Crimes against reactionaries?

[Unicorn]

Should people be acquitted or punished leniently for crimes committed against reactionaries? For example, if some reactionaries burn the flag of a socialist country and chant anti-communist slogans and some communists physically assault them should the perpetrators be punished and how?

Also, what importance should the political orientation of the victims have? Some people deserve freedom of opinion in a socialist country and some people don't (Fascists for example).

[Lord Testicles]

If a person physically abuses someone over the buring of a flag then they should be delt with the same way as anyone else.

[Dr Mindbender]

Should people be acquitted or punished leniently for crimes committed against reactionaries? For example, if some reactionaries burn the flag of a socialist country and chant anti-communist slogans and some communists physically assault them should the perpetrators be punished and how?

Also, what importance should the political orientation of the victims have? Some people deserve freedom of opinion in a socialist country and some people don't (Fascists for example).

People should not be treated differently because of their political orientation (with the possible exception of the fascists).
To do so would be to lower ourselves to the level of the capitalists.

The argument is, that whenever society is ready for communism the material conditions will already be so awful that only a handful of lunatics would oppose a revolution. So they would be ridiculed in much the same way fringe extremists are at the moment.

[Holden Caulfield]

i think a yes in context, and again refer to 'terrorism and communism' as a good book on the subject of violence and confrontation in the post revolutionary period

however the force should be in accordance with the crime other wise public opinion would be soured and counter revolutonary maytrs made

[Dr Mindbender]

i think a yes in context, and again refer to 'terrorism and communism' as a good book on the subject of violence and confrontation in the post revolutionary period

however the force should be in accordance with the crime other wise public opinion would be soured and counter revolutonary maytrs made

Do you think there is likely to be 'capitalist terrorists' in a post revolutionary scenario?

[Holden Caulfield]

depending on the timing of the revolution there may well be, and if not that then people mislead or in the pay of cappies and definatey fascists,

i dont mean terrorists in the 'suicide bomber' sense, but i guess you know this but im just clarifying

[Unicorn]

People should not be treated differently because of their political orientation (with the possible exception of the fascists).
To do so would be to lower ourselves to the level of the capitalists.

The argument is, that whenever society is ready for communism the material conditions will already be so awful that only a handful of lunatics would oppose a revolution. So they would be ridiculed in much the same way fringe extremists are at the moment.
Another example. British and Soviet civilians lynched German Luftwaffe pilots who had been shot down. That was wrong because they would have been willing to surrender and become PoWs. It was also an understandable reaction because the Nazis had caused so much suffering to the people. These civilians were not prosecuted and I think it was the right decision.

[#FF0000]

Another example. British and Soviet civilians lynched German Luftwaffe pilots who had been shot down. That was wrong because they would have been willing to surrender and become PoWs. It was also an understandable reaction because the Nazis had caused so much suffering to the people. These civilians were not prosecuted and I think it was the right decision.

I'd be surprised if a Brit, after the the constant bombing of Britain by the Luftwaffe, wouldn't want to lynch someone who was helping bombers level their home and city.

Someone lynching a guy repping a different ideology is totally different, though. Being a capitalist and actively promoting a free market system isn't hurting anyone, so there's no reason to attack them physically for it.

[Unicorn]

Being a capitalist and actively promoting a free market system isn't hurting anyone, so there's no reason to attack them physically for it.
You should reconsider that statement.

[#FF0000]

You should reconsider that statement.

People kill. Not ideologies.

[PRC-UTE]

Should people be acquitted or punished leniently for crimes committed against reactionaries? For example, if some reactionaries burn the flag of a socialist country and chant anti-communist slogans and some communists physically assault them should the perpetrators be punished and how?

Also, what importance should the political orientation of the victims have? Some people deserve freedom of opinion in a socialist country and some people don't (Fascists for example).

So if your daughter was suspected of being a reactionary and some men forced themselves on her, should we not deal with them as harshly?

The precadent for nightmarish abuse would be set.

[Unicorn]

So if your daughter was suspected of being a reactionary and some men forced themselves on her, should we not deal with them as harshly?
Raping a reactionary would not really help the class struggle.



The precadent for nightmarish abuse would be set.
What is your opinion on militant anti-fascism then?

[PRC-UTE]

Raping a reactionary would not really help the class struggle.

Yeah, that's my point. I was responding to your first post where you asked: 'Should people be acquitted or punished leniently for crimes committed against reactionaries?'

[quote=Unicorn;1125614]
What is your opinion on militant anti-fascism then?

No platform for fascism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

People can burn a "socialist flag," chant pro-capitalist slogans, or even proclaim themselves racist for all I care.

[BobKKKindle$]

For example, if some reactionaries burn the flag of a socialist country and chant anti-communist slogans and some communists physically assault them should the perpetrators be punished and how?They should be punished for attempting to prevent other people from expressing their views through an act of violence. It is essential that we allow people we disagree with to make their views heard - the use of censorship to ensure ideological conformity will allow people to claim that they are being victimized, which could attract support for their views, and by debating with our ideological opponents we are also able to ensure that we do not become dogmatic and our ideas remain relevant to the real world. In the context of socialism, this means that people who support a return to capitalism or the use of the market as a method of distribution should be given access to the resources of the socialised media.

Being lenient towards those who have committed crimes against "reactionaries" does not have any justification and would serve no purpose. It would allow people to escape punishment by claiming that the person they attacked has made "reactionary" comments and would ultimately lead to the break down of justice.

In relation to this subject: Should Socialists call for the prosecution of people who desire the Holocaust in a capitalist society?


What is your opinion on militant anti-fascism then?Anti-Fascists do not call on the state to censor fascist groups. State censorship is not the same as using counter-demonstrations to deny them access to a platform.

[Dean]

Should people be acquitted or punished leniently for crimes committed against reactionaries? For example, if some reactionaries burn the flag of a socialist country and chant anti-communist slogans and some communists physically assault them should the perpetrators be punished and how?

Also, what importance should the political orientation of the victims have? Some people deserve freedom of opinion in a socialist country and some people don't (Fascists for example).

No rational anarchist or communist movement can really move foreward or be revolutionary without freedom of conscience and speech. Progress is rooted inherently in the dissent and criticism of the people, and when you do anything to make these borders stricter you risk dismissing the progressive forces. No state can stifle those it sees as a threat without eventually stifling the revolutionaries in society.