Ethics of Revolt

[ElvisTrout]

How far would you go for freedom? Do you think it's right to kill if you can save more lives than you take? Or would you go as far as to kill just to improve people's quality of life? Or perhaps the greatest and most courageous leader are those that use passive resistance I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on the matter.

[Rawthentic]

"By any means necessary" as Malcolm X said.

Its objective to say that the ruling class will not give up its power without a life-or-death struggle, so I think you get the picture.

[ElvisTrout]

I certainly agree with 'by any means necessary' but I doubt violence would be necessary. We glorify Che and his leadership. But his achievements cost nothing in terms of personal hardship compared to Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Think about how radical the changes they achieved were. Malcom X wasn't the main motivator behind the civil rights movement, peaceful protest was. Sure violence is justified in my eyes, but not necessary.

[Rawthentic]

Violence will be necessary, sorry to bust your bubble. The capitalists will not just let go of their power, I think thats pretty basic to grasp.

And no, I dont glorify Che.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 05:20 pm
Violence will be necessary, sorry to bust your bubble. The capitalists will not just let go of their power, I think thats pretty basic to grasp.

Damn straight. Why would the bourgeoisie just give up all of their money and power and authority? Just because we moan and *****? Unlikely. They are too self-indulgent to give up all that they "earned" just to ease the suffering of the proletariat.

[hazer87]

Che didn't have as much hardship because he fought not only with words but is own two hands. For a new start, the old ways must die off, we must must destroy the ways of the past so that our new future and progress of man as a whole can begin.

[The_Truth]

I would deff be willing to kill for what I believe in. There's no way anyone with money would give that up most people in America are deathly afraid of "communism".

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:18 pm
I would deff be willing to kill for what I believe in. There's no way anyone with money would give that up most people in America are deathly afraid of "communism".
Well, that depends. I'm pretty candid and open about communism and my ideals with my coworkers. And even if you tell a member of the bourgoisie that you're a communist, they would just brush it off because they probably think that you are either joking, or that communism isn't a threat anymore. I've told a couple of petty-bourgoise and they just laughed.

[Livesoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:17 am
I certainly agree with 'by any means necessary' but I doubt violence would be necessary. We glorify Che and his leadership. But his achievements cost nothing in terms of personal hardship compared to Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Think about how radical the changes they achieved were. Malcom X wasn't the main motivator behind the civil rights movement, peaceful protest was. Sure violence is justified in my eyes, but not necessary.
Maybe i don't understand this statement correctly. It sounds like your saying Che didn't sacrifice as much personally as Ghandi or Martin Luther King...and that the latters achievements were greater than Che's? I would gladly argue otherwise. Che was entrenched in battle physically and psychologically on a daily basis. Che was always at the front line with his comrades, always working 18 hour days doing whatever it took for the cause. His dedication to the cause is only rivaled by Malcolm X and Ghandi. King is no where near any of them. Dr. King though he was about peaceful protest was not a significant factor in "advancement" of the civil rights movement. He was a symbol of peace and only became great because the government preferred his peaceful mannerism over the threat of a frustrated fully aware black man. Malcolm X was just as peaceful as Dr. King, only when threat to his life or his peoples life would he ever be violent. But he never raised a hand to anyone, he was a true righteous man. Dr. King had his method, the same as Ghandi's. But Ghandi's method worked because an entire religious nation was enslaved to an obvious enemy. No one can be more determined than a religious man doing the work of God. But even Ghandi didn’t face the personal hardship of Che and Malcolm X, that’s a misconception based on the knowledge given to you by history (a set of lies agreed upon). The million man march turned into a peaceful movement. It was suppose to be violent. In those obvious oppressive days the march was an idea, then it caught on and a date was planned. It’s a method of the oppressors, they heard the march was coming. At first they were scared, because they knew it was coming. They strategize, then concluded that they would "invite the march", then they told white people to join in the march, got the peaceful black leaders involved in the march, in the end they ended up controlling the entire march, they even told them it was only for a day and even what time to go home. Peace is what they want. Dr. King gave them that. God bless him, but it won't lead to change in a country like ours where no one even cares until their up against the wall.

