006, 17:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:12 PM
Clearly, if the kid wasn't shot dead, the revolution had failed...
NO NO NO NO NO!

That's not what we're saying. This is the final time we will give the Bolshevik justification for the Romanov family's extermination - despite the fact that this discussion is completely and utterly irrelevant

1) The Whites could have rallied around any surviving member of the monarchy - there was a lot of disunity amongst the Whites - the kids could have been an inspirational symbol for the counter-revolution

2) If the Reds had been defeated then the Romanov line would be re-enstated - something that the Bolsheviks wanted to avoid at all costs

Please, no more comments from iron bolsheviks or bleeding-hearts - it happened a long time ago and although brutal, was a miniscule piece of misery compared to the constant suffering of the opressed of the world that we are fighting against today

Comprende?

Intelligitimate

21st May 2006, 03:38

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+May 20 2006, 04:27 AM--> (Fistful of Steel @ May 20 2006, 04:27 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Erythromycin-[email protected] 19 2006, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:19 PM
Killing a kid necessary? Very strong movement then...

Yes, and clearly people haven't learned anything.
They were killed as otherwise the Whites could have rallied around them or the Tzar line could have continued - not because they were rich

This has been stated 10 times so far in this thread, I counted - Are you stupid or have you just not been reading people's posts?
The answer is no to both. He is a petty-bourgeois liberal type, and not concerned at all about revolution. That is why he takes the position he does.
So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?
Bourgeois is an adjective, dumbass.
bour·geois Audio pronunciation of "bourgeois" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhwä)
n. pl. bourgeois

1. A person belonging to the middle class.

No need for name calling, especially when you're calling someone a dumbass and correcting them when they were in fact right. [/b]
Your selective quoting of an online dictionary is funny, because your source even says it is an adjective, if you had bothered to quote it in full.

In any case, while it may be technically correct to use it as a singular noun (perhaps only in French), I've never actually seen/heard it used that way in English. Bourgeois is always used as an adjective, and bourgeoisie always refers to the social group. There is no singular used, you say "he is a member of the bourgeoisie" or something.

Janus

21st May 2006, 06:04

Bourgeois is an adjective, dumbass.
Stop flaming, it's an adjective and a noun.

Comrade J

21st May 2006, 06:52

According to a Mark Steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steel) (socialist comedian) lecture I heard online somewhere, when the Romanovs were imprisoned, they still had their butler with them!
Mark Steel did a rather good impression of him, "will the black bread be to your liking again sir?" :D

Vanguard1917

22nd May 2006, 15:33

According to a Mark Steel (socialist comedian) lecture I heard online somewhere, when the Romanovs were imprisoned, they still had their butler with them!
Mark Steel did a rather good impression of him, "will the black bread be to your liking again sir?"

Mark Steel's a very funny guy.

Andy Bowden

22nd May 2006, 16:51

"I'm sure any one who'se been in wormwood scrubs will be familiar"

Mark Steel on the Romanovs prison, complete with butlers :lol:

TupacAndChe4Eva

22nd May 2006, 17:30

It was necessary.

I certainly wouldn't enjoy murdering a young person, as some on here seem to be advocating ( say you enjoy killing, and see how much support you get from the average Working-Class person).

However, it was needed for the future, at that moment in history. Any surviving members of that dynasty could have became a figurehead for any counter-revolutionaries, etc.

Redmau5

22nd May 2006, 18:50

I certainly wouldn't enjoy murdering a young person, as some on here seem to be advocating ( say you enjoy killing, and see how much support you get from the average Working-Class person).

I don't think anyone here has advocated that they would have "enjoyed" killing the children of the Russian Royal family. The main difference is between those who believed it to be necessary, and those who did not. Like yourself, I believe it was necessary, for the same reasons you pointed out.

Year: 1

22nd May 2006, 19:36

The Romanovs were victims of history and the executioners were slaves of history. The executions had to be carried out.

Severian

8th June 2006, 14:50

If you think about it, wiping out the whole royal family is really part of the logic of monarchy. It's what contending dynasties have done to each other for millennia.

The only way to put an end to it...is to end monarchy. Which the Bolsheviks did.

I might add that many thousands died in the Russian Civil War, and millions in World War One. They certainly didn't all, or mostly, deserve it, any more than the Romanov children did. The heavy focus on the Romanovs seems to reflect an unconscious belief that their blue blood has higher value.

Xiao Banfa

8th June 2006, 15:15

Just bringing the discussion back to the original topic.

The murder of the Romanovs was pretty morally unjustified. The children of the Romanovs only crime was to have been born into the royal family.

Whoever said the revolution depending on wee little Alexei being around to rally the counter-revolutionaries was spot on.

That's an outright abuse of human rights. The geneva convention prohibits executions like these. These rules benefit everyone.

Allthough imprisoning the Tsar (after a trial) for his crimes in pursuing unnecessary wars would be correct.

Comrade-Z

9th June 2006, 08:20

Just bringing the discussion back to the original topic.

The murder of the Romanovs was pretty morally unjustified. The children of the Romanovs only crime was to have been born into the royal family.

Just bringing the discussion back to a minimum level of sanity...the murder of the Romanovs was justified for all of the reasons given so far. Have you read this thread through?

Whoever said the revolution depending on wee little Alexei being around to rally the counter-revolutionaries was spot on.

I think it is reasonable to expect that, if Alexei would have survived, various elements of the White Armies would have received enough extra motivation, recruiting material ("Restore the Glorious God-Ordained Czardom of Mother Russia! Restore Alexei!") to inflict maybe 10,000 more casualties than they did with Alexei dead.

So what do you value more: Alexei's "blue-blooded" life, or the lives of 10,000 Russian soldiers?

You see, outside of the bleeding-heart-liberal psychosphere there exist some unfortunate situations where someone has to die. Sorry. That's just how the world works. The idealistic and quasi-religious notion that "all human life is sacred" will just have to go. It's just totally impossible. Sooner or later, you will find yourself in situations where you have to choose between several unfortunate options.

Allthough imprisoning the Tsar (after a trial) for his crimes in pursuing unnecessary wars would be correct.

I guess that's what we should have done with Hitler, had he not committed suicide, eh? Same thing with Mussoulini?

No, I think the Italian populace had a much better plan for Mussoulini: string his body up on a pole and beat it silly to their hearts' content. It hardly makes up for all of Mussoulini's crimes.

Now if only the people of Nepal would proceed likewise with their current monarchy...

So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?

No, I think it's insane to value the life of a willing accomplice of Czarist despotism more than the thousands of soldiers that would have had to potentially die because of an emboldened White Army resistance.

Mesijs

9th June 2006, 18:49

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 9 2006, 05:21 AM

Just bringing the discussion back to the original topic.

The murder of the Romanovs was pretty morally unjustified. The children of the Romanovs only crime was to have been born into the royal family.

Just bringing the discussion back to a minimum level of sanity...the murder of the Romanovs was justified for all of the reasons given so far. Have you read this thread through?

Whoever said the revolution depending on wee little Alexei being around to rally the counter-revolutionaries was spot on.

I think it is reasonable to expect that, if Alexei would have survived, various elements of the White Armies would have received enough extra motivation, recruiting material ("Restore the Glorious God-Ordained Czardom of Mother Russia! Restore Alexei!") to inflict maybe 10,000 more casualties than they did with Alexei dead.

So what do you value more: Alexei's "blue-blooded" life, or the lives of 10,000 Russian soldiers?

You see, outside of the bleeding-heart-liberal psychosphere there exist some unfortunate situations where someone has to die. Sorry. That's just how the world works. The idealistic and quasi-religious notion that "all human life is sacred" will just have to go. It's just totally impossible. Sooner or later, you will find yourself in situations where you have to choose between several unfortunate options.

Allthough imprisoning the Tsar (after a trial) for his crimes in pursuing unnecessary wars would be correct.

I guess that's what we should have done with Hitler, had he not committed suicide, eh? Same thing with Mussoulini?

