crude and harsh ethics Question

[danyboy27]

please dont flame, its not intended to be a flame.

if to make the revolution succede you would have to do stuff like summary executions, kill entire family of rich people, you know verry discutable stuff on an ethical point of view, would you do it or stand against the revolution?

[Forward Union]

please dont flame, its not intended to be a flame.

if to make the revolution succede you would have to do stuff like summary executions,

Yes


kill entire family of rich people

No, why would we kill rich children or partners of bussiness owners? We're only killing as a means of self defence. Sadly most of the people who die in a revolution are workers fighting on behalf of the bosses.


would you do it or stand against the revolution

In general I think I could do both these things. Because the the premise of the question states that the revolution would fail otherwise. And while I might need to be cruel to one or two individuals, it'd but an end to all cruelty and suffering (I'd hope) So I think I would but that's not an honest answer as I don't really know.

I've not been in a situation like it.

[Trystan]

please dont flame, its not intended to be a flame.

if to make the revolution succede you would have to do stuff like summary executions, kill entire family of rich people, you know verry discutable stuff on an ethical point of view, would you do it or stand against the revolution?

If the movement is strong enough and enjoys enough support, I don't think things like summary executions would be that necessary.

[danyboy27]

If the movement is strong enough and enjoys enough support, I don't think things like summary executions would be that necessary.


but its happened in all regimes takeover even if a majority was agree.

take cuba for exemple.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

please dont flame, its not intended to be a flame.

if to make the revolution succede you would have to do stuff like summary executions,

For cops, military officers, rapists and murderers, sure. As for capitalists and counterrevolutionaries, it depends on what they are guilty of.


kill entire family of rich people,Why on Earth would I want to do that? Bill Gates' daughter isn't guilty of anything.


you know verry discutable stuff on an ethical point of view, would you do it or stand against the revolution?What's the context? Even during a revolution, things aren't completely black and white.

[danyboy27]

For cops, military officers, rapists and murderers, sure. As for capitalists and counterrevolutionaries, it depends on what they are guilty of.


you are willing to destroy the experiences of those military/cop for the sake of revolution?
iran did this and it didnt really payed off during the iran/iraq war.




Why on Earth would I want to do that? Bill Gates' daughter isn't guilty of anything.

well some people i talked to where considering that has a way to cleanse the capitalist legacy, so by killing their families it would be impossible to have former rich children on the back of revolution.




What's the context? Even during a revolution, things aren't completely black and white.
i agree, but the revolutions that happened in the 19th and 20th century proved that the movement just get rid of people and dont really care if they are right or wrong.

the cultural revolution, cuban revolution, the russian revolution, they all get rid of people without asking questions, when someone was associated with the former regime or even when someone knew someone they where more likely to be killed.

would you be willing to potentially die to oppose to a strong revolutionary movement that would kill your neigbor for exemple for being rich landlords?
would you accept that?

[RGacky3]

Let me put it too you this way, if there was a revolution, where families were being summerarily executed and the such, chances are it would'nt be the type of revolution I'd support.

But will a genuine revolution need some violence? Probably, especially in the beggining, mostly from self defence.


For cops, military officers, rapists and murderers, sure. As for capitalists and counterrevolutionaries, it depends on what they are guilty of.


Why would you need to kill cops, or military officers? if they just put down there arms and did'nt fight I don't see why you'd want to kill them.

Capitalists, why kill them aswell? Generally they are guilty of nothing more than going along with Capitalism and succeding, if they give up and don't fight violently why kill them as well?

Also what do you mean by counterrevolutionary? What does that mean?


but its happened in all regimes takeover even if a majority was agree.

take cuba for exemple.

Don't use leninist exmaples, use more anarchist or liberarian socialist examples, those are better models.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you are willing to destroy the experiences of those military/cop for the sake of revolution?
iran did this and it didnt really payed off during the iran/iraq war.

Cops and military officers are the most likely types to engage in violent counterrevolution. It's only sensible to nip them in the bud.


well some people i talked to where considering that has a way to cleanse the capitalist legacy, so by killing their families it would be impossible to have former rich children on the back of revolution.Good grief, why? Capitalism isn't something genetic.


i agree, but the revolutions that happened in the 19th and 20th century proved that the movement just get rid of people and dont really care if they are right or wrong.Well, we should try to avoid that, shouldn't we?

But by the same token, we should not make the mistake of tolerating those who would defend the old order unto death. They can either leave, or be shot. Seems fair enough to me.


the cultural revolution, cuban revolution, the russian revolution, they all get rid of people without asking questions, when someone was associated with the former regime or even when someone knew someone they where more likely to be killed.True, but unlike bourgeouis ideologues I don't attribute that entirely to malice. Doubtless mistakes were made as well as there being the occasional "settling of scores" and sadists acting out their fantasies, and we should work to reduce all those things. But we should not compromise ourselves at the same time.

All must be accountable, and those who use the tumult and confusion of a revolutionary situation for their own selfish ends should also meet justice.


would you be willing to potentially die to oppose to a strong revolutionary movement that would kill your neigbor for exemple for being rich landlords?
would you accept that?Perhaps you should rephrase your question, as I don't understand it as written.


