How many of my friends will you kill? [Archive]

pusher robot

26th October 2007, 19:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:41 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?

I've asked this question myself and answers tend to be all over the map.

Generally, the rational ones will tell you that they will only kill in self-defense, i.e., they will only use violence against those who also use violence.

But whether they are willing to confront it or not, there's a minority of members of the radical left that probably are sociopathic; they have true blood-lust and they don't just think it will be necessary to kill, they look forward to it. I have no idea how these elements would be kept in check in any kind of revolution, but they'll probably undermine the whole thing anyways by causing everybody else to be disgusted by their behavior.

Then of course you also get fools like Spartan arguing that the submission is the price of life, and if you "disagree" with their goals or "support their enemies" you will be executed as a traitor. They're just totalitarians who don't see any contradiction with creating a classless society by committing democide against certain classes.

Dr Mindbender

26th October 2007, 20:17

history shows that whenever revolutions occur, those reactionaries that die are more often than not intent on killing revolutionaries in the first place. The Russian civil war of 1917 would have been unnecessary had the tsarists co-operated with the bolsheviks instead of stubbornly clinging onto the old status quo.

Dr Mindbender

26th October 2007, 20:19

Also civil servants and small businesspeople are not beourgioise, they are lumpenproletariat.
For the record, no beourgioise member need die as long as they co-operate.

#FF0000

26th October 2007, 20:22

After a cursory search through my copy of the Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, I haven't really been able to find any passage that promotes executing anyone. Maybe you could crack open a book and direct me to the passage that suggests cruel, summary executions is the way to deal with the capitalist class, as I'm having difficulty finding it.

And just for future reference, there are different kinds of bourgeois, you know. There's the petit-bourgeois (people such as the small business owners who do not control the means of production but rely on the labor of others for their survival i.e. the people you seem to be referring to) and then there's the haute bourgeois; AKA the capitalist class that does own the means of production.

It's the capitalist class that is viewed as the enemy of the proletariat, while the petit-bourgeois can sort of go either way, depending on the particular flavor of communism/socialism/anarchism.

In any case, I suggest reading a book or two before making a statement rather than resorting to ridiculous Cold War era polemics. It'd just be a little easier to take you seriously that way.

Dr Mindbender

26th October 2007, 20:25

can a mod merge the 2 appropriate threads please?

spartan

26th October 2007, 20:29

For the record, no beourgioise member need die as long as they co-operate.
Exactly!

guerilla E

26th October 2007, 20:36

Who said anything about killing small business owners? My dad was a rev since 17 years old and, at 55, he still ownes his own business (with me as the oppressed working class under him hah!) because he has an inability to work under someone.

The big business executives, the ones who directly control production through authority alone, are the enemy of the working class.

The simple idea behind it - if a small business can be operated by a single man, its not reactionary, but if it relies on the fruits of surplus labor and management of the means of production by the upper class - thats the enemy of the working class.

Actually on whole, there doesnt need to be any killing, but reactionaries or counter-revolutionaries kinda take the first shots, dont they?

Dean

26th October 2007, 20:50

Dr Mindbender

26th October 2007, 20:54

...i think i know where this thread is headed :lol:
http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/06/phoneInTheToilet.jpg

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 20:56

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 07:17 pm
history shows that whenever revolutions occur, those reactionaries that die are more often than not intent on killing revolutionaries in the first place. The Russian civil war of 1917 would have been unnecessary had the tsarists co-operated with the bolsheviks instead of stubbornly clinging onto the old status quo.
History actually shows the vast majority of both the white and red armies were ****s.

The reality is (And the point I'm trying to make here, despite idiots like Spartan and that Dean fella on the other thread) there are always small minorities within every mass movement which incurs emotion and encourages the idea that people have suffered a great injustice that is sociopathic, as a member has already pointed out. I am genuinly interested in how you would go around resolving these issues, as well as people like you (Yes, people like you Ulster Socialist, as I've learnt in other threads) who simply cannot tolerate any form of dissent.

I mean, you COULD 're-educate' them, tell 'the people' what exactly they were being 'oppressed' by. I mean you COULD just tell everyone that until you guys came along, that they lived in a system that didn't care less about them.

And please, look for a deeper meaning in my words above. If you want to be a pedantic fool by all means take everything I said word for word and don't even touch the heart of my argument.

pusher robot

26th October 2007, 21:00

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 pm
Also civil servants and small businesspeople are not beourgioise, they are lumpenproletariat.
For the record, no beourgioise member need die as long as they co-operate.
What does it mean to cooperate?

Is following the law enough? Abiding by the community consensus?

Or do I have to promise not to try to persuade the community against you?

This is the slippery part of your rationalization: you don't account for people who will work against you, but within the rules; people who will, merely by their having opinions, actually turn the community against you. What is to be their fate? Do you accept that the revolution has failed, or do you silence them permanently though they have done nothing more than speak against you?

If you want a concrete scenario: suppose that you have a post-revolutionary Rush Limbaugh. You've taken away his capital, but people still seek out his voice, they still want to hear his show, which they enjoyed in the past and look forward to continuing to enjoy. But he continues to speak against you in the harshest of words. What do you do? Suppose if you wish that a community-wide vote is taken and that a bare majority vote to keep his show on the air. What then?

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 21:00

Will someone please just delete this thread like I asked. When i had first posted this an error notice came up, and I thought it was automatically deleted because I used the word kill in its title. For the discussion, see the other thread.

Demogorgon

26th October 2007, 21:03

I am always amused by the lunatics on this board who seem to think the joy of revolution is you get to kill people.

Though I can't help feel a little disturbed when I hear stuff about those who don't co-operate will die. I do wonder soemtimes how many are as serious about this as me and how many want an extreme form of adolescent rebellion.

If you look at how revolutions work, there is a buld up of pressure in society until ther is a "critical mass" point where all hell breaks loose for a while before the dust settles and a new social system emerges. It is tragic of course when this leads to killing and destruuction. Maybe unavoidable but tragic. The people who actually want that and see it as the fun bit are fools who have no real notion of what socialism and communism are.

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 21:06

extreme form of adolescent rebellion.

You hit the exact nail on the head. This is the impression I get of a lot of members. Some seem to be of a young age; Kids who never worked a day in their lives. I'm talking about the likes of Spartan here. These kids mean well and all, but they give the serious, academic side of Marxism a bad reputation.

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 21:07

And of course, I know what you mean by adolescent rebellion. Some of the idiots who call for 're-education' etc. genuinely worry me. As bad as those on the far right if you ask me.

Demogorgon

26th October 2007, 21:09

I point out though, that silly positions like that are something that are a minority even here. In real life it is very rare indeed to ecounter Marxists who or other forms of revolutionaries who go on about this stuff.

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:09 pm
I point out though, that silly positions like that are something that are a minority even here. In real life it is very rare indeed to ecounter Marxists who or other forms of revolutionaries who go on about this stuff.
I have friends in the Socialist Workers Party. Funny enough, they are some of the most genuine, intelligent and generous people I've ever met. They tend to view internet communities like this as a machine for the rabble rousers and impressionable kids. There are exceptions of course.

Dr Mindbender

26th October 2007, 21:25

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 26, 2007 08:00 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 26, 2007 08:00 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 pm
Also civil servants and small businesspeople are not beourgioise, they are lumpenproletariat.
For the record, no beourgioise member need die as long as they co-operate.
What does it mean to cooperate?

Is following the law enough? Abiding by the community consensus?

Or do I have to promise not to try to persuade the community against you?

[/b]
A CEO or big business owner who stands to one side as he relinquishes control to his workers is co-operative.
One who picks up a revolver in a futile attempt to mantain control is clearly not.

Political dissent should not be discouraged, quite the contrary, this is how we know the revolution is going in the direction that people want. However it is the duty of revolutionaries to educate in order to counter the ignorance sustained by the out-going status quo. This does not demand violence.

The way i see it, reactionary voices post-revolution will be alienated in the same extent that revolutionary voices have been alienated pre-revolution. To be honest, its a little hypocritical to be having this debate. Its not as if the pro-capitalists have been entirely innocent in the peaceful means department.

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 21:35

Political dissent should not be discouraged, quite the contrary, this is how we know the revolution is going in the direction that people want.

This is one of the big problems I have with people of your convictions. The 'People' are not one roving institution. 'The People' are a massive group of individuals, who think, love and act differently. You cannot possibly think of them as one whole, rather as thousands of fragments.

However it is the duty of revolutionaries to educate in order to counter the ignorance sustained by the out-going status quo. This does not demand violence.

Its the means of education I worry about. Its what you would do to people who don't agree with your small minded interpretation of what 'the people' desire.

Its not as if the pro-capitalists have been entirely innocent in the peaceful means department.

No-one is innocent. Thats life.

Great Helmsman

26th October 2007, 22:11

This is a perfect example of a question that comrades should purposefully ignore answering. It does nothing to advance discussion and understanding, and drives a wedge into centralism. The best outcome would be if this thread was locked and deleted.

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 22:24

Oooh! Just replace 'locked and deleted' with 'gagged and executed' and we've got ourselves a fully blown communist revolution!

You don't do your ideas any favours mate.

pusher robot

26th October 2007, 22:33

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 26, 2007 09:11 pm
This is a perfect example of a question that comrades should purposefully ignore answering. It does nothing to advance discussion and understanding, and drives a wedge into centralism. The best outcome would be if this thread was locked and deleted.
You should go out of your way to answer this question - after all, it's probably one of the most prominent questions on most non-communists' minds. You remember, those people you're trying to persuade to join you?

Lord Testicles

26th October 2007, 22:49

How many of my friends will you kill?

Eight.

Although since you made this thread, I think I'll bump it up to ten because, ten is a nice round number, it's psychologically satisfying.

ontheliberalleft

26th October 2007, 22:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:49 pm

How many of my friends will you kill?

Eight.

Although since you made this thread, I think I'll bump it up to ten because, ten is a nice round number, it's psychologically satisfying.
Oh my God your SOOOOOOOOO funny!

Fuck off. Freak.

synthesis

26th October 2007, 22:52

I think Mandela put it best when he said that it is always the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle.

Lord Testicles

26th October 2007, 23:01

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+October 26, 2007 10:51 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ October 26, 2007 10:51 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 09:49 pm

How many of my friends will you kill?

Eight.

Although since you made this thread, I think I'll bump it up to ten because, ten is a nice round number, it's psychologically satisfying.
Oh my God your SOOOOOOOOO funny!

Fuck off. Freak. [/b]
I know, but your fucking tedious. I was mearly pointing out that your question is idiotic.

I kindly ask you to fuck off. This is Revolutionaryleft.com not liberalleft.com
:rolleyes:

Qwerty Dvorak

27th October 2007, 00:39

This is the slippery part of your rationalization: you don't account for people who will work against you, but within the rules; people who will, merely by their having opinions, actually turn the community against you. What is to be their fate? Do you accept that the revolution has failed, or do you silence them permanently though they have done nothing more than speak against you?
Well at this point we're assuming that we have had a successful communist revolution, and are living in a proper communist/socialist society. As has been discussed, those who use extreme violence against the new order and its members will have to be dealt with violently, in a revolution and immediately after there will be no other choice really. However, if we have truly had a successful revolution at this point, then there isn't going to be any massive or widespread discontent with the new order (communism requires a revolution of ideas as well as of arms). It's not like it's going to be some despotism that is just spontaneously imposed on the people without warning or support. Of course there will be people who disagree with the way the new society is run, but as long as they are willing to work within the framework of socialism there is no reason to take action against them, nor is there any reason to believe that they will derail society. You mentioned the matter of what it means to cooperate; I personally believe that to cooperate means to abide by the law of the new society, and of course the law of any society is set up in such a way as to protect the ideals and running of the society. This generally entails granting some freedom of expression and allowing discourse within society, with certain limitations on one's right to dissent (this is what we have in capitalist society, though the law in a communist society will probably be a lot more liberal). It's okay to let people play devil's advocate as long as they ultimately play by your rules.