No, I think the Italian populace had a much better plan for Mussoulini: string his body up on a pole and beat it silly to their hearts' content. It hardly makes up for all of Mussoulini's crimes.

Now if only the people of Nepal would proceed likewise with their current monarchy...

So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?

No, I think it's insane to value the life of a willing accomplice of Czarist despotism more than the thousands of soldiers that would have had to potentially die because of an emboldened White Army resistance.
That's your hypothesis, that there would die 10000 people. You could kill a lot of different people, because maybe more people would die. The only thing you do then is killing people, because there might be a little chance that you spare lives.

I think it's idiotic to think that with the life of a 9 year old kid, the revolution wouldn't succeed. If you think that, it would also say a lot about the popular support for the reds. C'mon, if a revolution would fail already if you don't shoot a 9-year old boy, then you have to kill a lot of more important people to let it succeed. It's a bullshit hypothesis.

I might add that many thousands died in the Russian Civil War, and millions in World War One. They certainly didn't all, or mostly, deserve it, any more than the Romanov children did. The heavy focus on the Romanovs seems to reflect an unconscious belief that their blue blood has higher value.

Yeah right... Someone started a discussion, and people react on it. It does not mean that people value the life of this kid higher than other people's lives.

ComradeOm

9th June 2006, 23:05

Haven't we been through all of this?

Axel1917

10th June 2006, 01:31

Originally posted by Mesijs+May 18 2006, 06:42 PM--> (Mesijs @ May 18 2006, 06:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:53 PM

Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 03:19 PM
The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.
Indeed. If you're raised into a royal family, there's no way to be completely ignorant by the age of 13. Besides, what if they just locked the kids up? Then the Whites could take that city, "free"(kidnap) the brat and start a new monarchy, led by some White regent until the brat's old enough.
You're just some disgusting people. What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person. It's just disgusting. And you still wonder why people give communism a bad name? Just because of idiots like you. [/b]
Your petty-Bourgeois morality nonsense is disgusting. You whine about the kids of a reactionary family being killed, but you are incredibly silent about the kids that had starved, Jewish kids killed in anti-Jewish pogroms organized by Tzarist police, etc. There are times when such violence is necessary. The kid could have become a rallying point, and he would have certainly become a slander source and a martyr if he happened to escape to some other Bourgeois nation. There is no sancity of human life, and violence is an absolute necessity for the oppressed class to overthrow the ruling class. It is also hypocritical for you to defend some reactionary kid when he would have gladly killed scores of thousands, if not millions of other peoples' children to preserve the rule of the Russian Bourgeoisie, had he managed to obtain power. The fight for socialism, given how no ruling class in history has gone down without a fight, is going to be a fight that is no holds barred. The terror of the Bourgeoisie must be countered with the revolutionary terror of the proletariat, and anyone denying this is not a socialist at all. You whine about a revolution that was virtually bloodless, sypmathizing with the most reactionary scum and their dead instead of the millions killed by their dirty wars, inequality causing starvation, etc. Who is really the disgusting one here? They system that you seem to be sympathizing with kills more people in one year due to starvation alone than were killed in the 29 years of the Stalinist regime.

You sound like one of those cretins in OI. Perhaps you should go join them. :angry:

That's an outright abuse of human rights. The geneva convention prohibits executions like these. These rules benefit everyone.

You actually expect us to believe this crap? In reality, the Geneva Convention is a worthless heap of paper. In times of crisis, as history shows, the Bourgeoisie will abolish all of its civil liberties and ruthlessly torture and murder anyone that opposes it. It has happened, and when things start picking up, they won't hesitate to restort to the most ruthless, stark naked reaction against us. The Geneva Convention is hypocritical, and in the last analysis, mere paper. Just look at the White Terror in the USA around the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and what reactionaries were doing to socialists. What about the naked reaction of the Bourgeoisie in the WWII era, i.e. Fascism? What about the people that are being brutally killed in Iraq by US Imperialism? What about the people Bush is torturing? Only the blindest of the blind can actually believe that the Geneva Convention is universally followed and always will be.

Nachie

10th June 2006, 01:48

The more dead royalty, the better.

Body Count

10th June 2006, 03:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:15 AM
Wah, fucking wah. Always interesting to see how a liberal's heart bleeds for the oppressors firstly and foremostly. Go find a forum that cares, libbie.
Agreed.... :lol:

Fuck the royal family.

I would have tortured them first!

Reuben

10th June 2006, 06:30

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 9 2006, 05:21 AM

Just bringing the discussion back to the original topic.

The murder of the Romanovs was pretty morally unjustified. The children of the Romanovs only crime was to have been born into the royal family.

Just bringing the discussion back to a minimum level of sanity...the murder of the Romanovs was justified for all of the reasons given so far. Have you read this thread through?

Whoever said the revolution depending on wee little Alexei being around to rally the counter-revolutionaries was spot on.

I think it is reasonable to expect that, if Alexei would have survived, various elements of the White Armies would have received enough extra motivation, recruiting material ("Restore the Glorious God-Ordained Czardom of Mother Russia! Restore Alexei!") to inflict maybe 10,000 more casualties than they did with Alexei dead.

So what do you value more: Alexei's "blue-blooded" life, or the lives of 10,000 Russian soldiers?

You see, outside of the bleeding-heart-liberal psychosphere there exist some unfortunate situations where someone has to die. Sorry. That's just how the world works. The idealistic and quasi-religious notion that "all human life is sacred" will just have to go. It's just totally impossible. Sooner or later, you will find yourself in situations where you have to choose between several unfortunate options.

Allthough imprisoning the Tsar (after a trial) for his crimes in pursuing unnecessary wars would be correct.

I guess that's what we should have done with Hitler, had he not committed suicide, eh? Same thing with Mussoulini?

No, I think the Italian populace had a much better plan for Mussoulini: string his body up on a pole and beat it silly to their hearts' content. It hardly makes up for all of Mussoulini's crimes.

Now if only the people of Nepal would proceed likewise with their current monarchy...

So being a sane human being makes him a bourgeois ?

No, I think it's insane to value the life of a willing accomplice of Czarist despotism more than the thousands of soldiers that would have had to potentially die because of an emboldened White Army resistance.
come on lets maintain a standard of debate here. You can't jsut maake up hypothetical figures and then hamer your opponents over the head with them as if they were fact.

Comrade-Z

10th June 2006, 06:42

come on lets maintain a standard of debate here. You can't jsut maake up hypothetical figures and then hamer your opponents over the head with them as if they were fact.

Sure, those figures were hypothetical, but weren't they also entirely reasonable?

People were talking about how the "White Armies" would rally around any existing heirs. I was making clear what this would specifically entail (a number of unnecessary deaths).

10,000 was my estimate. Maybe that's way off. Maybe it would only be 1,000 or 100. Maybe it would be 30,000. The point is that, chances are, letting that Czarist heir live would entail a lot more deaths.

It's like of like how people pontificate about how many U.S. lives were saved by the dropping of the atom bombs. Nobody can really say for sure. But that doesn't stop them from throwing out blind guesses (I've heard anything from 500,000 to 3,000,000,000, although personally I think that the evidence points to the fact that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyways, making the dropping of the bombs nothing but needless, barbaric slaughter.)

Mesijs

10th June 2006, 15:57

Originally posted by Mesijs+May 18 2006, 06:42 PM--> (Mesijs @ May 18 2006, 06:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:53 PM

Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 03:19 PM
The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.
Indeed. If you're raised into a royal family, there's no way to be completely ignorant by the age of 13. Besides, what if they just locked the kids up? Then the Whites could take that city, "free"(kidnap) the brat and start a new monarchy, led by some White regent until the brat's old enough.
You're just some disgusting people. What you're saying here is that it's OK to kill someone 13 years old, just because it's a child of a wrong person. It's just disgusting. And you still wonder why people give communism a bad name? Just because of idiots like you.
Your petty-Bourgeois morality nonsense is disgusting. You whine about the kids of a reactionary family being killed, but you are incredibly silent about the kids that had starved, Jewish kids killed in anti-Jewish pogroms organized by Tzarist police, etc. There are times when such violence is necessary. [/b]

That's a really dumb argument. We had a discussion about killing of children. When you make a topic about pogroms, starving children, and dead people by czarist polics, I would reply that I find it disgusting too. Your argument is totally irrelevant, why would I say about other things when we are discussing this. Other things I fin disgusting: rednecks, colonisation, gulag, holocaust. You're satisfied now?