Why would you need to kill cops, or military officers? if they just put down there arms and did'nt fight I don't see why you'd want to kill them.

I was talking about the ones that don't lay down their arms, obviously.


Capitalists, why kill them aswell? Generally they are guilty of nothing more than going along with Capitalism and succeding, if they give up and don't fight violently why kill them as well?Complicity in the suffering and deaths of workers, lumpen and the disposessed all but screams out for justice.


Also what do you mean by counterrevolutionary? What does that mean?Well, what do you think it means?

[mikelepore]

if to make the revolution succede you would have to do stuff like summary executions, kill entire family of rich people, you know verry discutable stuff on an ethical point of view, would you do it or stand against the revolution?

Violence is only necessary for a minority to force itself on the majority. If a revolution has majority support, the need for violence is removed. Furthermore, if a revolution has majority support, that's the only way the result can be a democratic society. Therefore, the goal itself dictates the strategy. We have to wait for the people. If it takes five hundred years, we have to wait for the people.

[Dean]

please dont flame, its not intended to be a flame.

if to make the revolution succede you would have to do stuff like summary executions, kill entire family of rich people, you know verry discutable stuff on an ethical point of view, would you do it or stand against the revolution?

Whatever is done in the name of the revolution is what characterizes it. If a revolution does not have a humanitarian response to those defenseless sympathizers of counterrevolutionaries, it is not my revolution.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This is a good question, and one I was going to bring up.

Germany chose to have the Third Reich. And Germans paid for it.

Americans chose to have a government which goes around the world and dominates a lot of it through brute force, or threat thereof. Do we deserve the same fate? I personally can't see why not; Americans' excuse is just as lame as a Germans, "Well, we didn't realize that was happening..."

[Rascolnikova]

please dont flame, its not intended to be a flame.

if to make the revolution succede you would have to do stuff like summary executions, kill entire family of rich people, you know verry discutable stuff on an ethical point of view, would you do it or stand against the revolution?

To me this is a question of utilitarianism. If I felt the highest value came from murdering innocents, I would be ethically compelled to do it. It is thus convenient for me that I have difficulty seeing the value in violence--and since death is pretty permanent, I'd need to be very convinced of value before killing. I also have an extremely strong personal distaste for violence based on life experience.

So--would I join, or stand against? Depends on the highest value.


I don't know if you're familiar with Ursula Leguin, but this question is not dissimilar to one she (somewhat disingenuously, I think) presents in a story called "the ones who walk away from omelas." The dilemma is: A single innocent suffers horribly their entire life, and in exchange the rest of the kingdom prospers and is without suffering. When this state of affairs is revealed to you, as a young subject of the kingdom, what do you do about it?

Of course, in real life there are two significant factors to be considered that she at least pretends to ignore. First, in real life it is virtually never that the suffering of the few benefits the many; it is almost always that the suffering of the many benefits the few. Secondly, depending on your value set--certainly in mine this is the case--there is damage done to a harm-doer, in the fact of them doing harm to someone else.

just some things to consider.

[Hiero]

For cops, military officers, rapists and murderers, sure. As for capitalists and counterrevolutionaries, it depends on what they are guilty of.

Why?

We are not some immoral cleansing unit. That is what spetnaz21 is weary about, that a revolution is just about trying to cleanse society of groups of people by violence.

A revolution is one class using violence to remove another class from power and maintain the new class power through violence only where neccassary. Rapists and murders are still going to be judge and sentanced, only in extreme cases will they be murdered, and in countries like Australia I don't see why we would reverse history and bring back the death penatly

Seconly we are not law movement. We are not going around finding out who commited crime in retrospect. As I said a revolution is about maintaining a class dictatorship. What you are saying is that we are going to take to trial the "worst" capitalist and find them guilty of some crime. When really we are going to take their property from them and that is punishment enough.

We wont take the bourgeioisie idealist notion of punitive law into the socialist revolution. We wont be punishing capitalist by death to deter future capitalist. We will use law and judgement to further strengthen the class dictatorship. We don't really need to punish or find capitalist guilty of any crimes. The only people who would be judge, and is usually what has happen in past revolutions are thoose who actively fought and commited atrocities against working and peasant people. Or in the case of need, when revolutionaries have needed to execute dangerous counter-revolutionaries.

So for me it doesn't come down to ethics or morals. It comes down to neccesitiy and pragmatism of maintianing class dictatorship. A new set of ethics and morals will follow that will maintain social cohesion only after social revolution is sustained.

[danyboy27]

Why?

We are not some immoral cleansing unit. That is what spetnaz21 is weary about, that a revolution is just about trying to cleanse society of groups of people by violence.

yes sortof. But so far, i am happy with how the community react, and i think that a lot of new IOer that join the forum will not think that you are a bumnch of sociopath nutjob by looking at the answer so far.

to dean:
well, confronting an armed group is not exactly an execution, so if there would be a battle between an armed group and a fews policeman, but that the majority joined the revolution, its not an execution.

to me, an execution is taking someone far away and shot him in the brain while he defenseless.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why?

We are not some immoral cleansing unit. That is what spetnaz21 is weary about, that a revolution is just about trying to cleanse society of groups of people by violence.

