The central divide between Holla Forums seems to be those who want to subvert Porky via violent versus non-violent...

The central divide between Holla Forums seems to be those who want to subvert Porky via violent versus non-violent measures.

I want to hear some arguments for both sides. Obv we don't need to debate that pacifism or unrestrained violence is useless if it doesn't accomplish anything. But I'd like to see what we view as the most effective methods of both sides without spiraling into calling each other hippie dippie liberal reactionaries or bloodthirsty savages. Outside of memery and edginess I think most of us agree that a mixture of these tactics is acceptable if they are effective.


Organized violence.

No you have way worse divisions

Given the current state of leftism, unpopular, fractured, demoralized, "low energy" if you will. It simply isn't possible to get results with violence. Even street violence as practiced by antifa is useless because it provably makes the opposition far more popular. Assassination is something that is only useful when taking out one political leader is meaningful, and since virtually the entire body politic of the US for example is neoliberal, that would be completely wasteful.

So right now, you shouldn't be promoting violence because it's tactically useless.

Probably a good amount of them are subversive pollacks, besides the fact that this is a chan.

A good amount yes, but go look at any thread that mentions lgbt stuff, you cant say all of hateful bigots are Holla Forumsacks

This so much. Our energies should be focused on brining together as many revolutionary socialists under one organization as we possibly can, and building trust with the public. And we do that last bit by using our organizations to help the working class and other dispossessed people in their daily struggles, not with smashie tactics. Even if we were united and had good standing with the working class, the use of violence could backfire on us if the conditions aren't right. I.e., if we aren't in a moment of revolutionary opportunity, if it's not in self defense, if the bourgeois government keeps it's democratic and legalistic guise.

This 100%. Violence can be useful and may be necessary, but smashie violence is always and everywhere empty spectacle.

are there actually reformists here?

I don't think many people here are against violence in principle. There is just a lot of people who think narchos smashing stuff in the streets is a completely pointless waste of time that doesn't accomplish anything except to make the left look retarded.

I believe in the inherent value of human life, that's why I'm a socialist.

A state that inflicts violence on people without them being able to avoid it is a complete abrogation of my values.

The state's violence should be predictable and therefore avoidable. The rule of law is essential for a socialist system.


Read Althusser

No thanks.

There is no divide along those lines.

Holla Forums is politically incorrect. Pacifists are simply on the wrong board.

Divide is about either accepting "Authoritarian Left" (aka Dictatorship of the Proletariat) or being opposed to it.

So that different strands of thought can nullify each other. Great plan, entryist.

Holla Forums is a board of wood chippers.

Stalinism is incorrect indeed


Why are you a socialist?


Because capitalism will destroy society if it goes on for much longer. We'll end up in a dystopia where a tiny elite has exclusive property rights over a fully automated economy whilst everyone else is poor as fuck or possibly starves, or we end up with society collapsing under the strain of flooding and desertification as a consequence of climate change, or fuck knows what else. Only common ownership of the means of production and an economy no longer aimed at profit can prevent these things.

nah, the biggest split is between MLs and anarchists

reformists (socdems, social liberals) get BTFO by both

Your ability to debate is steadily degrading.

Sounds like you believe human life is intrinsically valuable and worth protecting. Maybe you should consider whether your stated aims can be achieved via violent revolution and mass murder.

The elites will achieve communism, not the proletariat

Marx was wrong

I was just memeing

literally no worse than Jay 'Porky' Gould hiring one half of the working class to kill the other half.

quality >> quantity

Who should decide which people are of high enough quality to deserve life

The ons with the power to do so

So you think the Holocaust was okay because the Nazis held power?


If capitalism goes far enough the elites and borg will secure space communism and leave earth the rot. Holla Forums talks about white space empire, escaping the conquered or dying earth.

Would the proletariat have any power in this situation?

They'll work it out between them, I'm sure.

Kill celebrities live cause the spectacle brah


You are too Revisionist even for Trots.

It's called Vanguardism.

t. humanist

If the author has something interesting to say I'm sure you could paraphrase it (unless it's all just Deleuzian psychobabble)

Orthodoxy is Revisionism, Freedom is Slavery, etc

I know, I'm just poking fun at how appeals for revolutionary purity are "splitting" when and only when trots make them

Rejection of Dictatorship of the Proletariat - be it separation of powers, or promoting unity of all classes - is an ABC of Revisionist regimes.

Dictatorship of Proletariat means exactly what it seems to mean: unrestricted political power of Proletariat.

If Bourgeoisie can rely on economic power and allow political power become parliamentarian - have concealed dictatorship - it is not an option for Proletariat. Therefore, it has to be an open Dictatorship. Otherwise power will be lost to political opportunists - as was the case of USSR and other Socialist states.

Because Trots are fucking retarded.

When platform needs to be developed and ideological purity is necessary - Trots argue for unity.
When there is a common enemy and united front is needed for one specific reason - Trots refuse to compromise their purity.

It's like you are trying to sabotage yourself deliberately.

That's part of the point, so that we can pull people out of their circle jerking echochamber parties and praxis and theory.

Into what, exactly, liberal evangelical?

Of course I agree with this. My point is that class dictatorship and personal dictatorship are not synonymous. Bourgeois dictatorships being mostly parliamentarian and so on. So you can realize the former without the latter.

These are just ad hoc justifications built on a subjective, impressionistic sense of pragmatism. Would you defend as necessary the "united front" that killed Rosa?
I've certainly seen it take on more of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" character than anything.

And so, Cyberpunk future comes into full effect.

A revolutionary socialist party. Also, I would think that it's much more likely that one would be able to convince, or at least sway people that share the same general ideology as you. It's not like I'm saying "We'll debate nazis/capitalists in the Great Marketplace of Ideas! That'll get rid of them XDDDDDDD."

It's not so much what I want as it is what is actually feasible in the real world concerning the current state of leftism in the society and the current ideological leanings and desires of the average worker.

Win hearts and minds, the most violent revolution starts with the mind. Talk to people. Confront their ideas. Attack the ideology with propaganda.

Lead by example. Live your life as close to communist facing as you are capable. Explain to others when questioned. Your passion and actions will speak volumes. I've been doing so for years and have influenced others to question and even change.

Please, learn terminology.

Authoritarian Left is defined not by personal dictatorship, but by "state doing things". Which is why Marx was called authoritarian by Bakunin - and neither he, nor Engels attempted to deny it. As another example, Ballod's Planning model was called "authoritarian socialism" by Kautsky (in 1905, IIRC), since it presupposed state control of economy.

These are examples of usual Trot behaviour.

Why are you even using Trot flag?

Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours (1938)

Not piggybacking on popularity of other movements is not "damned if you don't".

Yes, of course the state "does things," that's the principal distinction between anarchism and marxism in general.

You're just reiterating your conclusion, not defending the methods you used to reach it.
You could have two "trot" orgs that respond to the same historical event in opposite ways, and you'd still denounce both for choosing the wrong one, say, criticism and support for Syriza. And when self-professed "trots" start accepting your party line, like the Pabloists, they've still "split."

Yes, yes, the ends justify the means if there is something to justify the ends.
I wonder if the mass purges of Old Bolsheviks and the Holodomor really served this end.

So are you saying they should or shouldn't be doing this?