Democracy: crap/not crap

[Johnny Canuck3]

ah right. Well, coley was half arsedly referencin maoist, soviet and nazi practise/ideology (all in the same breath) as the totality of resistance- the end point is this, the end point is that. I mention the civil rights movements, particularly a book on its armed wing, to show that violence is neccesary. I do not want it but it is, and god knows I'd be first to fall.

How did non violent resistance go for african americans? very well in some ways. Steps forward. But they were always backed by the voice of 'you're talking to the acceptable black people here. Theres others behind us that might well...'

I have every respect for non violent resistance. I think they are very brave. But I think they are fools too. Those are not incompatible thinkings

Violent resistance may or may not be necessary in certain circumstances. I think you overestimate the role that violent resistance played in the Civil Rights movement. The movement gained power through non violent resistance, passive resistance. We've all seen the film clips of peaceful marches being set upon by club wielding Southern cops, police dog attacks, firehoses, etc. We've seen the photos of busloads of school children being arrested in Birmingham.

Martin Luther King preached non violence, and his voice won out over that of Malcolm X and others.

The movement did succeed because of violence, in a way: it was the images of white supremacist violence against peaceful black protestors that ultimately wore down the authority of the supremacists.

If blacks in the Sixties had taken up arms in any large number, they would have been violently suppressed; but in that instance, the white majority would have had no sympathy.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Also, I think there's a difference between violent resistance, and determining that large sections of one's own population must be killed 'for the greater good'.

The Russian Revolution against the Czarist regime - makes perfect sense. The Chinese Communist war against the Kuomintang - makes sense.

The problem arises, imo, when later, after a decade, or two or more, the new rulers determine that some of their fellow citizens must die; not through armed conflict between opposing groups, but by starvation, or mass imprisonment, or other forms of genocide - the killing of classes of people within an otherwise pacified country. Obvious examples are the Ukranian situation of the Thirties, the Cultural Revolution, the actions of Pol Pot.

'Making a better nation', by killing one in twenty of the citizens, or one in ten, seems to be missing the point somehow. For one thing, the grief, anguish and anger caused by such actions, will reverberate down through the decades. And it's arguable that if the path to 'betterment' involves mass killing, then maybe the potential betterment is never worth the price. Determining to take such action will inevitably bring about a lessening of the humanity of those who take the action. The moral authority of such people is weakened, and every idea emanating from their heads, becomes suspect.

 

[DotCommunist]

If blacks in the Sixties had taken up arms in any large number, they would have been violently suppressed

as the panthers were yes, and the young lords.

For one thing, the grief, anguish and anger caused by such actions, will reverberate down through the decades

and yes, so it does. Why am I so angry? Turning the cheek has never worked witout serious teeth to back it.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm not talking about what I want to happen. I'm talking about what has to happen. The only way to not have such a bloodbath is for concillatory race relations and genuine wealth distribution. And when you ask for that they kill you. We didn't start the fire.

 

[DotCommunist]

and stop trying to make people apologise for commie massacres when you won't pay even lip service to what the capitalists can, have and continue to do

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm giving my view of something specific, in keeping with the course of the discussion. If you read the thread, you can determine that I consider capitalism to be a flawed system. And of course capitalist governments have committed lots of atrocities, big and small.

But the crimes of one political system don't exonerate other systems of their crimes.

I'm not asking anyone to apologize for nor justify anything.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Turning the cheek has never worked witout serious teeth to back it.

History doesn't agree with you. The Civil Rights movement had no 'serious teeth'; nor did the Indian Independence movement. The Women's Suffrage movement had no 'serious teeth'.

 

[DotCommunist]

History doesn't agree with you. The Civil Rights movement had no 'serious teeth'; nor did the Indian Independence movement. The Women's Suffrage movement had no 'serious teeth'.

history does agree with me. All of those movements had militant wings.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you think the Suffrage movement etc prevailed due to force of arms, I'd have to disagree.

Any movement of any type will have extreme elements at both ends. The movements I've cited were predominantly - predominantly - non violent.

 

[crossthebreeze]

History doesn't agree with you. The Civil Rights movement had no 'serious teeth'; nor did the Indian Independence movement. The Women's Suffrage movement had no 'serious teeth'.

There's a large space between "non-violence" and "armed struggle" which was widespread and important in all of these movements though.

The suffragettes carried out loads of property damage up to arson and bomb attacks - including an attempt to blow up. Lloyd George's new house, and also carried out some minor assaults in politicians.

There were various militant organisations in the Indian Independence struggle, particularly in Bengal.

In MLK's view, riots (of which there were number during the civil rights movement) were "the language of the unheard ", and while he did not condone them, he presented the argument many times that both rioting and militancy were a product of a lack of civil rights and economic inequality, and a response to the authorities not giving in to demands presented non-violently.

 

[Pickman's model]

History doesn't agree with you. The Civil Rights movement had no 'serious teeth'; nor did the Indian Independence movement. The Women's Suffrage movement had no 'serious teeth'.

Tosh

 

[Pickman's model]

If you think the Suffrage movement etc prevailed due to force of arms, I'd have to disagree.

Any movement of any type will have extreme elements at both ends. The movements I've cited were predominantly - predominantly - non violent.

Your body is predominantly not teeth

 

[Pickman's model]

Also, I think there's a difference between violent resistance, and determining that large sections of one's own population must be killed 'for the greater good'.