[The-Spark]

Aye, violent revolution is the only way. Like Louis Riel, he wanted to make a change for his people, for the métis and the other natives who were starving, yet if he did what his second in command asked him to do and went the path of guerrilla warfare Canada would be a different country today. But Louis Riel took the path of trying to reach the government in peace and he got hanged, and the métis put on a reserve.

[RedStaredRevolution]

as much as i would like to have a peaceful revolution, i dont think it would be possible in most, if any, of the world today. i would support or even fight a violent revolution as long as they didnt attack civillians.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:38 pm
as much as i would like to have a peaceful revolution, i dont think it would be possible in most, if any, of the world today. i would support or even fight a violent revolution as long as they didnt attack civillians.
How do you, specifically, define a civilian? I'm not being rhetorical, I would like to know.

[capitalistwhore]

Originally posted by Marxist-rev

How do you, specifically, define a civilian? I'm not being rhetorical, I would like to know.
Oh, that's easy. A communist.

Because anyone else in this country is going to be against a revolution, and thus, an enemy.

See why violence doesn't work either? Who are you violent against?

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:34 am
Oh, that's easy. A communist.

Because anyone else in this country is going to be against a revolution, and thus, an enemy.

See why violence doesn't work either? Who are you violent against?
Well, I said specifically because I wanted RSR's personal definition, but that's fine.

You don't necessarily have to be a communist to be for a revolution. Not all workers call themselves communists, but they would probably be for a workers, or communist, revolution if they knew what it was about.

You can be violent against those in uniform. If the police and/or the army chooses to stay loyal to the oppressive government, then they are an enemy. You will be violent towards them, and since they are in uniform, it makes for a very obvious target.

But, as I've said before, it depends. Obviously you cannot adopt a system in which you shoot up everyone, because you may not know who's who. But there are ways to get around that sort of thing.

[Domingo]

Hmm, its not at all that I object to violence at all- its just that success in it is hard to gain. Let me give my opinion:

1.) It can easily be labled as "terrorism" because it simply defys what ever government that is in power and can be seen as a threat to the freedoms at hand(if that makes any sense at all).

The cause of violence is to show that force is needed to make change, but the only way for violence to work is with numbers and dedication. To the majority, what would you think if you hear on the TV "Radicals kill 205 in shooting", and make no dought, radical would be the very least of the labels used. Would you want to join in or label them further?

This is a semi-rabel off the top of my head, but its just my thoughts, but all in all- violence only works when you have a nice majority behind it to both support and fund it. If you dont got that- your just another guy with a gun with a cause that may be good- but in the end- ineffective.

But I am open to being proven wrong. Please fill in my gaps.

[Black Cross]

I think it depends on which 205 people they killed. Of course, the media will call it whatever they want to make it seem like mindless violence, but if they killed 205 corrupt members of the bourgeiosie, then I have no problem with that; on the other hand, if they killed 205 (or any amount for that matter) proletarians, then I have a big problem with it. If they are killing off working class men and women, then they obviously either aren't socialist, or they're just crazy.

[dannthraxxx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:20 am
Hmm, its not at all that I object to violence at all- its just that success in it is hard to gain. Let me give my opinion:

1.) It can easily be labled as "terrorism" because it simply defys what ever government that is in power and can be seen as a threat to the freedoms at hand(if that makes any sense at all).

The cause of violence is to show that force is needed to make change, but the only way for violence to work is with numbers and dedication. To the majority, what would you think if you hear on the TV "Radicals kill 205 in shooting", and make no dought, radical would be the very least of the labels used. Would you want to join in or label them further?

This is a semi-rabel off the top of my head, but its just my thoughts, but all in all- violence only works when you have a nice majority behind it to both support and fund it. If you dont got that- your just another guy with a gun with a cause that may be good- but in the end- ineffective.

But I am open to being proven wrong. Please fill in my gaps.
This is why we should take over media almost immediately when the time comes. I think media gets out to way more people than it really should so we should pay attention to that. Take the media back and destroy their means of propaganda.


Most of us revolutionaries romance the idea of the revolution and how we'll kill. Have any of you guys ever killed someone? I remember a while back in a post, a lot have not even fired a gun. How do we go about winning a revolution when we have almost negative experience? How about when the revolution happens and your moms or brother or sister or best friend decides to go with capitalism and not communism? Would you shoot them?

