For communism to properly work, do reactionaries need to be killed, imprisoned or otherwise disposed of?

Because, while I don't know your situation, you are in all likelihood a prole yourself (or perhaps petite bourg). If that's the case, pursuing the interests of the working class ultimately serves your own self interest, and the only way that class interest can be fulfilled in the long term is through cooperation to abolish systems that exploit your class.

Even if you are petite bourg, the support of socialism is still favorable in that nearly all petite bourgs eventually become proles again given enough time. Also, attempting to act as a member of the bourg ultimately removes individual agency as a "rational actor" as is often touted by various capitalist theorists. The bourg, in the pursuit of their own class interest, has a role to play that requires exploitation of the workers in order to maintain their position of power: there is no way around this. The petite bourg also must take part in this, but they lack the scale that would confer systemic power through Capital, as well as often having to directly confront the workers they exploit rather than have the process be shrouded by layers of corporate obscurity and cultural mysticism. The latter is where bourg morals come into play: they serve as a means of acting as a "non-coercive" force that can help secure their position by eliminating the mere thought of alternative action in the minds of the exploited classes.

These morals are meant as constructions for the preservation of the status-quo first and foremost, even if those who practice or even devised such constructs are unaware of their effects. The point is not necessarily to expunge all notions of morality (for a number of reasons, the impracticality of such a task being among the biggest), but to be critical of said morals in a way that allows the individual to make the judgement call as to what is to be adhered to based on their own self interest and the self interest they share with those around them. Class is simply a fulcrum by which the lever of mass action can be situated upon.

Could not have said it any better myself, comrade.

I would argue yes, the revolution cannot realistically survive otherwise. But I am really worried and perplexed about what would deserve the label "reactionary" and who will be the ones deciding it?

Look, a self-refuting post. A. W. confirmed for retard yet again.

Communism is born from socialism, not the fires of revolution. There will be no need to kill reactionaries.

...

Yes but half the people on this board still refuse to learn the lessons of history and would rather end up like Allende than Lenin. The communist stance on free speech is free speech for communists.

Death will occur in any revolution. A violent war over a few months occured in France, and a long, drawn out war lasted five years in America. There will always be death.

But after the revolution, I see no need to execute /everybody/. Only those who have commited the worst crimes. The executiuon of Louis XVI was perfectly justified, but many executed afterwads were not.

You don't attack the people, you attack and change the underlying structure. If someone tries to stop that tho, kill em. I doubt that some fatass porky himself will be able of doing shit though, and most soldiers will probably be fed up with capitalism as well by the time of the revolution when the working class has been entirely alienated and oppressed to shit. Remember that the army of Paris refused to fire on the commune, and that the majority of the Tsarist army defected to Lenin. Of course violence and war will still be inevitable, but I don't think there is a need for executions or gulags after its all done and finished.

Anyone against free speech belongs on reddit alongside their frequent tirades against letting the masses speak as they wish. If you're against free speech you should be quite happy to surrender yours to the SJW horde, no?

No, but tankies and nazis should be made examples of and have their retarded ideas challenged in very specific and cogent respects. Otherwise their drivel will impair discourse for everyone, years to come, and risk one getting called SJW, politically correct, cuck, triggered et c in order to dismiss and disengage the very elements of leftism by way of nutpicking, and "rational" ignorance thereby moving the goal-post to that of race-wars and moral imperatives based on identity.

youtube.com/watch?v=xEne9YUa22Q

...

Wait wait wait wait.

Are you asking for 2moral" justifications witout giving a criteria for what passes as moral in your view?

Remember fam, morals are spooks, a mere matter of taste, whenever people talk about "morals" without specifying what framework they use to grade things
they might aswell be talking about how much they like something.

"Hello, nobles! Hello Bourgies! We would like to take the power from you"
And they gave it and everyone lived happily ever after.

A revolution is not a bed of roses.

You send reactionaries to Gulag. Make the bourgies usefull.

Free speech is fine. Just don't create action and you're fine.

After socialism has been established in the world, free speech will be needed. Not banned.

Are you dense?