[Decky]

Filthy lying colonials.

[Potemkin]

Exactly, Decky! How dare they?! 'Facts', indeed.... the Revolution forges its own facts!

[ComradeTim]

Che is one of the few men who can make me aroused

Do you call out his name when you orgasm? I heard that was en (thank you Cromwell) vogue for female comrades back in '68...

[Cromwell]

The line between counter-revolutionary and dissenting revolutionary is, too often, blurred by whichever faction captures state power when all is said and done. And line between injected foreign propaganda and criticism in good faith is never appreciated.

Alas... "All revolutions devour their own children" - Ernst Rohm

I am, of course, a syndicalist (not an anarchist, mind you, I'll make that distinction).

Do you call out his name when you orgasm? I heard that was in vogue for female comrades back in '68...

The term is en vogue.

[PhiloChan]

Do you call out his name when you orgasm? I heard that was en (thank you Cromwell) vogue for female comrades back in '68...

Well I am asexual, so not very fond of orgasming but I do like the good looking fellas and gals .
*days dreams about Mr. Castro*

[Victor15]

If the person was a non-communist at the time of the revolution then he or she should be executed. These people should be massacred, and the stupid removed too. Therefore, after the revolution is complete there will be a path for only people who enjoy science. I wrote this:

“Communists can not be of degeneracy, uglyness, and blackness. If degeneracy is dirtyness, dressing in bad form, thinking freely, and thinking in primitivity then Anarchism is a failure. In my time of seeing radical protests it has been in the form of graffiti, shouting, throwing rocks, making music, and making protests - like Occupy Wallstreet, which was a complete failure as well. If uglyness is morally unclean behavior, and also a lack of beauty then many “radical” leftists, writers, and artists are inferior. Therefore they deserve death.”

So not only do many so called “leftist” people deserve death. Of course, all people who are at the top, government, government agencies etc., and business people will die. They deserve massacre.

[Lightman]

Good luck exterminating the majority of the population, Victor. I'm sure they won't fight back.

[RedPillAger]

it depends if they are the Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea.

[Dagoth Ur]

The line between counter-revolutionary and dissenting revolutionary is, too often, blurred by whichever faction captures state power when all is said and done. And line between injected foreign propaganda and criticism in good faith is never appreciated.

When a dissenting revolutionary allows themselves to be used for counterrevolutionary aims/propaganda they are no different from the counterrevolutionary themselves.

As to the OP, smoke them out of their holes and then destroy them completely. Maybe make a mountain out of their skulls as a warning to others.

[Dawaldo]

If the person was a non-communist at the time of the revolution then he or she should be executed. These people should be massacred, and the stupid removed too. Therefore, after the revolution is complete there will be a path for only people who enjoy science. I wrote this:

“Communists can not be of degeneracy, uglyness, and blackness. If degeneracy is dirtyness, dressing in bad form, thinking freely, and thinking in primitivity then Anarchism is a failure. In my time of seeing radical protests it has been in the form of graffiti, shouting, throwing rocks, making music, and making protests - like Occupy Wallstreet, which was a complete failure as well. If uglyness is morally unclean behavior, and also a lack of beauty then many “radical” leftists, writers, and artists are inferior. Therefore they deserve death.”

So not only do many so called “leftist” people deserve death. Of course, all people who are at the top, government, government agencies etc., and business people will die. They deserve massacre.

This is silly. Apparently ultra-left students who engage in hooliganism because they lack theory, as well as "the stupid" who simply lack the means for a better education under capitalism, should be killed because... you don't like them.

That's a view of society totally at odds with Marx, Engels and Lenin, as well as just about any other self-described Marxist outside of Pol Pot. Lenin stressed how important it was for the workers to learn from bourgeois culture and methods of administering the state and industry, not blindly following them but also not saying "that's bourgeois therefore we shouldn't touch it." It's why he argued for workers to learn from Taylorism and to apply what was positive about it to Soviet industries.

Even during the Yezhovschina people weren't "officially" being shot for having wrong positions (even if that's what happened in practice), but were accused of being spies of foreign powers, saboteurs or counter-revolutionaries preparing to carry out armed insurrection.

Occupy Wall-Street was a failure if you looked at it as the harbinger of revolution, but in terms of getting more people interested in leftism it wasn't a total wash. It was the same thing in the 90's with anti-globalization/WTO protests: the ultra-left totally overestimated what these protests represented and had no way of concretely linking them with working-class struggles, but on the whole they did more good than harm to the left, I think.

[RedPillAger]

In any given revolution there is always the opposing side of the revolution. Such was the case with the early CPC and the monarchists and so was the case with the colonists and the red coats and such was the case in about every other conflict in history.
The biggest question though is what do you do when the people win? What do you do when the power is given to the people and the former state crumbles. Surely all of the counter revolutionists won't just drop their weapons and assimilate.
How do you assimilate those who found favor in a capitalist world where the richest were gods and the peasants were air. Just as the common man cannot desire that such power be taken away from, so does the wealthy man who dislikes the power of his currency being taken away from him.

you learn to stop trying to "assimilate" other people. that's the cause of your ills in the first place. you're using the term the same way the borg do, which is to subjugate.

[Dawaldo]

you learn to stop trying to "assimilate" other people. that's the cause of your ills in the first place. you're using the term the same way the borg do, which is to subjugate.

Well there's two related questions: how to draw parts of the population that view socialism with suspicion or hostility into the new order, and how to get peasants and small business owners to join collectives and cooperatives. It has nothing to do like behaving as if we were an alien race on Star Trek and everything to do with transforming the psychology and educational standards of people, mainly through economic means but also through ideological struggle as well.

