I Worry...

[Global_Justice]

about violent revolution when i read some of the stuff from people on here. some posters say we should kill people on the right or people who disagree with them. i've seen it a few times. i thought socialism/communism was about freedom. if these people kill people on the right, and kill people who disagree with them, what next? what about anarchists or communists who want democracy, do they get killed aswell? or is the plan just to kill enough people so everyone else is too shit scared to disagree :angry:

does anyone else feel like this and shudder when they read posts from people supporting stalin, or saying we should kill people who disagree?

[Dreckt]

I think there are different opinions on this one. Stalinists are pretty angry with the fall of the USSR, so it wouldn't be surprising. I think that all workers need to understand what it means by revolution, and why they do it, not just because someone said so. Then perhaps there may not be as much violence.

[loveme4whoiam]

I've long been an advocate of violence as the very very last means, and I totally agree with you Global Justice. It scares me rigid when I read some of the stuff pro-violence guys post - pardon the use of a tired cliche, but aren't we supposed to hold the moral high ground? By embracing all the hallmarks of the right how the hell are we supposed to be better than them? There doesn't seem to be any solution to this, since there will always be hot-heads who think like this :(

[Red Polak]

If you can't convince a Fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement - Lev Trotsky


Revolution will be violent, there's no escaping from that fact. It's unavoidable, but do you really expect the bourgeois to roll over and surrender all they have to us?

[Nachie]

Howabout a compromise?

I support killing people who support Stalin. :cool:

[loveme4whoiam]

Certainly not Red Polak, but what I'm opposed to is the mindless violence that has no foreseeable objective, and that will simply lose us support among the people. You are right, violence will happen, but we shouldn't embark on a campaign of vandalism and violence just to satisfy our own bloodlust.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by loveme4whoiam+Jul 17 2006, 11:43 PM--> (loveme4whoiam @ Jul 17 2006, 11:43 PM)Certainly not Red Polak, but what I'm opposed to is the mindless violence that has no foreseeable objective, and that will simply lose us support among the people. You are right, violence will happen, but we shouldn't embark on a campaign of vandalism and violence just to satisfy our own bloodlust.[/b]

oh definitely - then we'd simply lose support. But I think many of the comments on this board aren't simply advocating going "wilde" over the population of whatever country, but are maybe simply acknowledging that violence is a unavoidable necessity.



[email protected] 17 2006, 11:37 PM
Howabout a compromise?

I support killing people who support Stalin. :cool:
:lol: I was so tempted to suggest that.

[Zero]

Most "Hardcore Fascists" are in the scene because they either

A. Thought it was cool

or B. Had bad experiances with immigrants.

I think when we have finaly realised as residents of the planet Earth, that we cannot just rope off certain areas for development and leave other people out. That will decrease the ammount of immigrants, and take away the only semi-respected platform that Fascists use to get their message across.

[BobKKKindle$]

Whether the Revolution will require violence and repression really comes down to a simple premise - we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the Capitalist Mode of production is destroyed and replaced with Worker's power. If the Capitalists are willing to let the workers seize the means of production, and do not collude with the State to try and undermine the Workers Struggle, and become productive members of Socialist Society, then it may not be necessary to use violence or execution. Whether the Capitalists will be willing to do the above is another debate. But be aware that in the past, the Capitalist Class has always been quick to collude with the State when revolutionary action has occurred. The Paris Commune, very much the first Revolutionary Insurrection, was subject to Military invasion by the French Republic.

All talk of a Moral Highground is meaningless, because what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' depends upon One's Class Interests and Material Conditons. What is Wrong for one, may be a glorious struggle against Opression for another.

But as someone who looks forward to crushing the Capitalists without mercy, let me ask the Pacifists among us one question - During your time as a Socialist, Have you never felt filled with Rage at the Injustice of Capitalism? Have you never relished the thought of massacring those who for so many years have exploited the Workers and Subejcted us to Repression? I look forward to seeing the Demise of the Capitalist Class.