Really? I thought he was asking our opinion, and I gave mine.


A revolution is one class using violence to remove another class from power and maintain the new class power through violence only where neccassary. Rapists and murders are still going to be judge and sentanced, only in extreme cases will they be murdered, and in countries like Australia I don't see why we would reverse history and bring back the death penatly

I would think that in a revolutionary situation we have more important things to do with our time and energy than intern, judge and sentence those who have a complete disregard for their fellow human beings.


Seconly we are not law movement. We are not going around finding out who commited crime in retrospect. As I said a revolution is about maintaining a class dictatorship. What you are saying is that we are going to take to trial the "worst" capitalist and find them guilty of some crime. When really we are going to take their property from them and that is punishment enough.

It's not about finding the "worst" capitalist - it's about punishing those capitalists too stupid to run away who are guilty of deliberate acts of murder and torture against the lower classes.

All capitalists will lose their property as part of the redress, but politicians like Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk, as well as the military officers and businessmen who supported them, should be placed before a war crimes tribunal and punished if found guilty.


We wont take the bourgeioisie idealist notion of punitive law into the socialist revolution. We wont be punishing capitalist by death to deter future capitalist. We will use law and judgement to further strengthen the class dictatorship. We don't really need to punish or find capitalist guilty of any crimes. The only people who would be judge, and is usually what has happen in past revolutions are thoose who actively fought and commited atrocities against working and peasant people. Or in the case of need, when revolutionaries have needed to execute dangerous counter-revolutionaries.

Your mention of "bourgeouis idealist notions" is ideological guff of no substance, and execution is not about deterrance as you blithely assume. Similarly, your statement about using "law and judgement to further strengthen the class dictatorship" is empty rhetoric, devoid of content.

If the formerly exploited classes want the members of the old order put on trial, then it will happen, with the masses as their judges, jury and executioners.


So for me it doesn't come down to ethics or morals. It comes down to neccesitiy and pragmatism of maintianing class dictatorship. A new set of ethics and morals will follow that will maintain social cohesion only after social revolution is sustained.

Comintern-speak will have nothing to do with it. The behaviour of the bourgeouisie prior and during the revolution will have everything to do with it, however.


to me, an execution is taking someone far away and shot him in the brain while he defenseless.

Have a soft spot for murderous oppressors, do you?

[danyboy27]

Have a soft spot for murderous oppressors, do you?

there is a difference between a buisnessman that made money on the back of some peoples and a guy asking his milita to cut people off with machetes, witnessing the scene and going in the bed after that. The buisnessman dont always consider the terrible things he will do to other, but a guy that ask to his buddies to rape a whole town and execute everybody sure know what he doing.

there is a whole degree of brutality to consider, and you cant compate hitler to bill gates or even omar al bashir to the chief of police of new york, you just cant.

in the darfur case, this is an emergency situation, and something has to be done FAST before thousand of other get killed, there where pnelty of talk with the sudanese governement, it failed, and now someone need to go in to stop that fucking madness!
And seriously, if the international tribunal get al bashir, i dont want him to get executed, i want him to rot in hell for what he done.

[Algernon]

Many of you take the position of "violence but only in self-defence". Is it really self-defence though, if you are the ones instigating the revolution?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

there is a difference between a buisnessman that made money on the back of some peoples and a guy asking his milita to cut people off with machetes, witnessing the scene and going in the bed after that. The buisnessman dont always consider the terrible things he will do to other, but a guy that ask to his buddies to rape a whole town and execute everybody sure know what he doing.

I'm not proposing that businessmen who made their workers do unpaid overtime should be summarily executed - while that is indeed exploitation, that's hardly on the same level as murder or torture.

No, the sort of people who should be lined up against the wall are more akin to the machete-wielding militia leader that you described. In other words, individuals who knowingly ordered the deaths and torture of people.


there is a whole degree of brutality to consider, and you cant compate hitler to bill gates or even omar al bashir to the chief of police of new york, you just cant.Did Bill Gates ever have workers tortured and murdered? I doubt it. So his neck would be safe. As for the chief of police, that would depend on the behaviour of the incumbent at the time of revolution.


in the darfur case, this is an emergency situation, and something has to be done FAST before thousand of other get killed, there where pnelty of talk with the sudanese governement, it failed, and now someone need to go in to stop that fucking madness!
And seriously, if the international tribunal get al bashir, i dont want him to get executed, i want him to rot in hell for what he done.What has Darfur got to do with it? I thought we were discussing a hypothetical revolutionary situation?

[danyboy27]

I'm not proposing that businessmen who made their workers do unpaid overtime should be summarily executed - while that is indeed exploitation, that's hardly on the same level as murder or torture.

No, the sort of people who should be lined up against the wall are more akin to the machete-wielding militia leader that you described. In other words, individuals who knowingly ordered the deaths and torture of people.

Did Bill Gates ever have workers tortured and murdered? I doubt it. So his neck would be safe. As for the chief of police, that would depend on the behaviour of the incumbent at the time of revolution.