The kid could have become a rallying point, and he would have certainly become a slander source and a martyr if he happened to escape to some other Bourgeois nation. There is no sancity of human life, and violence is an absolute necessity for the oppressed class to overthrow the ruling class. It is also hypocritical for you to defend some reactionary kid when he would have gladly killed scores of thousands, if not millions of other peoples' children to preserve the rule of the Russian Bourgeoisie, had he managed to obtain power.

Sure, when the kid was a baby he would also have wanted it. Let's kill baby's too, maybe they become opressors. Really, there isn't any limit to the use of violence to you, is there? When there would be popular support for the bolshewiks, do you really think a 9-year old kid could turn the tide? It really shows how weak you estimate the support for the reds.

The fight for socialism, given how no ruling class in history has gone down without a fight, is going to be a fight that is no holds barred. The terror of the Bourgeoisie must be countered with the revolutionary terror of the proletariat, and anyone denying this is not a socialist at all.

OK, so you are the one who decides how I shall call myself? Just like extremist terrorists who call everyone who doesn't kill christians no muslim. Really, you are a disgusting person. Please stop calling people who are against the killing of children no socialists.

You whine about a revolution that was virtually bloodless, sypmathizing with the most reactionary scum and their dead instead of the millions killed by their dirty wars, inequality causing starvation, etc.

Sure, I posted I exclusively symphatised with a kid and I posted I sympathized not at all with the opressed... :rolleyes:

Who is really the disgusting one here? They system that you seem to be sympathizing with kills more people in one year due to starvation alone than were killed in the 29 years of the Stalinist regime.

You sound like one of those cretins in OI. Perhaps you should go join them. :angry:

Really, stop raping my quotes even worse than you did already. I do not sympathize with any czarist regime, you must be really stupid to understand that from my words.

That's an outright abuse of human rights. The geneva convention prohibits executions like these. These rules benefit everyone.

You actually expect us to believe this crap? In reality, the Geneva Convention is a worthless heap of paper. In times of crisis, as history shows, the Bourgeoisie will abolish all of its civil liberties and ruthlessly torture and murder anyone that opposes it. It has happened, and when things start picking up, they won't hesitate to restort to the most ruthless, stark naked reaction against us. The Geneva Convention is hypocritical, and in the last analysis, mere paper. Just look at the White Terror in the USA around the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and what reactionaries were doing to socialists. What about the naked reaction of the Bourgeoisie in the WWII era, i.e. Fascism? What about the people that are being brutally killed in Iraq by US Imperialism? What about the people Bush is torturing? Only the blindest of the blind can actually believe that the Geneva Convention is universally followed and always will be.

Omg, please stop reacting dumber than you already did. What he said is that when you follow the Geneva convention, it's good. You say that when you don't follow the Geneva convention, it's bad. You don't even contradict each other!

Axel1917

10th June 2006, 21:05

Originally posted by Mesijs+Jun 10 2006, 12:58 PM--> (Mesijs @ Jun 10 2006, 12:58 PM)
[/b]

[email protected] 18 2006, 06:42 PM

That's a really dumb argument. We had a discussion about killing of children. When you make a topic about pogroms, starving children, and dead people by czarist polics, I would reply that I find it disgusting too. Your argument is totally irrelevant, why would I say about other things when we are discussing this. Other things I fin disgusting: rednecks, colonisation, gulag, holocaust. You're satisfied now?

That kid would not have hesitated to continue along with such things if he/she would have lived to see power. And when it comes to killing children, you complain about Tzarist scum, yet you are incredibly silent about the millions of them that die each year from simple diseases, malnutrition, starvation, in dirty wars, etc. I am pretty sure that a good deal of people here are disgusted by your petty-Bourgeois morality.

Sure, when the kid was a baby he would also have wanted it. Let's kill baby's too, maybe they become opressors. Really, there isn't any limit to the use of violence to you, is there? When there would be popular support for the bolshewiks, do you really think a 9-year old kid could turn the tide? It really shows how weak you estimate the support for the reds.

Not on his own, but if he happened to escape West or something, he could become slander source and perhaps a morale boost to the whiteguards. The overthrow of one class by another is a no-holds barred fight, and we will not play by the rules they uphold but hypocritcally break 24/7.n The kid could have became a terrorist in the future, perhaps bombing a CP headquarters or something like that in the future, to avenge his parents as well.

OK, so you are the one who decides how I shall call myself? Just like extremist terrorists who call everyone who doesn't kill christians no muslim. Really, you are a disgusting person. Please stop calling people who are against the killing of children no socialists.

You are disgusting person, with your bleeding heart for the most reactionary scum out there. Socialists recognize the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship coming out of the class struggle, being carried to its logical point. We are not going to soften up and strengthen the Bourgeoisie. You have a purely petty-bourgeois attitude. You completely fail to look at this incident in class terms.

Sure, I posted I exclusively symphatised with a kid and I posted I sympathized not at all with the opressed... :rolleyes:

A kid that could have potentially become a terrorist. Not to mention your failure to see things in class terms.

Really, stop raping my quotes even worse than you did already. I do not sympathize with any czarist regime, you must be really stupid to understand that from my words.

You must really be stupid for having a bleeding heart for reactionaries and not even mentioning the kids capitalists kill every year by the millions. A revolution implies the use of terror by the revolutionary class against the terror of the reactionary class. The fight is no holds barred.

Omg, please stop reacting dumber than you already did. What he said is that when you follow the Geneva convention, it's good. You say that when you don't follow the Geneva convention, it's bad. You don't even contradict each other!

And again, you have not studied history. The Geneva convention is mere paper, and the capitalists are and will continue to break it. A revolution implies the use of terror by the revoutionary class against the terror of the reactionary one, and we are not going to listen to any bleeding heart, right-wing liberal when it comes to what must be done. The kid could have been a terrorist in the future to avenge his parents, and we should elminate threats before they get big. Do you think that the Bolsheviks sat around and let those Kulak scum organize their revolts and restor to grain profiteering in times of starvation? No, they did not. They sent armed men after them, i.e. the use of revolutionary terror against reactionary terror. Your views are extremely petty-Bourgeois and are those of the types in OI, not those of a revolutionary.

Wanted Man

10th June 2006, 23:30

Originally posted by Mesijs+May 18 2006, 06:40 PM--> (Mesijs @ May 18 2006, 06:40 PM) You're just some disgusting people. [/b]

Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)Just because of morons like you.[/b]

Originally posted by Mesijs
Really, you are a disgusting person.

[email protected]
you must be really stupid

Mesijs
Omg, please stop reacting dumber than you already did.

I'm starting to discover a pattern here. Okay, okay, we get it. I like to put in an adhom from time to time, especially on a dead(literally and figuratively) subject like this, where there isn't much argument in the first place, but you actually seem bothered by this, which is what makes it so funny. :lol: Still, just to set some things straight:

-13, not 9.
-Nobody said that killing children should be done all the time and encouraged. But in this case, I'm honestly not going to complain about Bolshies killing royals.
-"Alexei couldn't have led the White movement." That was never claimed, but the Whites could use him for their purposes.
-"The idea that royal survivors could have made the White movement stronger means that the Reds weren't all that great." O RLY?! I have a wild imagination, but even I can't see how you can deduce that from the pro-Bolshie arguments presented here. The fact is simple: had Alexei lived and been captured by the Whites, that movement would have been bigger, stronger and more determined.

