I don't like this. While it was probably necesarry to kill the royal family to avoid a counter-revolution or a government-in-exile, that does not mean we should make death, murder or the fear of those about to be murdered into something to laugh at.
Yes the Tzar was a murderous bastard encouraging pogroms and generally just a guy who got off easy, this photo doesn't really convey that to me. It seems like it's just laughing at something awful that happened to a family. Did the family deserve it? Yes. That doesn't mean we should make the act into something funny. Violence is necessary, but it shouldn't be glorified.
I don't think it's a black & white thing, but this image crosses my line anyway. Feels wrong.
The children might not have deserved it at all even if it were needed. I would argue that the Bolsheviks made the correct decisions even if it wasn’t “deserved” simply by virtue that they would have posed a threat for the rest of their lives
I'm just making sure we're all on the same page about not machine gunning children.
I'm honestly shocked that this even has to be said here, let alone that apparently so many really aren't on the same page that machine-gunning children is both wrong and unjustifiable.
Eh, I know it's a minority position on the left but that's why it's a drum I beat every time it comes up. Unironically forced me back into religion when I realized that leftist politics without axiomatic moral grounding results in disaster.
Now I go to leftist meetings to avoid being useless and Quaker meeting to avoid being terrible.
I don't know, if the marxists or anarchists I work with irl ever said that kind of shit, I wouldn't work with them anymore (and we have discussed the topic). Simple as a that. Personally, I'm an atheist and haven't come up against any contradictions between my leftism and my morality or humanism. But if religion is what it takes for people to recognize that killing kids because of some hypothetical future scenario is wrong and will never be justified, then I say keep the churches full.
How are we supposed to convince people of our vision of a better world if we can't even get the easy stuff like "don't murder children" down? Christ even the liberals have the sense to pretend to feel bad about drones strikes on weddings when pressed.
I also think murdering children is bad. I think the specific situation with royal family of a monarchy is significantly different. Reducing my opinion to "machinegun kids lol" strikes me as very bad faith.
Either way I don't really think what you and I think of the murder of a royal family more than 100 years ago matters enough to get into an argument that can only sour relations. Seems unproductive. I apologise for making the mistake of stoking this argument.
I'm not looking to sour relations and am not going to take your position on the matter personally, and it's not that you stoked this argument, it's that I'm actively evangilizing a humanism first leftism. I think as soon as machine gunning kids enters into the political toolkit, regardless of what problems it resolves, we've lost the plot. Whatever nuance you want to inject into the scenario is fine, but at the end of the day it does boil down to you thinking that under certain circumstances it's acceptable, so I don't think I'm unfairly characterizing your position at all.
It doesn't seem to me like you're evangelizing a human first leftism. It seems to me like you're reducing a complex argument to "you're celebrating the killing of kids, and you think kids should be killed" you've compared it to the dropping of atomic bombs on two cities.
Again I'd sincerely urge you to read Robespierres arguments against king Louis. It's not just some words on a piece of paper, it was a legal argument on wether or not the king of France could be judged by France, and what that sentence should be. In this argument Robespierre agrees that the king himself has not committed any especially heinous deeds personally, yet he must still be put to death, because his existence is a threat. Here's a breakdown of it. Here's parts of the text itself.
Some excerpts:
introduction statement
Citizens, without realizing it the Assembly has been lead far from the true question. There is no trial to be conducted here. Louis is not accused and you are not judges. You are, as you can only be, the nation's statesmen and representatives. No verdict is required, either for or against a man. Rather, a step aimed at the public safety needs to be taken, an act of salvation for the nation. In a Republic a deposed king is good for only one of two things: He either disrupts the peace of the state and weakens its freedom, or he strengthens both simultaneously. I assert that the nature of the deliberations to date are directly at odds with this latter goal. In fact, what rational course of action is called for to solidify a newborn Republic? Is it not to etch an eternal contempt for royalty into everyone's soul and mute the King's supporters? . . .
The king shouldn't even get a trial
Louis was the King, and the Republic is established. The vital question that occupies you here is resolved by these few words: Louis has been deposed by his crimes. He denounced the French people as rebels, and to punish them he called upon the arms of his fellow tyrants. Victory and the people have decided that he alone was the rebel. Consequently, Louis cannot be judged. Either he is already condemned, or else the Republic is not absolved. To suggest that Louis XVI be tried in any way whatsoever is to regress toward royal and constitutional despotism. A proposal such as this, since it would question the legitimacy of the Revolution itself, is counterrevolutionary. In actuality, if Louis can still be brought to trial, he might yet be acquitted. In truth, he is presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. If Louis is acquitted, what then becomes of the Revolution? If Louis is innocent, all defenders of liberty are then slanderers (...)
Citizens, defend yourselves against [tyranny]! False ideas have deceived you. . . . You are confusing the state of a people in the midst of a revolution with the state of a people whose government is firmly established. You are confusing a nation that punishes a public official while maintaining its form of government with a nation that destroys the government itself.
it's him or us
When a nation has been forced to resort to its right of insurrection, its relationship with the tyrant is then determined by the law of nature. By what right does the tyrant invoke the social contract? He abolished it! The nation, if it deems proper, may preserve the contract insofar as it concerns the relations between citizens. But the end result of tyranny and insurrection is to completely break all ties with the tyrant and to reestablish the state of war between the tyrant and the people. Tribunals and judiciary procedure are designed only for citizens.
Insurrection is the real trial of a tyrant. His sentence is the end of his power, and his sentence is whatever the People's liberty requires.
