[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / dox / f / gts / hisrol / kemono / throat ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: c1e28f21bde8ed7⋯.jpg (71.98 KB, 697x680, 41:40, urz.jpg)

File: e684f79c1d1d57b⋯.jpg (24.18 KB, 66x170, 33:85, otww.jpg)

 No.119135

What does leftpol think about terrorism? It wouldn't be so bad if a few terrorists slaughter the porkies and cops!

 No.119144

A. Stop being edgy.

B. Terrorism is whatever the government deems it to be.

C. Most terrorists are the government or funded by them.

D. Any political violence must be supported by the public before executing.


 No.119150

>>119144

A. Stop being a anxious slave to the capitalist system.

B. No, terrorism is violence for political purposes.

C. No, like i said terrorism is violence for political purposes, that means that terrorism can be right-wing or left-wing.

D. It does not have to, especially since most people from the United States are so brainwashed, that it will not come to a communist mass movement anyway.


 No.119151

A great deal of historical evidence shows that it tends to not get the public on your side very effectively.


 No.119152

>>119150

A. Find the nearest notable rich person near you and go shoot them up then.

B. Contemporary definition overrules conservative definition.

C. You fucking idiot that's not what I meant.

D. Then whatever amount comes will be swept up and probably will be shot down by reactionaries. Enjoy.


 No.119154

>>119152

>Contemporary definition overrules conservative definition.

Ok then socialism is social-democracy and communism is Juche.


 No.119157

>>119152

>Find the nearest notable rich person near you and go shoot them up then.

I already did.

>Contemporary definition overrules conservative definition.

What do you mean by that.

>You fucking idiot that's not what I meant.

And what did you mean by that, idiot?

>Then whatever amount comes will be swept up and probably will be shot down by reactionaries. Enjoy.

How should it be shot down?

What do you mean by that, express yourself clearly, fool!


 No.119158

>>119157

>I already did

No you did not


 No.119159

>>119135

A few people picking up guns and waging war against the government does not equal a revolution and should not even be attempted unless a significant amount of the masses are supporting you or your action would be supported by them. Groups like the RAF are adventurist with little to no connection in the people they claim to be fighting for. Armed means for taking power are hypothetically completely justifiable and valid but should only be employed as a last resort and when it is necessary given the conditions. Notice also when Marxists like Mao talk of guerilla warfare or people’s war they always talk of the masses themselves, not conspiratorial mini-armies:

>The revolutionary war is a war of the masses; only mobilizing the masses and relying on them can wage it.

>What is a true bastion of iron? It is the masses, the millions upon millions of people who genuinely and sincerely support the revolution. That is the real iron bastion, which it is impossible, and impossible, for any force on earth to smash. The counter-revolution cannot smash us; on the contrary, we shall smash it. Rallying millions upon millions of people round the revolutionary government and expanding our revolutionary war, we shall wipe out all counter-revolution and take over the whole of China.

also:

https://archive.org/details/GuerrillaWarfareAndMarxism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm


 No.119170

>>119157

I'm not going to ask for evidence as that's incriminating FBI tier shit and I'll take your word for it.

>What did you mean by that

Most groups you call terrorists are funded by the US government, maybe not all but a major part, look it up.

>How would it be shot down

If the majority of people will fight for power after collapse your communism won't survive.


 No.119182

>>119150

>terrorism is violence for political purposes.

>>119154

Wrong. Terrorism is non-state sanctioned violence. Taking up arms in self defense against a state is terrorism.

Violence performed by an internationally recognized state entity = war

Violence performed by an individual, non-state actor, political party, partisan = terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_partisans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement

>On the lawfulness of armed resistance movements in international law, there has been a dispute between states since at least 1899, when the first major codification of the laws of war in the form of a series of international treaties took place. In the Preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II on Land War, the Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.

>More recently the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, referred in Article 1. Paragraph 4 to armed conflicts "… in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes…" This phraseology contains many ambiguities that cloud the issue of who is or is not a legitimate combatant.[4] Hence depending on the perspective of a state's government, a resistance movement may or may not be labelled a terrorist group based on whether the members of a resistance movement are considered lawful or unlawful combatants and whether they are recognised as having a right to resist occupation.[5] Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Modern_definitions

>Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim.[1] It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants.