Xiao Banfa

13th June 2006, 05:39

Your petty-Bourgeois morality nonsense is disgusting. You whine about the kids of a reactionary family being killed, but you are incredibly silent about the kids that had starved, Jewish kids killed in anti-Jewish pogroms organized by Tzarist police, etc.

We're not discussing tsarist pogroms.

Xiao Banfa

13th June 2006, 05:49

The idealistic and quasi-religious notion that "all human life is sacred" will just have to go. It's just totally impossible. Sooner or later, you will find yourself in situations where you have to choose between several unfortunate options.

Your disturbing fascistic "human life is expendable" notion will have to go.

One of the options was to try the Tsar and those involved in his crimes.

Summary execution of him and his entire family was the most extreme and inhumane option.

I thought the Bolsheviks' purpose was to create a new and just society, not one where the accusesd and their entire family are executed without a trial

Comrade-Z

13th June 2006, 07:55

Your disturbing fascistic "human life is expendable" notion will have to go.

If you abandon that notion, then all prospects of violent revolution will have to go as well. Are the lives of the ruling class expendable, or aren't they?

I thought the Bolsheviks' purpose was to create a new and just society, not one where the accusesd and their entire family are executed without a trial

What kind of trial was needed? What more evidence would you need, other than the 300 years of the brutal Romonov dynasty, in order to deduce that this dynasty needs to be destroyed by any means necessary? It was a common sense judgment to kill the entire family.

Edit: I would also like to say that this topic is not irrelevant to our current epoch. Sometime in the near future we will face decisions concerning how much violence to apply against our own ruling class during a revolution. This discussion is a part of the process of determining what is acceptable action during a revolution and what is not.

Herman

13th June 2006, 10:01

Summary execution of him and his entire family was the most extreme and inhumane option.

I thought the Bolsheviks' purpose was to create a new and just society, not one where the accusesd and their entire family are executed without a trial

It was completely necessary to murder the Tsar and his family. I'd have wiped out all the nobles who might have had some family links too. Put me in that situation and I'd do it too. Besides, the children had already been infected with the vile ideas of monarchism. A smart move in order to prevent the whites from gaining more support or a common leader.

Xiao Banfa

13th June 2006, 13:59

What kind of trial was needed? What more evidence would you need, other than the 300 years of the brutal Romonov dynasty

This is like saying, when some one is brought to trial: "what more evidence do you need look at the terrible crime they committed, just shoot the fucker"

A decent society, especially a socialist one must be founded on the rule of law.
Socialism or barbarism!

[/QUOTE]If you abandon that notion, then all prospects of violent revolution will have to go as well. [QUOTE]

Unnecessary violence is unnecessary violence whether it happens in a revolution or an imperialist war.

True revolutionaries follow the rule of war- they musn't act like the US imperialists who butcher innocents by the million.

Raubleaux

13th June 2006, 20:32

Those who claim that Alexei was "just a kid" and had zero political value are wrong. The Tsarist crown had been held by infants and toddlers throughout history! This is how monarchy works. Heredity means everything.

Not only that, but Peter the Great had barely reached puberty by the time he organized a coup against Sophia. Monarchs often start very young. Alexei had undoubtedly been heavily indoctrinated to believe that it was his divine right to rule.

As others have pointed out, Alexei's death undoubtedly saved the lives of many others who deserved to live more than he did. I strongly agree with the comrade who pointed out how telling it is that liberal hearts always bleed for the oppressors.

Xiao Banfa

14th June 2006, 04:19

I strongly agree with the comrade who pointed out how telling it is that liberal hearts always bleed for the oppressors.

How the fuck would you know if I'm a liberal or my heart bleeds for the oppressors.

This topic highlights a big hypocrisy- human rights and the rule of law are principles which must apply to everyone.

Otherwise we have no moral high ground with which to condemn abuses of the rule of law and human rights by the imperialists.

Herman

14th June 2006, 12:01

This is like saying, when some one is brought to trial: "what more evidence do you need look at the terrible crime they committed, just shoot the fucker"

No, it isn't the same. We are talking about an absolute monarch and you are comparing to a random criminal. There is a huge difference between both.

This topic highlights a big hypocrisy- human rights and the rule of law are principles which must apply to everyone.

In the revolution, human rights must be put aside. The interests of the revolution come first.

Comrade-Z

14th June 2006, 19:57

Mesijs

14th June 2006, 21:57

This topic highlights a big hypocrisy- human rights and the rule of law are principles which must apply to everyone.

The "rule of law"? Who is this I'm speaking with, George C. Wallace's clone? :lol:

One of the first things that revolutions entail is breaking the rule of law. Revolutions in themselves are illegal, ya know.

Of course revolutionaires are unlawful. But that's because the ruling class wants to protect it's self-interest. Revolutionaires exist to geit rid of that mentality and create equality among the masses.

But when they take power, they should create laws according to beliefs of the population, which count for everyone.

By the way, what's so funny if someone talks about the rule of law?

And there's really no such thing as "human rights." The current ruling class illustrates this very well. For instance, in Iraq shooting up random wedding parties is "acceptable collateral damage" and not "barbaric slaughter."

That's something completely different. Calling slaughtering civilians collateral damage is against human rights, whatever the rulers say. When you are against slaughtering civilians, you are pro-human rights. The point you actually make is the abuse of human rights by rulers, so be clear please.

Personally, I approach human society from a basis of perceived self-interest. If I see it as in my self-interest to cooperate with someone, I will do that. If I see it as in my self-interest to kill someone (such as a capitalist,) then I will do that when I deem it worthwhile considering the consequences and circumstances.

'Rational self-interest'? Isn't that something extremely capitalist and liberal, and when you say it like that even fascist. You would kill other people when it's in your own self-interest? Really, that has nothing to do with socialism, it's more like survival of the fittest. Socialism is about creating solidarity and helping the interests of the masses. Please, become a true capitalist and act in your self-interest. It has nothing to do with socialism whatsoever.

Otherwise we have no moral high ground with which to condemn abuses of the rule of law and human rights by the imperialists.

But revolution isn't a "moral crusade" to "rid the world of evil." It's the overthrow and destruction of one class by another. The revolting class takes up this endeavor as a matter of rational self-interest.

No it isn't. Socialism IS a moral crusade to rid the world of evil. When you portray it like you do, it's more like a darwinist and fascist revolt, meant to replace one ruling class by another.

We don't need a "moral high ground," assuming such a thing could be objectively demonstrated to exist in the first place.

We condemn the actions of the imperialists because they harm us and go against our self-interest, not because they are violating "human rights" or breaking their own laws (which they do all the time without batting an eye).

A capitalist acts on basis of self-interest, and harms another class to get better himself. What you are encouraging is exactly the opposite of socialism.

Additional note

I'm really saddened by the low standard of debate in this topic. I'm sorry myself for insulting one member, that was unnecessary.

But please, let's react on each other's arguments. Let me give two explanations of a low standard of debate

1) "Your heart bleeds more for opressors than for opressed"
That's an argument based on nothing, not on a single quote from anyone. We're discussing the shooting of a child of the ruling class, so that's the debate about. If the debate was about opressed people, everyone would give their opinion. Please don't say anything when it's simply never said.

2) "You do talk about shooting a bourgeois kid, but not about pogroms and starving people"
Really, this debate is about this kid, and not about pogroms, starving people, czarist repression etc. Please, keep the standard of debate. When we discuss about one thing, don't switch the subject to other, totally irrelevant, things.

Comrade-Z

15th June 2006, 05:51

By the way, what's so funny if someone talks about the rule of law?

It's funny when revolutionaries express reverence for the current rule of law.

'Rational self-interest'? Isn't that something extremely capitalist and liberal, and when you say it like that even fascist

I explain why selfishness logically leads a proletarian to communism in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46573&hl=farsighted) thread.

You would kill other people when it's in your own self-interest?

If it would increase my net happiness, then yes.

Really, that has nothing to do with socialism, it's more like survival of the fittest.

Notice that I just earlier said that:

If I see it as in my self-interest to cooperate with someone, I will do that.

