Killing with Political Motives

[00000000000]

Is it ever truly justified?

Could you kill someone to acheive a political end? (as part of a revolution / insurrection)

What makes one politically motivated killing more 'right' than another? (eg. neo-nazis killing socialist vs a socialist killing a neo-nazi)

What is the difference between killing / inflicting violence for a religious cause and doing the same for a political ideology? (what's the arguement for revolutionary violence being more supportable than say a jihad)

Sorry, a lot of questions, not very articulate, but it's a complicated issue and I wanted to cover as much ground as possible.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I support politically motivated assassinations if they are well directed and actually achieve something. I'm not saying go about killing everybody who disagrees, but in a revolutionary/insurrectionist situation, yes I agree that it can be effective. Cut the head off of the snake, eliminate high profile bourgeoisie elements, and in the same move strike fear into the other bourgeoisie in power.

I say this can only be effective once the people have taken the stance to revolt. Where the media cannot twist these actions as they please anymore, and the majority of the people have decided that open class warfare is to take place.

[Zukunftsmusik]

These are difficult questions that bug me as well. I'm afraid most revolutionaries take questions like these too easily.

Could you kill someone to acheive a political end? (as part of a revolution / insurrection)

I would say yes, given that this 'someone' stands in the way of a 'common' goal and that this 'someone' him/herself/themselves are violent/willing to use violence to protect their stand.

What makes one politically motivated killing more 'right' than another? (eg. neo-nazis killing socialist vs a socialist killing a neo-nazi)

What is the difference between killing / inflicting violence for a religious cause and doing the same for a political ideology? (what's the arguement for revolutionary violence being more supportable than say a jihad)

I'm afraid all I can say here, is that 'we' beleive our cause to be the only 'true' cause. Is that really justifiable? I don't know. I mean, killing for a religious cause and killing for a political ideology is similar to the extent that you kill for a common, future goal, and therefore the killings are justified - you kill for a greater good, right? I really don't have a clear answer here, but I think the discussion is as important as it's difficult.

[Rufio]

Justifying for an idealogy you believe in but not others doing the same is a tricky one. Obviously fascist's idea of how they think the world should be is awful but if you take the ideology out the reasons are the same. A genuine belief for how they want the world. I don't think cold blooded murder is something I could ever justify.

But in a revolutionary situation, violence will most likely be necessary in defence of that. Whether I could actually do it, who knows until you're there? I think I would fight for my beliefs but there are plenty of studies of soldiers in combat and how few of them actually fire their weapons in a combat situation - and they're trained to be desensitised killers.

[citizen of industry]

A good Gramsci quote (roughly), "We create to the extent that we destroy."

If a democratic revolution were possible, I'd heartily endorse it. But history has shown democratic decisions in favor of socialist government are rejected by the ruling class, which then rejects democracy and uses force in return. Under that context, I could easily defend myself with force, and speaking of defense, offense is usually the best defense.

We are speaking of revolution, force of the majority, which is justifiable against the force of a minority of wealthy capitalists seeking to defend their wealth at the expense of the majority's lives.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Political assassinations? No. I don't think they achieve anything and above all, are cowardly acts. You don't knife someone in the back, no matter what they've done to you. Besides, our problem is with the system, not the people. Capitalism, in its existence, is a framework which allows people to be greedy and exploitative; it makes it possible for people to take the actions they do, not the other way round.

Revolution is of course slightly different, insofar as I don't think anybody, aside from pacifists, would not defend themselves if they were brought into mortal danger (which, with imperial armies, police etc., is a strong likelihood should capital's hegemony on power ever be challenged in a serious way).

[ВАЛТЕР]

Political assassinations? No. I don't think they achieve anything and above all, are cowardly acts. You don't knife someone in the back, no matter what they've done to you.

I agree with your post, except for calling it a "cowardly act".

All is fair and love and war.

If we have open class warfare the goal should be to massacre the elites, by any means necessary and as quickly as possible in order to avoid prolonged conflict. Be it face to face tooth and nail, or killing them with a rifle from 800meters out, there is no difference. The side that chooses the "fair" method of fighting will lose over the side that is willing to be underhanded and brutal.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think history has shown us ample times that society's born out of brutality often continue as such.

Though emotionality is understandable, our goal is not actually mass murder, nor revenge. Our goal is to create an egalitarian society where power is distributed fairly so that never again does the working class have to exist and whore itself out to get by. As such, though the revolution will not be a dinner party and though there are some grotesque Capitalists out there, we should always stick to a better code of decency than them.

Violence is never fine unless it is the last resort, and mass murder should never be glorified as you did in your last post.

[tir1944]

I think history has shown us ample times that society's born out of brutality often continue as such.

Lol reminds me of Orwell.
As long as there's Capitalism(and its offshots like fascism etc) there will have to be brutality.

[Rufio]

Lol reminds me of Orwell.
As long as there's Capitalism(and its offshots like fascism etc) there will have to be brutality.

The same Orwell that went to war to fight fascism?

[tir1944]

The same Orwell that went to war to fight fascism?

May i add to that,Sir,"the same Orwell who betrayed Communists some time later,spying on them for the secret police?"
Anyway i was clearly referring to Orwell's literary works...

[Rooster]

What was it that Che said? "Go on, shoot. You're just killing a man?". Individual political assassinations don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Individual people with political differences don't matter and should be treated along class lines. So, in a socialist revolution, capitalism would be made impossible because the bourgeoisie would be expropriated and they won't be able to accumulate capital and as a class would be reduced to nothing, more or less. That is, if the majority of the proletariat is class concious enough. There needs to be a mass movement to over throw capital.

[Rooster]

May i add to that,Sir,"the same Orwell who betrayed Communists some time later,spying on them for the secret police?"

Wasn't it just Stalinists that he ratted out because Stalinists ratted out hundreds of leftists during the Spanish civil war?

[Iron Felix]

Those who dare block progress deserve no mercy.

We can't build a new world without destroying the old.

[#FF0000]

can't blow up social relations.

at the same time, I don't think dogmatic adherence to violence or non-violence is useful.

At the same time, most uses of violence have backfired completely (see: anarchists throughout US history)

[Geiseric]

Any one, five, or hundred people are replaceable in capitalism. Assassinations are pointless, terrorism aleinates the working class. If police start beating people, do what you can to stop it. However questions like this will have to be dealt with when the time comes around. In america at least, revolutionary offensives against lumpen elements like modern non-union scab workers and other reactionary elements is justified, no public executions ffs though, this isn't 18th century france. another question though, what is to be done with ultralefts and college petit bourgeois anarchists/stalinists who make a joke about any leftist political situation?

[Cencus]

Assasinations are a pretty unreliable method for dealing with political opponents unless you are willing to kill a LOT of people. Kill a few, others will just take their place unless they are in possession of some sort of unique knowledge/ability. Kill a lot you run the risk of loosing any morality your position had.

The U.K. government tried it in the six counties where it back fired, increasing support for the republician movement worldwide. Israel uses political assassination as tool and we've all seen how much good it has done them. The USSR used it to some degree of success but they did not fuck about (people round here attribute 700,000 deaths to the purges no idea how many of them were political).

[thriller]

When a revolution comes about, don't think that the upper class won't come after the workers. When they do, it is self-defense. When workers take over the workplace, they will be attacked. Again, it is self-defense if one is forced to kill in order to achieve a better life. Self-defense means not only protecting yourself for survival, but also for making a better life for yourself and your brothers and sisters. Going around shooting random political figures won't get anything done. But when those political figures order attacks on me, or stands in the way of the masses (workers) I see it as self-defense.