Dr Mindbender

27th October 2007, 00:40

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+--> (ontheliberalleft)
This is one of the big problems I have with people of your convictions. The 'People' are not one roving institution. 'The People' are a massive group of individuals, who think, love and act differently. You cannot possibly think of them as one whole, rather as thousands of fragments. [/b]
Well, that really depends what philosophy you subscribe to. The reactionaries want us to believe that there is some sort of unalienable right for individuals to personally own the means of production. Unfortunately, since this right cannot be fulfilled without the suffering, alienation and stagnation of its workforce, it is wrong in the progressive context. By 'people' I am referring to society as a collective entity, which the neo-cons want us to believe does not even exist. By which i would refer to the thatcher speech, ''there is no such thing as society, only individuals, and families''. This is clearly naive though, because on the ground, there is clearly a society, each member of whom suffering as much as the next.

Originally posted by [email protected]

Its the means of education I worry about. Its what you would do to people who don't agree with your small minded interpretation of what 'the people' desire.
For adults, it could mean something as innocent as door to door canvassers, the sort on a par with those who visit you during the elections. Children would no longer be taught from year 0 that communism is an evil abomination, and proletarian ownership of the media could present impartial historical documentaries, particularly concerning the transition of bolshevism to stalinism.
Furthermore, the billboards, TV adverts, and plethora of corporate shite that plague our civic environment and airwaves could be replaced with art, music and informative soundbites with agendas less cynical than trying to simply 'sell us something'.

ontheliberalleft

No-one is innocent. Thats life.

Yes, but you are making out that a few stiffened fatcats, tycoons and royalty will be this oh so dreadful evil. The pursuit of profit and corporate want has and will kill far more people than all and every revolution yet to come will ever do.

Dr Mindbender

27th October 2007, 00:42

Originally posted by STJ+October 26, 2007 10:57 pm--> (STJ @ October 26, 2007 10:57 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 05:39 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
I am sure every member of the OI will go up against the wall. :D [/b]
dont be silly. <_<

Jazzratt

27th October 2007, 03:39

I'll kill everyone.

In all seriousness this question is pointless - how many of your friends would actively try to kill us?

FleasTheLemur

27th October 2007, 05:25

As few as possible.

I look at it this way--capitalism is, well, about real capital; the value of already produced goods (offices, backhoes) and capital finance; the money used by the capitalists in order to buy the need goods and services for their business.

These often inane processes govern our lives. Allow me to use a very nerdy, very strange metaphor; our lives under capitalism is like a table-top RPG. We give ourselves arbitrary numbers (meaningless money/points), divide ourselves amongst mostly/entirely useless lines (race, religion, gender, "good and evil") and continue to work toward a goal which ultimately has no purpose (accumulating meaningless money/points). The only thing we have left to realize is that there's only two classes of people playing this game; the DM/capitalists who control everything and players/workers who simply go through the motions as if this were the lives they were supposed to live.

I'm not out to destroy the players (we're all just puppets after all), I'm out to destroy the game. Capitalism. I want to destroy property. I want to see stocks plummet. I want to see money become the useless piece of paper that they are. I just hope no one is silly enough to protect it.

I'm not out to destroy people and with the exception of the occasional three-bloc communists (Leninists-Stalinists-Maoists), most of my dear cohorts would agree. Revolution; yes. We need a sudden upheaval instead of working within the system that is utterly useless. Does blood need to seep into the soil? Only if they fire first.

TheDifferenceEngine

27th October 2007, 05:28

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+October 26, 2007 09:51 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ October 26, 2007 09:51 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 09:49 pm

How many of my friends will you kill?

Eight.

Although since you made this thread, I think I'll bump it up to ten because, ten is a nice round number, it's psychologically satisfying.
Oh my God your SOOOOOOOOO funny!

Fuck off. Freak.[/b]
Wow you sound just like a teenage preppie attention whore.

Which I'm sure you did not intend since you are so obviously a mature and sensible addition to these forums.

More to the matter, why do you care how many of your business associ- sorry, "friends" we kill?

You're getting shot first.

NorthStarRepublicML

27th October 2007, 06:22

ok, i see alot of things in this thread i want to address, starting with charges like these:

In all seriousness this question is pointless

I was mearly pointing out that your question is idiotic.

This is a perfect example of a question that comrades should purposefully ignore answering. It does nothing to advance discussion and understanding, and drives a wedge into centralism. The best outcome would be if this thread was locked and deleted.

this question, as to who will be executed or killed in a communist revolution is a valid one and deserves to be addressed. Pusher Robot (a non-communist) pointed out one good reason to address this question, that typically when the average person considers a communist revolution they are presented with the capitalist depiction of it, propaganda stating that all persons who are market oriented or civil servants will be targeted ... essentially everyone who is invested in the current system is an enemy who will be assassinated or sent to the gulag ...

this makes a large percentage of the working class (many of whom own stock or property) along with millions of small business owners and independent family farmers wary of communists in general and staunchly opposed to communist revolution.

like too many issues brought up by capitalists or simply by non-communists here the question is considered to beneath certain members, they dismiss it when we should be directly confronting it with solid arguments. We should not shy away from questions such as this instead we must be using it to sharpen our rhetorical skills and provide us with a greater understanding of the differences between our ideologies.

Also civil servants and small businesspeople are not beourgioise, they are lumpenproletariat.

um, no .... Lumpenproletariat are non-productive members of the society that exist outside the wage-labor system, Marx described these persons as:

'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ donors, beggars, and other flotsam of society.'

small business persons are members of the Petite-Bourgeoisie .... and civil servants ... well the last time i attempted to explain what class they were in I got restricted for it ... but what the hell ... by and large they are proles ...

I am always amused by the lunatics on this board who seem to think the joy of revolution is you get to kill people.

i'm less amused by this .... I am a bit more on the anger spectrum of emotions when i heard punk kids from the burbs (STJ comes to mind) who have never held a gun let alone execute a person say bullshit like:
I am sure every member of the OI will go up against the wall.

and this snot-nosed shitheel (TheDifferenceEngine) also:

You're getting shot first.

honestly i would rather execute these people (personally) then i would the average small business person or farmer .... its these juvenile lunatics that are the real threat to successful revolution ...

I personally believe that to cooperate means to abide by the law of the new society, and of course the law of any society is set up in such a way as to protect the ideals and running of the society. This generally entails granting some freedom of expression and allowing discourse within society, with certain limitations on one's right to dissent (this is what we have in capitalist society, though the law in a communist society will probably be a lot more liberal). It's okay to let people play devil's advocate as long as they ultimately play by your rules.

speaking of devils advocate: then how is a revolution legitimized, if we expect to act outside the laws of the old society to make a revolution how can you instruct people to respect the rule of law and not rebel against the new order?

is the only difference in how "liberal" our laws would be? would that not invite greater opportunity for exploiters and counter-revolutionaries?

but in response to the original question, best answer award goes to FleasTheLemur for:

As few as possible.

i have no doubt that there will be conflict, there will likely be physical, even military violence in the event of a popular uprising .... however that doesn't mean we get to go out and kill every capitalist no matter how we perceive them to have wronged us ... communism is about bettering humanity, for the record, like it or not, that includes capitalists and their supporters.

Axel1917

27th October 2007, 06:25

First of all, this thread is hypocritical. The pro-capitalists are really quick to forget their 1649, 1776, 1789.

I've asked this question myself and answers tend to be all over the map.

Generally, the rational ones will tell you that they will only kill in self-defense, i.e., they will only use violence against those who also use violence.

That is how it has historically gone in the rare instance of a healthy workers' state.

But whether they are willing to confront it or not, there's a minority of members of the radical left that probably are sociopathic; they have true blood-lust and they don't just think it will be necessary to kill, they look forward to it. I have no idea how these elements would be kept in check in any kind of revolution, but they'll probably undermine the whole thing anyways by causing everybody else to be disgusted by their behavior.

Well, I don't see why you are concerned about this. I mean, some gas bag teenager behind a computer screen that makes such ramblings, someone that is not even active in the real world. They rant and rave about guns when they aren't even close to being old enough to legally buy one. If you are really concerned, notify the parents so that the deranged teen can't go out and do anything! :lol: :D

Then of course you also get fools like Spartan arguing that the submission is the price of life, and if you "disagree" with their goals or "support their enemies" you will be executed as a traitor. They're just totalitarians who don't see any contradiction with creating a classless society by committing democide against certain classes.

So you finally realized that anarchism is the most totalitarian of all left ideologies.

What does it mean to cooperate?

Is following the law enough? Abiding by the community consensus?

Or do I have to promise not to try to persuade the community against you?

It really depends on the situation. In one of crisis, such propaganda should be suppressed like it rightly was during the Russian Civil War, with the USSR being attacked on all sides by a far more powerful enemy. The capitalists have done suppression of such persuasive propaganda in times of crisis, so this charge is hypocritical. And the capitalists have gone far worse by going to fascism.

With no crisis by foreign invaders or the like (this is far more unlikely than in the case of Russia in the advanced nations. A revolution in the USA would mean the final defeat of world capitalism. It would neutralize imperialism largely and demoralize the rest of the bourgeoisie around the world. They would probably go down without a fight.), such stuff would be allowed to exist, but with voting control over the nationalized communications, the workers are going to get the say in what is run. The capitalists will get treated like they treat us now- they can pretty much say whatever they want as long as they do not control anything. So, we would get all of the major paper mills, TV stations, etc. while the right-winger would get to distribute broadsheets at a bus station or something. This person would be a laughing stock, calling for the "good old days" of long workdays, a shoddy healthcare system that kills 18000 people a year in the most advanced nation on the earth, sexism, racism, imperialist wars of domination, etc.

In fact, very few people ended up dying in the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolsheviks took all kinds of places over with little resistance. I think only around 500 Bolsheviks died taking Moscow, as there was not much fighting. The real bloodbath was caused by nearly two dozen foreign imperialist armies assisting the weak internal reaction in Russia. So, the situation that forced the Bolsheviks, with their broad support, against a much stronger enemy, was brought on by the capitalist invaders. Before they showed up, not too many guns were going off. The capitalists brought their fate upon themselves in this instance.

This is the slippery part of your rationalization: you don't account for people who will work against you, but within the rules; people who will, merely by their having opinions, actually turn the community against you. What is to be their fate? Do you accept that the revolution has failed, or do you silence them permanently though they have done nothing more than speak against you?

I am sure that there are some nutters out there (I saw one several years ago) that try to persuade people to return to feudalism. Or the primitivists, who advocate other such nonsense. No one listens to them, though, as their ways would mean a sharp drop in the productive forces and consequently a sharp drop in living standards. And considering that a revolution cannot begin without mass support in the first place, this whole thing about the majority suddenly turning against the revolution is bunk.