[loveme4whoiam]

All talk of a Moral Highground is meaningless, because what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' depends upon One's Class Interests and Material Conditons. What is Wrong for one, may be a glorious struggle against Opression for another.

Indeed, it becomes a bit of a hazy area, but I still think that such ideas of right and wrong can exist. To take a different tact, what about the fact that the left is supposed to be the opposite of the right.
If the right are exclusionary, should be not be open? If the right are discriminating, should we not be welcoming? If the right see violence as a tool to be used as and when they feel like it (ie, when they see a guy who looks different to them walk down the street), shouldn't we see it as a final, regretable, option?

And yes, of course I've had that rage, but to give in to it would be to become the very people we wish to overthrow, and I do not want that to happen.

Very good point Zero - it'll take a long long time, but that's what we have to aim for.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Right may have radically different ideas from that of the left, but that does not make them intrinsically evil in violation of a higher moral order, for the simple fact that a moral order does not exist. For us, the Right is cruel and exploitative - for them, we are anti-american and Multi-Cultural. An ideology, be it Leftism, Fascism, or Social Democracy, is a Particular way of percieving the world in which we live that is formed as a result of material conditions. This perception may be translated into action - Political Activism, be it the election of Bourgeois assemblies or a militant coup.


For hegel, the thinking process is the creater of the real world, and the real world is the only manifestation of the idea. With me, on the other hand, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into Terms of Thought - Kapital, Volume One

Both left and Right are political movements that aim to resolve antagonisms. We believe that the resolution of Class antagonisms through violent revolution will make for a better world, they believe that the resolution of Race Antagonisms through extermination or uni-culturalism will make for a better world.

[Delta]

The revolution will be violent, that's for sure. But I don't think it has to be unnecessarily violent. In the struggle against the capitalists leftists of all variety will be fighting side by side, and I don't think anyone would be quick to kill another comrade over some theoretical disagreement.

Now, the capitalists, that would depend on two factors

1). How much they plan on resisting. If they vow to obstruct the workers and their right over the means of production, then they have to be killed now, the other option being to let them go and kill them later after they've done more damage.

2). How tough the struggle is. If the revolution is very one-sided, then perhaps we'll have the means by which to detain those who disagree and hope to educate them back into society. If the revolution's outcome is very unclear, then we wouldn't be able to devote resources to this aim.

I think you also have to take what people say online with a grain of salt. I mean, I just typed the above while sitting at my desk eating cherries. If someone's life actually depended on my decision, you'd bet that I would make sure they had to be killed before I would do anything. I'm sure this holds to some extent for other people who talk about killing without any sense of emotional restraint.

[Samuel]

In the revolution, at the point where the masses have realized their potential, there will be violence. The governments of "free" states are eternaly opposed to our Ideals; whenever a Communist canidate runs for office and gets near winning, he is disqualified/impeded/killed. Any member of the Right will believe we are wrong, and will attempt to stop the masses. The people must then end their hinderence. During the revolution, there will be no reasources to capture/re-educate anyone, and an aggresive stance will discourage resistance. While it may seem unfortunate, killing conservatives will help the people be removing opposition to their movement.

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:46 AM
The Right may have radically different ideas from that of the left, but that does not make them intrinsically evil in violation of a higher moral order, for the simple fact that a moral order does not exist. For us, the Right is cruel and exploitative - for them, we are anti-american and Multi-Cultural. An ideology, be it Leftism, Fascism, or Social Democracy, is a Particular way of percieving the world in which we live that is formed as a result of material conditions. This perception may be translated into action - Political Activism, be it the election of Bourgeois assemblies or a militant coup.


For hegel, the thinking process is the creater of the real world, and the real world is the only manifestation of the idea. With me, on the other hand, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into Terms of Thought - Kapital, Volume One

Both left and Right are political movements that aim to resolve antagonisms. We believe that the resolution of Class antagonisms through violent revolution will make for a better world, they believe that the resolution of Race Antagonisms through extermination or uni-culturalism will make for a better world.
Great point Bob. I totally agree.