Not being reactionary here, just asking. I think about that shit a lot.

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:23 pm
This is why we should take over media almost immediately when the time comes. I think media gets out to way more people than it really should so we should pay attention to that. Take the media back and destroy their means of propaganda.


Most of us revolutionaries romance the idea of the revolution and how we'll kill. Have any of you guys ever killed someone? I remember a while back in a post, a lot have not even fired a gun. How do we go about winning a revolution when we have almost negative experience? How about when the revolution happens and your moms or brother or sister or best friend decides to go with capitalism and not communism? Would you shoot them?

Not being reactionary here, just asking. I think about that shit a lot.
I agree the revolution should and has to be fought on two battlefields the Streets and the news papers, the television screens and the radio. Without victories on both fields a revolution is doomed.

And the idea of the revolution is not to kill people... killing is a sad side effect hopefully the revolution could be more of bloodless coup. Though this very utopian in thinking. I would hope that the causalities would be minimal. Because via information and propaganda, the majority of the populous would turn to the cause. And I believe that if you don’t have popular support then a revolution should not happen.

[dannthraxxx]

Originally posted by Iron+July 28, 2007 12:26 am--> (Iron @ July 28, 2007 12:26 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 09:23 pm
This is why we should take over media almost immediately when the time comes. I think media gets out to way more people than it really should so we should pay attention to that. Take the media back and destroy their means of propaganda.


Most of us revolutionaries romance the idea of the revolution and how we'll kill. Have any of you guys ever killed someone? I remember a while back in a post, a lot have not even fired a gun. How do we go about winning a revolution when we have almost negative experience? How about when the revolution happens and your moms or brother or sister or best friend decides to go with capitalism and not communism? Would you shoot them?

Not being reactionary here, just asking. I think about that shit a lot.
I agree the revolution should and has to be fought on two battlefields the Streets and the news papers, the television screens and the radio. Without victories on both fields a revolution is doomed.

And the idea of the revolution is not to kill people... killing is a sad side effect hopefully the revolution could be more of bloodless coup. Though this very utopian in thinking. I would hope that the causalities would be minimal. Because via information and propaganda, the majority of the populous would turn to the cause. And I believe that if you don’t have popular support then a revolution should not happen. [/b]
I agree that killing isnt a very good way. In my opinion though, the idea that most of us have would not come about very easily. Most people would see what we would be trying to accomplish as taking away their happiness. Material wealth and capitalism is what most folks think bring them utter happiness. Vast wealth, vast material, utter joy. So, if we're trying to tell them that their greed is wrong. A fight is inevitable. They'll see it as us trying to destroy their happiness and their so called freedoms. Which is why I think educating people and spreading just as much propaganda is very necessary right now. If any killing occurs, I would see it more like us defending our own lives.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:23 pm
This is why we should take over media almost immediately when the time comes. I think media gets out to way more people than it really should so we should pay attention to that. Take the media back and destroy their means of propaganda.


And, may I add, replacing their propaganda with our own.


Most of us revolutionaries romance the idea of the revolution and how we'll kill. Have any of you guys ever killed someone? I remember a while back in a post, a lot have not even fired a gun. How do we go about winning a revolution when we have almost negative experience? How about when the revolution happens and your moms or brother or sister or best friend decides to go with capitalism and not communism? Would you shoot them?

You shouldn't be forced to shoot your own family, and I don't think your own family would put you in that sort of situation. But if worse came to worst, I think you would just have to have someone else do it. It will still be agonizing to know that your family is going to die, but you would never have to do it yourself.

And no, a lot of us have never used a weapon or killed anything, let alone anyone. But when it comes down to it, you have to know that you're doing it for a just cause. Death is, indeed, a sad reality of revolution, but if it must be done, we are just going to have to suck it up.

And I don't think that anyone romanticizes about taking the life of another human being. But for the crimes that have been committed by capital and the bourgeoisie, it is their just desserts.

[Janus]

Previous discussions:
morals and ethics in revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62482&hl=ethics)
violence in revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67912&hl=moral*)
My Webpage (non-violent revolution)