If you want a concrete scenario: suppose that you have a post-revolutionary Rush Limbaugh. You've taken away his capital, but people still seek out his voice, they still want to hear his show, which they enjoyed in the past and look forward to continuing to enjoy. But he continues to speak against you in the harshest of words. What do you do? Suppose if you wish that a community-wide vote is taken and that a bare majority vote to keep his show on the air. What then?

Well, as I stated above, as long as there is no sever crisis of foreign intervention by a far more powerful enemy, who cares? He can distribute his little broadsheets or perhaps appear on some comedy channel if it is elected to put him on air while the workers get the TV stations, major newspapers, etc.

The instance of drastic defensive measures are not incredibly likely today, especially in the advanced countries; many nations are not as backward as pre-1917 Russia was.

Not to mention that you can't really expect a proletarian revolution to play by bourgeois rules. The bourgeois revolutions refused to play by the feudal rules.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th October 2007, 06:33

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 26, 2007 10:00 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 26, 2007 10:00 pm) What does it mean to cooperate? [/b]
Under normal conditions, to cooperate means not trying to kill revolutionaries and not telling other people to kill them.

Originally posted by pusher [email protected]
Or do I have to promise not to try to persuade the community against you?

This is the slippery part of your rationalization: you don't account for people who will work against you, but within the rules; people who will, merely by their having opinions, actually turn the community against you. What is to be their fate? Do you accept that the revolution has failed, or do you silence them permanently though they have done nothing more than speak against you?
The way to deal with those people depends very heavily on two factors: (1) what it is that they're actually promoting, and (2) whether this happens during times of peace or times of war.

Factor (1) is often completely ignored by liberals, who often complain about the rough treatment suffered under revolutionary regimes by people who can only be described as fascists (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, for example). The thing is, if you're saying "socialism is bad and we should protest against it," that's free speech and you should be left alone. But if you're saying "socialists are the spawn of Satan and we must spill their blood," you may very well be silenced by force.

Factor (2) is simply a reminder of the fact that all societies - socialist ones included - need to take special measures during wartime. Also, I wish to remind you that most liberal democratic revolutions (the American revolution or the French revolution, for instance) were highly repressive against those who opposed the revolution. American loyalists were persecuted and expelled to Canada. Yet liberals don't seem to think that the American or French democracies are tainted by their bloody repressive past.

pusher robot
If you want a concrete scenario: suppose that you have a post-revolutionary Rush Limbaugh. You've taken away his capital, but people still seek out his voice, they still want to hear his show, which they enjoyed in the past and look forward to continuing to enjoy. But he continues to speak against you in the harshest of words. What do you do? Suppose if you wish that a community-wide vote is taken and that a bare majority vote to keep his show on the air. What then?
As long as he's not inciting people to acts of violence, his show can remain on the air.

TheDifferenceEngine

27th October 2007, 07:45

Small businesses do not own the means of production and therefore are not part of the bourgeoisie.

Cops sell their labour and so are Proletariat.

Some of the members of the board have issues with cops for some reason, but that does not mean that the police are not part of the working class.

"and this snot-nosed shitheel (TheDifferenceEngine) also:"

I was replying to a troll, no need to insult me.

Marxist

27th October 2007, 10:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:58 pm
If your friends support us in our struggle and agree with our principles and give up any unnecessary goods or property which is needed by the community then they will be alright and wont be hurt.

If they are against us and disagree with our class struggle for freedom and activly support our enemies then yes they will be killed as they will be classed, rightfully so i might add, as enemies of the Proletariat in their struggle to gain ownership and control of the means of production which they already operate.
i fully agree with you

Herman

27th October 2007, 12:39

The pro-capitalists are really quick to forget their 1649, 1776, 1789

You forget the liberals and republicans of the whole 19th century! How many revolutions in Europe allowed for blood to be spilt in the name of "progress"?

Jazzratt

27th October 2007, 14:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:22 am
this question, as to who will be executed or killed in a communist revolution is a valid one and deserves to be addressed.
Sort of. The question, as it is worded, is far too specific. Asking how many people we would kill is ridiculous, there is no way of estimating it. It could be four or it could be four million, we just do not know.

this makes a large percentage of the working class (many of whom own stock or property) along with millions of small business owners and independent family farmers wary of communists in general and staunchly opposed to communist revolution.

And that should be challenged, but answering leading questions about death tolls and who will be fought will not help challenge this.

We should not shy away from questions such as this instead we must be using it to sharpen our rhetorical skills and provide us with a greater understanding of the differences between our ideologies.

No one here is "shying away" from anything.

and civil servants ... well the last time i attempted to explain what class they were in I got restricted for it ... but what the hell ... by and large they are proles ...

So "civil servant" is a euphemism for pig?

i'm less amused by this .... I am a bit more on the anger spectrum of emotions when i heard punk kids from the burbs (STJ comes to mind)

:lol: That's fucking rich! From what I've heard STJ is in his thirties, so you're pretty owned on that.

who have never held a gun

When STJ joined this site as a rightwinger he made a point of saying he was from the NRA or something. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, I always assumed that being an NRA member would mean that someone had a high chance of having not only held but used a gun.

let alone execute a person say bullshit like:

and this snot-nosed shitheel (TheDifferenceEngine) also:

Are you familiar with the phrase "tongue in cheek"?

honestly i would rather execute these people (personally) then i would the average small business person or farmer

That's because you're a **** prepared to sell out his comrades to reactionaries (see your pro-pig stance)

.... its these juvenile lunatics that are the real threat to successful revolution ...

Irony, you've got to love it! Or in your case not notice its presence.

Bilan

27th October 2007, 14:54

We are non violent with those who are non violent with us.
But we are not non violent with those who are violent with us.

Speak to all in their own language.
If they speak English, we'll speak to them in English.
If they bring a shot gun, we'll bring a shot gun.

Robespierre2.0

27th October 2007, 16:48

We're going to kill all your friends, and probably you too. Sorry about that.
Also, if you don't already know, us communists love to eat babies. I don't know why, but ever since I've started reading Marx and Lenin, I've had an insatiable craving for the cooked flesh of infants.

Led Zeppelin

27th October 2007, 17:09

How many of my friends will you kill?

....what friends?

TheDifferenceEngine

27th October 2007, 17:11

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 27, 2007 03:48 pm
We're going to kill all your friends, and probably you too. Sorry about that.
Also, if you don't already know, us communists love to eat babies. I don't know why, but ever since I've started reading Marx and Lenin, I've had an insatiable craving for the cooked flesh of infants.
Not just Babies, comrade- cute fluffy bunnies are also the commie snack of chioce.

spartan

28th October 2007, 01:17

"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror" Karl Marx.

synthesis

28th October 2007, 02:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:17 pm
"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror" Karl Marx.
Not quite. That's a line that has been misquoted and taken out of context many times, much like the opium quote. The full entry is as such:

"The crushing counter-blow of the June revolution will be struck in Paris. With the victory of the 'red' republic in Paris, armies will be rushed from the interior of their countries to the frontiers and across them, and the real strength of the fighting parties will become evident. We shall then remember this June and this October and we too shall exclaim:
"Vae victis!
"The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."

Again, the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle.

Ol' Dirty

28th October 2007, 04:50

A socialist society would use any neccessary means to bring itself about. It's dubious whether those revolutionaries would use 'cruel executions' against people that aren't a threat to them. That would be like the American revolutionaries killing every British national in the city of Boston once they retook it, or the Irish intentional maiming innocent or indifferent people from the North during the Troubles. That kind of strategy is both ethicaly reprehensable and tacticaly unsound: The more people you kill, the angrier their freinds and relatives get, and the more enemies you have.

NorthStarRepublicML

28th October 2007, 08:25

No one here is "shying away" from anything.

except here:

In all seriousness this question is pointless

I was mearly pointing out that your question is idiotic.

This is a perfect example of a question that comrades should purposefully ignore answering.

how about for once you actually read the thread before you comment like a dumb shit and embarrass yourself?

STJ joined this site as a rightwinger he made a point of saying he was from the NRA or something.

i guess that explains why you love him so much.

So "civil servant" is a euphemism for pig?

get over it dipshit, but since you are attempting to confuse the issue .... a civil servant is a government (city, state, or federal) employee (yes that includes police officers)

STJ is in his thirties

he's a little shit as far as I'm concerned ... oh ... while i'm at it ... so are you Jazz.

Are you familiar with the phrase "tongue in cheek"?

are you familiar with the phrase "eat shit and die sucka"?

That's because you're a **** prepared to sell out his comrades to reactionaries

so by these comments you see both small business persons and independent family farmers as reactionaries worth of death?

oh and jazz, you and your sophomoric ass clown buddies are no comrades of mine, i prefer my allies to have slightly more insight in the real world and with slightly less shit hanging from their lips.

(see your pro-pig stance)

(see your pro-bullshit stance)

spartan

28th October 2007, 13:30

so by these comments you see both small business persons and independent family farmers as reactionaries worth of death?
Only if they are actively against, or supporting those who are actively, against us.

Jazzratt

28th October 2007, 15:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:25 am

No one here is "shying away" from anything.

except here:

Calling something stupid and shying away are two different concepts, fuckwit.

how about for once you actually read the thread before you comment like a dumb shit and embarrass yourself?

When you say shit like this it's usually because you're either reading a separate thread, have taken some heavy hallucinogens or simply are interpreting things the way you wish they were.

i guess that explains why you love him so much.

If someone has just gone over to the left it's best to cut them a little slack, so as not to scare them off you cretin.

get over it dipshit, but since you are attempting to confuse the issue .... a civil servant is a government (city, state, or federal) employee (yes that includes police officers)

Yes. Which means that the number of "civil servants" we kill will depend on their function, making the question fundamentally answerable.

he's a little shit as far as I'm concerned ... oh ... while i'm at it ... so are you Jazz.

Yes, but no one cares what you think, ever since Jasemine finally decided to sling her hook it's only been you that's doing your pathetic chest beating.

are you familiar with the phrase "eat shit and die sucka"?

You could just tell us you're an ignorant **** that's not worth arguing with.

so by these comments you see both small business persons and independent family farmers as reactionaries worth of death?

The petit-bourgeoisie act with different interests to the proletariat. They may not be reactionary as such but there is no way that they'll automatically be progressive. Independent Farmers are more likely to have a counter revolutionary stance as well because capitalism is often built in their favour. What you said is you would rather excecute leftists than the average petit-bourgeois person - do you not see the problem there?

oh and jazz, you and your sophomoric ass clown buddies

1) "Sophomoric" isn't a word, as far as I or the Oxford English Dictionary are aware.
2) Arranging something as "adjective noun noun noun noun" makes it nonsensical if I said the red truck shop horse stable you'd have no idea what I was on about, so please stop butchering the language. Especially if you're trying to insult someone.

are no comrades of mine, i prefer my allies to have slightly more insight in the real world and with slightly less shit hanging from their lips.

So the working class have no insight? You're a dumbfuck reactionary. Also your scat fetish disturbs me.

(see your pro-bullshit stance)

:rolleyes: You're not even trying now.

Great Helmsman

28th October 2007, 20:24

This is also a prime example of why the opposing ideologies forum shouldn't even exist. Just ban these posters.

edited: corrected my foul language.

