On Armed Insurrection

[Margno]

Actions which you yourself define as undesireable and to be avoided in the long run are not the only kind of actions in existence, and postulating that it is in the best interests of communists' stated goals not to use such actions in the course of pursuing those goals does not prohibit communists from acting at all.

We're talking about changing the status quo entirely; it's almost impossible to do that without forcible action. And don't point to Gandhi, because that's bullshit; Britain giving in had way more to do with the Indian military mutinying.

There are few other historical examples of my non violent regime change, and there are no historical examples of your post classist communist state. You postulate it nonetheless.
And from what we've seen of state socialism, I doubt many people would accept Marxism-Leninism if you didn't.

[United Marxist Nations]

We're talking about changing the status quo entirely; it's almost impossible to do that without forcible action. And don't point to Gandhi, because that's bullshit; Britain giving in had way more to do with the Indian military mutinying.

There are few other historical examples of my non violent regime change, and there are no historical examples of your post classist communist state. You postulate it nonetheless.
And from what we've seen of state socialism, I doubt many people would accept Marxism-Leninism if you didn't.

The difference is that we communists purport a method of acheiving it; you pacifists just spout about how violence is bad, and then can't explain how to get to the goal. And all the other examples you can think of probably had plenty of violence in them too.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We're talking about changing the status quo entirely; it's almost impossible to do that without forcible action. And don't point to Gandhi, because that's bullshit; Britain giving in had way more to do with the Indian military mutinying.

There are few other historical examples of my non violent regime change, and there are no historical examples of your post classist communist state. You postulate it nonetheless.
And from what we've seen of state socialism, I doubt many people would accept Marxism-Leninism if you didn't.

How many truly non-violent regime changes have there been?

[Margno]

because of length]

There are few other historical examples of my non violent regime change, and there are no historical examples of your post classist communist state. You postulate it nonetheless.
And from what we've seen of state socialism, I doubt many people would accept Marxism-Leninism if you didn't.

How many truly non-violent regime changes have there been?

Few, as I said.

There are few other historical examples of my non violent regime change, and there are no historical examples of your post classist communist state. You postulate it nonetheless.
And from what we've seen of state socialism, I doubt many people would accept Marxism-Leninism if you didn't.

The difference is that we communists purport a method of acheiving it; you pacifists just spout about how violence is bad, and then can't explain how to get to the goal. And all the other examples you can think of probably had plenty of violence in them too.

Here is the exact method I propose for bringing about revolutionary social change nonviolently.
First, I advocate spreading a movement for radical personal change as far as possible, centered around embracing extremes of love and human compassion, renouncing egocentrism, and establishing an existential courage allowing action untempered by most fear and guided instead only by altruist-morality and desire for happiness. Essentially, to dethrone the self as the basis of men's lives, and replace it with the neighbor.
I would then have those influenced by the movement:
1. Reject and ignore the social order entirely: passively disregard the police, refuse to use money, own property, or work jobs within the capitalist system, refuse to vote or show loyalty to the ruling regime. (The passive aspect)
2. Establish communes which offer free housing to any, unconditionally; establish independent means of production for the most vital supplies first, of which they take only what they need, and distribute the remainder to the poor in the larger society, devote any additional labor to aid operations, retaining no further profit of any kind, and, above all, systematically show unconditional love and kindness to all other members of society all the while. (The active aspect)
3. Aggressively and incessantly advocate their way of life and their ideas in the larger culture, through any and all means available, (television, radio, magazines, books, newspapers, graffiti, rallies, meetings, protests, any means they can) all the while citing their lifestyle as supporting evidence of their claims, deliberately showing respect and appreciation in particular for their detractors, in order to further substantiate their claims. (The activist element)
4. If the state or any other actor attempts to violently crush the movement, refuse to fight back, and ensure that the country is filled with footage of police representing the ruling regime, attacking protestors who refuse to fight back, but shout that they love them between blows. The popular backlash will be astonishing, if the state actually tries this, it is likely to fall the same day. (The pacifist element)
The movement need not ever encompass anything close to a majority of the society: they will become so wildly popular with the people for their kindness and constant aid as to become a conscience for the larger society and quickly push it to abolish the worst evils of its day, including capitalism and the use of a military. Alternatively, if the state is obstinate, it will find itself increasingly irrelevant as fewer and fewer of its citizens obey its laws when there is no officer standing next to them, and fewer and fewer are willing to be officers.