The trial of Louis XVI? What is this trial if not an appeal from the insurrection to some tribunal or assembly? When the people have dethroned a king, who has the right to revive him, thereby creating a new pretext for riot and rebellionÑand what else could result from such actions? By giving a platform to those championing Louis XVI, you rekindle the dispute between despotism and liberty and sanction blasphemy of the Republic and the people . . . for the right to defend the former despot includes the right to say anything that sustains his cause. You reawaken all the factions, reviving and encouraging a dormant royalism. One could easily take a position for or against. What could be more legitimate or more natural than to everywhere spread the maxims that his defenders could openly profess in the courtroom, and within your very forum? What manner of Republic is it whose founders solicit its adversaries from all quarters to attack it in its cradle?
ya gotta do what ya gotta do
Representatives, what is important to the people, what is important to yourselves, is that you fulfill the duties with which the people have entrusted you. The Republic has been proclaimed, but have you delivered it to us. You have yet to pass a single law deserving of that title. You have yet to reform a single abuse of despotism. Remove but the name and we have tyranny still, with even more vile factions and even more immoral charlatans, while there is new tumultuous unrest and civil war. The Republic! And Louis still lives! And you continue to place the King between us and liberty! Our scruples risk turning us into criminals. Our indulgence for the guilty risks our joining him in his guilt.
Regretfully I speak this fatal truth Louis must die because the nation must live. Among a peaceful people, free and respected both within their country and from without, it would be possible to listen to the counsel of generosity which you have received. But a people that is still fighting for its freedom after so much sacrifice and so many battles; a people for whom the laws are not yet irrevocable except for the needy; a people for whom tyranny is still a crime subject to dispute such a people should want to be avenged. The generosity which you are encouraged to show would more closely resemble that of a gang of brigands dividing their spoils.
It is not a question of punishing an individual, but eradicating a system. Those children existed as parts of that system, and would in most circumstances always exist as that. Pretending like the fear of counter-revolution being fomented once again decades later around the figure of a royal heir as some statistical unlikelyhood, is absurd when we can see exactly that having happened throughout history. As you said yourself there are still bonapartists, orleanists and the like. There's no romanovists. While the orleanists are ridiculous now, they did previously and successfully lead a counter revolution. The bonarparists did as well.
In this sense the fear of the children becoming some later legitimising fixpoint for reaction is not some person "peering into the future", it is us peering into the past. Those children did nothing wrong, but by virtue of the system they were at the top of, they would forever be threats to the USSR. In this way those children were as much a victim of the system as anyone else dying senselessly.
Just because people stomp up and down about 'political necessity' doesn't actually conjure that ideological abstraction up into material reality. China didn't machine gun Pu Yi and incidentally, their communist party is still running the show. I don't know how difficult it is not to machine gun a 13 year old, and no amount of "you made me do this" are going to change the fact that we're the ones making the (erroneous) decision to machine gun 13 year olds.
I mean they literally let him live after being a Japanese puppet during their atrocity spree in the 30's and 40's, so I think my dumb ass using him as a morality puppet would seem just about par for the course to them.
The notion that anyone can peer into the future and see all the possible outcomes to a sufficient degree of certainty to claim that the only possible outcome is to kill the kid is also very silly and Madeline Albrightesque.
We can be absolutely certain that the possibility of reinstating the monarchy would be very bad for lots of Jewish children. It's terrible, but Tsar Nicholas shouldn't have created a situation where he made the existence of his family so dangerous for everyone else.
We can be absolutely certain that the possibility of reinstating the monarchy would be very bad for lots of Jewish children.
Shooting a specific Royal lineage doesn't change anything about the possibility of reinstating the Monarchy. The white's didn't evaporate after the executions in the same way that the coalitions didn't evaporate as soon as soon as Louis XVI got the chop, and the House of Windsor doesn't quake at the thought of the current Jacobite pretenders. . The notion that the fate of the revolution hangs in the balance of Alexei's life is some grade A great man theory nonsense.
The only possible outcome? No, it wasn’t the only possible outcome but still a quite probable one. Maybe it wouldn’t have been needed but it was still justified as they could have posed a threat to the rwvolution
No, it wasn’t the only possible outcome but still a quite probable one.
Somehow I don't think they made this decision after siting down with a slide rule and a bunch of actuarial tables, so I don't know how they arrived at that balance of probabilities.
In reality it's more like cops defending their use of deadly force in any circumstances. They reckoned it had to be done, and their judgement is all that's needed to justify it, and now everyone else has to object to or rationalize their decision.
Sometimes people really do make decisions with uncertain and incomplete information, and sometimes people kill a black teenager for fun and pretend they feared for their lives. These are not the same thing. I wouldn't have killed the kids, but it probably saved a lot of other kids.
Why we don't say stuff like this? We can't tease out the tread of time and say 15 years late what our actions are going to cause. Not with any degree of certainly but also not with any objective or even methodical notion of "probability" that we seem so eager to fall back on. We can stand in the moment and make a decision. Do I shoot the unarmed kid or not? That answer is pretty cut and dry for any humanstic strain of thought.
The fact that I can conceive of a possible chain of events where that has unfortunate ramifications doesn't change that.
Eh, I disagree. The kids didn’t deserve it but it was necessary as they would have served the counterrevolution for the rest of their life’s and would have been a rallying call by the reactionaries
There are still Stuart and Bonapartist pretenders, the presence or absence of heirs isn't what determines if you have an armed Royalist insurrection against you, as evidenced by the fact the civil war continued long past the murder of the royal family.