Matty_UK

29th October 2007, 03:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:39 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
If you've really done a phd on the Paris Commune like you say I'd be bloody surprised, I can't see how you could possibly do a phd on it without being very well read on Marx-which would mean you would know very well how to spell bourgeois, and also you'd know very well not to ask idiotic questions like this. Seems more like you're a kid who thinks he's a smart guy pretending to be a professor online. Nothing too wrong with that, but you will grow out of it and feel a bit silly.

Of course, we'd rather not kill anyone-I know I wouldn't-but war is war and we can't predict how unpleasant it'll be. Depends on how widespread our support is when a revolutionary situation comes again, and it's really impossible to predict that.

Dr Mindbender

29th October 2007, 04:16

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 28, 2007 07:24 pm
This is also a prime example of why the opposing ideologies forum shouldn't even exist. Just ban these posters.

i disagree with that. We do often get reactionaries that can produce a coherent argument, it would be a shame to let a few bad apples gag their opinion. The OI is vindication that the left has greater democratic standing. For that reason alone it should stay. Once we start silencing we lower ourselves to their level (with the exception of fascists of course)

Dean

29th October 2007, 04:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:35 pm

Political dissent should not be discouraged, quite the contrary, this is how we know the revolution is going in the direction that people want.

This is one of the big problems I have with people of your convictions. The 'People' are not one roving institution. 'The People' are a massive group of individuals, who think, love and act differently. You cannot possibly think of them as one whole, rather as thousands of fragments.
People are not just fragments. We are individuals in the one sense, and at the same time parts of a social organization. You can't look at people either as just atomized entities, or simply parts of a single entity. You are just as incorrect in saying that we need to look at people as fragments, especially when making judgements on society.

ontheliberalleft

29th October 2007, 15:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:17 am
"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror" Karl Marx.
Gotta love how you guys quote communist philosophers and theorists like this. Its almost like an ultra conservative quoting the Bible. No, in fact it is the exact same.

Whitten

29th October 2007, 15:18

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+October 29, 2007 02:08 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ October 29, 2007 02:08 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 12:17 am
"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror" Karl Marx.
Gotta love how you guys quote communist philosophers and theorists like this. Its almost like an ultra conservative quoting the Bible. No, in fact it is the exact same. [/b]
I'd say its more like a biologist quoting Darwin

NorthStarRepublicML

29th October 2007, 16:27

"Sophomoric" isn't a word, as far as I or the Oxford English Dictionary are aware.

really? then it happens to describe you perfectly ....

Main Entry:
soph·o·mor·ic
Pronunciation:
\ˌsäf-ˈmȯr-ik, -ˈmär- also ˌsȯf- or ˌsä-fə- or ˌsȯ-fə-\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1813

1 : conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature <a sophomoric argument> 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore <sophomoric humor>

Matty_UK

29th October 2007, 17:23

pusher robot

29th October 2007, 17:50

A lot of good replies in this thread. I think actually that most of the people here have a pretty good handle on the idea of revolution. Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of you! I am a capitalist, because I think it is the best economic system. But I am also a liberal, so I believe in the duty of people to revolt. My favorite document, the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now, I think it would be a tragic mistake to revolt for the institution of communism, for a whole variety of reasons. I might even be willing to fight for that belief, depending on how popular the revolution was. But I wouldn't expect not to be fought back against. That's revolution, baby. You fight for your beliefs and the winners write the history books.

But talking about communist "revolution" invariably tends to bring to mind movements like the Khmer Rouge or the Great Purge, which were not really civil revolutions so much as organized mass-murder. I'll concede that whether there is a relationship between the ideology of the perpetrators and the tendency to commit such acts is debateable and that an ordinary communist civil revolution is not impossible. But clearly what these kinds of questions are trying to probe is whether your average leftist revolutionary sees the distinction.

luxemburg89

30th October 2007, 01:18

But whether they are willing to confront it or not, there's a minority of members of the radical left that probably are sociopathic; they have true blood-lust and they don't just think it will be necessary to kill, they look forward to it. I have no idea how these elements would be kept in check in any kind of revolution, but they'll probably undermine the whole thing anyways by causing everybody else to be disgusted by their behavior.

Then of course you also get fools like Spartan arguing that the submission is the price of life, and if you "disagree" with their goals or "support their enemies" you will be executed as a traitor. They're just totalitarians who don't see any contradiction with creating a classless society by committing democide against certain classes.

Interesting post, and I like how you've now come to realise the difference between Stalinists and communists. Personally I would love a bloodless revolution, if we could convince everything through argument, but that's about as likely as Slavia Prague winning the Champions League. I'm afraid there will be violence, we might as well admit that now, what is key is keeping that to a minimum and not killing anyone who does not get involved and does not fire on us. A riot policeman hitting us with his batton will probably get some retaliation, a Desk Sargeant is unlikely to receive any violence, unless, of course, they fire on us or whatever.

As I often say, violence should be a means to an end, it must be necessary but never enjoyed; a revolution built on violence is doomed to know nothing but violence, a revolution built on the foundations of peace (with violence as a necessary evil) can succeed - so long as peace is always within our sights.

Gotta love how you guys quote communist philosophers and theorists like this. Its almost like an ultra conservative quoting the Bible. No, in fact it is the exact same.

:lol: HAHAHA. Well it isn't the exact same is it? The exact same would be comparing an ultra-conservative quoting the bible to an ultra-conservative quoting the bible. Comparing us to them can only be similar, and as you said 'almost' it is not particularly strong in its similarity.
I'd like to introduce you to the English language; a simile (as defined by the use of 'as' or 'like') is a comparison, it can be oh so similar (as 'simile' suggests) but it cannot be the 'exact same'. You're a bloody moron, try to think before you post (I know it hurts to think but it really is worth it).

LuÃs Henrique

30th October 2007, 01:29

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 pm
Also civil servants and small businesspeople are not beourgioise, they are lumpenproletariat.
Eh?!?!?!??!?

spartan

30th October 2007, 01:35

I think that that specific person meant petit-Bourgeoisie not Lumpenproletariat.

FleasTheLemur

30th October 2007, 01:51

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 29, 2007 04:50 pm
A lot of good replies in this thread. I think actually that most of the people here have a pretty good handle on the idea of revolution. Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of you! I am a capitalist, because I think it is the best economic system. But I am also a liberal, so I believe in the duty of people to revolt. My favorite document, the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now, I think it would be a tragic mistake to revolt for the institution of communism, for a whole variety of reasons. I might even be willing to fight for that belief, depending on how popular the revolution was. But I wouldn't expect not to be fought back against. That's revolution, baby. You fight for your beliefs and the winners write the history books.

But talking about communist "revolution" invariably tends to bring to mind movements like the Khmer Rouge or the Great Purge, which were not really civil revolutions so much as organized mass-murder. I'll concede that whether there is a relationship between the ideology of the perpetrators and the tendency to commit such acts is debateable and that an ordinary communist civil revolution is not impossible. But clearly what these kinds of questions are trying to probe is whether your average leftist revolutionary sees the distinction.
Man, I am sick and tired of people bringing up the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao as historical presidence for the entire movement of Marxism! Do you see my running through the streets talking about Oliver Cromwell, Maximilien Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte every time someone speaks of democracy? Plus, when was the last time anyone of you OIs attacked the Paris Commune or Anarchist Catalonia... successfully?

spartan

30th October 2007, 03:25

How many of my friends will you kill?
Well if they are all Liberals, such as yourself, then i am afraid that every single one of your friends will be facing a firing squad :lol: <_<

Great Helmsman

30th October 2007, 03:53

Man, I am sick and tired of people bringing up the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao as historical presidence for the entire movement of Marxism! Do you see my running through the streets talking about Oliver Cromwell, Maximilien Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte every time someone speaks of democracy? Plus, when was the last time anyone of you OIs attacked the Paris Commune or Anarchist Catalonia... successfully?
When is the last time anyone cared?

Kwisatz Haderach

30th October 2007, 06:06

I would like to point out that pacifism is always in the interests of the status quo, whatever that status quo may be.

No ruling class can ever be removed from power without the use of violence or at least a credible threat of violence (e.g. large masses of angry people protesting in the streets). Therefore, a commitment to pacifism is a commitment to support the currently existing form of government and economic system.

RedStarOverChina

30th October 2007, 06:54

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 02:19 pm
Also civil servants and small businesspeople are not beourgioise, they are lumpenproletariat.

:lol:
You don't know what the word "lumpenproletariat" means, do you?

I don't see the need to kill civil servants---Unless they pose a threat against the proletariat. The small business people (petty bourgeoisie) overall do not threaten the proletariat---Nor are they much help. There'd be no point in killing them either.

If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
Good question. I actually came from a bougeoisie family, so take a guess as to why I'm a communist.

I want the Bourgeoisie to stop committing crimes against the proletariat---and the only way that could be achieved is if the proletariat could rule the society that they themselves support through labour. The Bourgeoisie as a ruling class isn't to be trusted as "humane rulers".

In an imaginary scenario, if the Bourgeoisie steps aside and let the proletariat rule themselves, then there needn't be any violence against anyone.

But that doesn't happen, now does it? Therefore bloodshed is unavoidable.

No civilized person should enjoy bloodshed, and if the proletariat is forced to put a few ardent Bourgeoisie to death, it is done solely to prevent their crimes from taking place, not for revenge. All death penalties under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat should be done in the most humane way possible: such as giving them a lethal injection in their sleep, etc.

ontheliberalleft

30th October 2007, 16:32

Originally posted by Matty_UK+October 29, 2007 04:23 pm--> (Matty_UK @ October 29, 2007 04:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:08 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 12:17 am
"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror" Karl Marx.
Gotta love how you guys quote communist philosophers and theorists like this. Its almost like an ultra conservative quoting the Bible. No, in fact it is the exact same.
Do you have anything constructive to say that's worthy of discussion, or are you just a troll? [/b]
I have a fairly good grounding in Marx and Engels. I ignored your point earlier simply because it was a polemic attack. Your response above though (A cry for attention) was so sad I had to respond.

My spelling and grammar is not as good as other people with similar qualifications as I do; I have suffered from dyslexia all my life, but have fought it, and have learnt through experience several ways to overcome it. Do my posts indicate a certain level of amateurishness about it? If they do, see if I give a fuck. This is only an internet forum, most of my posts are rushed as it is.

ontheliberalleft

30th October 2007, 16:41

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 28, 2007 07:24 pm
This is also a prime example of why the opposing ideologies forum shouldn't even exist. Just ban these posters.

edited: corrected my foul language.
lol...

You know, it really amazes me how people who can idealize people like Che (Whilst looking at a picture of him in the background of this post) can at the same time advocate totalitarian nonsense like this. As I said, let 'ban' be replaced with 'silence'. You people, despite your protestations (And of course there are exceptions) have a carnal lust for blood in all forms. By allowing the great facade that you are working for the people, you WILL kill thousands of innocents, and commit purges which made the Great Terror look like a Christmas party. Even through your hatred of opposing opinions which do not conform to your tiny world view, some of you will simply snap. Its inevitable, and so far NO-ONE has convinced any of the non commies on this thread otherwise.