Feel free to critique any part of my methodology, I'm very much open to suggestions on this. But no, pacifism is not an entirely negative ideology with only claims concerning what one should not do, and no claims concerning what one should do. At least, mine isn't.

[United Marxist Nations]

because of length]

How many truly non-violent regime changes have there been?

Few, as I said.

The difference is that we communists purport a method of acheiving it; you pacifists just spout about how violence is bad, and then can't explain how to get to the goal. And all the other examples you can think of probably had plenty of violence in them too.

Here is the exact method I propose for bringing about revolutionary social change nonviolently.
First, I advocate spreading a movement for radical personal change as far as possible, centered around embracing extremes of love and human compassion, renouncing egocentrism, and establishing an existential courage allowing action untempered by most fear and guided instead only by altruist-morality and desire for happiness. Essentially, to dethrone the self as the basis of men's lives, and replace it with the neighbor.
I would then have those influenced by the movement:
1. Reject and ignore the social order entirely: passively disregard the police, refuse to use money, own property, or work jobs within the capitalist system, refuse to vote or show loyalty to the ruling regime. (The passive aspect)
2. Establish communes which offer free housing to any, unconditionally; establish independent means of production for the most vital supplies first, of which they take only what they need, and distribute the remainder to the poor in the larger society, devote any additional labor to aid operations, retaining no further profit of any kind, and, above all, systematically show unconditional love and kindness to all other members of society all the while. (The active aspect)
3. Aggressively and incessantly advocate their way of life and their ideas in the larger culture, through any and all means available, (television, radio, magazines, books, newspapers, graffiti, rallies, meetings, protests, any means they can) all the while citing their lifestyle as supporting evidence of their claims, deliberately showing respect and appreciation in particular for their detractors, in order to further substantiate their claims. (The activist element)
4. If the state or any other actor attempts to violently crush the movement, refuse to fight back, and ensure that the country is filled with footage of police representing the ruling regime, attacking protestors who refuse to fight back, but shout that they love them between blows. The popular backlash will be astonishing, if the state actually tries this, it is likely to fall the same day.
The movement need not ever encompass anything close to a majority of the society: they will become so wildly popular with the people for their kindness and constant free gifts as to become a conscience for the larger society and quickly push it to abolish the worst evils of its day, including capitalism and the use of a military. Alternatively, if the state is obstinate, it will find itself increasingly irrelevant as fewer and fewer of its citizens obey its laws when there is no officer standing next to them, and fewer and fewer are willing to be complicit in enforcing their laws.
Feel free to critique any part of my methodology, I'm very much open to suggestions on this. But no, pacifism is not an entirely negative ideology with only claims concerning what one should not do, and no claims concerning what one should do. At least, mine isn't.

If the state attempts to strike it down, and the backlash is limited to what you are talking about, then the state will just strike the backlash down. Also, how exactly would you just "establish" new means of production? You need resources to do that, and, perhaps most importantly, existing means of production.

[Kumuri]

Actions which you yourself define as undesireable and to be avoided in the long run are not the only kind of actions in existence, and postulating that it is in the best interests of communists' stated goals not to use such actions in the course of pursuing those goals does not prohibit communists from acting at all.

We're talking about changing the status quo entirely; it's almost impossible to do that without forcible action. And don't point to Gandhi, because that's bullshit; Britain giving in had way more to do with the Indian military mutinying.

this kind of reminds me of a somewhat-relevant quote

"It would be desirable if [the peaceful abolition of private property] could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."
brackets and bold are mine
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... in-com.htm

[United Marxist Nations]

We're talking about changing the status quo entirely; it's almost impossible to do that without forcible action. And don't point to Gandhi, because that's bullshit; Britain giving in had way more to do with the Indian military mutinying.

this kind of reminds me of a somewhat-relevant quote

"It would be desirable if [the peaceful abolition of private property] could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."
brackets and bold are mine
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... in-com.htm

Exactly, we can lessen violence, but we'd never be able to completely prevent it from happening in the effort.

[Margno]

because of length]
Few, as I said.