 No.119195

Seems like effective praxis desu.

There's a spectrum between terrorism, insurgency, and conventional war, and most successful left-wing revolutions went through an insurgent phase first.

Not that going for random mass-casualty al-Qaeda/ISIS style attacks works, that just turns proles against you, but carefully applied political violence, including bombings against certain targets, is absolutely a part of effective revolutionary activity.


 No.119196

It's mostly spectacle, but I'm not against it. The common people need a little entertainment, and one time in billions, it's more purpouseful than this.


 No.119305

>>119158

But I did!


 No.119330

>>119159

The purpose of terrorism is to demonstrate its power and to show the proletarians that they can defend themselves against this system.


 No.119348

It's not all bleak, sometimes the terrorists actually kill someone of no value by shear coincidence:

https://blazingpress.com/spotify-executive-among-one-dead-sweden-terrorist-attack/

Other than that, I don't think I've ever heard of a modern radical group that targeted landlords, hedge fund managers, various other capitalists and right wing politicians.

It's sad when even in the most masturbatory self righteous and congratulatory liberal fantasies of Hollywood and TV, we never see a vigilante going after the true hegemony of society and when we do it's a villain like Bane or a parody like that Uwe Boll movie with an anarchist giving guns to kids at a coffee shop.

Fight Club and Mister Robot which are more positive examples wouldn't dare think of committing any real harm to those that instigate it over the masses on a daily basis.


 No.119393

File: 8341b09d3afabb8⋯.jpg (571.41 KB, 1400x2100, 2:3, assault on wall street pos….jpg)

>>119182

>Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants.

That is a good definition.

Terrorism is distinguished from other forms of violence, whether by state or non-state actors, in its somewhat random targets implying that (at least among certain groups) anyone, anywhere, anytime, could be struck by it. The purpose of terrorism is to harass until demands are met. Terrorism is different from strikes against specific targets with the intent of crippling or eliminating various (e.g.: leadership, intelligence, security, infrastructure, supply) enemy capabilities.

>>119195

>>119196

>It's mostly spectacle, but I'm not against it.

This

>>119348

>I don't think I've ever heard of a modern radical group that targeted landlords, hedge fund managers, various other capitalists and right wing politicians.

And this. I'd be all for assassination of porkies, bombing of military bases, sabotage of oil terminals, etc., some good old fashioned "propaganda of the deed" stuff so that maybe next time something like NoDAPL rolls around it won't be composed entirely of noguns fags that get steamrolled.

>a parody

>that Uwe Boll movie

I think you're missing a different one. I didn't detect the slightest whiff of sarcasm, and I don't think any was intended:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130912060513/http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-05-08/film/uwe-boll-interview/

>Did you ever think you were treating Assault's over-the-top murder-revenge finale a bit too seriously?

>I wanted the movie to be a little radical. Of course, I don't want people to get shot for real, but I want them [Wall Street executives] to get scared. In a way, they deserve to be miserable. In the film, the [killer] gets away in the end and says "I'll keep doing it." So this is my message to them: Don't think you're safe.


 No.119394

>>119135

I think you should kill yourself you pathetic larping loser.


 No.119396

File: 758bdfd952908e7⋯.jpeg (725.05 KB, 2079x1447, 2079:1447, F607D408-A1E0-4A3C-9AD4-B….jpeg)

File: 9b173cb4148dbb8⋯.jpeg (117.86 KB, 630x828, 35:46, D5BE93F5-1D12-42A2-815F-9….jpeg)

>>119330

You can do that without resorting to terror-tactics. Look at the Black Panthers


 No.119419

>>119396

The Black Panthers ended up failing though. Now look at black America.


 No.119432

it would be ok if its not by Vietcong-supported porkies like OP's pic related


 No.119436

>>119419

Everyone who came before ended up failing. Besides, the Panthers sure as hell didn't hurt black Americans. The people who subverted, imprisoned, and killed them did.