Dr Mindbender

30th October 2007, 17:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:41 pm
Even through your hatred of opposing opinions which do not conform to your tiny world view, some of you will simply snap. Its inevitable, and so far NO-ONE has convinced any of the non commies on this thread otherwise.
that doesnt prove the ideaology isnt sound, it just proves that the 'non commies' as you put them are as set in their ideaology as we are in ours.

It reminds me of the 'whataboutery' politics that are rampant here in the 6 counties between the Paisleyites and the Shinners. They argue with each other till they're blue in the face but the status quo never changes. That isnt to say one viewpoint isnt correct though.

spartan

30th October 2007, 17:38

Say ontheliberalleft answer this for me: Why cant the workers, who operate the means of production, own and control the means of production which they already operate?

And also answer this: You obviously have a problem with Proletarians killing their enemies who oppose them after the revolution but do you have a problem with the Bourgeoisie who are right now killing people just to get capital and new markets with resources and more Proletarians to exploit?

Jazzratt

30th October 2007, 18:40

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+October 30, 2007 03:41 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ October 30, 2007 03:41 pm)
Electronic [email protected] 28, 2007 07:24 pm
This is also a prime example of why the opposing ideologies forum shouldn't even exist. Just ban these posters.

edited: corrected my foul language.
lol...
[/b]
Either contribute or fuck off, we didn't ask you to join our forum.

You know, it really amazes me how people who can idealize people like Che (Whilst looking at a picture of him in the background of this post) can at the same time advocate totalitarian nonsense like this.

Why not? According to most liberals like you Che was a horrendous mass-murdering authoritarian psychopath. Also we're not advocating "totalitarian nonsense" so you fail.

As I said, let 'ban' be replaced with 'silence'.

You know that if you tried to join a real life leftist group as a non-leftist you'd get kicked out, right? The ban is more like that then silencing political opponents - you guys still have storm****, the democratic underground or whatever the fuck tickles your dick.

You people, despite your protestations (And of course there are exceptions) have a carnal lust for blood in all forms.

What the fuck are you talking about now? We've heard the "you guys are bloodthirsty because you advocate killing a proportion of the oppressors" bullshit so many times, what lends any weight to your regurgitation? Your supposed qualifications? :lol:

http://www.flemcomics.com/comics/20061005.jpg

By allowing the great facade that you are working for the people, you WILL kill thousands of innocents, and commit purges which made the Great Terror look like a Christmas party.

:lol: You have a crystal ball too? Or was it tarot cards?

Even through your hatred of opposing opinions which do not conform to your tiny world view, some of you will simply snap. Its inevitable, and so far NO-ONE has convinced any of the non commies on this thread otherwise.

We don't need to convince you of anything, when our class throw off the shackles of oppression it will happen regardless of the opinions held by petit-bourgeois wankers like yourself.

spartan

30th October 2007, 19:21

I think that this wanker, ontheliberalleft, thinks that this site is a working model of a future Socialist society!

More fool him then :lol:

Tower of Bebel

30th October 2007, 22:42

As a real communist I would definately kill my father who is a liberal and who could be a future lumpenproletarian ready to support fascist regimes.

Matty_UK

31st October 2007, 11:18

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+October 30, 2007 03:32 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ October 30, 2007 03:32 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:08 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 12:17 am
"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror" Karl Marx.
Gotta love how you guys quote communist philosophers and theorists like this. Its almost like an ultra conservative quoting the Bible. No, in fact it is the exact same.
Do you have anything constructive to say that's worthy of discussion, or are you just a troll?
I have a fairly good grounding in Marx and Engels. I ignored your point earlier simply because it was a polemic attack. Your response above though (A cry for attention) was so sad I had to respond.

My spelling and grammar is not as good as other people with similar qualifications as I do; I have suffered from dyslexia all my life, but have fought it, and have learnt through experience several ways to overcome it. Do my posts indicate a certain level of amateurishness about it? If they do, see if I give a fuck. This is only an internet forum, most of my posts are rushed as it is. [/b]
For a professor I'd expect something a bit more challenging than "you'd kill us all in a revolution omgz!!!!" In a revolution, like in a war, some people will snap and carry out war crimes, yes. It's the responsibility of other revolutionaries to prevent this behaviour. But the actual act of revolution doesn't even necassarily involve any killing; factory occupations can be carried out non-violently, but it will provoke a civil war against the bourgeoisie. We aren't advocating killing anyone, we're advocating taking productive private property into public, democratic channels.

This whole argument is a waste of time, because you're treating support of violent resistance to an inevitable violent counter-revolution as our ends, when they aren't even our direct means. Our means are for workers to occupy the workplace and run things for themselves, civil war is just a probable consequence of this. For the argument to be worth anything you'd have to prove to us that a socialist society isn't worth the violent struggle that would probably be involved in creating it, but this discussion is just pointless.

Matty_UK

31st October 2007, 11:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:41 pm
You people, despite your protestations (And of course there are exceptions) have a carnal lust for blood in all forms. By allowing the great facade that you are working for the people, you WILL kill thousands of innocents, and commit purges which made the Great Terror look like a Christmas party. Even through your hatred of opposing opinions which do not conform to your tiny world view, some of you will simply snap. Its inevitable, and so far NO-ONE has convinced any of the non commies on this thread otherwise.
So you're saying people become communists because of carnal blood lust? That's a wee bit ridiculous.

When the working class held power in Russia, there were no purges. The purges were a counter-revolution caused by the New Economic Policy bringing back Capitalism to Russia, taking away worker's power replacing it with a newly bourgeois Party. They were directed against true communists who believed the working class, not the state, should hold political power. After the purges were done the party, which lost it's connection to the working class in 23, no longer had allegiance to the workers or to socialism.

There isn't any particular reason for us to carry out purges against the bourgeoisie, we just want their property. If they try and fight back and kill us, we'll arrest or kill them. The police and military in capitalist society defend private and state property, and trying to lead a rebellion against that will get us arrested or killed. To accept there will be war isn't bloodthirsty, it's realistic. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

ontheliberalleft

2nd November 2007, 14:26

Some of you say you liked the USSR, others say you don't. Would you have celebrated with the German people when the Berlin wall fell down for example?

Demogorgon

2nd November 2007, 14:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:26 pm
Some of you say you liked the USSR, others say you don't. Would you have celebrated with the German people when the Berlin wall fell down for example?
Sure, notwithstanding problems that Germany has suffered since, the GDR isn't exactly missed. You can argue about political differences when Germany was divided and what aspect of each states and where one state was better than the other in any given matter. But I don't think anyone could say that at the very least the end to division was not a good thing.

spartan

2nd November 2007, 15:18

It's funny because a sizeable minority of East Germans now think that German reunification was a bad thing and they now want the DDR back!

Indeed i think an East German seperatist party is now the second biggest party in East Germany and is now sharing power in a coalition Government!

Demogorgon

2nd November 2007, 15:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:18 pm
It's funny because a sizeable minority of East Germans now think that German reunification was a bad thing and they now want the DDR back!

Indeed i think an East German seperatist party is now the second biggest party in East Germany and is now sharing power in a coalition Government!
20% of East Germans Regret Re-Unification. However there are no large seperatist parties.

Germany has five parties with representation at federal level

The Christian Democrats (Christian Social Union In Bavaria)-Obviously don't want seperation
The Social Democrats-Again very pro-unification
The Liberals-Pro Unification
The Greens-Pro Unification
The Left (Alliance of the East German Communist Party and Dissident Social Democrats) Not supporting seperation either

At state and city level you will find assorted far right, womens issues, gay right parties and so on but no seperatist parties to speak of that have any success and certainly none in a federal or state coalition.

Dean

2nd November 2007, 20:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:26 pm
Some of you say you liked the USSR, others say you don't. Would you have celebrated with the German people when the Berlin wall fell down for example?
Yes. On a related note, Gorbachev was the most communist - oriented Soviet leader since Lenin.

Your attacks are generally irrelevant, and refer to Russian - style Red Terror more than any real ideas held in common here. It would be mor prudent for you to hear people make claims before you attack them.

Dr Mindbender

2nd November 2007, 20:38

RedStarOverChina

2nd November 2007, 23:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:34 pm
Yes. On a related note, Gorbachev was the most communist - oriented Soviet leader since Lenin.
:wacko:

Who's your second nominee? Tsar Nicolas II?

He openly declared that his ambition "was to liquidate communism", for God's sake! How can anyone be so delusional? :blink:

ComradeR

3rd November 2007, 10:44

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 02, 2007 10:24 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 02, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 02:34 pm
Yes. On a related note, Gorbachev was the most communist - oriented Soviet leader since Lenin.
:wacko:

Who's your second nominee? Tsar Nicolas II?

He openly declared that his ambition "was to liquidate communism", for God's sake! How can anyone be so delusional? :blink:[/b]
I believe he meant that as sarcasm.

It's funny because a sizeable minority of East Germans now think that German reunification was a bad thing and they now want the DDR back!
It's like that everywhere in the old soviet block.

Some of you say you liked the USSR, others say you don't. Would you have celebrated with the German people when the Berlin wall fell down for example?
It became a bureaucratic authoritarian nightmare but for the workers it was still far better then the new capitalist order.

Herman

3rd November 2007, 13:43

I will bathe in the blood of your children and build a mountain of skulls where I shall sit atop on a throne.

I will use your parents skulls as cups for refreshments and drink from their cerebral fluids.

AntifaHooligan

3rd November 2007, 13:53

Your friends wont be harmed unless they are right-wing scum.

Dr Mindbender

3rd November 2007, 17:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Your friends wont be harmed unless they are right-wing scum.
No, even 'right wing scum' with the exception of fascists should be not denied a say post-revolution. The difference is it will be their turn to be outcasted by the media and public limelight in much the same way we are now.
<_<

ontheliberalleft

4th November 2007, 15:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Your friends wont be harmed unless they are right-wing scum.
Your a fucking 13 year old kid who didn't get what Animal Farm meant. You probably can't even dress yourself properly.

Jazzratt

4th November 2007, 16:43

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+November 04, 2007 03:41 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ November 04, 2007 03:41 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Your friends wont be harmed unless they are right-wing scum.
Your a fucking 13 year old kid who didn't get what Animal Farm meant. You probably can't even dress yourself properly. [/b]
That was uncalled for. I understand the point he's trying to make and he just didn't express himself too well. Basically, as most of us have been saying, during the revolution we will endeavour to harm as few people as possible but recognise that some people ("right wing scum") will be hell bent on killing us and we must, therefore, return the favour if we are to improve our society.

Dr Mindbender

4th November 2007, 16:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:41 pm

Your a fucking 13 year old kid who didn't get what Animal Farm meant. You probably can't even dress yourself properly.
wow another ungrounded ad hominem.

Oooh, ooh, can we ban it yet? :)

Eleftherios

4th November 2007, 17:09

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 03, 2007 10:08 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 03, 2007 10:08 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Your friends wont be harmed unless they are right-wing scum.
No, even 'right wing scum' with the exception of fascists should be not denied a say post-revolution. The difference is it will be their turn to be outcasted by the media and public limelight in much the same way we are now.
<_< [/b]
I agree. Only those who use violent means to try to destroy the revolution should be seriously punished.

As a real communist I would definately kill my father who is a liberal and who could be a future lumpenproletarian ready to support fascist regimes.

Ok, even I think that's a little harsh

How many of my friends will you kill?