Having royal family members can provide some legitimacy to the insurrections. They didn’t know what was going to happen, only that the kids being gone may prevent an issue in the future and I would have agreed with them. The Bolsheviks were right on this instance
That arguments even worse, it takes it from "killing the kids solves a current problem" to "killing the kids may solve possible future problems", and if that's the standard, then it's never not justified killing kids, as you can always posit some possible future where some kid is going to cause issues.
Say what you will about the CPC but at least they correctly realized that Pu-Yi didn't need to eat a bullet to head off any issues, and that was even after he collaborated with the Japanese.
Obviously the kids of a deposed ruler represents far more of an issue than regular children in a country. I seriously don’t think non-revolutionaries far after the event have a leg to stand on to critique the actions of the Bolsheviks from some Ivory Tower of morality. What happened was during a revolution and they were the children and heirs to the position of the sunpreme enemy
Obviously the kids of a deposed ruler represents far more of an issue than regular children in a country.
Right it was some great great cousin of the Tsar that opened the Soviet Union up to the west leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union and not some hereditary nobody.
I seriously don’t think non-revolutionaries far after the event have a leg to stand on to critique the actions of the Bolsheviks from some Ivory Tower of morality.
I mean, they fail even a basic "ends justify the means" test given that Russia is currently a hyper-capitalistic dystopia so yeah, I don't think my critique of the path they set down is in fact ill-posed.
Capital, in all it's algorithimic and anti-humanistic glory is the supreme enemy, not some guy wearing a funny hat in a bunch of medals . The french killed their funny hat guy and 10 years later they had an Italian in an even funnier hat running things, so this notion that we can just kill our way into socialism by executing certain lineages seems a bit daft.
Saying that I am promoting “killing our way to socialism” is patently dishonest. I am stating that the Bolsheviks took out an easy path to anti-revolutionary activity and stopped the flower of evil from flowering. I don’t wish to have a conversation if you are going to misrepresent what I said by claiming that I want to “kill our way to socialism”
You are willingly misrepresenting what I am saying. The path to socialism isn’t about killing but of course killing is generally necessary, the enforcement of authority of the proletariat must be carried out agaisnt the former oppressors. If you can’t understand that, I don’t know what to say
Fuck you. Killing children is never necessary. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.
the enforcement of authority of the proletariat must be carried out agaisnt the former oppressors.
Children were never the oppressors you fucking ghoul! You remind me of the goddamned apologists for the US nuking Japan "anything done in the name of furthering the goals of my side, even deliberately to innocent people born in the wrong place at the wrong time, may seem icky but thems the way it is. I'm just being practical." Not only does the argument rest entirely on a possibility of what might happen, it's completely unjustified regardless.
I don't think it's fair to equate the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the injury and radiation poisoning and genetic defects of countless more to killing, what, 5 children? That's absurd. You're blowing this completely out of proportion.
You can argue it's wrong but I can't imagine getting upset over something like that. There's a simple matter of scale to consider.
And again, that's exactly what the fascist apologists for the dropping of nuclear bombs on innocent Japanese civilians say.
"I can't imagine getting upset over something like child murder." I almost put in one of the disgust emojis here but it felt like it was too light-hearted for the disgust I'm actually feeling right now for people I used to think of as comrades.
Lol holy shit 5 innocent people were killed a hundred years ago and you're throwing around "people I used to think of as comrades" because we're not clutching pearls hard enough over it.
What a ridiculous thing to care about. Do you support revolution? You realize that lots of innocent people would die in a conflict like that, right? Way more than 5, I can tell you that! Revolution is not a dinner party.
I'm sorry that I don't consider the lives of royals to be worth more than other people. Kill the lib in your head.
"lol, you actually care about innocent people? What a rube! What a LIB!"
And no, I don't give a shit what you clutch pearls about - I mean, I would have thought someone interested in liberation would give a shit about human beings, but maybe that was naive of me - I'm said the "former comrades" thing because I expect the people I consider comrades not to support murdering the children simply because those children were born to their (and my) class enemies.
And get the fuck out of here with your "ooooooooh, but that's ReVoLuTiOnN!!" schtick. You're like the fucking reactionaries talking about those woke tankies for being upset by the "collateral damage" of all those Iraqi civilians. Oh boo hoo, innocent people. Who gives a shit about them, right? That's just WAR. Yeah, no shit people die in war, but you pretending that that's the same as there being innocent people who are your prisoners and are defenseless, literally children who at your mercy and then choosing to shoot them... That kind of false equivalency and gross disregard for innocent people truly is beyond the pale.
Kill the reactionary chud in YOUR head.
So yes, fuck you. You are no comrade of mine, just as no apologists for bigotry, SA, fascism, or in this case, child murder, are. It's like that Che quote "if you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine." Well, you clearly aren't because you clearly don't give a shit about injustice, so long as it's perpetrated by those you deem to be on your side.
That arguments even worse, it takes it from "killing the kids solves a current problem" to "killing the kids may solve possible future problems", and if that's the standard, then it's never not justified killing kids, as you can always posit some possible future where some kid is going to cause issues.
That argument is completely absurd. Just because you can always posit some possible future where some kid is going to cause issues doesn't mean it's likely.
I don't want to pull the "I'm a statistics professor card", but I'm literally a statistics professor so unless I see an integral over a sample space in the denominator I don't want to hear about likelihood, and especially not when someone's half-baked narrative of possible possibilities gets treated as meaningfully bearing on that likelihood.