I think that there will be some violence, but the way I see some people on here talking it seems that they just want to go on a killing spree for the hell of it.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:49 PM
and an aggresive stance will discourage resistance
That's a good point. But we have to be careful not to be too trigger-happy as to intimidate valid criticisms.

[red team]

What is a suitable sentence for a child molestor?

Next question: what is a suitable sentence for a child molestor with thousands of victims?

Next question: what's the difference between a child molestors with thousands of victims and a child sweatshop owner with thousands of child workers. Before you answer think about the social consequences of child sweatshop labours for future generations of these children who will grow up with deformed bodies and deformed psychology.

What's a suitable sentence?

Of course people on the Right will not agree that this is a crime. This is just normal business operations. They are even being "charitable" by providing work and a wage.

[Global_Justice]

alot of people are justifying killing by using extreme examples. sweat shop owners, nazis, fascists etc. these are the minority. my point is, where do you draw the line? if you kill some nazis i don't really care, but what about people who disagree with the revolution? there are plenty of ordinary people, working class and middle class, who believe in a "free" market. there not exactly bad people, just have a different idealogy. should they be allowed to organise? do we want democracy? or do people simply want to lock up "counter-revolutionaries" like communists have done in the past?

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:49 AM
In the revolution, at the point where the masses have realized their potential, there will be violence. The governments of "free" states are eternaly opposed to our Ideals; whenever a Communist canidate runs for office and gets near winning, he is disqualified/impeded/killed. Any member of the Right will believe we are wrong, and will attempt to stop the masses. The people must then end their hinderence. During the revolution, there will be no reasources to capture/re-educate anyone, and an aggresive stance will discourage resistance. While it may seem unfortunate, killing conservatives will help the people be removing opposition to their movement.
How can a "communist candidate" run for office?&#33; <_<

Personally I don&#39;t really care if they aren&#39;t winning offices because what good is a communist in governemnt? reformism cannot work&#33; The beauracracy changes people - take Mister Blair, the man used to be a Trot, look at him now.



I agree with the people who thought about the resources side of this. Remember how long the Whites fought in the USSR, and how they were even funded by outside countries to continue the fight. I have no doubt at all that during the revolution a similar resistance force will be set up and funded heavily from abroad. Fighting against these takes a great deal of resources which can be far better used for the good of the people elsewhere.

[bcbm]

my point is, where do you draw the line? if you kill some nazis i don&#39;t really care, but what about people who disagree with the revolution? there are plenty of ordinary people, working class and middle class, who believe in a "free" market.

If they take up arms against us, they will be dealt with accordingly. Otherwise, I&#39;m fine to let them to their own business, so long as they stay out of ours.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:57 AM
where do you draw the line? if you kill some nazis i don&#39;t really care, but what about people who disagree with the revolution? there are plenty of ordinary people, working class and middle class, who believe in a "free" market. there not exactly bad people, just have a different idealogy.
They want to take away the freedoms we are fighting for, if they cannot be changed having them around is just too dangerous for the beggining peroid when our government will be as fragile as fuck (as with all post-revolutionary systems). Maybe long after the revolution is complete and our government is strong we will allow these people but before then they are fighting against the revolution and should be treated as such.

[Janus]

alot of people are justifying killing by using extreme examples. sweat shop owners, nazis, fascists etc. these are the minority. my point is, where do you draw the line? if you kill some nazis i don&#39;t really care, but what about people who disagree with the revolution?
If they take up arms against the revolution then it can&#39;t be helped as it will be a war.

there are plenty of ordinary people, working class and middle class, who believe in a "free" market. there not exactly bad people, just have a different idealogy. should they be allowed to organise? do we want democracy? or do people simply want to lock up "counter-revolutionaries" like communists have done in the past?
The point is that a revolution will most likely occur once the economy has collapsed and there is no going back.