The Russian Revolution against the Czarist regime - makes perfect sense. The Chinese Communist war against the Kuomintang - makes sense.

The problem arises, imo, when later, after a decade, or two or more, the new rulers determine that some of their fellow citizens must die; not through armed conflict between opposing groups, but by starvation, or mass imprisonment, or other forms of genocide - the killing of classes of people within an otherwise pacified country. Obvious examples are the Ukranian situation of the Thirties, the Cultural Revolution, the actions of Pol Pot.

'Making a better nation', by killing one in twenty of the citizens, or one in ten, seems to be missing the point somehow. For one thing, the grief, anguish and anger caused by such actions, will reverberate down through the decades. And it's arguable that if the path to 'betterment' involves mass killing, then maybe the potential betterment is never worth the price. Determining to take such action will inevitably bring about a lessening of the humanity of those who take the action. The moral authority of such people is weakened, and every idea emanating from their heads, becomes suspect.

You don't know fuck all about the Chinese communist war against the kuomintang. Forcing cities into starvation: makes perfect sense

 

[bi0boy]

There's a large space between "non-violence" and "armed struggle" which was widespread and important in all of these movements though.

The suffragettes carried out loads of property damage up to arson and bomb attacks - including an attempt to blow up. Lloyd George's new house, and also carried out some minor assaults in politicians.

Not sure they made the slightest difference tbh.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not sure they made the slightest difference tbh.

if you are unsure perhaps you should do some more research.

 

[free spirit]

Not sure they made the slightest difference tbh.

so how come both indian independence and women getting the vote came after those campaigns had become increasingly militant rather than when they were purely peaceful?

 

[redsquirrel]

In the UK women getting the vote came after the WPSU abandoned it's campaigns and backed the war.

 

[nardy]

Do you believe that everyone starts on a level playing field? That all are of equal intelligence, or equal physical capacity? Equal personality traits that are conducive to selling things/getting hired/winning friends and influencing people? Does everyone have equal health, or the same upbringing by their parents that's conducive to maximal personality and emotional growth?

I've known all sorts of people start and succeed in their own business: a whhelchair-user software developer, a builder who can't read or write, an unintelligent timber wholesaler.

 

[nardy]

Are you forvfucking real? Take a dangerous job or fucking starve that was my option many years ago.

I thought there was a welfare state in this country.

 

[nardy]

not even the soviet union claimed to have reached communism. Transitory socialism yes but not claiming to be the real deal- but heading for the real deal.

Oh please, not the old "the world has never had real communism" cobblers!

 

[nardy]

I'm not talking about what I want to happen. I'm talking about what has to happen. The only way to not have such a bloodbath is for concillatory race relations and genuine wealth distribution. And when you ask for that they kill you. We didn't start the fire. And stop trying to make people apologise for commie massacres when you won't pay even lip service to what the capitalists can, have and continue to do.

In the UK today, which capitalists have killed people? There may have been suicide by people losing jobs, but they weren’t murdered.

You appear to be condoning mass-murder, such as committed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, in order to depose capitalism in the UK.

How would you do that? Stand outside Bank underground and knife people in suits? Because I don’t think there are enough leftie psychos like you to mount a serious challenge to the majority of UK citizens who DON’T want a revolution.

 

[seventh bullet]

Full communism is impossible within the confines of one country, even to Stalin himself. From the Leninist delineation of a distinct transitional period, the early communistic stage called 'socialism' was believed to have been established in the USSR. And an accelerated capitalist development in order to get there. There's a Himalayan mountain range of literature on it all. Let's not reduce it to yebbut, wattabout and cliche.

Of relevance to the thread is that in the late 1930s when socialism was proclaimed built in the Soviet Union, it was called by its rulers the most democratic state in the world. They weren't lying.

 

[seventh bullet]

In the UK today, which capitalists have killed people? There may have been suicide by people losing jobs, but they weren’t murdered.

You appear to be condoning mass-murder, such as committed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, in order to depose capitalism in the UK.

How would you do that? Stand outside Bank underground and knife people in suits? Because I don’t think there are enough leftie psychos like you to mount a serious challenge to the majority of UK citizens who DON’T want a revolution.

He is doing no such thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

I thought there was a welfare state in this country.

there was.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've known all sorts of people start and succeed in their own business: a whhelchair-user software developer, a builder who can't read or write, an unintelligent timber wholesaler.

you're the last, i take it.

 

[DotCommunist]

always ready to speak for the silent majority eh nardy? This is boring me. By the numbers stuff.

You appear to be condoning mass-murder, such as committed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot

you appear to be condoning the ongoing and historic slaughters of liberal democracies yadd yadda- consider this conversation over, you've no real interest in capitalist apologia, its childish red baiting. Try harder. JC3 might be wrong but he believes what he's saying. In any case we're done.

 

[seventh bullet]

Stalinism is deliberately not very nice n' shit. With liberal capitalism, lots of horrible bad stuff just, like, happens.

 

[Pickman's model]

Stalinism is deliberately not very nice n' shit. With liberal capitalism, lots of horrible bad stuff just, like, happens.

like stalinism only without the central planning.

 

[seventh bullet]

More that those who favour the latter don't even recognise the horror is connected.

 

[yield]

The megadeaths of Liberalism thread from 2011

Commodities traders caused starvation and malnutrition for 200 million people thread from 2010