What other ideology smothers any actual revolutionary activity more than this one?
I just can't deal with these smug, closet liberal, holier than thou fucks. I hate how even though all the evidence is on the table their ideology doesn't work, they seem to be completely immune to to it, and just double down on more self-righteousness, more self serving meditation, and generally just circle jerking over themselves.
It truly is an infantile mental disorder.
Other urls found in this thread:
sounds like leftcoms
Can't the argument be made that all people are equally corruptible in positions of power, or that violence as a means of gaining something has been historically used to instill and create authoritarian systems that serve the ones lucky enough to have been the ones inheriting the positions of power?
Isn't it at least somewhat relevant to explore other means of transforming the world in a way that prevents this historical truth from happening in the future?
LARPing as a 20th century revolutionnary is as bad tbqh famalam smh
Violence is something you should use in last resort. The RAF and Red Brigades did more harm than good, and you don't know what would happen after a bloody revolt anyway
larping children like you should be banned from this board. also there's nothing wrong with pacifism. now go kick a thrash can and see if you start world revolution.
wew lad
I must have missed that revolution you guys started. umm where is it again?
you look like children who just learned a new swearing word
off yourselves
...
Wait, so guys that are actually building the most revolutionary socialist project of our time are actually LARPing because they don't buy into the pacifism cult? Good to know.
Pacificism (an incoherent concept) is just consistent anarchism. Without it you'll need a repressive organization to evict property and eliminate it's defenders.
Nice strawman
Rojava is a far cry away from a middle class suburbanite in North America posting on Holla Forums
All non-pacifists will be send to gulag
I just don't like hurting other people.
TBH I think the dual attack pacifist half/violent half worked well for the civil rights movement. It means the pacifist get to look moderate, while the people are still stirred up by the violent deeds, perfect combo IMO shame they killed both Pacifist and Militant leaders
I actually think there is a lot of merit and practicality to civil disobedience and nonviolence.
I mean look at OTPOR
...
Yes, pacifism is reactionary, and any pacifists in left-wing organizations should be treated as de facto saboteurs.
I actually believe that telling people who suffer under violent repression that violent resistance is moral unacceptable is worse than just reactionary, it's downright evil.
I don't support Pacifist politics for that very reason. In fact, I try not to actively and/or publicly support any politics out of fear of causing pain to others or receiving pain from others.
muh false dichotomy. using non violent tactics ≠ not fighting back. your thread is bad and you should feel bad.
I support violence from times to times. Even Gandhi advocated it in certain cases, according to Zizek.
But it should assessed on a case by case basis if we need it or not, and I favor smart non-violent acts or damaging property over brute force. Violence does more harm than good to your cause if it is used at a wrong time (see the RAF and ISIS for examples)
it's not a moral disagreement. it's a disagreement over non-moral facts. we both agree we want people to stop being oppressed and exploited, but we disagree over methods of getting there.
(i.e. scenario 1 - violent revolution in history has only led to more violence and oppression, therefore to minimize harm done to common person and to break the cycle of power creating itself and destroying itself - we should find nonviolent means of revolting)
or
scenario 2: whatever your position is that mitigates the proles being exploited)
What kind of cuckoldry is this?
it's called bait and you got yourself hooked son
It's one thing to say that violence isn't the right strategy at a given time, and another to advocate complete pacifism. I personally don't think violence is a good idea for the left in the west at this point, but I don't see capitalism going down without bloodshed.
But the whole "cycle of violence" stuff just seems like liberal bullshit to me.
I don't have any reason to hurt people other than myself. What's so hard to understand?
You're a spineless liberal.
How?
Ok now I'm pretty sure this is bait.
When people talk about fighting back they mean methods that actually work to stop the oppression in a real way, and not jerking themselves off over a purity fetish.
I'm okay with actual pacifists. Liberals who use it as an excuse to say "don't punch nazis" deserve the bullet.
This is a very good point though.
Defending the structural violence of society (even implicitly) while whining about the more overt violence of those suffering from it is cancer.
That said I have a soft spot for violence because I've basically lost faith in a better world and violence just feels good. I'm not violent, but it's just nice to see it happen. Would someone punching Tony Blair on his warmongering cunt nose do anything to set the world right? Not really, but jesus christ it'd be great to see. Hedonism via alcohol, over-eating and pornography is small-time, violence is my drug.
when you say "only lead to more" i hope to fuck you don't mean "more than pre-revolution" as though the USSR was as consistently shit as tsarist russia
It's not. I'm no good, I have no natural strength and I have no will to impose over others. I've never been a violent person, and I have no desire to be a violent person. How is it "bait"?
