Puritan socialists want a revolution and abolition of the capitalist class but mainly without violence, as all violence is wrong according to them. The use of violence makes your goal immediately immoral.
Tankies, however, do understand that a (possible violent) revolution is necessary and that violence needs to be used to oppress the bourgeoisie into conceding power. We understand that not all violence is immoral.
So yes, by all means necessary is true if you look at it a certain way. But you can ask yourself if that’s wrong.
A violent reaction by the proletariat is a logical answer to the violent ways in which control is forced on them. An oppressed force using violence to free themselves from the oppressor is in no way immoral if you ask me. You don’t ask if you can be free, you demand it. By force and by any means necessary.
To me, “all means necessary” implies that we’d be willing to do all kinds of disgusting shit if it has a slight chance of helping the revolution. Violence is obviously unavoidable, but it’s not like killing or torturing someone whom we suspect to be acting against proletarian interests will be our first choice. We’re not going to go around killing every passive anticommunist we see just because they’re not currently on our side
Yeah, this is what i meant in my previous answer to you - they don’t think so. Or rather, they are already accustomed by the liberal media to think of revolutionaries as violent monsters wanting to literally pay eye for an eye for millenia of opression (note - they do know there is a lot to paid for), mostly because the idea of lex talionis is so popular among the conservatives which they are in a nutshell.
Just go watch any video about Che Guevara on the Youtube for an example of that thinking, and how widespread it is on the right and western left (Hakim posted great commentary about this just yesterday).
Common liberal understanding of the phrase in political context is not what you would think it is.
It’s just plain old “violence”. Notably, violence against the opressors. They are perfectly ok with violence used by the opressors - well they grumble some but, here is the important part, since basically all meaningful change not to mention such fundamental one as revolution are done by the violent means, they will always in fact oppose any meaningful progress - which really means supporting the status quo and the opression.
ah, yes, us tankies are well-known for claiming that all means justify the end
Depends in how you look at it.
Puritan socialists want a revolution and abolition of the capitalist class but mainly without violence, as all violence is wrong according to them. The use of violence makes your goal immediately immoral.
Tankies, however, do understand that a (possible violent) revolution is necessary and that violence needs to be used to oppress the bourgeoisie into conceding power. We understand that not all violence is immoral.
So yes, by all means necessary is true if you look at it a certain way. But you can ask yourself if that’s wrong.
A violent reaction by the proletariat is a logical answer to the violent ways in which control is forced on them. An oppressed force using violence to free themselves from the oppressor is in no way immoral if you ask me. You don’t ask if you can be free, you demand it. By force and by any means necessary.
To me, “all means necessary” implies that we’d be willing to do all kinds of disgusting shit if it has a slight chance of helping the revolution. Violence is obviously unavoidable, but it’s not like killing or torturing someone whom we suspect to be acting against proletarian interests will be our first choice. We’re not going to go around killing every passive anticommunist we see just because they’re not currently on our side
If you put it that way, I agree with you.
I suppose it depends on how literally the phrase is interpreted
Yeah, this is what i meant in my previous answer to you - they don’t think so. Or rather, they are already accustomed by the liberal media to think of revolutionaries as violent monsters wanting to literally pay eye for an eye for millenia of opression (note - they do know there is a lot to paid for), mostly because the idea of lex talionis is so popular among the conservatives which they are in a nutshell.
Just go watch any video about Che Guevara on the Youtube for an example of that thinking, and how widespread it is on the right and western left (Hakim posted great commentary about this just yesterday).
I watched that video. As usual, almost every part where someone other than Hakim was talking was very painful
Common liberal understanding of the phrase in political context is not what you would think it is.
It’s just plain old “violence”. Notably, violence against the opressors. They are perfectly ok with violence used by the opressors - well they grumble some but, here is the important part, since basically all meaningful change not to mention such fundamental one as revolution are done by the violent means, they will always in fact oppose any meaningful progress - which really means supporting the status quo and the opression.
Also:
That does seem to be the case. That’s a great quote, too. I had a very shallow interpretation of the word “violence” when I was a liberal