Here is the exact method I propose for bringing about revolutionary social change nonviolently.
First, I advocate spreading a movement for radical personal change as far as possible, centered around embracing extremes of love and human compassion, renouncing egocentrism, and establishing an existential courage allowing action untempered by most fear and guided instead only by altruist-morality and desire for happiness. Essentially, to dethrone the self as the basis of men's lives, and replace it with the neighbor.
I would then have those influenced by the movement:
1. Reject and ignore the social order entirely: passively disregard the police, refuse to use money, own property, or work jobs within the capitalist system, refuse to vote or show loyalty to the ruling regime. (The passive aspect)
2. Establish communes which offer free housing to any, unconditionally; establish independent means of production for the most vital supplies first, of which they take only what they need, and distribute the remainder to the poor in the larger society, devote any additional labor to aid operations, retaining no further profit of any kind, and, above all, systematically show unconditional love and kindness to all other members of society all the while. (The active aspect)
3. Aggressively and incessantly advocate their way of life and their ideas in the larger culture, through any and all means available, (television, radio, magazines, books, newspapers, graffiti, rallies, meetings, protests, any means they can) all the while citing their lifestyle as supporting evidence of their claims, deliberately showing respect and appreciation in particular for their detractors, in order to further substantiate their claims. (The activist element)
4. If the state or any other actor attempts to violently crush the movement, refuse to fight back, and ensure that the country is filled with footage of police representing the ruling regime, attacking protestors who refuse to fight back, but shout that they love them between blows. The popular backlash will be astonishing, if the state actually tries this, it is likely to fall the same day.
The movement need not ever encompass anything close to a majority of the society: they will become so wildly popular with the people for their kindness and constant free gifts as to become a conscience for the larger society and quickly push it to abolish the worst evils of its day, including capitalism and the use of a military. Alternatively, if the state is obstinate, it will find itself increasingly irrelevant as fewer and fewer of its citizens obey its laws when there is no officer standing next to them, and fewer and fewer are willing to be complicit in enforcing their laws.
Feel free to critique any part of my methodology, I'm very much open to suggestions on this. But no, pacifism is not an entirely negative ideology with only claims concerning what one should not do, and no claims concerning what one should do. At least, mine isn't.

If the state attempts to strike it down, and the backlash is limited to what you are talking about, then the state will just strike the backlash down. Also, how exactly would you just "establish" new means of production? You need resources to do that, and, perhaps most importantly, existing means of production.

The state's power is not unlimited. It cannot retain control if eighty or ninety percent of the populace denies its legitimacy and considers its laws invalid (including eighty or ninety percent of its police force.) And just because we won't fight them doesn't mean we can't burn their buildings, destroy their currency, wreck their property, refuse to watch their news and boycott their services, if the situation calls for it. I don't think the ends ever justify the means, but the people can scarcely steal from themselves.
Means of production might be trickier. Establishing their own farms isn't much of a problem, but outlaws can scarcely build factories. I suppose what I would suggest is that towards the beginning if the revolution, they work partially within the system, and towards the end, they appropriate means of production which the state no longer has the influence to control.
I don't like the idea of dirtying my hands with money, but I suppose I'm willing to accept it if it only stays there for the time it takes to trade it for goods and hand those goods to the poor.

[The Volkstaat Republic]

It really depends on a case by case situation. My feeling is that civil disobedience is a preferred method of protest against the majority or ruling minority and armed resistance should be a last resort.

[United Marxist Nations]

If the state attempts to strike it down, and the backlash is limited to what you are talking about, then the state will just strike the backlash down. Also, how exactly would you just "establish" new means of production? You need resources to do that, and, perhaps most importantly, existing means of production.

The state's power is not unlimited. It cannot retain control if eighty or ninety percent of the populace denies its legitimacy and considers its laws invalid (including eighty or ninety percent of its police force.) And just because we won't fight them doesn't mean we can't burn their buildings, destroy their currency, wreck their property, refuse to watch their news and boycott their services, if the situation calls for it. I don't think the ends ever justify the means, but the people can scarcely steal from themselves.
Means of production might be trickier. Establishing their own farms isn't much of a problem, but outlaws can scarcely build factories. I suppose what I would suggest is that towards the beginning if the revolution, they work partially within the system, and towards the end, they appropriate means of production which the state no longer has the influence to control.
I don't like the idea of dirtying my hands with money, but I suppose I'm willing to accept it if it only stays there for the time it takes to trade it for goods and hand those goods to the poor. But anything they take for themselves should not come out of a debt to capitalism, I think, as that would weaken their message.

If you burn their buildings and wreck their property, that will make people dislike you, and feel sympathy for the state trying to 'put down those ruffians.' It's not the state that controls most means of production, it's the capitalists that do, and they control the state.