Well, if they're your friends...

bootleg42

4th November 2007, 19:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:38 pm
Say ontheliberalleft answer this for me: Why cant the workers, who operate the means of production, own and control the means of production which they already operate?

And also answer this: You obviously have a problem with Proletarians killing their enemies who oppose them after the revolution but do you have a problem with the Bourgeoisie who are right now killing people just to get capital and new markets with resources and more Proletarians to exploit?
ONTHELIBERALLEFT, ANSWER THAT^^^^ I'm not going to let you ignore it. Answer that.

Faux Real

4th November 2007, 21:56

How many of my friends will you kill?
Who exactly are your friends? If they're a bunch of militant counter-revolutionaries that would try to crush any sort of worker's rebellion then yes, our comrades would not let them have the chance to overthrow their progressive gains.

If they're "liberals" like yourself who preach non-violence and do not act in a harmful way towards a worker's revolt then none will be killed, they can still voice their opinions and/or participate in the worker's struggle for control over production and self-autonomy.

I would also like to see you answer the question bootleg and spartan have wanted you to.

Dr Mindbender

4th November 2007, 23:38

hes not clearly not here for the debate, he's more interested in his infantile mud-slinging and seeing how many feathers he can rub the wrong way.

I say ban him for trolling.

spartan

4th November 2007, 23:40

I say ban him for trolling.
I think that we should all wait until he has, at the very least, answered my question as other members wanted to see him answer it as well.

Dr Mindbender

4th November 2007, 23:43

we've got more chance of the SWP winning the next general election than we do of getting a coherent reply from ontheliberalleft that doesnt resort to petty insults.

Zurdito

4th November 2007, 23:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:39 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
:lol: I've been accosted by many whiny liberals whilst promoting marxism but this is a new low. maybe you should read before opening your mouth, if you can't even spell bourgeois or tell a noun from an adjective then maybe you should refrain from showing yourself up on a marxist forum.

If, in a revolutionary situation, your cuddly cop relatives were out in the street shooting down workers, then they'd have to be fought, just like people were killed to establish all the meagre democratic rights you enjoy today - and yes those people had families too. I hope you never supported any war ever OTLL, because that means you supprted killing a human being who might have loved their kids or watever. heartless bastard.

If your cop relatives took their guns over to the side of the workers, then they'd be on our side. just like in any war you would fight your enemy.

OMG what if my family fought against you in a war "ontheleftliberal", would you kill them? No way! You just threatened to kill my family! Sick! Outrageous! I'm disgusted!blah blah

Zurdito

5th November 2007, 00:07

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 pm
Also civil servants and small businesspeople are not beourgioise, they are lumpenproletariat.
For the record, no beourgioise member need die as long as they co-operate.
they are petty-bourgeois, not lumpenproletariat. the lumpenproletariat is the "underclass", the petty-bourgeoisie is the "middle class"

bootleg42

5th November 2007, 00:15

Dean

5th November 2007, 01:43

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+November 02, 2007 10:24 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ November 02, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 02:34 pm
Yes. On a related note, Gorbachev was the most communist - oriented Soviet leader since Lenin.
:wacko:

Who's your second nominee? Tsar Nicolas II?

He openly declared that his ambition "was to liquidate communism", for God's sake! How can anyone be so delusional? :blink: [/b]
Am I to think that USSR leaders like Kruschev or Stalin were closer to supporting socialism in your book?

I don't care how anti-communist people may think Gorbachev was; he was more interested in freedom - and therefore closer to supporting socialism - than any of the other Soviet leaders I can think of since Lenin. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the widespread support of censorship and violent suppression of dissent during and since the Stalin administration are a lot less socialist, in my eyes, than the Glastnost - and other liberating policies of Gorbachev.

In other words, if a social democrat says he hates communism but a totalitarian centrist claims to support communism, I am still going to look at the two in regards to their policies rahter than their rhetoric - and therefore support the social democrat above the totalitarian.

spartan

5th November 2007, 01:55

I don't care how anti-communist people may think Gorbachev was; he was more interested in freedom - and therefore closer to supporting socialism - than any of the other Soviet leaders I can think of since Lenin.
Gorbachev is now apparently involved with the Social Democrats in Russia and says that he supports Putin's premiership :lol:

The fact is Gorbachev wanted Bourgeoisie Social Democracy, probably on a similar line as Scandinavia, and the only "freedom" he was intrested in was the freedom for the new emerging middle class, the result of the old Bureaucracy, to invest into new, non-Soviet, markets which of course leads to the exploitation of Proletarians.

His shitty Liberalization of the economy lead to the current "Oligarchs" emergence in the old constituent members of the former USSR.

Gorbachev perhaps was a Communist as late as the 70's but it is obvious that, by the 80's, his real intrest lay in Bourgeoisie Social Democracy which he tried, very slowly, to implement during his failure of a leadership in the USSR with the small scale Liberalizations of industries and the economy etc.

The trouble is though he failed and now, for better or for worse, there is no USSR and America can pretty much just go around the world bullying other nations for their resources to exploit.

Dean

5th November 2007, 02:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:55 am

I don't care how anti-communist people may think Gorbachev was; he was more interested in freedom - and therefore closer to supporting socialism - than any of the other Soviet leaders I can think of since Lenin.
Gorbachev is now apparently involved with the Social Democrats in Russia and says that he supports Putin's premiership :lol:

The fact is Gorbachev wanted Bourgeoisie Social Democracy, probably on a similar line as Scandinavia, and the only "freedom" he was intrested in was the freedom for the new emerging middle class, the result of the old Bureaucracy, to invest into new, non-Soviet, markets which of course leads to the exploitation of Proletarians.
...and the freedom to dissent, notably useful for labor unions like Solidarnosc.

His shitty Liberalization of the economy lead to the current "Oligarchs" emergence in the old constituent members of the former USSR.
No it didn't. The oligarchs came about due to Boris Yeltsin's passivity while the U.S. advisors helped create a "shock" capitalist economy.

Gorbachev perhaps was a Communist as late as the 70's but it is obvious that, by the 80's, his real intrest lay in Bourgeoisie Social Democracy which he tried, very slowly, to implement during his failure of a leadership in the USSR with the small scale Liberalizations of industries and the economy etc.
So? That wasn't my point at all. Mine was a comparison with the other, more totalitarian and centrist leaders. At least Gorbachev tried to do something to further freedom in Russia; he was clearly a more concerned and productive leader than most of the others. Seriously, are you going to try to defend the Soviet crushing of dissent versus liberalized economies, just because the others called themselves more communist? For that matter, if it is indeed more communist to lead a more centralized, totalitarian society with less freedoms, then I don't care to be a part of such a movement. Thankfully, that ideology is the minority amongst communists, at least the serious ones.

The trouble is though he failed and now, for better or for worse, there is no USSR and America can pretty much just go around the world bullying other nations for their resources to exploit.
Was it better when the USSR was having proxy wars with the US at the expense of the local populations?

Really, when it comes to foreign policy, Putin has signified a return to the Soviet - era politics. Some of that is positive, som eis negative, but I don't think you can blame gorbachev for U.S. imperialism, which will happen with or without an antagonistic Russia.

synthesis

5th November 2007, 03:20

Was it better when the USSR was having proxy wars with the US at the expense of the local populations?

More often, there were revolutionary forces that may or may not have been originally Communist in nature who found that America and Europe were assisting their national oligarchy in repressing the revolution and turned to the Soviets for assistance. There were more instances where a regime's "socialist" practices were more a result of military and political allegiances than any kind of ideological consensus.

Dean

5th November 2007, 04:24

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@November 05, 2007 03:20 am

Was it better when the USSR was having proxy wars with the US at the expense of the local populations?

More often, there were revolutionary forces that may or may not have been originally Communist in nature who found that America and Europe were assisting their national oligarchy in repressing the revolution and turned to the Soviets for assistance. There were more instances where a regime's "socialist" practices were more a result of military and political allegiances than any kind of ideological consensus.
I have no doubt that is the case, but examples like Afghanistan in particular show where Soviet incursion was fought by forces which were U.S. - backed and themselves dangerous for the population.

Black Dagger

5th November 2007, 05:37

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+--> (ontheliberalleft)The reality is there are always small minorities within every mass movement which incurs emotion and encourages the idea that people have suffered a great injustice that is sociopathic, as a member has already pointed out.[/b]

If you're referring to communists who talk graphically about the killing of various 'enemies' in sweeping terms - then yes - of course such people are a 'problem' for the revolutionary movement (well so far as they make revolutionaries look like blood-thirsty 'nutters'!).

Ultimately, anarchism and marxism are not about killing the rich, nor the nebulous 'enemies of the proletariat' - it's about the oppressed and exploited transforming reality - the world around them - liberation in the most nuanced sense of the term. The abolition of the boss (and indeed the subject 'worker'), the politician, the cop and yes, the rich; in short of class and authority --> without doubt that will be a violent process, the ruling class will not consent to the stripping of their wealth, power and privilege.

However the abolition of authority (and class) does not entail the wholesale killing of the powerful (only the abolition of their power) - though to be sure the powerful violently oppose those who are willing to violently oppose them. Even if the oppressed and exploited are not calling for the heads of each individual representative of oppression and exploitation, the powerful will seek to crush every single dissenting voice and restore the legitimacy of their rule. That is the nature of power and its effect on humanity.

ontheliberalleft

I am genuinly interested in how you would go around resolving these issues, as well as people who simply cannot tolerate any form of dissent.

Such people are truly living fossils.

But don't be confused, authoritarians are by no means the majority of the revolutionary movement today... or indeed it's future. Such anachronistic politics are doomed to wither and die.

Also, please don't flame other members.

ontheliberalleft

5th November 2007, 10:08

Originally posted by bootleg42+November 04, 2007 07:13 pm--> (bootleg42 @ November 04, 2007 07:13 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 04:38 pm
Say ontheliberalleft answer this for me: Why cant the workers, who operate the means of production, own and control the means of production which they already operate?

And also answer this: You obviously have a problem with Proletarians killing their enemies who oppose them after the revolution but do you have a problem with the Bourgeoisie who are right now killing people just to get capital and new markets with resources and more Proletarians to exploit?
ONTHELIBERALLEFT, ANSWER THAT^^^^ I'm not going to let you ignore it. Answer that. [/b]
1) Why should they own them? LTV has long been looked upon as a flawed theory. What about the person taking the risk to build the factory in the first place? The person who took out a second mortgage so he could open a coffeehouse? Should they be paid the same as the man on minimum wage who strolls through life? I don't think thats fair.

Allowing the workers to earn the value of their labour is a nice idea, but in practise is a ridiculous one which doesn't take into account a whole ream of exceptions. What about the person who drives the lorry to deliver the products? What about the person who makes the advertisements for the lorry? etc. etc.

2) If you are talking about wars such as Iraq, I'll let you know that I don't support them, and marched against them.

Ulster Socialist,

What is your problem? I tried being nice to you but your just acting the wanker.

mikelepore

5th November 2007, 10:36

I suggest that a socialist system should repress counter-revolutionaries according to their actions, not their reasons for them. The charge should be based on what they have done specifically; for example, vandalism, arson, assault by hand, assault with a deadly weapon. To express opposition through speech and writing should be recognized as a right. As supporters of socialism are outvoted in a capitalist system, supporters of capitalism are outvoted in a socialist system. Those who oppose progress but still by abide by the majority mandate are no problem. For those who resist socialism with destruction and violence, society should ignore the reasons they give for it, and judge their actions. The penalties should be stiff, but not thought-crimes. Not forty years in prison because you are a dissident, but forty years in prison because you punched someone in the nose.