Like are we just throwing that word around or is their some objective method that apparently everyone else knows about for now to compute these probabilities and arrive at these conclusions.
There's no way to objectively calculate the worth of an innocent person's life anyway, so you can't really put it into a formal equation. Sometimes you just have to make decisions based on incomplete information, I don't see what the problem is. It's not like I want to kill kids, but if I evaluated that there's a high enough chance that it could save a high enough number of lives, I'd pull the lever on that trolley problem 100%. What am I, a Kantian?
If seems to me that if we're willing to acknowledge that our subjective estimation of probabilities aren't necessarily any good at predicting actual outcomes we could not only save ourselves a ton of trouble handwringing over what level of perceived benefit justifies turning on the orphan mulcher, it would also go a long way to ensuring we don't accidentally make common cause with the people who do enjoy mulching orphans.
You can pretty easily draw a thoughline from the slapdash deployment of political violence to the elevation of ghouls like Beria to the head of the organs of state.
You've already decided you're ok with orphans getting mulched the moment you pick up a gun and call for revolution. Innocent people die in war, that's a fact of life. It may not be you who mulches the orphans, but you're the one setting of the chain of events that will cause them to get mulched. I feel like anybody who cares about this just has an extremely romantic view of war.
Revolutions don't happen on a regular basis, and a failed revolution can change the course of history and deny opportunities for centuries to come. And in the short term, it can mean the death of everyone you know and love, and countless others beyond anything you're capable of comprehending. You have to understand what you're getting into when you go down that path, and you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to win. You try to fight honorably, you pass up on a potential advatange, you can be assured that the enemy won't. There's no room for half measures, you either fully commit or you back down.
Having royal family members can provide some legitimacy to the insurrections.
Are we idealists with a great man view of history now? Do we think these symbols actually hold real power to sway a insurrection's success one way or the other?
The difference is that we are here depicting actual people that was in this actual situation as crying wojaks and the guy who shot them as the yes-chad. It's pretty clear the intent is to ridicule and glorify.
I think stuff like is fine because 1. It's a Nazi and 2. It's not a real person. I think is fine because it was a bunch of partisans getting retribution during wartime. They had no time or resources for a fair trial and they knew the people they executed anyway, so the evidence was pretty clear.
I think the reason that image crosses my line is because it depicts a traumatic event that happened to actual people, and some of those people didn't really have the agency to do anything else. I'm not sad the Romanovs are dead, and I think the overthrow and owning of a doofus failson named Nicky is something that should be celebrated, but I just don't think that justifies mocking people in their last moments. Had things been different then some of them might've gotten the Puyi treatment, it's sad that that wasn't possible. I'm not losing any sleep over it - they are caviar as their people were starving and dying at the front - but that doesn't mean I think it should be turned into an object of ridicule.
It reeks of aesthetic communism. Like some chuds support the USSR because they think the holodomor was real and they think it was a good thing. They just like cool mosin nagant, human wave death machine, lol kill people. That's what that image reeks of.
Comrade, no reason to interpret this in the worst possible way. This wasn't meant as an insult to you or an attack on you.
Reducing this to me saying "the soviets were bad, their revolution was bad" is incredibly bad faith, or at the least incredibly reductive.
I'm sorry I've made you feel as though I think you think killing is good. It was not my intention, though I struggle to see how I created that experience
I guess it’s because that’s usually implied whenever a critique of the Romanov execution.
And I don’t mean to imply that you’re against the Soviets, I just find calling the execution “aesthetic communism” anathema.
I think talking about “killing” in a vacuum is meaningless. I’m sure most people would be against it in the abstract, but I think killing monarchs in a revolution is a justifiable action. I don’t feel insulted by anyone saying I support the Romanov execution, because that would be true, but by the implication that I support killing for the sake of it. It’s hard not to read that into the last paragraph of the comment I replied to. I certainly don’t think it takes bad faith to interpret it that way.
With the whole federation thing, it’s really hard to tell between genuine criticisms and liberals concern trolling. I’m sorry for the initial reaction.
And I don’t mean to imply that you’re against the Soviets, I just find calling the execution “aesthetic communism” anathema.
I don't think the execution was aesthetic communism.
I dislike the picture you posted, and I tried to put into words why I felt it crossed my line. One of the reasons for that was that it gave me the vibe of being something an aesthetic communist would like - I don't know if you've ever met the type, but they're kinda weird. They're stalinists because of western propaganda, not in spite of it. I can see how my phrasing made it seem like I was accusing you of being such a type, and that was not my intent. I'm sorry.
I think talking about “killing” in a vacuum is meaningless. I’m sure most people would be against it in the abstract, but I think killing monarchs in a revolution is a justifiable action. I don’t feel insulted by anyone saying I support the Romanov execution, because that would be true, but by the implication that I support killing for the sake of it. It’s hard not to read that into the last paragraph of the comment I replied to.
I agree on the first part, I'm sorry about the second part.
With the whole federation thing, it’s really hard to tell between genuine criticisms and liberals concern trolling. I’m sorry for the initial reaction
I get it, though I also experienced this before federation (new account now, who dis?) and saw it happen as well. Wether it's wreckers or libs, we end up being on edge, and then this happens. It's regrettable but it is what it is. Thanks for your apology about your initial reaction.
I think you might be talking about "nazbols" there? People who hear western propaganda about Stalin being "as bad as Hitler" and decide that makes the USSR totally awesome because of all the oppression, and supporting this false, cartoon villain version of a union of nations.
