Why violence?

[Vide]

Why use violent means to achieve revolutionary ends?

[Blasphemy]

violence must always be the very last resort. only after all other means have been tried several times, you have to consider the mild use of force.

the sanctity of life is an extremely important value for me, and killing a person is the most terrible crime anyone can every commit, because life cannot be restored.

i know that will never be able to kill. i can hardly hit someone. violence corrupts you from within, it corrupts your soul. it can turn a person into an animal...

[Hattori Hanzo]

SELF DEFENCE IS NOT VIOLENCE

[Vide]

Hanzo: violence is violence, you are incorrect.

Since this didn't go where I wanted it to, I'll prod it a bit. The Marxist classless state that would supposedly exist after the "withering away of the state" can never come into existence if violent means are used to achieve it. Since it is a leaderless state where all workers produce and consume for the good of the collective (anarchy, essentially), all members must contribute or the system will crumble. However, the bourgeois and capitalists which the revolution will persecute with violence will never submit to such a system. They will oppose it and attempt to ruin it in any way they can, if only out of spite and anger at their loss. Unless you plan to exterminate them all in a mass genocide of the bourgeoisie, then violence will never serve you.

[Lefty]

well said, vide, but i wonder, what would you do if you could prevent hundreds from dying by killing one innocent?

[Vide]

Lefty,

I wonder how I would know that I could save hundreds by killing one. Seems an implausible scenario to me. Without dodging the issue, however, I'll say that I don't believe in violence or killing for any cause.

[Kez]

when one becomes desperate then violence is the best option and often the only one.

When ur enemy is deaf to your protests how can you keep talking?

If Azerbaijan attacks the region of Armenian governed Kharabakh, i'll be the first to fuck up the azeris in the UK, not with talk but with blasts. U may disagree, but the ones who disagree will never get anywhere, not this generation now anyway.

[jimr]

Violence occurs everywhere, it is natural. All politics is simply a battle being waged much like teh survival of the fittest. There is nothing inherently wrong with violence as morality does not really exist. Though it is socially unexceptable for means of stabilty and in common interest and is now viewed as a horrible thing. Theres no point debating such matters. Pacifism is a wonderful idea, but how can you support a theory that, in practise is impossible to uphold. If someone came into your house and tried to kill your children and you could do something anyone would.

Violence is needed to bring abotu change, it is a means of shock therapy and can be used to educate and motivate a people.

[Vide]

Tavareesh: Is violence the best option in Israel/Palestine? How about India/Pakistan? Would violence have been the best option during the Cold War or would detente have been better? The Cuban Missile Crisis? I suppose since violence is the best means to achieve change, you fully endorse the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Feel proud.

Jimr: Violence occurs everywhere, it is natural. All politics is simply a battle being waged much like teh survival of the fittest.

Sounds like you're a proponent of Social Darwinism to me. Hardly a leftist attitude.

There is nothing inherently wrong with violence as morality does not really exist.

If morality does not exist, then what are you doing here? I suppose it's alright for all the bourgeois to exploit the working class because there's no morality to stop them. Do you make a habit of pouring acid on baby's faces and lighting old women's houses on fire? Lying hypocrite.

Theres no point debating such matters.

In other words, you don't want to listen to any other point of view but your own. Silly me, I thought all "leftists" were open-minded.

Pacifism is a wonderful idea, but how can you support a theory that, in practise is impossible to uphold.

Pacifism has been upheled successfully in history several times. From Satyagraha in South Africa during the 1890's to India's independence from the 1920's to 1948 and during Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights protests during the 1950's and 60's, to name a few. If anything has been proven impossible to uphold, it's Communism, ironically.

If someone came into your house and tried to kill your children and you could do something anyone would.

Oh, you mean try to be a hero and then get shot? Spiffing plan.

Violence is needed to bring abotu change, it is a means of shock therapy and can be used to educate and motivate a people.

See my comments above to Tavareesh. You must love terrorists then.

[Xvall]

Vide, Self Defense is not considered 'agressive' violence. If you are being attacked in the streets, 'talking it out' will NOT be a very helpful measure.

