Killing because of heredity?

[Ali.Cat]

I was reading the disgussion about the Romanov family and the question was asked whether or not it was necessary to kill the children of the family. I'd like to broaden that a little and ask, if revolution were to happen, what would happen to children in similar situations to the Romanov children? What happens to children who have no experience to participate in the growing wealth of their family but are simply born into that wealth? I mean, it is not their choice to be born into the bourgeoisie so should they still be penalized for that in the possibility of revolution?

Thanks.

[Enragé]

well they would be proletarianized, as in they would become workers and therefore work like the rest of us. If they take up arms against us they will be treated as enemies ofcourse.

[Ali.Cat]

I understand that - but I'm talking children here. Children can't be expected to work like that can they? I mean would their family become the enemy without them, leaving them parentless? That sounds a bit dodgy to me...

[Dyst]

Nothing. Unless they are "authorities" (in the sense of people controlling other people) there would obviously be no action needed and they would be welcome to join the war. A child does not yet belong to a class.

I don't like how NewKindOfSoldier says that they will become workers like the rest of us. The goal of the revolution should be to abolish "work" and the wage system. But other than that I agree with him.

[Ali.Cat]

Nothing. Unless they are "authorities" (in the sense of people controlling other people)

I don't understand what you mean by that - how do children become authorities?

[Redmau5]

I was reading the disgussion about the Romanov family and the question was asked whether or not it was necessary to kill the children of the family.

Although this is a touchy subject for some people, I believe it was necessary to execute the children of the Royal family. Now before you call me a psycho, let me explain myself. As you might well know Russia was going through a period of civil war during the time in which the Romanov's were executed. The counter-revolutionaries, or the White armies, were very disorganised and indisciplined. This was one of the reasons for the ultimate victory of the Red Army. Had the children been spared by the Bolsheviks, the very fact that they were alive could have had a unifying effect on the White armies, which would have made them more dangerous enemies for the Reds. The Tsar's family were seen as the symbol of the old regime, a regime which many of the counter-revolutionaries hoped to re-establish. So the Bolsheviks had to extinguish that symbol once and for all, and the only way to do that was end the Romanov dynasty permanently.

There is a more detailed analysis here: The execution of the Romanovs (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50124&st=0).


The goal of the revolution should be to abolish "work" and the wage system.

We can abolish the wage system yes, but how can you abolish work? Houses are not going to build themselves and hospitals are not going to run themselves. Of course we are going to have to work after the revolution. But the community will share the work, so in that sense it will be different from the work of today. Hopefully in future there will be no divison of labour.

[Janus]

They would be reabsorbed back into normal society and be stripped of their hereditary status.

One of the reasons why the Romanovs were killed is that a strong counter-revolutionary movement still existed and one of the units was approaching the house in which they were being kept.

So this kind of situation would probably not happen in a communist society.

[apathy maybe]

There should be no reason to kill children, unless they are actively fighting you.

If there is some group of capitalists or monarchists or something who focus on a particular child, then you could publicize the fact the kid got killed, but in reality they would have been shifted to another place.

I do not see many instances where a group of counter-revolutionaries are going to group around an hereditary ruler. Thailand perhaps, but I cannot think of another place.

[STI]

Originally posted by Ali.Cat
I mean would their family become the enemy without them, leaving them parentless?

Collective child-rearing would be commonplace in a classless society anyway, so the "orphaned" children could simply be raised there.

Or, if they're functionally capable, they could simply live on their own.

[Ali.Cat]

Collective child-rearing would be commonplace in a classless society anyway, so the "orphaned" children could simply be raised there.

That is incredibly silly to me. To have your parents killed and be left an orphan to be raised by the people who supported killing your parents would be so rough on a kid. The orphan couldn't "simply" be raised there. Children aren't "simply" raised - it takes time and devotion... where are these devoted people going to come from and how will we find enough to take care of all these orphaned children?

[violencia.Proletariat]

I'd like to broaden that a little and ask, if revolution were to happen, what would happen to children in similar situations to the Romanov children?

There are no children like the Romanov children in todays society (at least not in the advanced capitalist countries where communist revolution is possible).

The motive behind the execution of the Romanov children was strictly a necessity of the time period. It seems "cruel" and "unecessary" to us because we don't live in a feudal society. Feudalism has a nature of heredity. This is not the case in capitalism. It was necessary for the revolutionaries to execute the children in Russia because once grown they could come back in the name of the Tsars. That was a REAL threat in that society. The same cannot be said for a rich man's son in capitalism, because being someones son does not give you direct claim to an empire in capitalism. There are too many "rulers" (the bourgeoisie) for there to be a claim like that.

[Ali.Cat]

The same cannot be said for a rich man's son in capitalism, because being someones son does not give you direct claim to an empire in capitalism.

That's a really good point. However you WOULD still have to get rid of their parents, is that right? In which case I'm still confused as to what would happen with the children.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:04 AM

The same cannot be said for a rich man's son in capitalism, because being someones son does not give you direct claim to an empire in capitalism.

That's a really good point. However you WOULD still have to get rid of their parents, is that right? In which case I'm still confused as to what would happen with the children.
Most of the major capitalists would flee when shit started going down.

[Dyst]

We can abolish the wage system yes, but how can you abolish work? Houses are not going to build themselves and hospitals are not going to run themselves. Of course we are going to have to work after the revolution. But the community will share the work, so in that sense it will be different from the work of today. Hopefully in future there will be no divison of labour.

Well, that was what I meant. "Work" like it exists today will disappear. Obviously everyone will have to work, but there will for example be no need to have routine jobs, unless you want of course.

You can be a fisherman one day and build houses another. Or just build houses, because that might be what you like best. Your hobbies and what you do should become one.



I don't understand what you mean by that - how do children become authorities?
I meant children shouldn't be targetted, since no, they are not "authorities".

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:04 PM

The same cannot be said for a rich man's son in capitalism, because being someones son does not give you direct claim to an empire in capitalism.

That's a really good point. However you WOULD still have to get rid of their parents, is that right? In which case I'm still confused as to what would happen with the children.
The children would be looked after by other people. A great amount of children lose their parents and they still manage to grow up and enjoy their lives in the care of other people.

[Enragé]

yep, ever heard of adoption?

also perhaps "destroying" the idea of a family unit might be desirable, maybe we should become more like the indians i think it was (-native americans whatever) and be all like everyone's everyone's son/daughter/brother/sister/father/mother


I don't like how NewKindOfSoldier says that they will become workers like the rest of us. The goal of the revolution should be to abolish "work" and the wage system. But other than that I agree with him.

well i could say take part in the production of wealth of which all society including the producing one benefits but thats a bit long now isn't it? :P