I thought nazbols were communists that liked the "persecution of minorities" bit of Nazism, but we're otherwise commies in their politics. Maybe? I don't think these types have a solid theoretical foundation anyhow
Ah it's about that... Yeah death for me will always be a last resort. Because if it's glorified then we will be no better. We use death as a last ditch to resolve Contradictions.
I don't like this. While it was probably necesarry to kill the royal family to avoid a counter-revolution or a government-in-exile, that does not mean we should make death, murder or the fear of those about to be murdered into something to laugh at.
Yes the Tzar was a murderous bastard encouraging pogroms and generally just a guy who got off easy, this photo doesn't really convey that to me. It seems like it's just laughing at something awful that happened to a family. Did the family deserve it? Yes. That doesn't mean we should make the act into something funny. Violence is necessary, but it shouldn't be glorified.
I don't think it's a black & white thing, but this image crosses my line anyway. Feels wrong.
I also don't like it, mostly because i fuckin hate wojak and every one of these images is incredibly ugly.
The children might not have deserved it at all even if it were needed. I would argue that the Bolsheviks made the correct decisions even if it wasn’t “deserved” simply by virtue that they would have posed a threat for the rest of their lives
Gestures broadly at the Russian Civil War that happened anyway.
Here's a rule for those of you at home, don't machine gun kids.
Look at Mussolini's granddaughter now. They didn't finish the job.
If she's presents anything more than an annoyance on Twitter I'm sure the Italians will flip her right-side up.
I'm not ecstatic about it, but in the words of Brace Belden, ya gotta do what ya gotta do
Eh, I think it was necessary. I think the argument Robespierre made against Louis was also cogent for the Romanovs
The notion that printed symbols on a paper can change whether or not you should machine gun kids is silly, please refer back to the previous rule.
deleted by creator
I'm not asking you to feel bad that it happened, I'm just making sure we're all on the same page about not machine gunning children.
I'm honestly shocked that this even has to be said here, let alone that apparently so many really aren't on the same page that machine-gunning children is both wrong and unjustifiable.
Eh, I know it's a minority position on the left but that's why it's a drum I beat every time it comes up. Unironically forced me back into religion when I realized that leftist politics without axiomatic moral grounding results in disaster.
Now I go to leftist meetings to avoid being useless and Quaker meeting to avoid being terrible.
I don't know, if the marxists or anarchists I work with irl ever said that kind of shit, I wouldn't work with them anymore (and we have discussed the topic). Simple as a that. Personally, I'm an atheist and haven't come up against any contradictions between my leftism and my morality or humanism. But if religion is what it takes for people to recognize that killing kids because of some hypothetical future scenario is wrong and will never be justified, then I say keep the churches full.
Agree ti disagree then
How are we supposed to convince people of our vision of a better world if we can't even get the easy stuff like "don't murder children" down? Christ even the liberals have the sense to pretend to feel bad about drones strikes on weddings when pressed.
I also think murdering children is bad. I think the specific situation with royal family of a monarchy is significantly different. Reducing my opinion to "machinegun kids lol" strikes me as very bad faith.
Either way I don't really think what you and I think of the murder of a royal family more than 100 years ago matters enough to get into an argument that can only sour relations. Seems unproductive. I apologise for making the mistake of stoking this argument.
I'm not looking to sour relations and am not going to take your position on the matter personally, and it's not that you stoked this argument, it's that I'm actively evangilizing a humanism first leftism. I think as soon as machine gunning kids enters into the political toolkit, regardless of what problems it resolves, we've lost the plot. Whatever nuance you want to inject into the scenario is fine, but at the end of the day it does boil down to you thinking that under certain circumstances it's acceptable, so I don't think I'm unfairly characterizing your position at all.
It doesn't seem to me like you're evangelizing a human first leftism. It seems to me like you're reducing a complex argument to "you're celebrating the killing of kids, and you think kids should be killed" you've compared it to the dropping of atomic bombs on two cities.
Again I'd sincerely urge you to read Robespierres arguments against king Louis. It's not just some words on a piece of paper, it was a legal argument on wether or not the king of France could be judged by France, and what that sentence should be. In this argument Robespierre agrees that the king himself has not committed any especially heinous deeds personally, yet he must still be put to death, because his existence is a threat.
Here's a breakdown of it.
Here's parts of the text itself.
Some excerpts:
introduction statement
Citizens, without realizing it the Assembly has been lead far from the true question. There is no trial to be conducted here. Louis is not accused and you are not judges. You are, as you can only be, the nation's statesmen and representatives. No verdict is required, either for or against a man. Rather, a step aimed at the public safety needs to be taken, an act of salvation for the nation. In a Republic a deposed king is good for only one of two things: He either disrupts the peace of the state and weakens its freedom, or he strengthens both simultaneously. I assert that the nature of the deliberations to date are directly at odds with this latter goal. In fact, what rational course of action is called for to solidify a newborn Republic? Is it not to etch an eternal contempt for royalty into everyone's soul and mute the King's supporters? . . .
The king shouldn't even get a trial
Louis was the King, and the Republic is established. The vital question that occupies you here is resolved by these few words: Louis has been deposed by his crimes. He denounced the French people as rebels, and to punish them he called upon the arms of his fellow tyrants. Victory and the people have decided that he alone was the rebel. Consequently, Louis cannot be judged. Either he is already condemned, or else the Republic is not absolved. To suggest that Louis XVI be tried in any way whatsoever is to regress toward royal and constitutional despotism. A proposal such as this, since it would question the legitimacy of the Revolution itself, is counterrevolutionary. In actuality, if Louis can still be brought to trial, he might yet be acquitted. In truth, he is presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. If Louis is acquitted, what then becomes of the Revolution? If Louis is innocent, all defenders of liberty are then slanderers (...)
