I’m worldbuilding a fictional universe centred on communist societies, and I want to write the socialism/communism aspects as accurately as possible.
So if a country is currently monarchist, fascist, imperialist, etc but with a socialist revolution is underway, there is certainly going to be extreme resistance from the existing State. In a situation like this, do you think the socialist revolution should do things that help them, but would be considered unethical in war, aka “war crimes”? For example, things like poisoning key figures of the existing State, using “cruel weapons”, torture, etc. Especially if the existing State is already acting in that way? Would this contradict socialist philosophy or morality? What if the revolution is in danger of being extinguished by the State?
The first thing to say when talking about war crimes, is that they’re inevitable. It doesn’t matter who’s fighting who, it doesn’t matter if it’s a genuine fight of good versus evil, everyone commits them. The second thing to say, is the people in power never try themselves for war crimes, even when they’re obvious.
The assassination of non-military political targets is a war crime, but it’s fully in line with the aims of Marxist revolution so there’s no real contradiction there. Though, poisoning them on the other hand could have some debate. Chemical and Biological weapons are illegal, but I also don’t see the moral use case of them from people who are supposedly liberating their fellow worker, so imo that one would contradict them.
Torture, though, is a strange one. Mostly because what exactly is torture? the GC defines it as “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment” but what does that mean? you could argue that forcing a rich person to live with poor people, in the same conditions as workers is “torture” under their definition. So, for the vagueness of it, let’s suffice to say extreme torture is definitely against socialist moralism, but ‘just punishment’ wouldn’t be.
Chemical and Biological weapons are illegal, but I also don’t see the moral use case of them from people who are supposedly liberating their fellow worker, so imo that one would contradict them.
I’m curious if you think there’s a difference between, say, poisoning an entire building or city’s water supply, versus targeted person-specific poisoning of key ruling figures to quietly assassinate them and eliminate them from being able to aid the reactionary State (which is the kind I was getting at). Would both be contradictions? What would set the former apart from assassination with a gun for example? (BTW I don’t claim to support either IRL, obviously that would be different from fiction.)
IDK if any would use anything besides tear gas, or perhaps specific enemy areas like CIA headquarters or a base. Any chance it would hit a working class population, an innocent one at that, would make communist leaders shirk from using such things. This is assuming the communists are real ones and care for the working class.
there is gonna be a lot of “grey area”, especially when everything is currently against you
