Violent Revolution

Blood in the streets - is it required to bring about change ?

I think so - when the time comes I doubt the capitalists will just abandon their positions of power and and subscribe to the fact that private property 'as a concept' no longer exists.

If they do not reject their antiquated concepts, I have no doubt they will violently resist the new way -

If they refuse to accept that property is a means of exploitation and therefore
no more acceptable - what is to be done about them ? In a free society we cannot oppress them - but what is to be done with those who actively seek to
reintroduce the very means of oppression ?

bloody revolution is needed.
i will say that liquidation is needed of the counter-revolutionaries.

Of course the Capitalist Class will not passively allow itself to be expropriated and will resist the implementation of a socialist system and force is likely to be needed in order to overthrow the bourgeois state but this does not necessarily warrant bloodshed on a massive scale. The storming if the Winter Palace was as easy as "lifting a feather" and required very little bloodshed, the Russian Civil War however was very bloody indeed due to the heavy resistance of the Tsarists and their imperialist supporters.
TL;DR:
Amount of bloodshed necessary for the success of the revolution depends on the level of bourgeois resistance which may vary.

Absolutely not - killing those that disagree with you is Stalinist. Besides Violance is exactly what Communism is opposing.

So



No.

im gona agre wit cyprian vilence is not the answer.

plos byotnickzosh why do you want to kil counterrevs? they are just a product of ther materiil condetions.

i kno pepul are about to think im reformist. false. i believe in luxemburgs theory of the mass strike. its a nonviolent revplution.

plus 'revoluction' wher you vote for polotocians isnt that revolotionary.

Watermelon wrote:

im gona agre wit cyprian vilence is not the answer.

plos byotnickzosh why do you want to kil counterrevs? they are just a product of ther materiil condetions.

i kno pepul are about to think im reformist. false. i believe in luxemburgs theory of the mass strike. its a nonviolent revplution.

plus 'revoluction' wher you vote for polotocians isnt that revolotionary.

I don't know where to begin correcting you.

the begining is fine.

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Absolutely not - killing those that disagree with you is Stalinist. Besides Violance is exactly what Communism is opposing.

So



No.

I would agree with you but it goes without saying that the capitalists will eventually use violence to prevent socialism - How do we meet this ?

Unfortunately they will try to destroy us using violence - it seems that our differences are irreconcilable - our interests are entirely at odds - we are on a collision course.

inkus2000 wrote:

I would agree with you but it goes without saying that the capitalists will eventually use violence to prevent socialism - How do we meet this ?

Unfortunately they will try to destroy us using violence - it seems that our differences are irreconcilable - our interests are entirely at odds - we are on a collision course.

Yeah, pretty much. Capitalism has always used violence to put down protests. I can name many examples but I don't wanna.

And considering what happened in Korea's Gwangju Massarce, it is literally fate to use violence against capitalists who will hunt and kill us and our familes.

So violent revolution, I can only see that as a last resort. The capitalists are power hungry biatches and they don't care about lives. So violence is perhaps neccessary.

let them strike first, then we got a good excuse

Well Capitalists wont intervene until we start posing a virtual threat - and when we do we there WILL be too many of us to just kill and then erase it - then we will die for a noble couse and Capitalism will slowly fall becous it showed there intolerant nature and begun there own undoing - either way, we win

inkus2000 wrote:

Blood in the streets - is it required to bring about change ?

I think so - when the time comes I doubt the capitalists will just abandon their positions of power and and subscribe to the fact that private property 'as a concept' no longer exists.

If they do not reject their antiquated concepts, I have no doubt they will violently resist the new way -

If they refuse to accept that property is a means of exploitation and therefore
no more acceptable - what is to be done about them ? In a free society we cannot oppress them - but what is to be done with those who actively seek to
reintroduce the very means of oppression ?

yoo come near my things and I kill you becuse they are MY things not your so get the fuck away.

We don't want your pr0n magz

mattabesta wrote:

inkus2000 wrote:

Blood in the streets - is it required to bring about change ?

I think so - when the time comes I doubt the capitalists will just abandon their positions of power and and subscribe to the fact that private property 'as a concept' no longer exists.

If they do not reject their antiquated concepts, I have no doubt they will violently resist the new way -

If they refuse to accept that property is a means of exploitation and therefore
no more acceptable - what is to be done about them ? In a free society we cannot oppress them - but what is to be done with those who actively seek to
reintroduce the very means of oppression ?

yoo come near my things and I kill you becuse they are MY things not your so get the fuck away.

Are you a capitalist ? Do you own any factories ? sweatshops ?

If not then dont worry

If you do give us your details

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

We don't want your pr0n magz

He uses pichunter.com.

i dont need pron i have real chix.

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

We don't want your pr0n magz

I do.

It's not required, but is bound to eventually happen. Nonviolant protests lead to violent resistance. Vilotent protests lead to violent resistance.
See, either way theres gonna be violence, atleast in my oppinion there is....

WeiWuWei wrote:

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

We don't want your pr0n magz

I do.

me too

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Absolutely not - killing those that disagree with you is Stalinist. Besides Violance is exactly what Communism is opposing.

So



No.

QFT.
If we were to gain political power through elections, it would demonstrate to the bourgeoisie that resistance is futile (and means that they cannot use their armies against as).

Steel wrote:

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Absolutely not - killing those that disagree with you is Stalinist. Besides Violance is exactly what Communism is opposing.

So



No.

QFT.
If we were to gain political power through elections, it would demonstrate to the bourgeoisie that resistance is futile (and means that they cannot use their armies against as).

You will still encounter violent resistance - regardless of majority support.

inkus2000 wrote:

Steel wrote:

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

Absolutely not - killing those that disagree with you is Stalinist. Besides Violance is exactly what Communism is opposing.

So



No.

QFT.
If we were to gain political power through elections, it would demonstrate to the bourgeoisie that resistance is futile (and means that they cannot use their armies against as).

You will still encounter violent resistance - regardless of majority support.

exactly a velvet proletarian revolution just seems pretty ridiculous.