Citizens, defend yourselves against [tyranny]! False ideas have deceived you. . . . You are confusing the state of a people in the midst of a revolution with the state of a people whose government is firmly established. You are confusing a nation that punishes a public official while maintaining its form of government with a nation that destroys the government itself.
it's him or us
When a nation has been forced to resort to its right of insurrection, its relationship with the tyrant is then determined by the law of nature. By what right does the tyrant invoke the social contract? He abolished it! The nation, if it deems proper, may preserve the contract insofar as it concerns the relations between citizens. But the end result of tyranny and insurrection is to completely break all ties with the tyrant and to reestablish the state of war between the tyrant and the people. Tribunals and judiciary procedure are designed only for citizens.
Insurrection is the real trial of a tyrant. His sentence is the end of his power, and his sentence is whatever the People's liberty requires.
The trial of Louis XVI? What is this trial if not an appeal from the insurrection to some tribunal or assembly? When the people have dethroned a king, who has the right to revive him, thereby creating a new pretext for riot and rebellionÑand what else could result from such actions? By giving a platform to those championing Louis XVI, you rekindle the dispute between despotism and liberty and sanction blasphemy of the Republic and the people . . . for the right to defend the former despot includes the right to say anything that sustains his cause. You reawaken all the factions, reviving and encouraging a dormant royalism. One could easily take a position for or against. What could be more legitimate or more natural than to everywhere spread the maxims that his defenders could openly profess in the courtroom, and within your very forum? What manner of Republic is it whose founders solicit its adversaries from all quarters to attack it in its cradle?
ya gotta do what ya gotta do
Representatives, what is important to the people, what is important to yourselves, is that you fulfill the duties with which the people have entrusted you. The Republic has been proclaimed, but have you delivered it to us. You have yet to pass a single law deserving of that title. You have yet to reform a single abuse of despotism. Remove but the name and we have tyranny still, with even more vile factions and even more immoral charlatans, while there is new tumultuous unrest and civil war. The Republic! And Louis still lives! And you continue to place the King between us and liberty! Our scruples risk turning us into criminals. Our indulgence for the guilty risks our joining him in his guilt.
Regretfully I speak this fatal truth Louis must die because the nation must live. Among a peaceful people, free and respected both within their country and from without, it would be possible to listen to the counsel of generosity which you have received. But a people that is still fighting for its freedom after so much sacrifice and so many battles; a people for whom the laws are not yet irrevocable except for the needy; a people for whom tyranny is still a crime subject to dispute such a people should want to be avenged. The generosity which you are encouraged to show would more closely resemble that of a gang of brigands dividing their spoils.
It is not a question of punishing an individual, but eradicating a system. Those children existed as parts of that system, and would in most circumstances always exist as that. Pretending like the fear of counter-revolution being fomented once again decades later around the figure of a royal heir as some statistical unlikelyhood, is absurd when we can see exactly that having happened throughout history. As you said yourself there are still bonapartists, orleanists and the like. There's no romanovists. While the orleanists are ridiculous now, they did previously and successfully lead a counter revolution. The bonarparists did as well.
In this sense the fear of the children becoming some later legitimising fixpoint for reaction is not some person "peering into the future", it is us peering into the past. Those children did nothing wrong, but by virtue of the system they were at the top of, they would forever be threats to the USSR. In this way those children were as much a victim of the system as anyone else dying senselessly.
literal infanticide becomes a political necessity as a product of MONARCHY
If they wanted their children to be safe, then they should not have forced them to be the sole inheritors of a brutal dictatorship
Just because people stomp up and down about 'political necessity' doesn't actually conjure that ideological abstraction up into material reality. China didn't machine gun Pu Yi and incidentally, their communist party is still running the show. I don't know how difficult it is not to machine gun a 13 year old, and no amount of "you made me do this" are going to change the fact that we're the ones making the (erroneous) decision to machine gun 13 year olds.
Kind to people, ruthless to systems, folks.
If Chinese rebels new this online argument was going to happen they probably would've killed whoever this guy is that they let live.
I mean they literally let him live after being a Japanese puppet during their atrocity spree in the 30's and 40's, so I think my dumb ass using him as a morality puppet would seem just about par for the course to them.
The last "Emperor" of China
It could both be bad and be necessary
The notion that anyone can peer into the future and see all the possible outcomes to a sufficient degree of certainty to claim that the only possible outcome is to kill the kid is also very silly and Madeline Albrightesque.
We can be absolutely certain that the possibility of reinstating the monarchy would be very bad for lots of Jewish children. It's terrible, but Tsar Nicholas shouldn't have created a situation where he made the existence of his family so dangerous for everyone else.
Shooting a specific Royal lineage doesn't change anything about the possibility of reinstating the Monarchy. The white's didn't evaporate after the executions in the same way that the coalitions didn't evaporate as soon as soon as Louis XVI got the chop, and the House of Windsor doesn't quake at the thought of the current Jacobite pretenders. . The notion that the fate of the revolution hangs in the balance of Alexei's life is some grade A great man theory nonsense.
The only possible outcome? No, it wasn’t the only possible outcome but still a quite probable one. Maybe it wouldn’t have been needed but it was still justified as they could have posed a threat to the rwvolution
Somehow I don't think they made this decision after siting down with a slide rule and a bunch of actuarial tables, so I don't know how they arrived at that balance of probabilities.