[Costa Fierro]

Is armed insurrection justified in the case of a minority protecting itself from the majority? Is it justified in the majority disagreeing with the decisions of a government? What are the limits of an insurgency? Is it ever justified? How do various ideologies and worldviews on NSG view the idea?

Only if the majority or the government use force against you. You also forgot foreign invasion.

In my opinion, the first two mentioned justify an armed rebellion.

You're being a bit vague. Is the government's decision to ban a language worth grabbing a rifle and shooting someone?

[United Marxist Nations]

Is armed insurrection justified in the case of a minority protecting itself from the majority? Is it justified in the majority disagreeing with the decisions of a government? What are the limits of an insurgency? Is it ever justified? How do various ideologies and worldviews on NSG view the idea?

Only if the majority or the government use force against you. You also forgot foreign invasion.

In my opinion, the first two mentioned justify an armed rebellion.

You're being a bit vague. Is the government's decision to ban a language worth grabbing a rifle and shooting someone?

On the last bit, yeah, I would think so.

[Margno]

The state's power is not unlimited. It cannot retain control if eighty or ninety percent of the populace denies its legitimacy and considers its laws invalid (including eighty or ninety percent of its police force.) And just because we won't fight them doesn't mean we can't burn their buildings, destroy their currency, wreck their property, refuse to watch their news and boycott their services, if the situation calls for it. I don't think the ends ever justify the means, but the people can scarcely steal from themselves.
Means of production might be trickier. Establishing their own farms isn't much of a problem, but outlaws can scarcely build factories. I suppose what I would suggest is that towards the beginning if the revolution, they work partially within the system, and towards the end, they appropriate means of production which the state no longer has the influence to control.
I don't like the idea of dirtying my hands with money, but I suppose I'm willing to accept it if it only stays there for the time it takes to trade it for goods and hand those goods to the poor. But anything they take for themselves should not come out of a debt to capitalism, I think, as that would weaken their message.

If you burn their buildings and wreck their property, that will make people dislike you, and feel sympathy for the state trying to 'put down those ruffians.' It's not the state that controls most means of production, it's the capitalists that do, and they control the state.

Yeah, but if the state has lost control, then the capitalists have lost control, and the factory is ours for the taking, assuming the people support us.
And yes, I think that people would react badly to such things early in the revolution, but if we're at the point that the vast majority of the populace supports us, they identify with our values, and they've seen the police killing us for no reason, (which is the only time I would recommend doing this) I suspect they'd be of a mind with us on the subject.

[Korouse]

.....

ahahahahahahaha.

Yes. Masses of rednecks with Glorified Pellet Guns defeating M1 Abrams happens in every rebellion.

In my favored scenario (i.e. that of a socialist revolution), the military, because it is made up of mostly proletarians, would largely side with the proletariat; as an example, that's kind of what happened in the Russian Revolution.

Now add that with how nobody in America likes Socialism, thus making the proletariat fight with their middle class brethren. Kind of like in the winter war

[United Marxist Nations]

If you burn their buildings and wreck their property, that will make people dislike you, and feel sympathy for the state trying to 'put down those ruffians.' It's not the state that controls most means of production, it's the capitalists that do, and they control the state.

Yeah, but if the state has lost control, then the capitalists have lost control, and the factory is ours for the taking, assuming the people support us.
And yes, I think that people would react badly to such things early in the revolution, but if we're at the point that the vast majority of the populace supports us, they identify with our values, and they've seen the police killing us for no reason, (which is the only time I would recommend doing this) I suspect they'd be of a mind with us on the subject.

If the capitalists have any supporting them (and they will), then they will have some degree of force available, even if it is a small minority.

[Costa Fierro]

Only if the majority or the government use force against you. You also forgot foreign invasion.



You're being a bit vague. Is the government's decision to ban a language worth grabbing a rifle and shooting someone?

On the last bit, yeah, I would think so.

Really? You think killing someone because they banned your language is justifiable?

[United Marxist Nations]

On the last bit, yeah, I would think so.

Really? You think killing someone because they banned your language is justifiable?

Yeah, that would seem okay to me; if they're banning my language, they obviously are trying to oppress me.

[Costa Fierro]

Really? You think killing someone because they banned your language is justifiable?

Yeah, that would seem okay to me; if they're banning my language, they obviously are trying to oppress me.

Seriously? It's killing someone. Over a language. I mean, if they were coming to your house and threatening to kill family members, yeah, I could understand it. But because of a ban? Isn't that a little extreme? I mean, it's taking someone's life. Shouldn't that be considered at the absolute last resort?

