DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Will you be willing to repress the bourgeoisie after the revolution?

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 16:13
Will you be willing to repress the bourgeoisie after the revolution?

The cop-out answer is that the revolution we want will abolish the working class, and any wannabe / retro bourgeois aspirant would be unable to get an economic foothold because nobody would have any need to alienate their labor-time. But let's face it -- it's a big, unevenly developed world facing energy scarcity and serious ecological and viral crises. It's not out of the question that armed parties of the bourgeoisie will be able to develop bases on islands, in deserts, sea platforms, jungles, etc., and develop their black markets to the point of exploitating of refugee labor. Should communists and anarchists, despite our treasuring of individual liberty and peace, be willing to strike preemptively against our regrouping foes? Should we be willing to take prisoners, disrupt the ability of the bourgeoisie to reproduce themselves as a class using bourgeois culture, etc.? Just wondering.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 16:14

ummm that should be "exploiting refugee labor" obviously

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Nov 16 2007 16:24
Quote:
It's not out of the question that armed parties of the bourgeoisie will be able to develop bases on islands

I think they're more likely to set up internet discussion boards so that they can live out their ideological fantasies in cyber space.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 16:27

wink

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Nov 16 2007 16:56
john wrote:
Quote:
It's not out of the question that armed parties of the bourgeoisie will be able to develop bases on islands

I think they're more likely to set up internet discussion boards so that they can live out their ideological fantasies in cyber space.

You think there will still be computers after the revolution?

But seriously. Peaceful revolution is not possible, because of the ethical disposition of the enemy. The violence is not likely to be a here today, gone tomorrow phenomena. So my answer to the subject line is yes, of course.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 17:00

Randy, would you be willing to disrupt their ability to use bourgeois culture to maintain class cohesion?

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Nov 16 2007 17:27

Ah, you mean preemptive strikes at an enemy who is not aggressive at the moment? That is an interesting question. I may have to study on it.

Off the top of my head, i would say we would need to be sure that labor was actually being exploited, and that the oppressed would welcome our intervention. (Sorta like winning the working class over to revolutionary politics in the present day.) Under the those circumstances, again, yes.

edit; mj, if the above doesn't address your question, please provide examples of "using bourgeois culture to maintain class cohesion".

Thrashing_chomsky
Offline
Joined: 3-06-07
Nov 16 2007 17:29

I will be happy to mindlessly slaughter hundreds of the bourgeois, whatever their guise- cops, new slave-state makers, angry rich bastards, ex-military generals-turned-survivalist pharoh... kill em all, let Ronnie Ray-gun sort his own out.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Nov 16 2007 20:08

I'm willing to repress anyone anytime.

redboots's picture
redboots
Offline
Joined: 10-09-07
Nov 16 2007 20:49

It's hard to say. Though I will point out that this is why I am always arguing for working class tribunals and then executions of capitalists (and top/all cops and bosses) afer a revolution so that as few as possible surivive to regroup at all.

I would have no problem using an anarchist military to blow up some jamesbondesque island base owned by the worlds ex-rich. But as far as attacking someplace (nation or region) where they actually have a workign class under them, I think that has to be done by the workers themselves. If they reached the point of open conflict and wanted our help that would be a different story.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Nov 16 2007 20:54
redboots wrote:
But as far as attacking someplace (nation or region) where they actually have a workign class under them, I think that has to be done by the workers themselves. If they reached the point of open conflict and wanted our help that would be a different story.

What if there was a state/region making use of child slaves? I think we'd intervene whether they had reached a point of open conflict, or not.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 20:58

Yeah or what if they're just keeping workers semi-comatose in pods like in the Matrix?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Nov 16 2007 21:06
MJ wrote:
Yeah or what if they're just keeping workers semi-comatose in pods like in the Matrix?

What if they clone themselves! Perhaps genetically manipulating DNA to make their new clone children more subservient?

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Nov 16 2007 21:18
thugarchist wrote:
I'm willing to repress anyone anytime.

Good lad.

If I don't get to shoot people in the back of the head, it's not my revolution.

rebelworker
Offline
Joined: 11-07-06
Nov 16 2007 21:22

What of they all start speaking some bastardised version of the queens English, and proliferate oversized vehicles and crappy fast food culture and deny the superiority of Hockey...

What if they start imperialist wars with countries based on a need for fuel for said oversized vehicles...