In reality it's more like cops defending their use of deadly force in any circumstances. They reckoned it had to be done, and their judgement is all that's needed to justify it, and now everyone else has to object to or rationalize their decision.
Sometimes people really do make decisions with uncertain and incomplete information, and sometimes people kill a black teenager for fun and pretend they feared for their lives. These are not the same thing. I wouldn't have killed the kids, but it probably saved a lot of other kids.
Why we don't say stuff like this? We can't tease out the tread of time and say 15 years late what our actions are going to cause. Not with any degree of certainly but also not with any objective or even methodical notion of "probability" that we seem so eager to fall back on. We can stand in the moment and make a decision. Do I shoot the unarmed kid or not? That answer is pretty cut and dry for any humanstic strain of thought.
The fact that I can conceive of a possible chain of events where that has unfortunate ramifications doesn't change that.
Eh, I disagree. The kids didn’t deserve it but it was necessary as they would have served the counterrevolution for the rest of their life’s and would have been a rallying call by the reactionaries
There are still Stuart and Bonapartist pretenders, the presence or absence of heirs isn't what determines if you have an armed Royalist insurrection against you, as evidenced by the fact the civil war continued long past the murder of the royal family.
Having royal family members can provide some legitimacy to the insurrections. They didn’t know what was going to happen, only that the kids being gone may prevent an issue in the future and I would have agreed with them. The Bolsheviks were right on this instance
That arguments even worse, it takes it from "killing the kids solves a current problem" to "killing the kids may solve possible future problems", and if that's the standard, then it's never not justified killing kids, as you can always posit some possible future where some kid is going to cause issues.
Say what you will about the CPC but at least they correctly realized that Pu-Yi didn't need to eat a bullet to head off any issues, and that was even after he collaborated with the Japanese.
the kids were an issue that could have been mitigated
the rest of them got what they fucking deserved
Badumptiss
Metaphysical pablum.
i have no fucking idea what any of that means
Calling the kids an issue is a pretty good pun.
lol, fair
my point was that they posed a problem
but that problem could have been mitigated without shooting them
Obviously the kids of a deposed ruler represents far more of an issue than regular children in a country. I seriously don’t think non-revolutionaries far after the event have a leg to stand on to critique the actions of the Bolsheviks from some Ivory Tower of morality. What happened was during a revolution and they were the children and heirs to the position of the sunpreme enemy
Right it was some great great cousin of the Tsar that opened the Soviet Union up to the west leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union and not some hereditary nobody.
I mean, they fail even a basic "ends justify the means" test given that Russia is currently a hyper-capitalistic dystopia so yeah, I don't think my critique of the path they set down is in fact ill-posed.
Capital, in all it's algorithimic and anti-humanistic glory is the supreme enemy, not some guy wearing a funny hat in a bunch of medals . The french killed their funny hat guy and 10 years later they had an Italian in an even funnier hat running things, so this notion that we can just kill our way into socialism by executing certain lineages seems a bit daft.
Saying that I am promoting “killing our way to socialism” is patently dishonest. I am stating that the Bolsheviks took out an easy path to anti-revolutionary activity and stopped the flower of evil from flowering. I don’t wish to have a conversation if you are going to misrepresent what I said by claiming that I want to “kill our way to socialism”
Well let's strip out the euphemistic cover to the following.
What specifically did that involve? A smidge of killing possibly?
You are willingly misrepresenting what I am saying. The path to socialism isn’t about killing but of course killing is generally necessary, the enforcement of authority of the proletariat must be carried out agaisnt the former oppressors. If you can’t understand that, I don’t know what to say
Fuck you. Killing children is never necessary. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.
Children were never the oppressors you fucking ghoul! You remind me of the goddamned apologists for the US nuking Japan "anything done in the name of furthering the goals of my side, even deliberately to innocent people born in the wrong place at the wrong time, may seem icky but thems the way it is. I'm just being practical." Not only does the argument rest entirely on a possibility of what might happen, it's completely unjustified regardless.
I don't think it's fair to equate the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the injury and radiation poisoning and genetic defects of countless more to killing, what, 5 children? That's absurd. You're blowing this completely out of proportion.
You can argue it's wrong but I can't imagine getting upset over something like that. There's a simple matter of scale to consider.
And again, that's exactly what the fascist apologists for the dropping of nuclear bombs on innocent Japanese civilians say.
"I can't imagine getting upset over something like child murder." I almost put in one of the disgust emojis here but it felt like it was too light-hearted for the disgust I'm actually feeling right now for people I used to think of as comrades.
Lol holy shit 5 innocent people were killed a hundred years ago and you're throwing around "people I used to think of as comrades" because we're not clutching pearls hard enough over it.
What a ridiculous thing to care about. Do you support revolution? You realize that lots of innocent people would die in a conflict like that, right? Way more than 5, I can tell you that! Revolution is not a dinner party.
I'm sorry that I don't consider the lives of royals to be worth more than other people. Kill the lib in your head.
"lol, you actually care about innocent people? What a rube! What a LIB!"
And no, I don't give a shit what you clutch pearls about - I mean, I would have thought someone interested in liberation would give a shit about human beings, but maybe that was naive of me - I'm said the "former comrades" thing because I expect the people I consider comrades not to support murdering the children simply because those children were born to their (and my) class enemies.