Marsella

5th November 2007, 10:44

The penalties should be stiff, but not thought-crimes. Not forty years in prison because you are a dissident, but forty years in prison because you punched someone in the nose.

Umm...40 years for punching someone in the nose seems a bit harsh if you ask me.

I would be serving several thousand years if it was implemented. :(

And I seriously question whether we would allow prisons in a Communist society.

Dean

5th November 2007, 12:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:44 am
And I seriously question whether we would allow prisons in a Communist society.
Prisons, or a lock-up system, would be unavoidable. Some might say taht without class, violence wouldn't exist as any large phenomenon, but I still think it would be common enough to warrant a system of imprisonment. It certainly wouldn't be the same caliber as the system we have now, though.

spartan

5th November 2007, 12:54

And I seriously question whether we would allow prisons in a Communist society.
Labour camps! :lol:

Marsella

5th November 2007, 13:07

Prisons, or a lock-up system, would be unavoidable.

Why?

Some might say taht without class, violence wouldn't exist as any large phenomenon, but I still think it would be common enough to warrant a system of imprisonment.

I think we would both agree that most crime is a response to economic conditions. If those economic conditions are eliminated then such crime would logically be so too.

As for violence which is unrelated to the economic system, e.g. a pub fight, then those simply matters could be sorted out democratically.

Also, it would be far more disadvantageous to have a system of prison guards then to have 'criminals' (e.g. someone who has punched another in the nose!) roaming the street.

Murder trials, rape trials etc can be decided by randomly elected juries.

I think it a matter of human dignity that in most cases, if the accused is proven guilty, that he or she be executed. But the sentences will be at the discretion of the jury.

It certainly wouldn't be the same caliber as the system we have now, though.

Perhaps. Large scale jails are nothing but pain producers and a source for laughably cheap labour. They would never be tolerated. At the very most holding cells for those accused of crimes may exist.

spartan

5th November 2007, 13:15

Well in a Socialist system everyone will be much more equal so economic based crime will fall dramitically or become almost non-existent.

What about drugs, gambling and prostitution?

Drugs should be legalized whilst i think gambling should'nt be legalized as it involves the use of money, which we are trying to get rid off, and one person will inevitably win a large amount of money, whilst someone will lose a large amount of money, which of course makes things more unequal.

I am not to sure on prostitution as, though it involves the use of money as well, it still provides a service which is just the same as paying someone to wash your car so...

pusher robot

27th November 2007, 15:39

If you're referring to communists who talk graphically about the killing of various 'enemies' in sweeping terms - then yes - of course such people are a 'problem' for the revolutionary movement (well so far as they make revolutionaries look like blood-thirsty 'nutters'!).

Then why are people with opinions like Petey's and Comrade Nadezhda in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72170&st=25)* not only not shunned or corrected, but welcomed as members into the elite Commie Club? Please, explain to me why I should not take their opinions as representative of communists!

* To wit:

QUOTE (petey @ November 22, 2007 11:50 am)
QUOTE (COMRADE CRUM @ October 27, 2007 05:56 pm)
QUOTE (PigmerikanMao @ October 22, 2007 11:25 am)
In your opinion, was the cultural revolution too short or too long? In my opinion, the rise of the new bourgeoisie in China can be attributed to the improper length of the Cultural Revolution. Did the new bourgeoisie rise because the Cultural Revolution was too long, leading the masses to support revisionist reform, or was it too short, thus failing to smash the bourgeoisie?

Too short. The cultural rev was, in my opinion a 20+ year job.

I'd give it 25-30 years.
And kill them reformists

yes, there comes a time when elimination becomes a necessary task.

Black Dagger

27th November 2007, 17:12

Originally posted by pusher robot
Then why are people with opinions like Petey's and Comrade Nadezhda in this thread* not only not shunned or corrected, but welcomed as members into the elite Commie Club?

This board, and the CC represent diverse (and divergent) revolutionary anti-capitalist ideologies... this diversity for better or worse encompasses explicitly authoritarian members (i.e. stalinists) such as Comrade Nadezha. In reality you are unaware of the debates that occur in the CC during membership polls, i can assure you, stalinists rarely poll well. For their immaturity and abrasiveness as much as their politics (IMO the two go hand-in-hand)

The majority of the respondents to the thread you linked are Stalinists - i suspect no one bothered to interject because no one cared to - ignoring the babbling of stalinist teenagers should be encouraged not criticised. What would be the point in responding to them? These are teenagers talking about forced labour camps, people who probably don't even work for a living! Who have no real conception of labour, let alone forced labour. They are not to be taken seriously, and they usually are not - most members simply ignore them - though sometimes this is unavoidable.

Please, explain to me why I should not take their opinions as representative of communists!

That's ridiculous logic.

If their opinions, why not mine? It makes no sense to select the most offensive opinions as representative of an entire group - to do so reflects only your intention to dismiss communism and communists and shows a distinct lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

Demogorgon

27th November 2007, 18:02

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 27, 2007 03:38 pm
Then why are people with opinions like Petey's and Comrade Nadezhda in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72170&st=25)* not only not shunned or corrected, but welcomed as members into the elite Commie Club? Please, explain to me why I should not take their opinions as representative of communists!

It wouldn't really be appropriate to talk about the various ins and outs of the CC here but a hell of a lot of people get in for a great variety of reasons and you get opinions in there, far removed from anything the vast majority of people think. Far removed, probably from what the posters in question would say offline.

Like many online boards discussing, this place has become a sort of "bubble" with its own set of priorities in discussion. Some of the stuff you here argued endlessly about here, you barely hear in real political groups. Certainly nobody whines about "reformists" in any group I have been part of and nor does anybody ever talk about killing anyone they disagree with. The fact is this board becomes a sort of alternative political reality for a minority of members who can show off with "more revolutionary than thou" attitudes without ever being asked to "walk the walk" so to speak. Similarly it also becomes a place where again a minority of people can unthinkingly accept stuff they would do well to question more thoroughly. There are quite a lot of opinions here that I am embarrassed to be associated with and I think are unbelievably stupid, I won't name those opinions here, but I am sure you can guess some of them. However that's the nature of the internet, people say silly things. I don't agree with much of the crap that goes on on this board, the majority of members don't, so why accuse us of holding absurd views on the basis of a noisy minority?

Cryotank Screams

27th November 2007, 23:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:38 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
Though it's probably already been said bourgeois is the term that means people who own and control the means of production and capital, which doesn't include small business owners, they are called the petty bourgeois. Second in any revolution that would take place, I don't think necessarily small business owners would be killed provided they don't actively fight against the revolution, cast their lot with the big bourgeois and shoot at comrades. Then they might get killed, but otherwise any 'horror stories' of the past won't be repeated.

AGITprop

28th November 2007, 21:36

Whilst many comply and agree, many will be opposed, ofcourse the capitalists. Like during the 50's during the cuban revolution, the cpitalists left the country. Either way i dont think they would risk actualy fighting us. The only time we would require the use f violence would be against nyone who opposed us and again the only ones hwo would are the capitlalists who believe in slavery of the working class. someone who cant be convinced otherwse doesnt really have a role in communist ociety anyway. most of these will comply because of fear andhopefuly common sense. there wil be need to fight when the police try to stop u under capitalist's orders but even the police, and the army tend to side with he revolutinnaries during these kinds of scenarios, maybe not right away but they wil.

Labor Shall Rule

28th November 2007, 22:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:07 am
1) Why should they own them? LTV has long been looked upon as a flawed theory. What about the person taking the risk to build the factory in the first place? The person who took out a second mortgage so he could open a coffeehouse? Should they be paid the same as the man on minimum wage who strolls through life? I don't think thats fair.
The 'risk' is nothing but a myth.

The fact is that the modern capitalist economy is not solely or even primarily driven by some sort of "risk", but by money handed down through generations of building large industrial and financial enterprises. It has its origins in piracy, the extreme brutalization of workers prior to government regulations, imperialism, and of course, slavery.

Not to mention, risk itself does not create objective value in the way that labor does. What the capitalist venturer "risks" is value created by someone else's labor somewhere down the line.

By the way, no one is paid 'equally' - this is a lie. When you subtract capitalist profits from the picture, and you deduct money to keep the firm running, to have a reserve fund to possibly expand the firm, and a social fund to benefit the whole labor force, the social product of your labor is more or less given to you. In other words, you work and receive what you labor for.

pusher robot

28th November 2007, 22:59

I don't agree with much of the crap that goes on on this board, the majority of members don't, so why accuse us of holding absurd views on the basis of a noisy minority?

I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm explaining why communists have the reputation that they objectively do among non-communists, and why it's not necessarily an unfair reputation.

Can you give me assurances that in a communist revolution, it is your opinions and your methods that would be adopted, and not the views and opinions of your fellow travelers?

I don't think you can, and I don't think most people would believe you can either.

RevSkeptic

28th November 2007, 23:04

1) Why should they own them? LTV has long been looked upon as a flawed theory. What about the person taking the risk to build the factory in the first place? The person who took out a second mortgage so he could open a coffeehouse? Should they be paid the same as the man on minimum wage who strolls through life? I don't think thats fair.

Allowing the workers to earn the value of their labour is a nice idea, but in practise is a ridiculous one which doesn't take into account a whole ream of exceptions. What about the person who drives the lorry to deliver the products? What about the person who makes the advertisements for the lorry? etc. etc.

What about the person taking the risk

What is there to risk unless something is accumulated?

But, what is there to accumulate if you've already exchanged whatever it is you were risking for labour which labour would inevitably exchange again with you for the debt owed to them when they purchase goods and services from the store?

It doesn't make sense because the bosses paid the workers for whatever he was making was paid back for whatever he was making when workers go to the store to buy back whatever that was made while working for the boss which owes them for the labour. So in that case what is it that you are paying me when it ends up back in your hands?

It's circular logic which says you've risk something which was never really yours to begin with because it's already been used up by workers exchanging labour for it, but it isn't used up because the worker have to buy it back from you which is a contradiction. Further, whatever it is that I've bought back from you would most likely end up being consumed or depreciated or worn out over the time that I've used it, but money supposedly being the equivalent in value to whatever that was exchanged never gets consumed or depreciated or worn out which is another contradiction.

What about the person who drives the lorry

He get's paid by according to how difficult the job is.

What about the person who makes the advertisements for the lorry?

Labour for communications.

synthesis

30th November 2007, 04:34

Can you give me assurances that in a communist revolution, it is your opinions and your methods that would be adopted, and not the views and opinions of your fellow travelers?

I don't think you can, and I don't think most people would believe you can either.

No, but we can give you assurances that in a communist revolution, we will be fighting for what we think is right, as individuals - as will you, most likely.

If you want to know how relevant that will be in the event of revolution, you'll have to ask Nostradamus. All I know is that ideas always adapt to conditions.

Os Cangaceiros

30th November 2007, 17:11

Originally posted by STJ+October 26, 2007 10:56 pm--> (STJ @ October 26, 2007 10:56 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 05:39 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
I am sure every member of the OI will go up against the wall. :D [/b]
You wouldn't kill a fellow Angry Samoans fan, would you?