[Vide]

I never claimed that self-defense was aggressive. I said that violent self-defense is violent. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

[Kez]

oh yes,
did i tell anyone i was going to columbia to the Right wing death squads and i plan to give them flowers so they wont kill our FARC comrades, boy i sure hope they like roses...
NO! They need dynmaite up their asses to blow the FUCK outta them

oh yes, and maybe if we whisper in the ears of Bill gates to give up his empire so workers can live better?
NO! You shoot him and then make schools and universities out of his wealth so EVERYONE can produce as good as him.

Maybe if we send a little happy card to Prez Bush he will lift the Embargo on Cuba,
NO! You fuck the White House up and then WE DEMAND the withdrawl of ALL US troops from around the globe.

Maybe if we send Sharon some cake he will give palestine a seperate state
NO! You blow the whole cabinet to pieces then demand a FREE PALESTINIAN STATE

Yours in the Struggle
Comrade Kamo

[Rob]

I believe that violence should only be used when necessary, and not without the support of the masses, or at least not until you have enough support that the population will have a hard time believing the government's justification for how it retaliated.

[Vide]

Tavareesh: Obviously, your infantile mind cannot even grasp the most puerile of concepts so I'll make this very explicit for you.

First of all, the only people I know with your sophomoric intellect are children, which does not lend much credence to your special perspective. Do you realize how immature you sound when you say "shoot Bill Gates and steal all his money!" or "blow up Sharon and peace will reign in the middle east"? It's laughable, not laudable.

If you had any historical context whatsoever, you'd know that your proposed methods of achieving change have no merit in them at all. Imagine if Khrushchev had decided to adopt the TavareeshKamo method of conflict resolution during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 150 million Americans would be dead, million more would be poisoned by radiation and then when the US retaliated, the same would happen to the denziens of the USSR.

How is violence solving the problems in the middle east Tavaraeesh? Perhaps your eyesight is better than mine, but after 60 years of suicide attacks, I don't see Sharon handing Arafat the keys to the West Bank. And what of the recent developments between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir conflict. I'm sure that if you were a citizen of either of those countries, you'd just love for them to go to nuclear war.

In short, are you actually a moron or do you imitate one for kicks? I don't know what your problem is, but I wager it's hard to pronounce.

[Blasphemy]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 11:27 pm on June 20, 2002
oh yes,
did i tell anyone i was going to columbia to the Right wing death squads and i plan to give them flowers so they wont kill our FARC comrades, boy i sure hope they like roses...
NO! They need dynmaite up their asses to blow the FUCK outta them

oh yes, and maybe if we whisper in the ears of Bill gates to give up his empire so workers can live better?
NO! You shoot him and then make schools and universities out of his wealth so EVERYONE can produce as good as him.

Maybe if we send a little happy card to Prez Bush he will lift the Embargo on Cuba,
NO! You fuck the White House up and then WE DEMAND the withdrawl of ALL US troops from around the globe.

Maybe if we send Sharon some cake he will give palestine a seperate state
NO! You blow the whole cabinet to pieces then demand a FREE PALESTINIAN STATE

Yours in the Struggle
Comrade Kamo


who are you to decide who should live and who should die? who appointed you god?

do you really think that violence is a solution? violence breeds violence. believe me, i know...

[Conghaileach]

from Vide
Pacifism has been upheled successfully in history several times. From Satyagraha in South Africa during the 1890's to India's independence from the 1920's to 1948 and during Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights protests during the 1950's and 60's, to name a few.
Millions died in peaceful protests in India. More were beaten viciously by police.

Martin Luther King Jr had to be shot in the face before any serious change came about. Actually, has any change come about? Also, at that time in the U$ you had Malcolm X and the Black Panther party etc. It's impossible to give the CRM all the credit.

[jimr]

Quote: from Vide on 6:11 pm on June 20, 2002
Tavareesh: Is violence the best option in Israel/Palestine? How about India/Pakistan? Would violence have been the best option during the Cold War or would detente have been better? The Cuban Missile Crisis? I suppose since violence is the best means to achieve change, you fully endorse the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Feel proud.