During the revolution I will see it as in my self-interest to cooperate with all revolutionary proletarians, which will constitute the vastly greater part of the populace. To these people, I will be as comradely as could be because my liberation from class society depends on them! Likewise, during the revolution I will see it as in my self-interest to destroy the old ruling class. My liberation from class society depends on them being dead.

No it isn't. Socialism IS a moral crusade to rid the world of evil.

Why do you care if there's evil in the world? Because you perceive "evil" as harming you. In other words, you perceive it in your self-interest to rid the world of what you think of as "evil."

You're clearly having trouble with Marxism. These ideas of "morality" and "human rights" and "evil" don't just exist up in the air as timeless absolutes. They are borne out of when your consciousness and selfish desires confront material reality.

Socialism is about creating solidarity and helping the interests of the masses.

The interests of the masses also happen to be my interests (as long as I remain a proletarian/lower-class student). Thus, by helping the masses, I am advancing my own self-interest.

Please, become a true capitalist and act in your self-interest.

No, supporting capitalism is against my self-interest.

From what you've said, it almost seems like you secretly think that "capitalism is the better deal" and that if people are rational and selfish, they'll logically opt for capitalism.

So, you expect people to create a socialist society and spend all of that effort, possibly risking their lives in the process, against or regardless of how it will benefit themselves? That's an unreasonable expectation. Any socialism built upon that social fabric would be shaky indeed.

...meant to replace one ruling class by another.

Of course. The proletariat will supplant the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. Duh! :P

And then as the bourgeoisie is destroyed, the new ruling class will have nobody to rule over, and society will become classless. Stateless communism! Yeehaw!

A capitalist acts on basis of self-interest, and harms another class to get better himself.

Correct. Likewise, the proletariat will, collectively, act on a basis of self-interest and harm the opposing class (the capitalist class) in order to better itself, collectively.

Xiao Banfa

17th June 2006, 14:11

It's funny when revolutionaries express reverence for the current rule of law.

You're obviously not a communist if you don't believe in the rule of law.

Any democratic society requires the existence of the rule of law -it's the opposite of autocratic rule.

When one makes a law it applies to everyone ,that's democracy.

You can't just say ''well these people are feudal aristocracy, let's have a summary execution"
Are you fucking unhinged?

And don't try and lure me into an argument about morality they last forever and those unfortunate comrades whose brains are wired psychopathically will not accept that principle, ever.

Xiao Banfa

17th June 2006, 14:27

By the way ,Comrade-Z, you have not the first idea what "the rule of law" means.

It's a legal principle which is open to some debate. Some say that nazi Germany had the rule of law because there were laws and the people of germany were subject to it.

But since Nazi Germany was a brutal, uncivilised society there is the point of view that there was no rule of law.

The rule of law is an intangible concept -the definition that can be used is a society which, through legislation, enacts 'just' laws.

The type of society that socialists are trying to create is a "just" society -one without autocratic whim.

I'm not sure what mutant sect you subscribe to, but I assumed we were on the same page when it come to the desire for socialism.

Comrade-Z

17th June 2006, 21:57

But since Nazi Germany was a brutal, uncivilised society there is the point of view that there was no rule of law.

I would have opposed Nazi Germany because its continuing existence would have been against my self-interest. Not because it was violating any "rule of law."

I you think that supporting the rule of law is necessarily in your self-interest in all circumstances, then okaaaay...but I'm not going to make that sort of blanket statement, especially when I've seen instances where the rule of law has been against my self-interest.

Mesijs

17th June 2006, 22:11

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 17 2006, 06:58 PM

But since Nazi Germany was a brutal, uncivilised society there is the point of view that there was no rule of law.

I would have opposed Nazi Germany because its continuing existence would have been against my self-interest. Not because it was violating any "rule of law."

I you think that supporting the rule of law is necessarily in your self-interest in all circumstances, then okaaaay...but I'm not going to make that sort of blanket statement, especially when I've seen instances where the rule of law has been against my self-interest.
Really, you only talk about self-interest. What are you doing on this forum then? Socialism is about ideals. If you were born rich, or born aryan, you would support aristocracy or nazism. You only support leftism because you are some poor guy who wants to be rich instead of the current rich guys. I don't see any leftist ideals in that.

Xiao Banfa

18th June 2006, 10:45

I would have opposed Nazi Germany because its continuing existence would have been against my self-interest. Not because it was violating any "rule of law."

You either refuse to understand or are unable to. Comrade Mesjis, is dead right.
We uphold socialism because we believe it to be just. Not because of some wierd fuckin' self interest philosophy.

Self-interest is a pretty low principle to base a society on.

We socialists have higher ideals.

BobKKKindle$

18th June 2006, 11:11

Tino Rangatiratanga, I find it highly ironic that you uphold such 'strict' bouregeois moral standards, when your signature portrays a North korean soldier crushing the American government......

Yes, the lives of the Ruling class are entirely expendable. They deserve to die. Why? We are socialists. We want to see the Capitalist system utterly crushed, and replaced with a new economic order based upon the iron power of the proletariat. We can all agree on that, surely, no matter whether you are leninist, anarchist, etc. Yet we are not fully supported in our endeavours. There are those who want to see us crushed. The Ruling class will do whatever is in their power to crush anything ressembling workers power - The paris Commune being the obvious example - for worker's rule will mean and end to the private ownership of the MoP and the vast inequalities that exist under Capitalism. In the event of resistance, we must be ruthless. And no, do not quote the geneva convention or talk about the Rule of Law. The Rule of law is a synonym for the right of the opressers to oppress. When we bayonet the Ruling class, we are avenging every single mother that was forced to beg, every workers that was killed at work, every family that could not feed their kids - The Disposessed and the Wretched of the Earth! Just Like the internationale says.

"Revolution is not something so decadent and bourgeois as a dinner Party...rather it is an insurrection whereby one class overthrows another and capitalism is crushed beneath the wheels of History."

Socialism is just for us - We believe it to be just because we Want to see the emancipation of the ruling class. It is not 'just' for the ruling class, just as Nazism was not 'just; for jews. The Ruling class are the enemies of our movement! Deal with it. No 'higher ideas'. Just Revolution.

People are going to die in their thousands during the revolution. We may be forced to execute scores of Entrepeneurs, no matter how hard it is to pull the trigger, to defend the rule of the proletariat. You may have to bayonet children of the Bourgeois class. Why? Because it is in the interests of the revolution do so so. Comrade Z is right on. We are Revolutionaries, not philosophers - when the revolution ocurs, any moral ideals that you have are just more rules to be broken. When the Working Class has achieved total power following the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, then we can return to standards of Human decency in which everyone has a right to live. But until then, let us display no remorse. No, I am not bloodthirsty.

Xiao Banfa

18th June 2006, 11:42

Tino Rangatiratanga, I find it highly ironic that you uphold such 'strict' bouregeois moral standards, when your signature portrays a North korean soldier crushing the American government......

The avatars' a bit of a joke.

The Rule of law is a synonym for the right of the opressers to oppress

Missed the point ,again. Your welcome to read my definition earlier in the thread.
You could also do some reading on it if that doesn't satisfy you.
But know what it means before you discuss it.

Yes, the lives of the Ruling class are entirely expendable. They deserve to die.

They don't deserve to die purely because they are part of the ruling class.
If they attack our revolution we should defend ourselves and that often means war with the ruling class.

But lets kill when necessary, one doesn't run around butchering children or carrying out summary executions.
That's stooping to the level of the Imperialists of Haditha, My Lai and Hiroshima.

We may be forced to execute scores of Entrepeneurs, no matter how hard it is to pull the trigger, to defend the rule of the proletariat.

This may be so, but one must dispense justice with due process so that only the guilty are punished.

Let me put it this way, if we are outraged at the murder of civilians by the US imperialists in Iraq, by the bombing of a civilian airliner by Carriles or similar imperialist atrocities against civilians, why aren't we outraged when civilians are killed by bolsheviks?

It's an absurd hypocrisy.