LOTFW

30th November 2007, 18:48

ontheliberalleft:

Look fucko:

Here's the deal...

If you're the CEO of GM, you get to keep your life pretty much as it is, IN RELATION TO OTHER'S ENJOYMENT OF THE MATERIAL WEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY.

This doesn't mean everyone will have the same home, or yard, or clothing. It just means you won't be able to create a lifestyle that requires that I live at a lower standard to maintain your home and yard and clothing.

WHY KILL ANYONE?

I suppose if someone tries to stop Revolutionaries from achieving their ends, force will be used upon you. (I hope it doesn't evolve into bloodshed.)

You understand force, because the world of civil service and law back up their decisions w/ court rulings, and the judges therein back up their rulings with deputy Marshalls and deputy Sheriffs.

What's the difference? Force is force. Rarely (maybe never) has a judges order resulted in a killing. (I'm not counting capital punishment; just a judge's decisions on various civil decisions.)

Killing? Eeesh!

Dr Mindbender

30th November 2007, 19:00

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 10:58 pm

I don't agree with much of the crap that goes on on this board, the majority of members don't, so why accuse us of holding absurd views on the basis of a noisy minority?

I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm explaining why communists have the reputation that they objectively do among non-communists, and why it's not necessarily an unfair reputation.

Can you give me assurances that in a communist revolution, it is your opinions and your methods that would be adopted, and not the views and opinions of your fellow travelers?

I don't think you can, and I don't think most people would believe you can either.
communism's violent history has mainly been down to provocation by reactionary counter-revolution. As i said before, the Russian civil war of 1917 onwards would have been avoided had it not been for the meddling of foreign aggressors.
Then theres America's little excursions, like Vietnam, the carpet bombing of Cambodia and the Bay of pigs invasion.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

5th December 2007, 08:00

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 30, 2007 06:59 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 30, 2007 06:59 pm)
pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 10:58 pm

I don't agree with much of the crap that goes on on this board, the majority of members don't, so why accuse us of holding absurd views on the basis of a noisy minority?

I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm explaining why communists have the reputation that they objectively do among non-communists, and why it's not necessarily an unfair reputation.

Can you give me assurances that in a communist revolution, it is your opinions and your methods that would be adopted, and not the views and opinions of your fellow travelers?

I don't think you can, and I don't think most people would believe you can either.
communism's violent history has mainly been down to provocation by reactionary counter-revolution. As i said before, the Russian civil war of 1917 onwards would have been avoided had it not been for the meddling of foreign aggressors.
Then theres America's little excursions, like Vietnam, the carpet bombing of Cambodia and the Bay of pigs invasion. [/b]
Exactly. Maybe if capitalists would stop meddling in the people's business, there wouldn't be bloodshed.

redrogue

7th December 2007, 20:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:38 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
Exactly m8, that's why I'm anti-revoltionary left winger!
THATS WHY SOME DOOSHBAG RESTRICTED ME!!

Jazzratt

7th December 2007, 20:46

Originally posted by redrogue+December 07, 2007 08:40 pm--> (redrogue @ December 07, 2007 08:40 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 05:38 pm
If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?
Exactly m8, that's why I'm anti-revoltionary left winger!
THATS WHY SOME DOOSHBAG RESTRICTED ME!! [/b]
A) It's "douchebag"
B) This is a website for the revolutionary left therefore your restriction was not unwarranted.
C) You're being a fucking idiot, read the thread to see why this guy was basically wrong in his assumptions.
D) You give politically minded squatters a bad name.

redrogue

7th December 2007, 20:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:45 pm
[QUOTE=redrogue,December 07, 2007 08:40 pm]
A) It's "douchebag"
B) This is a website for the revolutionary left therefore your restriction was not unwarranted.
C) You're being a fucking idiot, read the thread to see why this guy was basically wrong in his assumptions.
D) You give politically minded squatters a bad name.
A) "douchebag" - I don't give a f*ck how it's spelt you pedantic fool!
B) revolutionary - I believe that the right leaders can make a difference.
C) They guy makes a fair point.
D) How exactly do I give politically minded squatters a bad name?

redrogue

7th December 2007, 20:59

pathetic and undemocratic joke!

Jazzratt

7th December 2007, 21:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:51 pm
A) "douchebag" - I don't give a f*ck how it's spelt you pedantic fool!
Yeah but righting it "dooshbag" in all capitals makes you look like a witless cretin.

B) revolutionary - I believe that the right leaders can make a difference.

So you're not an anarchist?
Fuck leaders.

C) They guy makes a fair point.

No. He makes an emotional point based on either misunderstanding our position or deliberately exaggerating it for the sake of his epic strawman.

D) How exactly do I give politically minded squatters a bad name?

Because you're behaving like a mentally deficient child.

redrogue

7th December 2007, 21:11

I'm f*cking dyslexic, do u think I give two shiny sh1ts about spelling?
I am certainly not an Anarchist. We have to have leaders.

Jazzratt

7th December 2007, 21:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:10 pm
I'm f*cking dyslexic, do u think I give two shiny sh1ts about spelling?
Don't use dyslexia as an excuse. I know plenty of dyslexics that make an effort to write coherently, dumbfuck.

I am certainly not an Anarchist. We have to have leaders.

:lol: Yeah, and we need a monetary system too - right?

redrogue

7th December 2007, 21:16

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 07, 2007 09:13 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 07, 2007 09:13 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 09:10 pm
I'm f*cking dyslexic, do u think I give two shiny sh1ts about spelling?
Don't use dyslexia as an excuse. I know plenty of dyslexics that make an effort to write coherently, dumbfuck.

I am certainly not an Anarchist. We have to have leaders.

:lol: Yeah, and we need a monetary system too - right? [/b]
Of course, all cases of dyslexia are exacly the same. <_<

Definitley not a monetary system!

Jazzratt

7th December 2007, 21:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:15 pm
Of course, all cases of dyslexia are exacly the same. <_<
The point is that it's not an excuse.

Definitley not a monetary system!

And why do we need leaders? We're fighting against the authority of rulers. Do you not think that the new boss will be strikingly similar to the old one?

Robert

7th December 2007, 22:34

Yeah but righting it "dooshbag" in all capitals makes you look like a witless cretin.

Try again, professor.

Jazzratt

7th December 2007, 22:51

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 07, 2007 10:33 pm

Yeah but righting it "dooshbag" in all capitals makes you look like a witless cretin.

Try again, professor.
Well, fuck. :blush:

Red Puppy

11th December 2007, 02:09

(I write this in relation to my situation and the other Americans on these boards, being a fairly new Marxist, and still learning, feel free to correct me on any mistakes. With that said, onto the post…)

How does one begin and maintain a peaceful revolution? Ideally, it's what we strive for, but in practice how well do you think that will work. Sure, I’m as non-violent as the next person, comrades, but there’s a limit. You don’t think the government that fought and killed many red-coats to gain freedom and even turned on each other in bloodshed and continue to do so will simply comply and passively submit to a (not-so-new) type of red-coat? Especially after coming to the brink of another world war from the mid-1940s until the early 1990s, the same reds so hated and feared by the nation, simply to be allowed to come in and say, “Hey, we’re going to take over now, abolish religion, abolish classes and such…”? (Let’s not forget the nation was also founded on religion itself, another great obstacle…)

To simply sit back and imagine that any real revolution, one that eliminates the capitalist regime completely, will progress or even come to fruition without at least a small amount of violence is plain idiocy. In such a situation, though, I imagine a “Surrender peacefully and no harm will come to you” attitude before using force, deadly or otherwise is what it will come down to, and perhaps downright warfare on American soil.

Presidential elections are soon, there are the issues with the war…What better time than now? Rashness is not usually my suit, mind you, but if we are to strike, what better place to start than one of the worlds biggest powers, America? Maybe it is time to take up that sickle and hammer, and write history the right way…

Maybe I’m crazy.

Sorry for such a long post, but I also forgot to add my answer to the OP's question.
How many of your friends will I kill? Simply put, as many as will violently resist. None will be for pleasure, only out of necessity.

As a side note:

QUOTE (Jazzratt @ December 07, 2007 09:13 pm)

QUOTE (redrogue @ December 07, 2007 09:10 pm)
I'm f*cking dyslexic, do u think I give two shiny sh1ts about spelling?

Don't use dyslexia as an excuse. I know plenty of dyslexics that make an effort to write coherently, dumbfuck.

I was once dyslexic. I am also only 17. This is no excuse. How can you listen to someone who wants to have a major influence on the world, when they can't take the time to spell check and check basic grammar?

Die Neue Zeit

23rd December 2007, 21:57

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 29, 2007 09:49 am
But talking about communist "revolution" invariably tends to bring to mind movements like the Khmer Rouge or the Great Purge, which were not really civil revolutions so much as organized mass-murder. I'll concede that whether there is a relationship between the ideology of the perpetrators and the tendency to commit such acts is debateable and that an ordinary communist civil revolution is not impossible. But clearly what these kinds of questions are trying to probe is whether your average leftist revolutionary sees the distinction.
There is one more dynamic here that needs to be addressed: post-revolution aggravation of class struggle.

This is actually related to the Marxist stuff about primitive accumulation / accumulation by dispossession (ie, how capitalism came into being in the first place).

If you take note of my signature, significant portions of the dispossessed classes will inevitably take up arms and employ the lumpenproletariat as their new underlings.

In the work cited in my signature, Lenin said this to say right after the content of my sig:

The class of exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, has not disappeared and cannot disappear all at once under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The exploiters have been smashed, but not destroyed.

RNK

31st December 2007, 09:03

If your revolution succeeds that it is. Having come from a Civil Service family (Healthcare and law enforcement), I have just realised that a lot of the friends of my family are what you would call the 'bourgeouis', or however the fuck you spell that. I'm just interested, how many of these small businessmen would you kill, and how cruel would their executions be as a result of their crimes towards the working classes?

Unfortunately, the revolutionary redistribution of private property and the means of production and the transition from capitalism to socialism will generally not involve bands of armed hooligans running around and executing people in their backyards at 2AM. While these sorts of things are fun to watch in a movie, I emplore you to try and wrap your head around the basic principles of a political revolutionary upheavel.

First off, the "revolution", the armed struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat, will be between the workers and the state. Groups of organized workers and militia will most likely clash with the security forces of said state. So if your friends decide to join the Police or Army to fight the "red menace" then most likely, if they die, it will be in a violent manner indicative of armed struggle.

If they do not, they have very little to worry about. Once the armed body of organized workers defeats the state and erects a transitional government, laws will gradually be enacted which may or may not threaten the economic stability of you and your friends (ie if you or your friends own a business, private property, or have control over some means of production or generates surplus capital through various means) by redistributing wealth. If they get pissed off at this and decide to go bring a gun to the local municipal office and try to take some people out, then they will be shot and killed like the terrorists they would be. If they decide to partake in subversive, anti-democratic or illegal activity then they face the risk of being arrested and punished.

Really, the choice rests in their hands. Would they pick up arms to defend their hoarded wealth? Would they conspire to help destabilize the democratic movement? Or would they bite their tongue and live out their lives satisfied by the notion that whatever monetary loss they sustain (if any) means that thousands of others who've been given the short end of the capitalist stick will be able to live equitable lives?