Jimr: Violence occurs everywhere, it is natural. All politics is simply a battle being waged much like teh survival of the fittest.

Sounds like you're a proponent of Social Darwinism to me. Hardly a leftist attitude.

There is nothing inherently wrong with violence as morality does not really exist.

If morality does not exist, then what are you doing here? I suppose it's alright for all the bourgeois to exploit the working class because there's no morality to stop them. Do you make a habit of pouring acid on baby's faces and lighting old women's houses on fire? Lying hypocrite.

Theres no point debating such matters.

In other words, you don't want to listen to any other point of view but your own. Silly me, I thought all "leftists" were open-minded.

Pacifism is a wonderful idea, but how can you support a theory that, in practise is impossible to uphold.

Pacifism has been upheled successfully in history several times. From Satyagraha in South Africa during the 1890's to India's independence from the 1920's to 1948 and during Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights protests during the 1950's and 60's, to name a few. If anything has been proven impossible to uphold, it's Communism, ironically.

If someone came into your house and tried to kill your children and you could do something anyone would.

Oh, you mean try to be a hero and then get shot? Spiffing plan.

Violence is needed to bring abotu change, it is a means of shock therapy and can be used to educate and motivate a people.

See my comments above to Tavareesh. You must love terrorists then.


Firstly please shut up with your pigeon hole ideologies. It is a simple fact that morality is something that has been instituted as a law and does not exist outside of humanity. It is there only because it is beneficial. If everyone went about killing each other everyone would be very suspicious and people would still be living in caves. This does not mean that people cant have live with each other and work together to make abetter place. It just means that there is no solid right or wrong. How can morality be subjective if it changes as people become more tolerant and just as time progresses in general.

Do you think that the Lion is acting immorally to kill the antelope to feed itself and its children? Or do you think that only Humans can be moral. If you look at nature all aroung us you see that it is all violence.

I believe that i what i define as right or wrong is not an instinct, but is what i have been taught, and in that case is not moral, as morality is seen to be something we possess when we are born.

ALL changes in this world have come through violence. People hold power only as long as they are strong enough to fight off the opposition. If communism is working then the people ill be content. If communism is not working then the people will revolt (eventually) While it is working the government is strong enough to hold it together, but if social progression is not made then it will become weak and fall prey to another ideology. i realise i am not explaining this in the best way, but please try not to be so arrogant in your own views and ignorant of other peoples.

If you do not believe in god then surely you must believe in nature.

Oh and please, don't be so fucking stupid, you mean to tell me that you would sit idley by as some man rapes your daughter even if you had teh power to stop him. I did not mention teh guy had a weapon, you were the one to say that you might be a hero and get shot. Everything you have today is because of someone fighting for it. Pacifists can achieve small victories but they cannot win a war against capitalism.

[jimr]

Quote: from Vide on 11:08 pm on June 20, 2002
Tavareesh: Obviously, your infantile mind cannot even grasp the most puerile of concepts so I'll make this very explicit for you.

First of all, the only people I know with your sophomoric intellect are children, which does not lend much credence to your special perspective. Do you realize how immature you sound when you say "shoot Bill Gates and steal all his money!" or "blow up Sharon and peace will reign in the middle east"? It's laughable, not laudable.

If you had any historical context whatsoever, you'd know that your proposed methods of achieving change have no merit in them at all. Imagine if Khrushchev had decided to adopt the TavareeshKamo method of conflict resolution during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 150 million Americans would be dead, million more would be poisoned by radiation and then when the US retaliated, the same would happen to the denziens of the USSR.

How is violence solving the problems in the middle east Tavaraeesh? Perhaps your eyesight is better than mine, but after 60 years of suicide attacks, I don't see Sharon handing Arafat the keys to the West Bank. And what of the recent developments between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir conflict. I'm sure that if you were a citizen of either of those countries, you'd just love for them to go to nuclear war.

In short, are you actually a moron or do you imitate one for kicks? I don't know what your problem is, but I wager it's hard to pronounce.