No, I am not bloodthirsty

You exhibit a psychopathic degree of bloodthirstyness.

BobKKKindle$

18th June 2006, 12:31

Missed the point ,again. Your welcome to read my definition earlier in the thread.
You could also do some reading on it if that doesn't satisfy you.
But know what it means before you discuss it.

With Respect, I do not care much for your definition. The Fact of the matter is that the so called Rule of law never stands as an absolute, but changes depending upon their use to those who hold them. A Case in point is the attitude of the United States towards Terroism and nation states. The US frequently accusses states such as Iran for harbouring Terroist Netoworks, and legislation in 2002 denied aid to States that refused to extradite citizens the Pentagon felt were terroists. However, the Us government allowes several militia groups based in Miami to train and purchase weapons in preperation for an invasion of Cuba - a sovereign state. In addition, the US denied requests by Venezeula to extradite the terroists who bombed a Habana Air line in 2001. Similairly, the Bourgeois state apparatus is always ready to accusse Trade Unions of not following Strike 'laws' but will be quick to crush any serious threat - in short, a mechanism to oppress. Why should we pay heed to the Rule of law during the revolution when it benefits the ruling class? Unless you want to aid the ruling class.....

They don't deserve to die purely because they are part of the ruling class

The fact that they support the private ownership of Capital makes them fit for execution. If, as you say, they are willing to give up their Capital peacefully, then by all means, let them live. But I think thats being rather optimistic. If the bourgeoisie fires upon a peaceful protest, e.g. Magdalena, do you think they will be willing to peacefully hand over the MoP?

This may be so, but one must dispense justice with due process so that only the guilty are punished

By This I assume you mean some sort of legislative process should be used before people are executed. But do you think we will have time during the passion of revolution to sit down and dicuss things? The Military may try and crush us. There may be rampant looting. The world may seem to be falling apart. Did the bolsheviks have time to make a decision whether or not to kill the Romanovs? The White armies were approaching Yekaterenberg - if they had captured the Romanovs, then the whites would have had a figure head around which to rally. The Revolution would have undermined. When the costs and benefits are weighed up, it was best to kill the Monarchy. No doubt similar situations will happen in the future revolution. And there will be no time for the judiciary - we will have to be ruthless and defend the revolution - no matter how hard it is for those with 'moral values'. We are by no means stooping to the level of Imperialists - there is a profound difference between killing ordinary peasants and workers in pursuit of profits, and killing the ruling class to establish Socialism. Sure, our means may have similarities. By history and revolution is about ends, not means.

Herman

18th June 2006, 17:53

It's an absurd hypocrisy.

Not really, because they are defending the interests of the bourgeoisie and we defend the interests of the proletariat.

Comrade-Z

18th June 2006, 19:29

Really, you only talk about self-interest. What are you doing on this forum then? Socialism is about ideals.

Uhh, no it's not. It's about the rational decision of the working class to overthrow the capitalist class and advance towards stateless communism because stateless communism offers a better life for a prole than capitalism.

If you were born rich, or born aryan, you would support aristocracy or nazism.

With your first example: of course. One's class consciousness corresponds, you know, with one's class and class interest. That's why you don't see billionaires fighting for communism. I seriously think you need to move past the utopian socialism line of thought and embrace marxism.

With the second example: fuck no. There is no such thing as being born "aryan." "Race" doesn't meaningfully exist biologically. It would depend on my rationality and class consciousness as to whether I would realize these facts or not.

You only support leftism because you are some poor guy who wants to be rich instead of the current rich guys.

Close, but not exactly. Yes, I am somewhat poor. I want a better life economically and in terms of freedom. I want to be rich insofar as my economic needs are guaranteed to be taken care of and insofar as I do not have to subordinate myself to others to achieve this.

I've looked at the option of personal advancement at the expense of others. Working my way up through the capitalist system, in other words. If you would bother to read this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46573&hl=hedonism) thread, you would find an explanation of why the "personal advancement" route is entirely unsatisfactory and not at all feasible for me.

So, if that option is ruled out, my only remaining option is to smash the capitalist system altogether and help create stateless communism, where my economic needs will be taken care of and where I won't have to subordinate myself to masters.

We uphold socialism because we believe it to be just. Not because of some wierd fuckin' self interest philosophy.

I find the philosophy of "justness" fuckin' weird myself.

Who determines what is "just"? You? So you presume yourself to be the moral arbiter of all human society? Rather presumptuous, eh? Or do you appeal to god? Well, god doesn't exist, so that takes care of that. Do you appeal to "popular opinion"? Well, popular opinion is against you on this right now. The whole paradigm centering around "justness" as a concept makes no sense to me.

Herman

19th June 2006, 10:40

Who determines what is "just"? You? So you presume yourself to be the moral arbiter of all human society? Rather presumptuous, eh? Or do you appeal to god? Well, god doesn't exist, so that takes care of that. Do you appeal to "popular opinion"? Well, popular opinion is against you on this right now. The whole paradigm centering around "justness" as a concept makes no sense to me.

I could not have said it better myself. Ones' morals must be abolished in exchange for the interests of the working class.

Craig

1st July 2006, 02:25

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 18 2006, 08:43 AM
Let me put it this way, if we are outraged at the murder of civilians by the US imperialists in Iraq, by the bombing of a civilian airliner by Carriles or similar imperialist atrocities against civilians, why aren't we outraged when civilians are killed by bolsheviks?

It's an absurd hypocrisy.
I've tried to stay out of this conversation thread because it really is almost completely pointless... But now you've pushed it too far.

The boy was clearly a victim, but not of the revolution. You seem to misunderstand the nature of monarchy. He was a victim of his parents and their forefathers who created the system that made his death necessary. Had that boy lived, it would have been possible for the monarchy to re-establish itself. This is an indisputable fact. Whether or not that justifies his execution depends largely on whether or not you believe that the victory of the revolution should have been guaranteed.

You called the monarchs civilians, but they were no such thing. They were the royal family. They were the brutal, despotic rulers. Monsters.

In order to establish a better system, you must completely destroy the old one. The business of revolution is a messy affair.

Xiao Banfa

4th July 2006, 10:21

The Bolsheviks had the choice not to execute children who were conditioned bullshit through no fault of their own.
A socialist society is supposed to based the rule of law ;extra-judicial murder of innocents does not reflect belief in the rule of law.

ComradeOm

4th July 2006, 17:09

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 4 2006, 07:22 AM
The Bolsheviks had the choice not to execute children who were conditioned bullshit through no fault of their own.
Well that's tough on them isn't it? Maybe now you'll see that the world isn't really a fair place. I mentioned this 4 pages ago and Craig has summed it up in the post above but you still don't seem to grasp it. The children had to die because that is the nature of the monarchy.

That doesn't seem fair to you? Then boo fucking hoo.

A socialist society is supposed to based the rule of law
Where did you get this nonsense from? Perhaps the problem today is simply that we don't have the right laws?

extra-judicial murder of innocents does not reflect belief in the rule of law.
Neither does revolution <_<

Xiao Banfa

5th July 2006, 07:21

You ignorant ****, point to a socialist society that had no rule of law.

I rest my case.

ComradeOm

5th July 2006, 13:13

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 5 2006, 04:22 AM
You ignorant ****, point to a socialist society that had no rule of law.

I rest my case.
Point to a socialist society :rolleyes:

When you've done that point me to one that has come about through the "rule of law". There's something about revolution that tends to be inherently anti-law.

Xiao Banfa

6th July 2006, 07:20

I'm not going to get into an argument about whether Cuba is socialist or the USSR was socialist because this thread isn't about that and I can't be bothered.

Revolting against injustice is a right. The Tsar's Russia wasn't based on the rule of law neither was Batista's Cuba (states behaved arbitrarily with only themselves to account to)so they had to be overthrown. Of course that wasn't the only reason.

Belief in the rule of law as a principle doesn't mean blindly obeying whatever laws whatever the cost- this is the misunderstanding.
If you believe this you haven't read my earlier posts nor do you understand legal terminology.

