How violent should the revolution be?

Only in self defense comrade!
Like Theodore Roosevelt said, "speak softly and carry a big stick"
It's possible to collectivize some businesses without killing anyone. Government is only to be attacked if they attack first. The revolution must start as a social revolution, then it can evolve as class consciousness becomes more prevalent amongst the workers.

Revolution is a pipedream for larpers

Is my screen broken or is anyone else's yellow showing up as silver?

That's a nice change of pace from saying cuck- I mean liberal.

Essentially this.

While I believe revolution should be done for self-defense, the way the system functions any attack against it is in self-defense; social revolutions cannot succeed as long as the state exists to crush them.

And here we have this retarded autist again

Pathetic

Yet again, the retarded autist makes another posts that ends in his total humiliation

...

Mad Stan violent.

youtube.com/watch?v=PFpE_iNtWAo

Another one

The subject is simply too autistic to understand past discussion of private property, so he calls anyone who hurts his feefees an ancap

Revolutionary warfare requires strong leadership and this always leads to dictatorship as we can see from history. I have no problem with violence but tyranny is something i dislike.

ideally it should be non-violent, but steps should be taken to confront state violence in the case that it becomes violent

This is why you need to weaken the state through a program of dual power

The Nuremberg defence, isn't.

RIP THEIR FLESH
BURN THEIR HEARTS
STAB THEIR EYES
RAPE THEIR WOMEN AS THEY CRY
KILL THEIR SERVANTS
BURN THEIR HOMES
TIL THERE IS NO BLOOD LEFT TO SPILL
POWER AND DOMINATION ARE TAKEN BY THE WILL
BY DIVINE RIGHT
HAIL AND KILL

HAIL
HAIL
HAIL AND KILL

As violent as it need be.

Recognizing you as an ancap makes you a retarded autist? Retarded autist #971204365 here, reporting for duty!
GTFO, ancap! N O T A N A N A R C H I S T

non edge lord answer
preferably as non violent as is possible. having some sort of moral high ground can be great at legitimizing your cause. just look at Rojava. they arrested some of their own because they tortured isis prisoners for no reason but spite and bloodlust. that shit can be useful as fuck
but bomb the bourgeoisie tho :-)

We have to immediately, greatly reduce the impact of human
consumption on nature and wildlife. Very few people want to live on a
dead, desert planet, with no nature or wildlife. This is the stark reality the
planet faces in as little as a few generations. We must abolish industrial
mass production as soon as possible.

How does it feel to be retarded? Havenyou ever opened a book on anarchism before?

Where are your parents?

You would realize that your ideas about markets without private property are impractical if you would read the Bread Book. You would realize that, even if they did work, they would impose an abstract capitalist upon the people if you would read Das Kapital (not anarchist, yes, but highly relevant, because your proposal for an entirely unrestricted market is a plan for disaster from a pragmatic standpoint).

Of course, you'll continue to antagonistically shitpost and deny facts and arguments ad infinitum, so why even bother? You need to leave.

...

You would know that the bread book is not incompatible with market anarchiwm if you actually understood what you are trying to discuss, as you very much could plan your economy as long as you do not wish to mantain the hierarchy of private property on the false idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat

The "abstract capitalist" as you label the necessity to reinvest labour power and commodities to engage in the next prodiction cycle is a physical, natural necessity, so unless you can create bread out of thin air, this point holds no ground

If you want to label supply and demand las as "abstract capitalist" you are equallynretarded, as planning the economy is nothing bit allocating power according to demand curves

Keep beliving planned economy isnt totally retarded tho

It should be a sliding scale based upon an individual's net worth as well as other factors like being a member of a wealthy family or "dynasty." The more wealthy a person is the more likely they and their families will end up executed.

Labour-power*

DOnt sign your posts lmao

Why are leftists always held to such a high standard? The bourgeoisie didn't give a shit who they killed during their "revolutions."

domt gib up

Only as violent as it needs to be

Whatever works at the time.

Actually the Nuremberg has been inconsistently allowed and disallowed throughout history. Not like reactionary standards of justice should matter; the enemy has always been the system, that the people part of it, eliminate the system and all the greedy and power hungry people who were part of it lose their power and influence.

however violent you're willing to deal with. the more blood, the more thorn bushes you'll grow in your wake

They need to be made an example of to scare off counterrevolutionary forces with their own porky ambitions.