...oh wait

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 21:43
rebelworker wrote:
[...]oversized vehicles and crappy fast food culture [...] What if they start imperialist wars with countries based on a need for fuel for said oversized vehicles...

Whoa, whoa, don't let all the Naomi Klein you guys are exposed to in Canada get to your head.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 21:46

Anyway what the crux of the thread here is, are you willing to help unflinchingly stamp out bourgeois culture, or are you just another liberal willing to risk a rebel pose because deep down you think a real global anarchist / communist revolution will never happen anyway?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Nov 16 2007 21:46
Quote:
...I am always arguing for working class tribunals and then executions of capitalists (and top/all cops and bosses) afer a revolution so that as few as possible surivive to regroup at all.

Do you really think of being a capitalist as some kind of irreversible organic flaw, a heredity that can only be removed alongside the bodies carrying it?

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Nov 16 2007 21:59
MJ wrote:
The cop-out answer is that the revolution we want will abolish the working class, and any wannabe / retro bourgeois aspirant would be unable to get an economic foothold because nobody would have any need to alienate their labor-time. But let's face it -- it's a big, unevenly developed world facing energy scarcity and serious ecological and viral crises. It's not out of the question that armed parties of the bourgeoisie will be able to develop bases on islands, in deserts, sea platforms, jungles, etc., and develop their black markets to the point of exploitating of refugee labor. Should communists and anarchists, despite our treasuring of individual liberty and peace, be willing to strike preemptively against our regrouping foes? Should we be willing to take prisoners, disrupt the ability of the bourgeoisie to reproduce themselves as a class using bourgeois culture, etc.? Just wondering.

Its one of the main things I look forward to post-rev. twisted

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 22:08
tojiah wrote:
Do you really think of being a capitalist as some kind of irreversible organic flaw, a heredity that can only be removed alongside the bodies carrying it?

I don't personally think this is the case. We just have to make sure that capitalists have absolutely zero opportunity to transmit their values and techniques to their children.

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Nov 16 2007 22:08

The Well Hung Priests of Catalonia would be a great name for an anarco-punk band.

redboots's picture
redboots
Offline
Joined: 10-09-07
Nov 16 2007 22:11

"Do you really think of being a capitalist as some kind of irreversible organic flaw, a heredity that can only be removed alongside the bodies carrying it?"

Yes. Well not the organic flaw part, but I think they need to be killed to the last.

"Anyway what the crux of the thread here is, are you willing to help unflinchingly stamp out bourgeois culture, or are you just another liberal willing to risk a rebel pose because deep down you think a real global anarchist / communist revolution will never happen anyway?"

I'd say yes, though I am still a little fuzzy on what would go into that exactly. And why would we ever take prisoners; )

kurasje
Offline
Joined: 3-07-07
Nov 16 2007 22:27
MJ wrote:
The cop-out answer is that the revolution we want will abolish the working class, and any wannabe / retro bourgeois aspirant would be unable to get an economic foothold because nobody would have any need to alienate their labor-time. But let's face it -- it's a big, unevenly developed world facing energy scarcity and serious ecological and viral crises. It's not out of the question that armed parties of the bourgeoisie will be able to develop bases on islands, in deserts, sea platforms, jungles, etc., and develop their black markets to the point of exploitating of refugee labor. Should communists and anarchists, despite our treasuring of individual liberty and peace, be willing to strike preemptively against our regrouping foes? Should we be willing to take prisoners, disrupt the ability of the bourgeoisie to reproduce themselves as a class using bourgeois culture, etc.? Just wondering.

In the current situation or phase of class struggle I think these questions are purely speculative and founded on the very narrow and limited horisonts of present day 'revolutionaries' in isolation/"excile" from real massive class struggle.

And I hope that your posing them here is not an invitation to be seriously considered.

In a real revolutionary situation of mass struggling against capitalism these questions will arise of course. But that will be in concrete situations of necessity for workers confronting the forces of the existing order of society. In that situation there will be no abstract moral standards or principles, but only practical questions of necessary actions.

But until then these questions has no meaning and if anyone seriously think so they are under severe suspect of all kinds of substitutionism and what follows from that !

j.

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Nov 16 2007 22:32

MJ,

Again, what constitutes "unflinchingly stamping out bourguos culture"? Executing those who argue for a return to private property? Imprisoning those who organize for that purpose? (I would tend to support the latter, but shy away from the former.)