On Taiwan and in South Korea there was a class of landowners who served as impediments to rapid economic development. The U.S., fearing the spread of Communism, carried out land reform which meant the landowners increasingly had to either adopt capitalist methods of work or get out of landowning altogether and find new work among the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie. I don't think you'd decry that sort of assimilation.

[RedPillAger]

i'm a voluntaryist. i'd decry any sort "assimilation" that had to do with people controlling me in any fashion. what right do you have to do that?

[Dawaldo]

i'm a voluntaryist. i'd decry any sort "assimilation" that had to do with people controlling me in any fashion. what right do you have to do that?

Well in this case I could ask what right do you (let's pretend you're a feudal landowner or capitalist) have to exploit the labor of others and, through your wealth, to partake in the controlling of the media, politics, and pretty much every other facet of society alongside others in the feudal or capitalist classes who do these things in order to maintain such exploitation?

Establishing collectives and cooperatives is meant to be a voluntary process. Freedom of religious worship was guaranteed to the citizens of practically all the socialist countries. People were not obliged to join the Communist Party in any such countries. It was possible to not be a Marxist and yet be able to participate in the affairs of one's workplace or in politics.

[RedPillAger]

Well in this case I could ask what right do you (let's pretend you're a feudal landowner or capitalist) have to exploit the labor of others and, through your wealth, to partake in the controlling of the media, politics, and pretty much every other facet of society alongside others in the feudal or capitalist classes who do these things in order to maintain such exploitation?

it depends what you mean by exploit. if it means that both parties in a deal are doing so consensually, there's no problem. if it means someone initiated force, there is a problem. i have no right nor authority to initiate force against another, and expect the same courtesy in return.

Establishing collectives and cooperatives is meant to be a voluntary process. Freedom of religious worship was guaranteed to the citizens of practically all the socialist countries. People were not obliged to join the Communist Party in any such countries. It was possible to not be a Marxist and yet be able to participate in the affairs of one's workplace or in politics.

if it's all voluntary, there is no problem. however, your mention of "socialist countries" implies a non-consensual state. you'd need to clarify if the government of that state has any authority to initiate force against a non-participant. if they do not, there is no problem. if that's the case, i'd love to hear an example. i wasn't aware that one such ever existed.

[Cromwell]

It depends what you mean by exploit. if it means that both parties in a deal are doing so consensually, there's no problem. if it means someone initiated force, there is a problem. i have no right nor authority to initiate force against another, and expect the same courtesy in return.

I think you know what is meant by the term "exploit". You exploit someone when you take advantage of their situation, consent or no consent, the result is the same; if a man's only choice, if he means to survive, is to consent to have the product of his labour stolen from him, then he will consent.

The trouble with you lot is that you lack an appreciation of historical context. If a man's father was deprived of his wealth, then he shall, through no fault of his own, have a worse position from which to bargain. Going back further, if we traced the number of hands each acre of land in England has passed through, we would, always and without fail, find that it was, at some point, acquired by force. We live with the consequences of the actions of men who cannot be prosecuted, either by common law, or some arbitrary right-libertarian philosophical litmus-test.

Are the owners of property, stolen some hundreds of years ago by whatever mad man with a big enough army, exempted from your laws against the initiation of force?

Men are made unequal by the ordinary functioning of the economy, but you believe it's perfectly reasonable to assume that all is well so long as consent is involved.

So, when a drug-addicted and homeless prostitute performs some gross and humiliating sex act in return for a pittance, you take her customer's side in the resulting moral controversy between him and the police.

If it's all voluntary, there is no problem. however, your mention of "socialist countries" implies a non-consensual state. you'd need to clarify if the government of that state has any authority to initiate force against a non-participant. if they do not, there is no problem. if that's the case, I'd love to hear an example. I wasn't aware that one such ever existed.

I think you'll find that it's a seller's market. There's only so much room on this planet and, therefore, only so many state-actors, I think you'll find all of them very-well inclined to "initiate force". Do you consider it, some how, less legitimate for a socialist state to "initiate force" for a capitalist state to the do the same?

[RedPillAger]

Do you consider it, some how, less legitimate for a socialist state to "initiate force" for a capitalist state to the do the same?

i consider the initiation of force to be illegitimate.

[Dawaldo]

i consider the initiation of force to be illegitimate.

States exist to enforce things. Capitalism, like feudalism, is based on a class system. To maintain that system requires a state.

It's very easy to do "I consider the initiation of force to be illegitimate" as some abstract philosophical principle, but in practice what side would you take when a labor union goes up against a capitalist enterprise which has the ear of the state? I am pretty sure in practice you would side with the owner of property and exploiter of labor against those who are on the receiving end.

I've never come across a libertarian who, when confronted with a case of corporate greed causing some sort of abuse while the state looked the other way, will forthrightly denounce the corporation in question. They'll get all self-righteous in claiming that the only reason a "bad" capitalist can do something malicious without "the free market" magically coming in to stop it is because he's given artificial protection from the state, but when that same state adopts a laissez-faire attitude they'll just resort to treating the capitalist as the victim.

[Frollein]

In the pot, in the pot, in the pot!

So you want to shove your enemies into the ovens? Is your Germanic DNA breaking through?

[Cromwell]

I fear that we are veering off-topic...

I consider the initiation of force to be illegitimate.

That isn't what I asked.

Either way, here's another question:

How does your maxim address inequality as the result of the historical process?

If my ancestor forcibly took property from someone, which I now own, is the descendant of the man, from whom it was taken, entitled to take it from me?

What of crowns, who do they belong to? How is the legitimacy of all monarchs in Europe to be determined? They are all descendants of men who, quite forcibly, altered the historical development of their countries and the property inheritance of their subjects.