Do you get off by being an arrogant elitist bastard? How completely ignorant can you get? Pacifism may have its place but it also has places where it is utterly useless. A fuck load of good the pacisfists did in world war 2, they sure saved millions of lives. Would you rather we had just sat back and let millions more jews be killed, let Germany conquer all of europe and let them rape our children.

What nonsense. Pacifism is good as a means of internal protest but is useless in solving forgiegn matters. There will always be aggressors. If it wasnt for Che and Fidel Cuba would be another American satalitte.

If you keep looking at it from your point of view then you may aswell just give up thinking about politics. Everything in this world is shitty. I am a marxist but i have little faith in the ability of socialists to bring about noticiable change. But i do know that atleast in some places people are willing to do things.

I really cant be bothered with this conversation as I can see your arrogant replies already. reply to this post if you want, i really don't care. Pacifism is a narrow minded view, especially in the way you are advocating it.

(Edited by jimr at 6:08 pm on June 21, 2002)

[Kez]

*applauds jimr and CiaranB as though im in politburo and applauding for Khrushev*
*clap clap clap*

once again Vide has been put down.
dont gimme shit, unless u want it thrown right back at u.
Ur posts are naive, and U my friend are the ignorant child.

If it wasnt for the intifada people wouldnt be looking at the palestinian state question. Before Sept 28 2000 people abused the palestinians and scoffed at the belief of a palestinian state, now america is running like a headless chicken trying to sort something out. How is this possible? ARMED STRUGGLE

Who Brought about the Russian revolution and got rid of the ruling class and the elite? The Bolsheviks and the communists of Russia. U wanted people to protest? like the bloody sunday massacre where thousands were shot at? who blatantly were pacifist and werent even anti-govt. Did they bring change? DID THEY FUCK
who did? the communists, more importantly HOW did they? ARMED STRUGGLE

What about the Cuban revolution? pacifists got nowhere, where did ARMED STRUGGLE get us? it got rid of the evil regime

How about China? Who kicked out the imperialists outta Japan? Mao did. And How? ARMED STRUGGLE

How about the anti-imperialist struggle in Angola, Zimbabwe and many many of the other countries who screwed the imperialists resources out by...u guessed it ARMED STRUGGLE

What about in Vietnam? WHO KICKED OUT THE MIGHTY US ARMY??? THE GREAT HO CHI MIHN and how? ARMED STRUGGLE

i think i have proved my point and any silly petty argument u make Vide is to face slaughter

However Good Luck in doing so
Comrade Kamo

[Conghaileach]

Morality is relative. Most religious leaders will tell you that masturbation is immoral. Most other people would disagree.

[I Will Deny You]

Sometimes violence breeds violence. The Middle East is a great example. But look at the Civil War. It bred a little violence, but hardly anyone will tell you it wasn't worth it.


Quote: from CiaranB on 2:39 pm on June 21, 2002
Morality is relative. Most religious leaders will tell you that masturbation is immoral. Most other people would disagree.My rabbi masturbates.

Lindsay

[Conghaileach]

from I Will Deny You
My rabbi masturbates.How'd you find that out?

[vox]

"Who Brought about the Russian revolution and got rid of the ruling class and the elite? The Bolsheviks and the communists of Russia."

What bullshit.

All that happened was the Bolsheviks became the new ruling elite, completely unanswerable to the citizenry, which was monitored by the KGB. Sounds like the ideal world, if your a fascist.

Go worship at the altar of bureaucratic collectivism, but don't say it helped ANYONE but the Party. It certainly didn't help the workers.

vox

[Kez]

shame u didnt read the thread hey VOX not for the first time
we were talkin about change, not what happened after change

*shakes head in disbelief wondering who people can call themselves socialists and STILL be so fuckin stupid and blind*

next time read the thread instead of trying to score points against me, u obviously scored an own goal this time......