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 22:37
kurasje wrote:
In a real revolutionary situation of mass struggling against capitalism these questions will arise of course. But that will be in concrete situations of necessity for workers confronting the forces of the existing order of society. In that situation there will be no abstract moral standards or principles, but only practical questions of necessary actions.

I'm not asking people as workers what they'd be willing to do in a revolutionary situation. I agree that we shouldn't be talking about any of the dreadful specifics of what could happen then. I'm asking people what they'd be willing to do when they are no longer workers, in a post-revolutionary situation. Do real revolutionaries desire to strip off their character-armor, and if so, will we be able to prevent the re-emergence of capitalism?

(I don't see communism as the telos of human history -- unfortunately -- so if you do the whole question is moot.)

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 16 2007 22:44
Randy wrote:
Again, what constitutes "unflinchingly stamping out bourguos culture"? Executing those who argue for a return to private property? Imprisoning those who organize for that purpose? (I would tend to support the latter, but shy away from the former.)

Based on my occasional experiences of being compelled to euthanize animals I can only imagine how horrible and emotionally crippling it would be to kill a human. Any systematic execution, even of bourgeois humans, would systematically produce nearly equivalent numbers of emotionally stunted people I would be hesitant to trust as my loving co-equals under communism.

So I'd really hope it wouldn't come to execution. If we burn their clothes and books and don't let them come into contact with any children or youth that should be enough, right?

kurasje
Offline
Joined: 3-07-07
Nov 16 2007 22:50

And that is to me pure speculation.
Sorry
j.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Nov 16 2007 22:52
tojiah wrote:
Do you really think of being a capitalist as some kind of irreversible organic flaw, a heredity that can only be removed alongside the bodies carrying it?
MJ wrote:
I don't personally think this is the case. We just have to make sure that capitalists have absolutely zero opportunity to transmit their values and techniques to their children.

How do you propose doing that? And what are those values and techniques that need to be stamped out, precisely?

redboots wrote:
Yes. Well not the organic flaw part, but I think they need to be killed to the last.

Why? And who are capitalists, exactly? Is a person living off a savings account they've accumulated into during a period of work a capitalist? Is a programmer for a software company who owns stock options a capitalist? Is a small shop-owner a capitalist? How about people renting out a part of their old family house to save on expenses? How about anyone related to them? I mean, the ideology might have spread, as the money definitely can, so it's probably safest to just kill all of their relatives, too, just to be sure that we're not letting any tiny drop of capitalism stay around post-revolution, perish the thought.

Randy wrote:
Executing those who argue for a return to private property? Imprisoning those who organize for that purpose? (I would tend to support the latter, but shy away from the former.)

How would people organize to the purpose of returning to private property in a communist society? And why would one need to imprison them when one can just expropriate their "property" as necessary? I mean, if a bunch of bourgeois would have tried organizing for the purpose of promoting private property in the early Middle Ages, before that became necessary for the survival of feudalism, eventually causing the latter's downfall, the king or lord would soon show them what's what, not even bothering to imprison them, I'd imagine. At most they'd be burned for witches, as this would constitute the utmost insanity under those circumstances, but if some gentleman asked to have his law of private property enforced, he'd be considered a laughingstock, not any kind of threat to the regime; much like primmos now, come to think of it.

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Nov 16 2007 23:24
Quote:
How would people organize to the purpose of returning to private property in a communist society?...

Similar to how fascists organize today, i suppose. I admit that the line between speech and organizing is a thin one, but I think it is, in fact, the distinction most anarchists make with the fash today. So i would think tomorrow's pro-capitalists would need the same cautious regard for their rights, and concern for the danger they would represent.

That was the reasoning behind my post, anyway, but I'll concede it was off the cuff. So now i think i will quiet for a moment, or even two, and evaluate the arguments of others.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Nov 16 2007 23:41

I consider the fash part of a bate-and-switch con by the bourgeois, to be honest. Just pushes you into fronts, and then you're doomed.

Randy
Offline
Joined: 31-01-07
Nov 16 2007 23:42
MJ wrote:
...Based on my occasional experiences of being compelled to euthanize animals I can only imagine how horrible and emotionally crippling it would be to kill a human. ...

Is this a joke thread, or are you really that squeamish?