[ComradeTim]

How much violence will be acceptable before, during and after a Revolutionary? Are such acts as murder and imprisonment without trial morally justifiable for the cause? I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter.

[KlassWar]

How much violence will be acceptable before, during and after a Revolutionary?

As much as it takes to establish and consolidate the total victory of socialism.

Are such acts as murder and imprisonment without trial morally justifiable for the cause?

Our end justifies all means.

I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter.

Done.

[ComradeTim]

Ok, that's one slightly psychotic opinion.

[park]

Ok, that's one slightly psychotic opinion.

Revolution means you do it by force and not by winning the elections.So there must be people who oppose it and if you don't arrest or kill them your revolution will be stopped at the beginning.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Ok, that's one slightly psychotic opinion.

I don't understand: why would you start a thread gauging people's opinions on a(n armed) revolution and then when someone says extraordinary measures will be required to achieve socialist victory, you say their opinions are psychotic? Surely you do realize that a revolution will involve people getting killed, uprooted, displaced, and so on? There will be killing and murder whether it's officially condoned or not, so isn't what you said basically the pot calling the kettle black?

[Dagoth Ur]

KlassWar hit the nail on the head but I'll give my own answers anyways:

How much violence will be acceptable before, during and after a Revolutionary?

The demands of the time and place will determine the answer to this question. It may be as easy as killing a handful of people or it might be a civil war that leaves thousands if not millions dead. Obviously we'd prefer the former option but I don't think many of us would hesitate for our cause. And those that would have no place in the revolution.

Are such acts as murder and imprisonment without trial morally justifiable for the cause?

I'm guessing that you consider summary execution as a form of murder. In peace we'd agree with you, during war there is no time for civil justice. You shoot rapists, you shoot deserters, you shoot looters, you shoot whomever is harming the revolution.

The only morality in revolution is Proletarian Victory at any cost.

I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter.

I'd like to hear yours since I obliged you.

[Eauz]

You shoot rapists, you shoot deserters, you shoot looters, you shoot whomever is harming the revolution.

This should be done regardless of peace or war.

[ThereBeDragons]

If you shot everyone who was holding back the revolution today you would have to shoot more than half the people.

[KlassWar]

We're overpopulated, anyway.

On a more serious note, it's a struggle between socialism and liberation or barbarism and exploitation. Ain't no middle ground and there's no use for half measures. It's a struggle that must be won at any cost at all.

[Eauz]

If you shot everyone who was holding back the revolution today you would have to shoot more than half the people.

Please explain how that would be?

[Bounce]

Please explain how that would be?

Most people aren't doing anything to promote a revolution and you can construe that as "holding it back".

Anyway, I think it does matter. Violence at any cost is a ridiculous assertion and perverts the moral position of the revolution. If it devolves into an armed struggle, so be it, but up until that point violence should be removed unless absolutely necessary.

[Eauz]

Most people aren't doing anything to promote a revolution and you can construe that as "holding it back".

So your arguing based upon semantics? That argument holds no water and doesn't explain the original question I posed to TBD.

[ComradeTim]

Don't know what I was thinking when I started this thread. Move along people nothing to see here...

[ThereBeDragons]

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

[mikema63]

To be honest my personal position is that much more groundwork needs to be done before we get to the violence stage. I would like to make all effort for our preparation towards revolution to minimize the required violence.

Some of the things I would like to see done before the violent revolution bit would no doubt be labeled reformism or worse by other communists but there it is. I've simply never had much of a taste for violence.

[ComradeTim]

Personally, I think given the right conditions in a Western country such as Britain, revolution can be accomplished peacefully. I less refined states revolutionary violence seems more legitimate.

[mikema63]

That simply isn't possible ultimately, the people with the money going in to fund politicians are all the bourgeois (I am hopelessly incapable of spelling that).

Sure you can get some reforms through that are pacification of the working class, but ultimately they aren't going to just give up power. Fascism is their response to what could be a democratic election of communism, the people who run our democracies would rather see democracy die than allow communists to get into power and deprive them of the means of production.

Sure I want a less violent revolution, I want to build parallel institutions and weaken the bourgeois stranglehold on capital and the means of production with co-ops and unions.

In the end though, some amount of violence will be necessary.

[ComradeTim]

A somewhat pessimistic vision of the future. Hopefully you shall be proven wrong Quod si vivere in spe.

[Dagoth Ur]

I don't understand why you believe the bourgeoisie would simply lie down and accept dispossession and disenfranchisement. I don't care how strong we are.

[ComradeTim]

I don't see why, if we had sufficient strength, we couldn't remove the ruling class's privileges without actually liquidating the people.