Revolutions and wars have their own laws ensuring they cause the least amount of unnecessary suffering as possible (laws against murdering civilians, torture and summary execution). These are enshrined in international law.

I think the bolsheviks didn't believe in a society where the state can just kidnap and execute people without the involvement of a legal apparatus.

They should have reflected this in their treatment of the Romanovs.

ComradeOm

6th July 2006, 15:31

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 6 2006, 04:21 AM
The Tsar's Russia wasn't based on the rule of law neither was Batista's Cuba (states behaved arbitrarily with only themselves to account to)so they had to be overthrown. Of course that wasn't the only reason.
Are you an idiot? Of course Tsarist Russia was based on the rule of law – it was ruled by Tsarist law. That was what the people revolted against.

Revolutions are the act of overthrowing one state and installing another... or “rule of law” if you prefer. In between you get the revolution which is inherently devoid of rules or laws.

But let me pander to you for a second. What court should the children have been brought to? What laws should have been applied? According to Imperial law the monarchy was beyond reproach… hardly surprising considering that the law had in fact been written/approved by generations of Romanovs. Of course the new Soviet state had yet to be formed, that little matter of the civil war, and so was incapable of trying anyone with the niceties you might have preferred.

So you have two choices – a law that wouldn’t have dared to try the Tsar, and in fact would have ordered the peasants and workers to return to a life of servitude and misery, or Soviet law that had not yet been written.

Belief in the rule of law as a principle doesn't mean blindly obeying whatever laws whatever the cost- this is the misunderstanding.
If you believe this you haven't read my earlier posts nor do you understand legal terminology.
Well you’re correct in that I have no degree in bourgeois laws. I try not to let that hold me back.

But tell me, please, what are laws if not something to be obeyed? That’s very much the point of them, no? Perhaps you come from some country where you can choose what laws you do and do not follow but I don’t have that luxury. An unavoidable consequence of living under bourgeois laws.

Revolutions and wars have their own laws ensuring they cause the least amount of unnecessary suffering as possible (laws against murdering civilians, torture and summary execution). These are enshrined in international law.
Bullshit. First and foremost the Geneva Conventions and similar laws govern affairs between nation states. They do not apply to revolutionary situations.

Secondly, these are bourgeois laws drawn up by bourgeois lawmakers in bourgeois nations. Get the point? Why should we give a fuck about them?

Xiao Banfa

7th July 2006, 01:37

Are you an idiot? Of course Tsarist Russia was based on the rule of law – it was ruled by Tsarist law.

Mate, you don't know what adherence to the rule of law means. Pogroms, massacres of unarmed workers don't signal adherence to such a doctrine.

Well you’re correct in that I have no degree in bourgeois laws. I try not to let that hold me back.

But tell me, please, what are laws if not something to be obeyed? That’s very much the point of them, no? Perhaps you come from some country where you can choose what laws you do and do not follow but I don’t have that luxury. An unavoidable consequence of living under bourgeois laws.

Here you insinuate and then show again you have no idea what rule of law means.

Look it up, it might save you from writing screeds of meaningless bullshit.

ComradeOm

7th July 2006, 13:47

I’ll take a wild stab – it means obeying the law.

Which in Tsarist Russia meant doing what the Tsar said. And the Tsars never had any problem with pogroms and massacres.

What you mean by “rule of law” is that people obey your fluffy little rules. No hurting people, no killing etc etc. Laws that have never existed outside your head. Why can you not accept that the “rule of law” is a material construct that depends entirely on the ruling class?

Karl Marx's Camel

7th July 2006, 13:59

The execution took place when the Czech Legion was nearing Yekaterinburg. Therefore, the guards executed the royal family because they feared that the White unit would free the Romanovs.

Was there not any way they could have transported them far away from the Czech Legion?

And, aside from that, the ones over 18 are considered, by the standards of nearly every society I've heard of, to be rational adults....

Well, IMHO quite a few people at that age are, at least in today's Western world, childish, irresponsible, commercialised pricks, who have not the slightest trace of maturity or rationality.

I guess some people mature faster than others.

Xiao Banfa

7th July 2006, 15:29

I’ll take a wild stab – it means obeying the law

Im not interested in "wild stabs". Do you know what it means? Yes? No?

It's a very specific principle. Understand itThen you have a leg a to stand on.

ComradeOm

7th July 2006, 17:25

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 7 2006, 12:30 PM
Im not interested in "wild stabs". Do you know what it means? Yes? No?

It's a very specific principle. Understand itThen you have a leg a to stand on.
Then tell me what you think it is. I know its more difficult than simply ignoring everything someone writes but I have faith in your abilities

Actually you know for some reason I can't summon the enthusiasm for listening to your idealistic bullshit. You have not managed to forward one remotely reasonable reason for the Tsar and his family to live. Oh yes... the "rule of law":rolleyes:

Comrade-Z

7th July 2006, 19:38

You want "rule of law"? Here's a law for you, one even that would have been supported by a vast majority of the people at the time and thus would have been extremely democratic:

"URAL SOVIET REPUBLIC ORDER NO. 1:

All members of the former royal family must die."

The "trial" that you hold so dear would have proceeded as something like this:

"Are you a member of the former royal family? Yes? Okay, off to the firing squad for you."

Xiao Banfa

8th July 2006, 02:05

Listen fuckwit, find out what it means instead of wasting space.

ComradeOm

8th July 2006, 18:40

I know what I think "rule of law" means but I’m still waiting for your interpretation. Actually since you continue to stonewall on this issue I’m starting to think that either you have no idea what it means yourself or have finally copped on to the fact that your interpretation is in fact idealistic bollox.

Comrade-Z

8th July 2006, 19:58

Listen fuckwit, find out what it means instead of wasting space.

My response was given in all seriousness. I desire to know how the law that I gave doesn't coincide with the "rule of law." I mean, sure, you'd object to the law, but that wouldn't necessarily keep the law from getting passed. Yours is just one vote. Does not the majority get to decide exactly what the "rule of law" means? Or do you presume to push forward your own interpretation of the "rule of law" onto the rest of society? Rather dictatorial, wouldn't you think?

Honggweilo

9th July 2006, 01:30

Originally posted by Matthijs+May 17 2006, 02:54 PM--> (Matthijs @ May 17 2006, 02:54 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 03:19 PM
The youngest of the Romanov children, unless I'm mistaken, was 13....at that age, I was able to formulate my own political views, make the decision to drink, smoke, take drugs and, if I'd found someone to do it with ( <_< ), have sex. Child my arse.
Indeed. If you're raised into a royal family, there's no way to be completely ignorant by the age of 13. Besides, what if they just locked the kids up? Then the Whites could take that city, "free"(kidnap) the brat and start a new monarchy, led by some White regent until the brat's old enough. [/b]
I totaly agree with comrade matthijs here, history proves it. Isabella the II of spain gained the throne at the age of 3. Her father introduced a new law that made Isabella od age to gain the throne. So for every law proposal her advisors needed to convince her to aprove it, which isn't that hard with an indoctrinated spoiled 3 year old monarchist. So as you can see the whites would probably have done something similar to the previous if they could find someone of royal tsarist blood. That would probably have boosted their morale, which in effect could have extended the civil war and created more unnessesary deaths.

But then again, the whites could have made up a royal heir to boost morale. But the bolsheviks had to made a statement to the interventionist, the whites and especialy the people that monarchy has reared its ugly face for the last time. Also the desision of execution wasn't given without thought, it took several weeks and there was a long debate within the party about it. The tsarist family was moved around russia (from Petrograd, Siberia, and finally the Urals) back and forth, but the civil war was so wide spread that preserving the royal family was a waste of time and effort. A

All of the royalties still enjoyed enormous luxury throughout their lives while the vast majority lived in unbareable poverty and where freezing their balls of. The tsar and tsarina had death written on their testemonies, the adults aswell. The average russian would lynch them without a doubt. And for the children, it was just a matter of being born into the wrong familly.