Cowardice. You'd rather stay a slave rather than fight because people's feefees might be hurt, ignoring the fact that systemic violence is everywhere and by simply speaking you are doing violence. Why are you even here?
...
Allow me to suggest "hand over the means of production"
like kicking thrashcans, we all know, but thanks.
yeah jerking yourself off to a gore fetish is way better
srsly, what are you, cointelpro? it's window smashing twats like you who make the left look bad. you divert public attention from the discussion of political matters to your childish actionism.
I try not to speak or interact with people, but it's only human nature to do so. I'd go insane if I couldn't talk to at least one other person.
I believe in a future without violence, but I can't do anything for it. I'm mentally deficient, physically defective, uncreative, and destined to failure.
At least they genuinely mean well. Liberals are very rarely honest with anyone, especially themselves.
Well if anyone said any of these things you might begin to have a point.
Read a book, self pity is just pathetic.
the matters one gets distracted from are worthless bourgeois politics anyway.
it's not like antifa and alt-right spergs fighting over a flag is distracting the serious public discussion about revolution, it's a sideshow to president two-scoops and whatever shithead neoliberals are running the democratic party.
it's basically an irrelevancy instead of an inconvenience.
now that's a feeling i can relate to.
I'm not pitying myself, just stating the truth. I have no means to free myself or others.
History goes in circles, and so do systems of power. Systems of hierarchy are maintained by violence. They create and destroy themselves.
I don't see how this is liberal bullshit as much as history
I always thought this was book was good grounds and backing for nonviolent revolution
but we should accept the state's using it as a matter of course, i suppose
Oh shit look at that crisp wordart (also thanks comrade)
Will you indoctrinate the masses to serve your new regime?
And simply do away with those whose views are too extreme?
Transportation details could be left to British rail
Where Zyklon B succeeded, North Sea Gas will fail
It's just the same old story of man destroying man
We've got to look for other answers to the problems of this land
You're far too much of a man for that, if Mao did it so can you
What's the freedom of us all against the suffering of the few?
That's the kind of self-deception that killed millions of jews
Just the same false logic that all power-mongers use
So don't think you can fool me with your political tricks
Political right, political left, you can keep your politics
Government is government and all government is force
Left or right, right or left, it takes the same old course
Oppression and restriction, regulation, rule and law
The seizure of that power is all your revolution's for
You romanticise your heroes, quote from Marx and Mao
Well their ideas of freedom are just oppression now
Nothing changed for all the death, that their ideas created
It's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly stated
Nothing's really different cos all government's the same
They can call it freedom, but slavery is the game
Nothing changed for all the death, that their ideas created
It's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly stated
Nothing's really different cos all government's the same
They can call it freedom, but slavery is the game
There's nothing that you offer but a dream of last years hero
The truth of revolution, brother………………. is year zero.
What is with this meme of people thinking violence is the only way to oppose your oppressors?
they're teenagers
what non-violent action are you taking? :^)
...
...
Violence is just coercion backed by physical force, social change at all is coercive. Since the bourgs will never willingly give up their MoP, forcing them to by law (inb4 "lol voting into socialism" - and yes I agree with you that'll never happen) is coercion backed by force, otherwise they would willingly hand it over.
Coercion doesn't have to be violent, coercion is forcing change and those factors behind it are a representation of this coercion. Whether it's social stigma for violating norms, taking away economic incentives, loss of freedom (prison), or just threatening to beat someone up if they don't comply as all coercive, not necessarily "violent", but that doesn't make them much different. Pacifists are kidding themselves, they just want non-violent coercion, if they didn't believe in what they do they wouldn't act as if what they're doing is coercing the bourgs into getting what they want.
Pacifism is non-violent coercion.
There's tons of arguments every which way about this, and I find the most compelling to be those against violence in MOST cases.
When you impose your will upon others and remove them of their agency, you'll continue to do this once having assumed a position of power. What could go wrong?
The argument of "it's okay because they do it too" stopped being a valid one in my household around age 12 when I would utilize this tactic and implicate my brother
the most incriminating thing you can say is "nothing"
–
Anyway, A thought just occurred to me: one advantage of violence is that it's relatively quick. Every second lost is another systematic corpse.