What has Darfur got to do with it? I thought we were discussing a hypothetical revolutionary situation?


it was all about when you said i had a soft spot for murder and dictator, implicating that i had hole in my moral structure.

i took it has an offensive comment, maybe i was wrong.

[RGacky3]

Cops and military officers are the most likely types to engage in violent counterrevolution. It's only sensible to nip them in the bud.


First of all I don't see how cops woul be any more likely to engage in violent counterrevolution than anyone else (military officers maybe).

Second and more importly, what type of revolution are you talking about where you kill people for something they might do. That type of revolution I"d want nothing part of, and be glad to see stopped.


Doubtless mistakes were made as well as there being the occasional "settling of scores" and sadists acting out their fantasies, and we should work to reduce all those things. But we should not compromise ourselves at the same time.


THOSE WERE NOT MISTAKES, lining people up against a wall and shooting them, then systematically arresting people for vague suspissions and sending to to slave labor camps are not mistakes, it lasted decades.


Complicity in the suffering and deaths of workers, lumpen and the disposessed all but screams out for justice.

Most Capitalists are not killing workers, most Capitalists are doing what they have to do, most Capitalists don't even realize what they are doing is wrong, because the system they are in makes them do it.

And like I said, most workers now, if they had a chance to be Capitalists would jump on it. So judging them morally is rediculous.


Well, what do you think it means?

Someone who is actively and violently trying to take back power. That being said, in history make leninists had a much much broader definition of that word, and a much more dangerous one.


We are not some immoral cleansing unit. That is what spetnaz21 is weary about, that a revolution is just about trying to cleanse society of groups of people by violence.


I second that, this is'nt about destroying people its about destroying a system and power structures.

[danyboy27]

i prefers to say reconstruction of the structure, destrution sound bad:laugh::laugh:

[RGacky3]

i prefers to say reconstruction of the structure

No, thats waht leninists do, they just reconstruct the old social power structures, into new power structures. We don't want that.

[Ken]

i will kill them if nobody wants to.

[Plagueround]

Many of you take the position of "violence but only in self-defence". Is it really self-defence though, if you are the ones instigating the revolution?

Let me ask you, to use a contemporary and accepted example...Should the civil rights movement protesters be seen as the aggressors in the situation, or the police and military that turned firehoses on them, sicked dogs on them, and beat them with clubs? Would a violent response from these people change who was the aggressor, despite the fact they were not the ones who first resorted to violence?

The ruling class will be the ones that determine the nature of the revolution.


i will kill them if nobody wants to.

I never gave much thought to the idea of some lumpenproles acting as counterrevolutionaries until you came along.

[Bud Struggle]

The ruling class will be the ones that determine the nature of the revolution.

The ruling class will NEVER lift a finger to hurt anyone. Work, if you want or leave. Don't leave? We'll move the plant to Madagascar. It's the worker's option. they make the decision. But NO VIOLENCE will ever come from the Borgeiose.

No more Haymarket riots. Love and peace is in the Borgeiose's best interest. :)

[RGacky3]

But NO VIOLENCE will ever come from the Borgeiose.

Well historically thats not the case, nor is it now.


Don't leave? We'll move the plant to Madagascar.

The point is its not YOUR plant, its the workers plant.

[pusher robot]

Let me ask you, to use a contemporary and accepted example...Should the civil rights movement protesters be seen as the aggressors in the situation, or the police and military that turned firehoses on them, sicked dogs on them, and beat them with clubs? Would a violent response from these people change who was the aggressor, despite the fact they were not the ones who first resorted to violence?

Civil rights activists used tactics of nonviolence and nonagression - but noncompliance - precisely for that reason. When police turned fire hoses on people who had every right to be where they were, that made the police into the aggressors, and the illegitimacy of that use of force was apparent to everybody.

[Rascolnikova]

Many of you take the position of "violence but only in self-defence". Is it really self-defence though, if you are the ones instigating the revolution?

yes.

Taking someone's life is not a lot better than killing them.

[Plagueround]

Civil rights activists used tactics of nonviolence and nonagression - but noncompliance - precisely for that reason. When police turned fire hoses on people who had every right to be where they were, that made the police into the aggressors, and the illegitimacy of that use of force was apparent to everybody.

I'm not asking anyone to debate the value of non-violent vs. violent protest...that's not really the purpose of this thread. I'm asking who the aggressors truly were in the situation, regardless of response. In both situations, the aggressors were and always have been the police, the military, and the ruling class.


The ruling class will NEVER lift a finger to hurt anyone. Work, if you want or leave. Don't leave? We'll move the plant to Madagascar. It's the worker's option. they make the decision. But NO VIOLENCE will ever come from the Borgeiose.

No more Haymarket riots. Love and peace is in the Borgeiose's best interest. :)

Unfortunately for you, I don't think the majority of the ruling class thinks this way. They certainly haven't demonstrated this in the past and I don't think they will in the future.

[Rascolnikova]

The ruling class will NEVER lift a finger to hurt anyone. Work, if you want or leave. Don't leave? We'll move the plant to Madagascar. It's the worker's option. they make the decision. But NO VIOLENCE will ever come from the Borgeiose.