 No.119437

File: 012c164f2405da9⋯.png (183.75 KB, 1263x545, 1263:545, 628adee6b85538f71e34efc2e8….png)


 No.119438

>>119436

>the Panthers sure as hell didn't hurt black Americans

I grew up idly lumping them in with the likes of spooky kooks like the NoI. But on actually looking closely at their history, behavior, ideological statements, and prominent figures, I was amazed to see how clean they were of racebaiting, vulgar nationalism/anticolonialism, LARPy lack of strong theory, petty crime, weak internal coherence, sectarianism among the left, or even knowing involvement with the types of people I declaimed.

BPP wasn't just excellent for a black rights group, but probably one of the only sterling specimens of the New Left clear into the 1970s when it was all going to pot.


 No.119439

>>119419

*laughs in J. Edgar Hoover*


 No.119456

eco-terrorism is always justified


 No.119461

File: 3762c8a06b486e8⋯.png (32.3 KB, 500x514, 250:257, DpYFcKrWwAABF3a.png)

You're not fooling anyone cia.


 No.119480

Killing people is bad.

As a rule of thumb, death is bad.


 No.119487

>>119480

You’ll never get anywhere with this type of liberal mindset


 No.119489

>>119487

Do you really find "death is bad" objectionable?


 No.119491

>>119489

Death for who? Indiscriminate killing is bad tactics but there are people who would be better off dead. I wish someone would make a leftist gang who went around and committed raids on White Nationalist meetings for example. Some people deserve to die, period.


 No.119493

>>119491

No person "deserves" death.

We all deserve a good life by virtue of being living, breathing human beings.

If you think some limited group of people are better off "gone" because their very existence hinders the attainment of good living by everyone else, then something akin to banishment (or, if there really is no choice, imprisonment) is a better solution.

Killing people is bad.


 No.119496

>>119493

These are all idealistic opinions. You think that, but that doesn’t mean it means shit. Killing is required, not because I like killing, it’s just how history is. Blood is the lubricant for the gears of history and your liberal mindset will be laughed at when shit hits the fan.


 No.119502

>>119496

"killing is required because it's just is" is not a good argument.

Killing people is bad. What leftists (and really, ideally, all people, but many right-wingers are a bit of a lost cause) should be aiming towards is achieving a humane society where everyone's basic human dignity is upheld. Killing people goes directly against that cause, and so must be avoided if necessary.

It may be an "idealist" position, but despite Marxist memes there is nothing wrong with idealism. You can be both a utopian and a pragmatist, picking the right course of action in trying to get as close as possible to an impossible utopia.

It's okay if you think killing may be necessary in specific, exceptional circumstances. Those can and should be debated. What's important is that those circumstances must remain exceptional: Killing is and must remain a bad thing, only done reluctantly (if it's done at all).


 No.119509

>>119502

Killing is wrong, and bad. There should be a new, stronger word for killing like badwrong or badong. Yes, killing is badong.


 No.119519


 No.119533

>>119305

Post pics or you didn't.


 No.119537

>>119491

Killing should be taken only as a response to killing, especially when there is no other practical recourse. Porkies kill, whether directly (through union suppression death squads in South America, for instance) or indirectly through the intentional callousness of their economic activities (pollution, defective products, theft, denial of vital services, etc.), and without any plausible system in place to stop them. Nearly all WNs, for instance, are just LARPers or petty criminals regularly harassed and suppressed by the liberal authorities, in need of nothing more than being ignored, mocked, or perhaps an occasional beating when they get physical themselves and the cops aren't around to do it for you.

Violence is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.


 No.119874

>>119394

I'll kill you and your whole family, you pathetic bootlicker!


 No.121579

its good, actually


 No.121580


 No.121658

>>119135

Go for it; the National Lawyer's guild will cover your ass like they did with the Weather Underground and Antifa


 No.121681

>>119437

>when "fascist cops" is your actual sexual identity


 No.121692


 No.121697

>>119150

>>that it will not come to a communist mass movement

Not with that attitude comrade


 No.121732




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / dox / f / gts / hisrol / kemono / throat ]