[Reuben]

kamo am I interpretting you right. WOuld you really attack people here for simply being azri
That is sickening

[Kez]

no, only if the azeri government attacked armenia would i start my own campaign of terror, obviously i wouldnt kill kebab workers lol, id kill azeri diplomats and so

[Goldfinger]

Balsphemy, you're absolutely right. Violence is an old-fashioned way of dealing with problems, and there will never be justice that way. Did you hear about what happened yesterday in Palestinia? Israeli soliders killed some Palestinian civilians, and three of them were children. The soliders clamed it was a 'mistake'. I myself could never take a person's life, because - like you said - a life can not be restored.

[Kez]

Quote: from Apocalypse When on 1:39 pm on June 22, 2002
Balsphemy, you're absolutely right. Violence is an old-fashioned way of dealing with problems, and there will never be justice that way. Did you hear about what happened yesterday in Palestinia? Israeli soliders killed some Palestinian civilians, and three of them were children.


and what, u want the palestinian to make a homemade card and give it to the ziononists so they give them land?
i think not, that time has gone, they should have done that in 1948, now is time for submerging the ziononist govt into mercy of the people of israel and palenstine

[Reuben]

That would be legitimate Kamo, sorry for going off on you.


(Edited by Reuben at 10:53 pm on June 22, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Vox bullshit.
Anarchist trash.
The bolshevik revolution was marred by the civil war.
Lenin 1918
"The civil war brought about by the desperate resistance of the propertied classes, who are well aware that this is to be the last, the determining conflict for the retention of private ownership of land and of the means of production, has not yet reached its climax. In this conflict the victory of the Soviets is certain, but for some time our intensest efforts will still be required. A period of disorganization is inevitable--that is the case in all wars, all the more so in a civil war--before the resistance of the bourgeoisie is broken." Until this resistance is broken--until the capitalist class is eliminated through the confiscation of its property and the abolition of private ownership, democracy is impossible. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the only means by which this can be accomplished. And as soon as the capitalist class has disappeared, the Dictatorship automatically ceases.''
This was certainly no ideal, and nothing to do with fascism. Vox only undermines the acheive of the russian people in acheiving peace and defeating umpteen invading armies including american. Maybe that is something the idiot is proud of 'Democratic' American intervention.
I quote Lenin below nearing the end of the Civil war.

[Kez]

No Probs Reuben, maybe i was being too agressive anyway.

HAHA, once more VOX's petty arguments have been crushed, muhahahah

[Blasphemy]

Quote: from Apocalypse When on 3:39 pm on June 22, 2002
Balsphemy, you're absolutely right. Violence is an old-fashioned way of dealing with problems, and there will never be justice that way. Did you hear about what happened yesterday in Palestinia? Israeli soliders killed some Palestinian civilians, and three of them were children. The soliders clamed it was a 'mistake'. I myself could never take a person's life, because - like you said - a life can not be restored.


the nubmer of miskates rises every day, along with the death toll. quite frustrating...

[marxistdisciple]

Whatever quotes you use and whatever accounts you preach, the fact is, most people believe violence is wrong. That may be subjective - but it is the case in most countries, including Israel and Palestine.
The reason people resort to violence is because "democracy" gives them no way to fight their cause without it.

That is not a reason to advocate it - all it shows people is that you are incapable of using your worded opinions to influence people. In some cases, violence is necessary, i.e. self defence, protection of your family. That still doesn't make it a terribly convincing philosophy to most people though. You can see the impact suicide bombings have on the press, and the one sided coverage it gets. Violence never equals peace, or brings about the kind of change anyone wants. The exception being, when you intervene violently in a war, to protect innocent people.

The violence in ireland has been going on for 30 years, and no political objective has been achieved.
Mostly, people just want peace. If you see violence as a way to achieve peace, you are strangely mistaken.

There are non-violent ways to achieve your goals, like the culture blocking, and using the political climate to your advantage. The beauty of outrageous statement is good for publicity. If you do things that inspire people's other emotions - anger, curiosity - those are powerful tools of influence. If you use the least inteligent one, hatred, you will never incite mass change. The best thing you can do is let people know your beliefs - most people are completely ignorant to these things. When you win over the masses like Martin Luther King did, like Ghandi did, and like many other great leaders, with peace, and fairness - your values will reflect in generations to come.