No more Haymarket riots. Love and peace is in the Borgeiose's best interest. :)

That's entirely situational; love and peace--and self determination--in Iraq, for instance, isn't in the US bourgeois's interests unless Iraq runs their economy the the benefit of the US. . . that's why Iraq doesn't have love and peace.

Your statement is also based on the extremely false pre-supposition that people aren't ever harmed by contracts they enter into "freely." (http://difficultjane.blogspot.com/2008/10/freely-choen.html)

[Algernon]

I'm not asking anyone to debate the value of non-violent vs. violent protest...that's not really the purpose of this thread. I'm asking who the aggressors truly were in the situation, regardless of response. In both situations, the aggressors were and always have been the police, the military, and the ruling class.


But the question of non-violent vs. violent is important, since I think you're confusing protest with revolution. The civil rights movement was the former. They were hardly taking up arms seeking to overthrow the state. Their actions were peaceful and here I agree with you 100% that state repression of legal, peaceful protest is unjustified.

But what I'm taking about is revolution. An armed proletariat attacking the ruling class. In that case it seems to me that it is the bourgeoisie who are acting in self-defence, not the workers.

[Algernon]

yes.

Taking someone's life is not a lot better than killing them.

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand this reply.

[Rascolnikova]

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand this reply.

Taking someone's life here meaning slavery, wage slavery, and other severe forms of oppression.

[Plagueround]

But the question of non-violent vs. violent is important, since I think you're confusing protest with revolution.

I understand the difference between the two, but I also understand the similarity. In my view, if the majority of the people are advocating this change and the ruling class wished to stifle it (recall that most of us recognize revolution will only occur with popular support from the people), the revolution is, to a point, civil disobedience.

The difference between the two is the possibility it will likely escalate beyond that, and it is up to the ruling class to determine if they will join the people in their movement or attempt to suppress it...and for that, the people must be ready. I have no doubt that if such a situation is ever to occur in this day and age it will likely be a last resort...it's not as if we have a huge underground network of people we're secretly arming...if we did we obviously wouldn't be advertising it and dedicating a public forum to that purpose. Revolution is an ideal, the revolution will be on whatever terms the ruling class decides.


The civil rights movement was the former. They were hardly taking up arms seeking to overthrow the state.Well, a few of them were. But yes, the majority were not.


Their actions were peaceful and here I agree with you 100% that state repression of legal, peaceful protest is unjustified.Indeed. Just ask a few members of this board about the RNC this year. :(


But what I'm taking about is revolution. An armed proletariat attacking the ruling class. In that case it seems to me that it is the bourgeoisie who are acting in self-defence, not the workers.I think you're getting this idea that we're advocating a situation where we run around shooting unarmed factory owners to prove our point. While I can't speak for the rest of the people here, I do not think that is the case...nor do I think the "ruling class" will even do their own fighting. Again, I think this is a "Chaos in the streets with AK-47s blazing" characterization that some of our own members may have wrongly validated.

[Algernon]

I understand the difference between the two, but I also understand the similarity. In my view, if the majority of the people are advocating this change and the ruling class wished to stifle it (recall that most of us recognize revolution will only occur with popular support from the people), the revolution is, to a point, civil disobedience.

The difference between the two is the possibility it will likely escalate beyond that, and it is up to the ruling class to determine if they will join the people in their movement or attempt to suppress it...and for that, the people must be ready. I have no doubt that if such a situation is ever to occur in this day and age it will likely be a last resort...it's not as if we have a huge underground network of people we're secretly arming...if we did we obviously wouldn't be advertising it and dedicating a public forum to that purpose. Revolution is an ideal, the revolution will be on whatever terms the ruling class decides.

Well, a few of them were. But yes, the majority were not.

Indeed. Just ask a few members of this board about the RNC this year. :(

I think you're getting this idea that we're advocating a situation where we run around shooting unarmed factory owners to prove our point. While I can't speak for the rest of the people here, I do not think that is the case...nor do I think the "ruling class" will even do their own fighting. Again, I think this is a "Chaos in the streets with AK-47s blazing" characterization that some of our own members may have wrongly validated.

I guess it really comes down to how you envision a revolution starting and unfolding. Maybe I'm stuck in 1917 but when I think "communist revolution" i think of of street fighting between rebels and the state. I would suspect that's how most people see it too and as far as I know, how communist revolutions have manifested themselves around the world.

And even if the revolution is of some peaceful, civil rights-style nature, its aim is still the abolishment of the state. So then isn't the state/ruling class/whoever still acting in self-defence? It's got gaggles of angry communists declaring that it be destroyed. How it responds to that demand is the big question. Much would depend on the conduct of the "revolutionaries" and their resort to violence. You claim, from what I can tell, that their response is guaranteed to be violent always. I'm not sold on that. It does happen but I'm not sure it's the rule instead of the exception.

[Hiero]

I would think that in a revolutionary situation we have more important things to do with our time and energy than intern, judge and sentence those who have a complete disregard for their fellow human beings.

I think it can get pretty hectic. But even in hectic revolutions courts still run and criminals are still tried. We are talking about organising the working class as the ruling class, which means creating courts and other institutions that work in favour of that class.


