In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.…They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
We need to put that word liberal to rest.That depends on what you're protesting. If you're advocating for a liberal cause then vandalism, arson, throwing rocks and terrorizing motorists is all protected PEACEFUL speech. If you're advocating somethingthat ISN'T a liberal cause then holding signs and wearing patriotic gear is domestic terrorism. Finally, if you're protesting abortion then sitting silently in prayer then you are among the worst of the worst and need to be removed from society permanently.
As liberals like to say 'No one is above the law'. Except when applied to them.I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
No, I think your definition of terrorism and your modification of its acceptability renders the Revolutionary War into a five year campaign of terrorism.Yes, you support leftist terrorism.
True. They are actually Maknovists but using that term would just confuse them.We need to put that word liberal to rest.
These are not liberal people by any stretch of the imagination. They would not recognize a liberal principle if it smacked them alongside their ignorant little faces.
Makhnovists, if you're going to use an 80 yr old reference. Me, I prefer Durruti.True. They are actually Maknovists but using that term would just confuse them.
How utterly ignorant and self-serving.No, I think your definition of terrorism and your modification of its acceptability renders the Revolutionary War into a five year campaign of terrorism.
I accept your flounce-away for what it is.How utterly ignorant and self-serving.
1. Pacifism is often moral surrender and cowardice.Depends on how bad the situation is. If you have a system that is designed to inflict injustice on people and the people have no other option then violence can be excusable. I believe we easily allow ourselves to be taken over by fash because we have a completely black and white view on political violence that is based on knee jerk thinking.
As long as you have a militant anarcho-communist in there some way.Makhnovists, if you're going to use an 80 yr old reference. Me, I prefer Durruti.
Ask those who supported the Jan. 6 rioters. I am sure they can provide a sage answer.
The conditions demanded both. What followed eliminated them. Each (one might broadly consider them Bakuninists) arose in specific conditions (warfare, breaking the logistical control structures of their respective states) and each failed when those conditions changed, but they did not.As long as you have a militant anarcho-communist in there some way.
These posters are neoMarxists. (This forum has many)
Karl Marx wrote about aggressive acts and violence as being acceptable forms of protest between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in his Communist Manifesto.
Are aggressive acts legitimate forms of protest and do you believe they are protected free speech?
Citizen Thom, the greatest of his age, on two continents. His opinion of violence (dreadful, necessary) has been sanitized for a Disney take on American history.He wrote about revolution being inevitable.
Thomas Jefferson also wrote about revolution, as did Thomas Paine.
Hence the Trotskyite pursuit of permanent revolution. As soon as one faction settles in to their own thing the "revolutionaries" need to come along and rile them up again. I mean, if you want to make sure you NEVER have a civil society then it's a great way to go!The conditions demanded both. What followed eliminated them. Each (one might broadly consider them Bakuninists) arose in specific conditions (warfare, breaking the logistical control structures of their respective states) and each failed when those conditions changed, but they did not.
There isn’t enough info in your question to make a decision. For example the Boston tea party was an aggressive protests.m as was the attack on Fort Sumpter.I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?
What high drama. All your allegations are rooted in propaganda circulating across social media.If protest has reached the form of violence, it's meeting government resistance. Violence is the last resort, after all other forms of protest has failed.
What's the scenario? A fascist takeover? Taking down Confederate Statues? Legitimacy of the protest depends on the legitimacy of the cause, and the need for violence is largely predicated on the nature of government resistance.
If masked, unidentified strangers are kidnapping people from the street, I would argue that violence is warranted. As that's a fully illegal act under the guise of legality.
What high drama. All your allegations are rooted in propaganda circulating across social media.
There are no masked, unidentified strangers who are kidnapping people from the street.
Yes, you think the revolutionary war is just like torching a small business.I accept your flounce-away for what it is.
There isn’t enough info in your question to make a decision. For example the Boston tea party was an aggressive protests.m as was the attack on Fort Sumpter.
I support the former but not the latter as do most people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?