[Korouse]

Yeah, that would seem okay to me; if they're banning my language, they obviously are trying to oppress me.

Seriously? It's killing someone. Over a language. I mean, if they were coming to your house and threatening to kill family members, yeah, I could understand it. But because of a ban? Isn't that a little extreme? I mean, it's taking someone's life. Shouldn't that be considered at the absolute last resort?

If they were actually going to enforce it, I'd get a thousand dollars just to yell foreign cuss words at the cops and pay for the tickets I would get.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yeah, that would seem okay to me; if they're banning my language, they obviously are trying to oppress me.

Seriously? It's killing someone. Over a language. I mean, if they were coming to your house and threatening to kill family members, yeah, I could understand it. But because of a ban? Isn't that a little extreme? I mean, it's taking someone's life. Shouldn't that be considered at the absolute last resort?

Yeah, if they don't want a group of people speaking a language, that means they are directly trying to keep a group from having any influence in the country; it's directly discriminatory. At that point, fuck them.

Anyway, I've got to go to bed.

[Margno]

Yeah, but if the state has lost control, then the capitalists have lost control, and the factory is ours for the taking, assuming the people support us.
And yes, I think that people would react badly to such things early in the revolution, but if we're at the point that the vast majority of the populace supports us, they identify with our values, and they've seen the police killing us for no reason, (which is the only time I would recommend doing this) I suspect they'd be of a mind with us on the subject.

If the capitalists have any supporting them (and they will), then they will have some degree of force available, even if it is a small minority.

The thing is, if the idea is firmly set in the minds of the people that threats are invalid, then violence stops being rational, because it stops equating to any real force. You can kill people, sure, but you can't compel them to do what you want. Honestly, the remaining capitalists could continue killing people and being as condemned as the westboro baptist church throughout the country, or they could turn and be socially accepted, but they'd have no option to get their power back. If you say "I own this factory, all of you are trespassing, get out now!" And they say "no." then your ownership is only real in your own head.

[Costa Fierro]

Yeah, if they don't want a group of people speaking a language, that means they are directly trying to keep a group from having any influence in the country; it's directly discriminatory.

Well, let's look at it from a different perspective. Country A has two languages and the majority of its inhabitants are bilingual. A says that x language shouldn't be spoken because reasons. If people are already able to speak in y language, and only hold onto x language for cultural reasons, how is that preventing speakers of y language engaging or having any influence in the country?

This is why I don't understand any kind of independence movement like ETA or the FLQ that use language as one of its main reasons why they killed people.

At that point, fuck them.

So....saying "you can't speak that language" is justification for murder? Does life have any value to you at all?

[Korouse]

Yeah, if they don't want a group of people speaking a language, that means they are directly trying to keep a group from having any influence in the country; it's directly discriminatory.

Well, let's look at it from a different perspective. Country A has two languages and the majority of its inhabitants are bilingual. A says that x language shouldn't be spoken because reasons. If people are already able to speak in y language, and only hold onto x language for cultural reasons, how is that preventing speakers of y language engaging or having any influence in the country?

This is why I don't understand any kind of independence movement like ETA or the FLQ that use language as one of its main reasons why they killed people.

At that point, fuck them.

So....saying "you can't speak that language" is justification for murder? Does life have any value to you at all?

Giving your life to serve a government that deliberately oppresses deserves death by bullet or sharp object.

[Korouse]

Of course. It's why private gun ownership, privacy, and freedom of assembly are so valuable.

Not to mention massive military support from a neighboring country, say Russia. Whatever is happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with private gun ownership or freedom of assembly.

*Ignores every war in the middle east since 1900 and jumps straight to Ukraine*

[United Marxist Nations]

If the capitalists have any supporting them (and they will), then they will have some degree of force available, even if it is a small minority.

The thing is, if the idea is firmly set in the minds of the people that threats are invalid, then violence stops being rational, because it stops equating to any real force. You can kill people, sure, but you can't compel them to do what you want. Honestly, the remaining capitalists could continue killing people and being as condemned as the westboro baptist church throughout the country, or they could turn and be socially accepted, but they'd have no option to get their power back. If you say "I own this factory, all of you are trespassing, get out now!" And they say "no." then your ownership is only real in your own head.

They'll just make you leave the factory. And the "you can't compel" is just silly; when you start killing dissenters, people pay attention. Learn from history.