Why should the worker's revolution be violent?

Why should the worker's revolution be violent?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/CXdV_IOggZM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because it's fun

It shouldn't but it will have to be

Because that's literally the dictionary definition of 'revolution'.

But why

Because we're not socdems

Excellent question. I am sure that most leftists don't actually *want* violence, but rather see it as something that will sadly be necessary in order to overthrow capitalism.
The capitalists won't hand over the means of production voluntarily. The state won't just choose not to crack down any leftist revolution before it even started.
Sometimes the end justifies the means.

because we like pretending to be hard on the internet

The revolution doesn't have to be violent. But capitalism and stateism more generally only exists through violent coercion.

Without a doubt, porky would not respect democratic demands for revolutionary change and would change state violence to crush the opposition.

Tial ni bezonas iĝi pli granda movado. Usono estas la ĉefa lando de kapitalismo kaj la maldekstra flanko estas tre malforta.

Is that Esperanto? Stop LARPing, for God's sake.

Because even peaceful success prompts a violent counterrevolution

You can't deal with capitalist state/other enemies of revolution only the happy-hippie way. Peaceful protests and drums didnt change anything.

Don't ask "why?", ask "why not?"

Peaceful reformers have overcome tyranny before

nor did smashing windows

Because you're guaranteed somebody won't feel like having his company collectivized and will resort to violence.

get your nelson mandela shit outta here

Then why do people usually put 'violent' revolution to denote the difference?

...

Ĝi estos la lingvo de la estonteco, kamarado.

Because it has to be dipshit. The bourgeoisie won't just hand over the means of production because we ask nicely.

Funnily enough it happened just like that in the UK, maybe your country just has bad manners?
A "please" and "thank you" never hurt anyone.
But it's nice to see you know all the correct buzzwords.

The revolution could be completely bloodless. Every worker could sit down at their jobs and bring production to a halt. They could install governments that put production under social control rather than capital control.
But the moment they do that, the pigs would start shooting.

this attitude would change overnight if we had a dominant voting block.

Are you high dude?

yes, why?

Because the bourgeoisie will violently oppose it.

It doesnt have to be. Just take away the perks private businesses get and give the perks to state owned an co0ops instead. They wont be able to do shit about it.

Cause in 1905, the people sent representatives to the Czar and he heard them and gave up his powers and everyone was fine.

….

Or he just set up machine guns and had the cossacks kill the protesters.

Yes.

What about all the times people elected governments with a policy of nationalisation and they nationalised?

You mean like in Chile?

What had this to do with revolution, though?

Anyway, what about when the Young Turks nationalized, cause there was no capitalism established and they couldn't go through voting, so the Army became the bourgies?

Could it be, bourgies in places were nationalization happened without revolution, were already in power and only made it official, cause capitalism needs the nation state?

Hmmm…

I'm gonna need more to drink to deal with this shit.

This post isn't as interesting as you'd like to think.


France, Germany, Sweden, UK, Libya, Pakistan.


Just because your feelings get hurt that you got your shit took doesn't make it violent.

Nationalisation is not socialism, just a change in ownership. Just stop shitposting and go back to reddit, preferably now.

Why should there be revolution at all

muh means of production

I've never seen that though the opposite 'peaceful revolution' seems to be awfully common. Thanks for your argument.

Because occupy wall street didn't work.

Oppress and chance for socialism and then go full liberal democracy, after a bunch of revolutions, the first of them created the nation state itself.

A bunch of feudal states gathered toghether and then they had 2 world wars.

Who was Oliver Cromwell?


The most interesting thing about King Charles the First,
Is that he was 5'6" at the start of his reign,
But only 4'8" tall at the end of it.

Because of

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (Puritan)
Born in 1599, died in 1658 (September).
Was at first (only) MP for Huntingdon (but then)
He led the Iron Side Cavalry at Marston Moor in 1644 and won.
Then he founded the New Model Army, and praise be, beat the Cavaliers at Naseby.
And the King fled up North, like an axe, to the Scots.

But under the terms of John Pimms' 'Solomn League and Covenant',
The Scots handed King Charles I over to

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (and his warts)
Born in 1599, died in 1658 (September)
But, alas (Oi Vay!), disagreement then broke out (between)
The Presbyterian Parliament and the military
Who meant to have an independent bent and so,
The second civil war broke out and the round head ranks
Faced the cavaliers at Preston, Lancs.,
And the King lost again, silly thing (stupid King).

And Cromwell sent Colonel Pride
To purge the House of Commons of the Presbyterian Royalists,
Leaving behind only the Rump Parliament

Which appointed a High Court at Westminster Hall
To indict Charles I for Tyranny (gasp).
Charles was sentenced to death
Even though he refused to accept that the court had
Jurisdiction (say goodbye to his head).
Poor King Charles laid his head on the block (January 1649)
Down came the axe and

In the silence that followed,
The only sound that could be heard was a solitary giggle from.

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (Ole)
Born in 1599, died in 1658 (September)
Then he smashed (Ireland), set up the Commonwealth (and more!).
He crushed the Scots at Worcester, and beat the Dutch at sea in 1653, and then

He dissolved the Rump Parliament,
And with Lambert's consent wrote the instrument of Government
Under which Oliver was Protector at last, The End!

I don't know, ask him

Because peaceful protest doesn't mean shit

Violence is rarely necessary, and never desirable, but always justified, and must be a possibility for the working class to have any leverage against the ruling class. The only real power in politics comes from the business end of a weapon.

Have they overcome invasion?

...

Violence is useless against a collectively hallucinated enemy ideology.

The violence is done for the sake of violence, nothing more nothing less. Whatever excuse can be made for violent action is acceptable.

He's likely referring to the post-war nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy by Labour governments in the UK. A step in the right direction.

youtu.be/CXdV_IOggZM
This video covers a lot tbh

Even if you are against violence, being prepared for violence makes it way more likely that they will give in before violence breaks out. It is much easier to say no ti an unarmed people than an armed.

because the capitalists are far more violent than we will ever be

henlo socdem
hello u STINKY socdem
go kill a communist ugly