But stabbing your neighbor isn’t exactly something most people are willing to do.
And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you’re guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.
That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.
Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.
Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.
The person you are replying to is a Marxist, they are revolutionary but anti-adventurist. Violence is a requirement, but its form and direction makes a huge difference.
You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.
Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.
I don’t disagree with you. I think the reason you aren’t understanding what the Marxists are saying is a difference in understanding of revolution, pacifism, and adventurism.
Killing a random CEO? Will not put the working class in power. Cool move, but not going to change anything.
Organizing a revolution? Will change society, as it has done historically many times in favor of Leftists.
Revolution isn’t pacifist, it’s organized violence. Random assassinations aren’t a part of that process.
That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.
But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.
I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?
So far, the UH CEO getting got has helped confirm suspicions that the Proletariat is more radical than previously thought, but no change has come of it. Without taking advantage of the moment to organize, nothing will change from it.
At that point, just organize a revolution like has already been done, nobody has assassinated a revolution into success.
Funny enough, this exact conversation was had a long time ago, Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated organizing the working class and reading theory, while the Socialist Revolutionaries advocated abandoning theory (believing it to cause more conflict among comrades than unity) and advocated assassinations. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks ended up being correct, which is why I think we can learn a lot from our predecessors in analyzing how our own conditions are similar and different in coming up with a strategy that works for us.
Violence is a tool which can, and in the past has, created solutions when used appropriately. It’s how we dissolve the fascist groups in my area.
The problem with extremist right wingers isn’t merely that they’re violent, the issues are:
Their demands and rationale (based on their values as a ‘right winger’)
*Their ill-conceived, anti-social use of violence *(e.g. race war PotD envisioned by neo-Nazi terrorists, a strategy that history has demonstrated simply doesn’t work. They’re not even achieving their goals, just slaughtering innocent citizens)
Look at prominent cases of whoever you declare to be ‘left wing extremists’. They’re typically targeting specific atrocious people or groups like neo-Nazis or heads of state or capitalist industrialists, not just terrorizing citizens.
When peaceful protest is ignored or violently stopped, what other choice is there but to react violently?
Protest is the alternative to revolution. When protest goes ignored just so the powerful can retain their power, violence is the only remaining solution.
And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you’re guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.
This is simply false, at least in the western countries I’m familiar with. Most organizations will get monitoring at worst unless they’re an imminent threat, plotting clearly illegal acts or in an unusually strict region.
Now, one could argue that effective organization will inevitably imply illegal acts or become an imminent threat, and that’s reasonable but that’s very different to claiming “any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids”, an unnecessarily and baselessly dissuasive claim.
But stabbing your neighbor isn’t exactly something most people are willing to do.
And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you’re guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.
We really need to not stab our neighbors, anyway. CEOs, however.
Whacking a CEO doesn’t do shit. They just install a new one and divert more funding to the police state.
That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.
Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.
Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.
The person you are replying to is a Marxist, they are revolutionary but anti-adventurist. Violence is a requirement, but its form and direction makes a huge difference.
You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.
Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.
I don’t disagree with you. I think the reason you aren’t understanding what the Marxists are saying is a difference in understanding of revolution, pacifism, and adventurism.
Killing a random CEO? Will not put the working class in power. Cool move, but not going to change anything.
Organizing a revolution? Will change society, as it has done historically many times in favor of Leftists.
Revolution isn’t pacifist, it’s organized violence. Random assassinations aren’t a part of that process.
That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.
But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.
I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?
So far, the UH CEO getting got has helped confirm suspicions that the Proletariat is more radical than previously thought, but no change has come of it. Without taking advantage of the moment to organize, nothing will change from it.
One. Sure. 100? 500? Maybe not.
At that point, just organize a revolution like has already been done, nobody has assassinated a revolution into success.
Funny enough, this exact conversation was had a long time ago, Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated organizing the working class and reading theory, while the Socialist Revolutionaries advocated abandoning theory (believing it to cause more conflict among comrades than unity) and advocated assassinations. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks ended up being correct, which is why I think we can learn a lot from our predecessors in analyzing how our own conditions are similar and different in coming up with a strategy that works for us.
Butt stabbing sounds like the perfect way to get the message across.
How are you any different from an extremist right winger at that point? You want violence rather than solutions.
Violence is a tool which can, and in the past has, created solutions when used appropriately. It’s how we dissolve the fascist groups in my area.
The problem with extremist right wingers isn’t merely that they’re violent, the issues are:
Look at prominent cases of whoever you declare to be ‘left wing extremists’. They’re typically targeting specific atrocious people or groups like neo-Nazis or heads of state or capitalist industrialists, not just terrorizing citizens.
When peaceful protest is ignored or violently stopped, what other choice is there but to react violently?
Protest is the alternative to revolution. When protest goes ignored just so the powerful can retain their power, violence is the only remaining solution.
History tells us this time and time again.
Wheres your protests? You haven’t even tried to see if it gets put down.
BLM, Occupy Wall Street, the protests during Bush’s invasions in the Middle East, and a myriad of others would like to know your location.
Have you been living under a rock, in a cave, on Mars?
Have you been sleeping this past year or so?
This is simply false, at least in the western countries I’m familiar with. Most organizations will get monitoring at worst unless they’re an imminent threat, plotting clearly illegal acts or in an unusually strict region.
Now, one could argue that effective organization will inevitably imply illegal acts or become an imminent threat, and that’s reasonable but that’s very different to claiming “any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids”, an unnecessarily and baselessly dissuasive claim.
If you want some violence, i’m sure you wouldn’t shy calling yourself commie and rallying under that red flag.
I also would recommend preparing digital violence, less bloodshed but very effective. Although hacking is not for everyone either.