These for the most part, however…

>implying there aren't genuinely sociopathic bastards out there that don't deserve the guillotine

*>implying there aren't genuinely sociopathic bastards out there that deserve the guillotine

fug

The bourgeoisie only exist because of the state protecting them. If the state is gone then they are incapable of restoring their position.

As violent as it needs to be.

Maybe a little more, just to be sure.

do i get to keep bourgeois women as sex slaves?

actually the stanford experiment pretty much proved that the nuremberg defence is valid

The actual socialist revolution will likely not be relatively violent. The violence is mostly the result of tankies wanting to force a revolution for when the material conditions are not ripe yet. I actually believe we are within the revolutionary process right now in some parts of the world (such as Northern Europe), in that capitalism is entering its last stages and people are realizing that social democracy does not solve the problems inherent to the system, but do request the benefits of it. I genuinely think that the next big financial crash might produce the first socialist attempts at organizing society.

Implying you arent one of them.
Implying anyone becomes a leftist for any reason other than bloodlust

I have bloodlust because I'm a leftist

I used to be a hardcore pacifist but then my beliefs moved further left and now I'm in favor of basically killing everybody, including myself

Do yourself first

t. right wing hypocrite

Not even Jesus Christ was a true pacifist user. Don't swallow bourgeois propaganda.

Yeah but we have righteous reasons for all that whereas you have a meme theory of economics

I really wish i could be violent since i like Sorel, but i don't think i actually could hurt another human. what do i do?

So violent that porkies start surrendering for fear of what we'll do if they don't.

How austistic can you get?

forgot to turn off my shitposting flag

Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed ;^)

No you didn't.

Practice on some lumpens and work your way up to someone as important as a bourgeoisie.

...

hey whoa whoa dude i never said im a Marxist, but you guys advocate savage, depraved violence on a scale never before seen. So calling the left bloodthirsty is ridiculous

Nah, we just want you out of our countries. The violence is for when you dont leave voluntarily

You're right! The showtrials /strengthened/ Stalin's opponents.

What did he mean by this?

You tell me since youre the one who said it

That's how it started in Russia. Then the expeditionary forces arrived.

what brand of neoliberalism do you subscribe to? monetarism? chicago school? austrian?

They don't care that the refugee problems are primarily caused by capitalist proxy wars, they think their nation has the "right" to plunder the world. That argument is above their thought process.
One thing I've found when arguing with nationalists/normalfags/etc is they just shut down as soon as you confuse them with something they didn't know.

...

I never see those faggoty pacifists crying those liberal crocodile tears over the millions dying from capitalism every day. They only rev up the sads for the rich. Where is your cry of injustice over this incessant violence?
Fuck the bourgeoisie. When the revolution comes let none be spared, not even the children.

...

as opposed to a metaphorical revolution

About 100 terrors per minute.

...

We should literally eat capitalist babies.

ultra

one word:

"Kill em all 1989"

lenin thought the american revolution was based.

don't shit talk it

I'm not. I'm just saying that it was quite violent, just like every other revolution during the 18th and 19th centuries. Liberals love those revolutions and yet attack socialist revolutionaries for being "too violent" as if violence itself makes a movement unworthy of support.

youtube.com/watch?v=dBZxth7SMmM

I don't know of any revolution that happened in the USA.

I have daily murder fantasies about the ultra rich. They would leave this world rotting and starving, an ashen waste, to feed their greed. A quick bullet to the neck is a mercy compared to what they would put the rest of humanity through.

That being said I think that the revolution definitely needs restraint in these matters. We should be prepared to use violence but maintain the high ground. Whatever else can be said about the YPG I think their example here is good. They seem like they absolutely least dirty party in an extremely dirty war.

leave that to porky and hitler
leave that to porky and hitler

He was right, you know.

And when you set out to change the order of things, you make an enemy of everyone who benefited from the former order more than they benefit from the new order.

ghandi was more violent than hitler because he threatened the society's state of affairs more and sho on

false flag fags