It's not about finding the "worst" capitalist - it's about punishing those capitalists too stupid to run away who are guilty of deliberate acts of murder and torture against the lower classes.

What capitalists are guilty of such things? Only indirectly are they reponsible, and if we punish them for acts they are indirectly responsible for it can becomes so widespread that we would be punishing hundreds of thousands of "little eichmann"


Your mention of "bourgeouis idealist notions" is ideological guff of no substance, and execution is not about deterrance as you blithely assume. Similarly, your statement about using "law and judgement to further strengthen the class dictatorship" is empty rhetoric, devoid of content.

There are various reasons given for execution, it is apparently cheaper, we remove dangerous people from society and it works as a deterrent. Alot of criminal law works as a deterrent. If you read classical liberal philosophy on the law alot of it envolves ideas about how to deter people from infringining on the rights of others.

But basically what I said is not devoid of content, it is Marxism. The law exist to strengthen and maintain class dictatorship. The law isn't something else exterior to class society.The classical notion is that law represents and reflects human nature or natural law. This isn't true. It represents and reflects class hegonomy, it is part of supestructure which aids the economic structure.

A revolution isn't about punishment and making things fair. It is about one class overthrowing another class and strengthen its position as the new ruling class. All other things are secondary and only complement the first objective.

[Plagueround]

I guess it really comes down to how you envision a revolution starting and unfolding. Maybe I'm stuck in 1917 but when I think "communist revolution" i think of of street fighting between rebels and the state. I would suspect that's how most people see it too and as far as I know, how communist revolutions have manifested themselves around the world.

While I don't feel the need to go into detail about every revolution that has ever occured, communist or not, in the case of the October Revolution you would be quite wrong. There was very, very little bloodshed during the actual takeover (Whether or not subsequent executions were justified or not is another topic entirely, but I think I've demonstrated I don't necessarily agree with that idea and am moreso just demonstrating my knowledge of the history). The civil war that followed is where the death toll is from (The amount of countries that invaded in support of the White Army is quite staggering).
In the case of the February revolution, which is a bit more characteristic of what you're referring to...that was a bit more messy, but that started with peaceful protests and strikes being responded to by violence on the Tsar's orders (With rebellions within the military for not wanting to fire on their own people). Again, the ruling class responding to the people's demands with violence and not the other way around.

I'm not denying that it has the potential to and will likely be violent and bloody, but I disagree with placing the blame on the oppressed majority.


And even if the revolution is of some peaceful, civil rights-style nature, its aim is still the abolishment of the state. So then isn't the state/ruling class/whoever still acting in self-defence? It's got gaggles of angry communists declaring that it be destroyed.The state, in that it is not a person and is an instrument, cannot act in self defense. If the ruling class have misused that instrument against the people, then they do not deserve to wield it. If the ruling class gives up this instrument willingly there would be no need for violence or aggression. They have no claim for self-defense when they are the ones that have been aggressors all along.


How it responds to that demand is the big question. Much would depend on the conduct of the "revolutionaries" and their resort to violence. You claim, from what I can tell, that their response is guaranteed to be violent always. I'm not sold on that. It does happen but I'm not sure it's the rule instead of the exception.To guarantee the response of the ruling class in the future would be foolish. However, with nearly ever example history has given us, I sincerely doubt it. Even the American revolution (which is for some reason given a pass when the OI collectively joins together to snicker at and dismiss the idea of armed revolution) demonstrated this. As I said, they have the power, they will decide the manner in which the people take it away from them.

[Rascolnikova]

I guess it really comes down to how you envision a revolution starting and unfolding. Maybe I'm stuck in 1917 but when I think "communist revolution" i think of of street fighting between rebels and the state. I would suspect that's how most people see it too and as far as I know, how communist revolutions have manifested themselves around the world.

With all respect, perhaps you are stuck in 1917.

I am not particularly educated about communism or warfare, but it seems clear to me that tactically this would be a poor approach. . . and I'm sure that, should it come to the question of eminent revolution, a lot of other revolutionaries would think so too. Targeted assassinations, in particular, seem much more practical if one were going in for that sort of thing.



And even if the revolution is of some peaceful, civil rights-style nature, its aim is still the abolishment of the state. So then isn't the state/ruling class/whoever still acting in self-defence? It's got gaggles of angry communists declaring that it be destroyed. How it responds to that demand is the big question. Much would depend on the conduct of the "revolutionaries" and their resort to violence. You claim, from what I can tell, that their response is guaranteed to be violent always. I'm not sold on that. It does happen but I'm not sure it's the rule instead of the exception.


It bears mentioning that

1) "civil rights style" resistance was not actually peaceful; the fact that the protesters chose not to fight back does not negate the fact that there was violence going on. Certainly "civil rights style" resistance couldn't have been effective if they had stayed within the confines of the law.

2) it's my understanding--and again, I'm not particularly well versed in this--that the aim of revolution would not necessarily be to abolish the state, but rather to put in place some form of government--or non-government--that would actually represent the interests of the people.

Whether this always has to entail violence, I have no idea. . . just wishing to clarify on that point.

With regards to the question of whether the state would be acting in self defense--in all depends on how you weight things. If someone tries to rape me, and in the process hurts me as they are attempting to avoid my stabbing them with a knife, who is acting in self defense?