So basically the ethics over a few didn't match up to the disadvantages for the many. People die in class war, the death of a few for the good of the many, although death is not encouraged because our revolutionary motivation is often the will to risk giving your live a life worth living. Thats the sad irony of revolution.

Revolution is not about roses, its a nessesity :che:

Xiao Banfa

9th July 2006, 09:42

Read my earlier posts- it's all there. I'm not going to bother articulating a subtle concept to moral degenerates, again.

Wanted Man

9th July 2006, 17:58

LOL @ "moral degenerates". :lol: :lol:

Honggweilo

9th July 2006, 18:41

Originally posted by Tino Rangatiratanga+Jul 9 2006, 06:43 AM--> (Tino Rangatiratanga @ Jul 9 2006, 06:43 AM) Read my earlier posts- it's all there. I'm not going to bother articulating a subtle concept to moral degenerates, again.

[/b]
Sorry, all the "fucks, ****s and idiots" we're to much for my tender little eyes. didnt got to read them :lol:

I still belive its quite dogmatic to hold up a "code of law" ( it wasnt like the Ural SSR had much time to create one. if they did it would have been very complete would'nt it?). Its was a civil war, moral degeneration is bound to happen. Its not like the whole proletariat went through a whole revolutionairy moral education. Beleving in such a utopian view of revolutionairy law abbiding proletarians wont get you a revolution. Sure the struggle for socialism is not JUST out of self-interest, but you can't deny that not everyone will fight just out of socialist ideals.

Matthijs
LOL @ "moral degenerates".

Moeilijk concept... Moral degenerates :D

Xiao Banfa

10th July 2006, 08:07

I think justifying the murder of children indicates moral degeneration.

Zingu

10th July 2006, 09:29

I might add that many thousands died in the Russian Civil War, and millions in World War One. They certainly didn't all, or mostly, deserve it, any more than the Romanov children did. The heavy focus on the Romanovs seems to reflect an unconscious belief that their blue blood has higher value.

I think that is the main point of thread and why it is moot trying to use "morals" in this debate.

Xiao Banfa

12th July 2006, 15:34

The focus on the romanovs is due to the fact that this thread is about the romanovs.

Mesijs

15th July 2006, 00:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:48 AM
I’ll take a wild stab – it means obeying the law.

Which in Tsarist Russia meant doing what the Tsar said. And the Tsars never had any problem with pogroms and massacres.

What you mean by “rule of law” is that people obey your fluffy little rules. No hurting people, no killing etc etc. Laws that have never existed outside your head. Why can you not accept that the “rule of law” is a material construct that depends entirely on the ruling class?
The idea is that after the revolution, the 'ruling class' is the people themselves!

:lol:

ComradeOm

15th July 2006, 01:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:28 PM
The idea is that after the revolution, the 'ruling class' is the people themselves!
And who do you think shot the Romanovs - the aristocracy or the liberals? :lol:

Mesijs

15th July 2006, 01:20

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 14 2006, 10:14 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 14 2006, 10:14 PM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 09:28 PM
The idea is that after the revolution, the 'ruling class' is the people themselves!
And who do you think shot the Romanovs - the aristocracy or the liberals? :lol: [/b]
Was it done by the rule of law?

ComradeOm

15th July 2006, 02:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:21 PM
Was it done by the rule of law?
Yes. Revolutionary law. Which is in fact an oxymoron but then we’ve been there.

The Tsar and his family were killed by workers in the name of proletarian revolution. So you can stuff your "rule of law" and go join "Comrade" Rangatiratanga in silent moral superiority.

Xiao Banfa

16th July 2006, 10:59

I'm not saying that the bolsheviks could have somehow enacted a whole set laws and applied them to the case of the romanovs.

I'm saying that the bolsheviks, who were fighting to create a just society( facilitated by the rule of law) should have reflected this in their treatment of the romanovs.

This kind of act is a war crime.

I'm not sure what brand of 'socialism' comrade om and comrade z adhere to but i've always thought war crimes were pretty abhorrent to socialists.

Comrade-Z

16th July 2006, 18:13

I'm not sure what brand of 'socialism' comrade om and comrade z adhere to but i've always thought war crimes were pretty abhorrent to socialists.

Yeah, what you call "war crimes" are pretty awful for us--when they are directed against us (as they most often are). It is liberalism to make statements like "violence is always bad" or "war crimes are always bad" while ignoring their social and class context.

Revolution is not "fair" or "just" to those on the losing side. Revolution is an incredibly authoritarian act. When it comes to the ruling class, we care not in the least about their "democracy" or "freedom." Those things only apply to our relations within the proletariat. The fact that the capitalist class is made up of biological humans is irrelevant. They are as diametrically opposed to the proletariat's well-being as, say, leeches or poisonous spiders. And do we afford "democracy," "freedom," and the "rule of law" to poisonous spiders? No, we crush them. That's just how it works.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist Revolution." --The Communist Manifesto

LuÃs Henrique

17th July 2006, 17:44

Under a monarchy, members of the royal family aren't human beings - they are national symbols. See like the English princes are not able to do the shit normal teenagers and young adults usually do, without a damn scandal.

There is a way out of that - renouncing and denouncing the whole idea as morally bankrupt.

Unhappily, most of those people prefer to pay the price, in order to have their privileged lifestyles.

As for the Romanovs - they were the living banners of czarsim. Sad thing to be dispossessed of their humanity like that. But it wasn't the Bolsheviks (or anyone else, from the anarchists to the Mensheviks) who did that. It was Czarism.

So they were killed, to deprive the Whites from their living symbols. Though thing, disagreable, nasty, horrible. And probably inevitable.

Better than having them reinstated into power, to smash the Russian working class.

Luís Henrique

lovablecommie

22nd July 2006, 23:45

The revolution was weak, it composed of a few bolsheviks rather than the entire working class, the first revolution had already proved a failure. Killing the entire family and thus severing all hopes of restoration secured the revolutions success.

It would have made no difference if the child was 1, they would automaticly gain power and thus be a figure head for the peasents who had had the notion of aristocratic rule drilled into them through centuries of tradition.

Physco Bitch

3rd August 2006, 17:25

I agree that the royal family could have held a threat to the revolution, but from everything i have read the tsar was willing to give up his throne- i am not saying that is true but maybe it was. I can also understand that if there i s a chance of them getting freed and getting back to power than something would have to be done. As for the killing of the children- maybe the killing of the children wasn't necsseary but if you are going to go as far as to kill two of them- then why not them all? It is disgusting that they found this neccesary though. As for any getting left alive, i have heard that an archeoligist found the place where the royal family was buried - and they found skeletons that would account for the whole family. Not by-passing the fact that they could have put a diffrenet skelton in their places. But if they were that worried that any of the children would try and rise and take over- why would they allow any of them to live let alone help them escape. As the saying goes- in revolution lives must be sacrificed if it is succed. I have also heard the rumour about lenin having the killers arrested- for the memory of the children lets hope this is true. ;)

Lings

3rd August 2006, 19:05

Well, the question is one with a lot of mystery surrounding it, what actually went down, who gave the orders and so on is something we just cant be sure of. Killing people is a delicate matter, but arguing with morals, or if you want to, arguing with a fraudulent borguise concept that has nothing to do with the reality of human relations in a capitalist, or any, society, wont get anyone anywere.
Buut yeah, the kids got shot, and yeah. That aint pretty, when IDF kills thirteen year old palestinian kids i get pissed of. When the Norwegian police just recently kicked the shit out of some of the younger kids that were defending about a 100 afgan refugees on hungerstrike i may, i get pissed of and no one, unless you are a psycopath, wants to see the dead bodies of children. And yeah, i'd be a lot more comfortable if the revolutionary forces had done to the "lower" sections of the royal family that the swedish singer songwriter Dan Berglund once suggested. Put them under close guard to clean our factories and pick rocks from farmland.

But how many people are you moralists willing to risk to let a couple of the children of the elite live? Becouse that is the reality.