There then exists a case to say, for example, "Well, we'll take a revolution that retains structural violence and create the USSR, then once we've slowed the rate of systemic death, we can talk about other means."
Most pressingly this could be applied to the environmental situation. A brutal global dictatorship of some sort starts to sound less abhorrent when the alternative is "steady as you are" while we sail off a climate-cliff to our deaths. (especially if they put a post-keynesian in the finance ministry.)
there is literally nothing wrong with removing agency in stringently defined conditions tbqh.
(in real world situations it bogs down and you wind up stretching the rules to argue everyone you kill really was a kulak, but that's neither here nor there.)
...
...
There it is again.
see
if you aren't taking any action, you're letting them walk all over you
just because an academic case can be made in the general circumstance, what you are doing remains relevant.
i mean, it's what i'm doing.
Do you not understand the fallacy or do you need me to explain it to you?
You're attacking the persons character and trying to discredit the idea by virtue of that
...
...
i drew that years ago on /anarcho/
ask me anything
why should we stop? who made this claim?
the fallacy only applies if i was implying that the theoretical argument was wrong on that basis.
i posed an essentially tangential question.
I know, right? What could go wrong if we simply get the power to label anything as adversarial to our morally righteous system of governance and can stomp out their dissent with force?
the revolution will not end after one day. it will require constant defence from reaction, that means violence
not all dissenters are created equal.
think you're missing the point, m8
Not all "dissenters" are even dissenters, in fact.
what is your point then?
That people are corruptible and all that will be accomplished is the ouroboros effect of power systems
The ruling class is full of teenagers?
Totalitarianism
nah this board.
live action role playing.
Way to miss the point. The ruling class uses violence as part of its daily operation, but no one calls them "teenagers".
Very related:
posting a star wars video to help posit your view isn't exactly doing your camp any good in dismissing this LARPing accusation
Pacifism is inherently anti-socialist because pacifists wants to disarm the proletariat and only allow the Bourg and classcucks (police) to have weapons
Not only that but Pacifism also epitomizes blind idealism and Idpol and it simply does not work
Violence in self defense is fine, but anyone who uses violence as an active tactic is fucking scary because once you justify violence against one enemy, you can justify it against any enemy. Doubly so in "Anarchist" orgs where they don't stick to any rules.
ludicrous strawman. You could be a pacifist and still have arms and martial arts training for self defense.
It's the people who believe murder is justified for an ideology that are deranged.
Thank you, mate. For being reasonable
Are these people just edgy teenagers or do are they just schizophrenic?
way to miss the point. the ruling class are not a bunch of larpers. you and your smashie buddies are.
right next to the one you started.
kek
...
it's gratifying to occasionally read posts on this board that aren't painfully shortsighted.
So you didn't even watch the video?
Wait, there's one next to Rojava or Spain?
I have conflicting opinions on pacifism, and tbh, I think all anarchists should. On one hand, it seems contradictory and dangerous to try to create a non-violent society through violence and it'd be nice if there was a way for there to be a peaceful revolution, but on the other hand, it doesn't appear that non-violence can meaningfully change anything, and revolution is ultimately an act of self-defense and liberation, not of aggression and oppression.
I don't blame Pacifists who refuse violence, and I think it takes a lot of courage to be one if their beliefs were tested, but I think they're idealistic and won't ever be capable of changing anything.
spain is a terrible example and rojava will be crushed by the turks as soon as they are no longer useful to the west and u.s. military and financial support ceases.
but enjoy your puberty as long as it lasts, and all the romantic dreams that come with it.
peak liberalism tbqh.
i reiterate my point about the expediency of violence. it's a dangerous tool, but it's still a tool and a tool that can lead to very serious gains in the long/mid term, even if it doesn't lead to a perfectly peaceful utopia. more importantly, the serious threat of violence can bolster position of vaguely similar groups. ("vote labour or the trade unions will make 1971 look like 1917" )
there's a distinct irony somewhere that i'm probably just as inclined to violence as any dedicated tankie with a long-term aim of communist, but would be contented to do it just to restore postwar semi social democracy. "the ends justify the means" with extreme means for very modest ends.
but whatever lol we're neither going to use violence or non violence and the planet is going to burn us up.
Thanks for playing.