[Demogorgon]

There is no guarantee as to how any particular revolution might play out. Sometimes they become violent and sometimes they don't. Certainly I would not support unreasonable force though.

I wonder though, of those so enthusiastic about using whatever means they please, if the revolution did turn very violent and medical resources were straining under the need to treat people, would you be willing to suspend the right to abortion in order to divert medical resurces to those dying from injuries?

[Robert]

Cops and military officers are the most likely types to engage in violent counterrevolution.


Don't bet your last copy of the Lil' Red Book on it. An estimated 34 percent of the citizens in the United States own firearms, and there are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1743414020070417

You are free to believe that the NRA and the gunowners of America will join the revolution. Which would be fortunate. Many of them shoot -- and shoot back -- with astonishing accuracy.

[Rascolnikova]

Don't bet your last copy of the Lil' Red Book on it. An estimated 34 percent of the citizens in the United States own firearms, and there are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1743414020070417

You are free to believe that the NRA and the gunowners of America will join the revolution. Which would be fortunate. Many of them shoot -- and shoot back -- with astonishing accuracy.

you know, the only good answer to this is

"yes. . . yes we do."

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Two main points.

First, I think Adorno's response to Heidegger is instructive in this case. Heidegger claimed that the forced collectivization in the Soviet Union was the same as the German Holocaust. Adorno replied that it wasn't because of the "thin line that separates barbarism from civilization." When you "smash, exterminate, and reduce all Jewry" it's not ambiguous what you must do. You must kill all the people of a certain race. When you "smash, exterminate, and reduce all capitalists as a class" it's very ambiguous. Certainly, you could simply line them all up in front of a wall and shoot them. Yet, to remove someone from a class, you can simply remove the conditions of that class. Just as you can "smash, exterminate, and reduce all aristocracy" by removing feudal rights, you can remove all capitalists by removing their right to exploit. That being said, I think there will be a need for reeducation (take what Stalinist implications you want from this), removal of certain rights, and a lot of walls.

Secondly, I seem to be completely in the minority here, but why would we want the military and cops to put down their guns? Aren't they too part of the proletariat and can't they too be revolutionary? Just because our police and military forces in the United States and Western Europe aren't optimal, we should not dismiss them out of hand as a site for revolutionary action and change.

[Rascolnikova]

There is no guarantee as to how any particular revolution might play out. Sometimes they become violent and sometimes they don't. Certainly I would not support unreasonable force though.

I wonder though, of those so enthusiastic about using whatever means they please, if the revolution did turn very violent and medical resources were straining under the need to treat people, would you be willing to suspend the right to abortion in order to divert medical resurces to those dying from injuries?

I think I would have the women put it to a vote, and maybe vote again periodically for the duration of the issue.

[graffic]

This thread is funny because theres people here who are actually talking as if the "revolution" is going to happen in the next few weeks.

Your getting carried away..

Politics today has changed completely since the USSR collapsed. There is no "opposing views" like there was 30 years ago. People don't argue about the re-distribution of wealth like they used to.

Were in an age of globalization.. Free-market state Capitalists are in a golden straight jacket.

Plus communism has failed every time its been tried.. if communism was a horse in a race, judging by recent form it would be priced for success at something like 50/1. Spending so much time on communism nowadays is a waste of time.

[Bud Struggle]

Plus communism has failed every time its been tried.. if communism was a horse in a race, judging by recent form it would be priced for success at something like 50/1. Spending so much time on communism nowadays is a waste of time.

Well, Communism hasn't really failed--it has (in a backhanded way) introduced Social Democracy into the world Economic and Political order. While Communism is dead as a world future--its more reasonable and better adjusted spawn will eventually improve the plight of the world's masses.

And the dialectic may have been useful after all--the unreasonable thesis of Capitalism met the unreasonable antithesis of Communism and the resulted in the eminently reasonable synthesis of Social Democracy.

The Cold War might have been worth it after all.:thumbup1:

[Robert]

Tom, that's an interesting notion. As always, you state your ideas in affirmative, positive language. I admire that. (All you sour pusses can learn some sales techniques from Tom the Great.)

There have been labor initiatives predating and independent of Marx,as you know, and that makes me wonder about your idea.

I guess we'll never know exactly what the employment landscape in social democracies would have looked like absent the bold experiments of the Chinese and Russkies. No doubt they helped us learn what DON'T work, eh?

The fact that they were such violent revolutions and the fact that the citizenry in both ultimately demanded liberties that none of the leftists here would countenance, tells me that no industrial society is going to attempt that particular experiment again. Monarchy is just as likely.

p.s. If you ever want to experiment with monarchy, I'm available. :closedeyes:

[Dean]

Well, Communism hasn't really failed--it has (in a backhanded way) introduced Social Democracy into the world Economic and Political order. While Communism is dead as a world future--its more reasonable and better adjusted spawn will eventually improve the plight of the world's masses.

And the dialectic may have been useful after all--the unreasonable thesis of Capitalism met the unreasonable antithesis of Communism and the resulted in the eminently reasonable synthesis of Social Democracy.

The Cold War might have been worth it after all.:thumbup1:

I disagree. The dichotomy allowed the polarization of society - if we hadn't had a Communist Boogeyman, society would have surely reorganized itself into a rational, collective enterprise.

[Bud Struggle]

I disagree. The dichotomy allowed the polarization of society - if we hadn't had a Communist Boogeyman, society would have surely reorganized itself into a rational, collective enterprise.

OK... But there was an really "nasty" version of Communism going on at the time, first the Soviet Union and then China. So it's not like America was looking at the Paris Commune or the Spanish Revolutionaries.

It was all purges and collectivization in those days. Communism was, is and will be its own worst enemy.

Look at what you Commies doing to poor Rasco even today...:rolleyes:

[Dean]

OK... But there was an really "nasty" version of Communism going on at the time, first the Soviet Union and then China. So it's not like America was looking at the Paris Commune or the Spanish Revolutionaries.

It was all purges and collectivization in those days. Communism was, is and will be its own worst enemy.

Look at what you Commies doing to poor Rasco even today...:rolleyes:

Russia is only surviving because of the rejection of free-market idolatry. Collectivization is not nasty. There's nothing wrong with communism, never has been.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

This thread is funny because theres people here who are actually talking as if the "revolution" is going to happen in the next few weeks.

Your getting carried away..

Politics today has changed completely since the USSR collapsed. There is no "opposing views" like there was 30 years ago. People don't argue about the re-distribution of wealth like they used to.

Were in an age of globalization.. Free-market state Capitalists are in a golden straight jacket.

Plus communism has failed every time its been tried.. if communism was a horse in a race, judging by recent form it would be priced for success at something like 50/1. Spending so much time on communism nowadays is a waste of time.
It's funny. I read a quote by Lenin after the failed 1905 revolution saying that "because of our work, some day our children or our children's children will see the coming of the Revolution." Twelve years later...

The real point is his. No man knows the hour of the Revolutions coming. It comes like a thief in the night, and we should always be ready. It may never come, or it may come tomorrow. Revolutionaries should secure the objective material conditions for revolution. In non-communese, that means be ready for anything any time.

[Comrade B]

I support killing only those who must die.
In Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara, he advises to release all prisoners. This shows that your movement is better than the leaders that the soldiers and cops are supporting. Many of them are only working because they have no other way to support their families.

As for capitalists, we should not kill people for an ideology, that makes us no better than the dictators we fight.

The word Counter revolutionary is a vague one. I consider the protesters at Tienanmen Square as the ideal of what our youth should be. We should appreciate young people who are politically minded and looking for improvement are not fighting the revolution, they are just trying to find better ways of doing things.

For those captured while physically trying to reverse the accomplishments of the revolution, I support a reeducation system.

For the former leadership, pending on who they are, they are responsible for murder. They do deserve punishment.

[RGacky3]

I support killing only those who must die.


That response is like saying "I don't drink, unless I"m drinking."

Other than that I pretty much agree with you, I don't support killing people for their ideology or for being owners before the revolution.


The real point is his. No man knows the hour of the Revolutions coming. It comes like a thief in the night

Who are you, Jesus? :p. I think you just quoted the bible in regards to the revolution.


Russia is only surviving because of the rejection of free-market idolatry.

Idolatry? Another religious refrence! Leninism has always kind of been quasi religious.


So it's not like America was looking at the Paris Commune or the Spanish Revolutionaries.


Yeah America always tries to keep that under wraps, notice how much positive press the anti-Iranian government people get in Iran, but how little (and how demonized when they are mentioned) the anti Mexican government people get (the Mexican government is JUST as corrupt and tyrannical as the Iranian.) America has a great propeganda system, thats why they ignore the good things and focus on the bad when it comes to socialism.


It was all purges and collectivization in those days. Communism was, is and will be its own worst enemy.


Thats because it was a guy on top telling farmers how to organize, when it really should have been farmers organizing themselves. Thats not collectivization, thats top down control.


And the dialectic may have been useful after all--the unreasonable thesis of Capitalism met the unreasonable antithesis of Communism and the resulted in the eminently reasonable synthesis of Social Democracy.

In western Europe yeah (its kind of starting to collapse in some places, because its a VERY hard system to maintain), but the US kind of escaped it.

That being said, Social democracy is a world better than regulare Corporate Capitalism.

[Comrade B]

I support killing only those who must die.
Only those who would directly prevent communism.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Who are you, Jesus? :p. I think you just quoted the bible in regards to the revolution.

Idolatry? Another religious refrence! Leninism has always kind of been quasi religious.


You don't have to think I did. I clearly did. Why shouldn't Jesus retroactively be a Marxist? He says you can only serve one of two masters either god or mammon (wealth). There are too many Christians and it is too powerful of a message to leave to reactionaries and capitalists. History in general and Christianity in particular are sites of revolutionary struggle against reactionaries. We should strip Christianity of its mysticism and use it for the people.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

We should strip Christianity of its mysticism

What the hell would you have left?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

What the hell would you have left?
How about all of the stuff about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and speaking truth to power? It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. Seems pretty damn left to me. No mysticism required.