And get the fuck out of here with your "ooooooooh, but that's ReVoLuTiOnN!!" schtick. You're like the fucking reactionaries talking about those woke tankies for being upset by the "collateral damage" of all those Iraqi civilians. Oh boo hoo, innocent people. Who gives a shit about them, right? That's just WAR. Yeah, no shit people die in war, but you pretending that that's the same as there being innocent people who are your prisoners and are defenseless, literally children who at your mercy and then choosing to shoot them... That kind of false equivalency and gross disregard for innocent people truly is beyond the pale.
Kill the reactionary chud in YOUR head.
So yes, fuck you. You are no comrade of mine, just as no apologists for bigotry, SA, fascism, or in this case, child murder, are. It's like that Che quote "if you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine." Well, you clearly aren't because you clearly don't give a shit about injustice, so long as it's perpetrated by those you deem to be on your side.
Comparing killing the Romanovs to not only dropping atomic bombs on civilians, but also to the Iraq War you really have no sense of scale at all huh.
I really don't care about this at all, I'm sorry it makes you so upset.
You are beautiful. Thanks for sharing your compassionate indignation, I agree fully.
Like a 12 year old? I guess that's the part I don't understand.
That argument is completely absurd. Just because you can always posit some possible future where some kid is going to cause issues doesn't mean it's likely.
I don't want to pull the "I'm a statistics professor card", but I'm literally a statistics professor so unless I see an integral over a sample space in the denominator I don't want to hear about likelihood, and especially not when someone's half-baked narrative of possible possibilities gets treated as meaningfully bearing on that likelihood.
Like are we just throwing that word around or is their some objective method that apparently everyone else knows about for now to compute these probabilities and arrive at these conclusions.
Yeah it's called guesstimating
There's no way to objectively calculate the worth of an innocent person's life anyway, so you can't really put it into a formal equation. Sometimes you just have to make decisions based on incomplete information, I don't see what the problem is. It's not like I want to kill kids, but if I evaluated that there's a high enough chance that it could save a high enough number of lives, I'd pull the lever on that trolley problem 100%. What am I, a Kantian?
If seems to me that if we're willing to acknowledge that our subjective estimation of probabilities aren't necessarily any good at predicting actual outcomes we could not only save ourselves a ton of trouble handwringing over what level of perceived benefit justifies turning on the orphan mulcher, it would also go a long way to ensuring we don't accidentally make common cause with the people who do enjoy mulching orphans.
You can pretty easily draw a thoughline from the slapdash deployment of political violence to the elevation of ghouls like Beria to the head of the organs of state.
You've already decided you're ok with orphans getting mulched the moment you pick up a gun and call for revolution. Innocent people die in war, that's a fact of life. It may not be you who mulches the orphans, but you're the one setting of the chain of events that will cause them to get mulched. I feel like anybody who cares about this just has an extremely romantic view of war.
Revolutions don't happen on a regular basis, and a failed revolution can change the course of history and deny opportunities for centuries to come. And in the short term, it can mean the death of everyone you know and love, and countless others beyond anything you're capable of comprehending. You have to understand what you're getting into when you go down that path, and you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to win. You try to fight honorably, you pass up on a potential advatange, you can be assured that the enemy won't. There's no room for half measures, you either fully commit or you back down.
I just wanted to say thank you for arguing against the celebration of the murder of children.
Are we idealists with a great man view of history now? Do we think these symbols actually hold real power to sway a insurrection's success one way or the other?
deleted by creator
The difference is that we are here depicting actual people that was in this actual situation as crying wojaks and the guy who shot them as the yes-chad. It's pretty clear the intent is to ridicule and glorify.
deleted by creator
I think stuff like
is fine because 1. It's a Nazi and 2. It's not a real person. I think 
is fine because it was a bunch of partisans getting retribution during wartime. They had no time or resources for a fair trial and they knew the people they executed anyway, so the evidence was pretty clear.
I think the reason that image crosses my line is because it depicts a traumatic event that happened to actual people, and some of those people didn't really have the agency to do anything else. I'm not sad the Romanovs are dead, and I think the overthrow and owning of a doofus failson named Nicky is something that should be celebrated, but I just don't think that justifies mocking people in their last moments. Had things been different then some of them might've gotten the Puyi treatment, it's sad that that wasn't possible. I'm not losing any sleep over it - they are caviar as their people were starving and dying at the front - but that doesn't mean I think it should be turned into an object of ridicule.
It reeks of aesthetic communism. Like some chuds support the USSR because they think the holodomor was real and they think it was a good thing. They just like cool mosin nagant, human wave death machine, lol kill people. That's what that image reeks of.
deleted by creator
Aesthetic communism is when you support the actual, real life actions of an actual, real life revolution.
I know a bunch of dead Nazis in a pit that would disagree with that second statement.
Sounds very similar to Russia in 1918
Maybe it’s a response to the 100 years of liberals sobbing their hearts out for a murdering pogroming failson and his murdering pogroming family.
But no, I just like killing people. That’s it.
I don’t want to be hostile but I’ve got years of disingenuous libs grinding my patience down
Comrade, no reason to interpret this in the worst possible way. This wasn't meant as an insult to you or an attack on you.
Reducing this to me saying "the soviets were bad, their revolution was bad" is incredibly bad faith, or at the least incredibly reductive.
I'm sorry I've made you feel as though I think you think killing is good. It was not my intention, though I struggle to see how I created that experience
I guess it’s because that’s usually implied whenever a critique of the Romanov execution.
And I don’t mean to imply that you’re against the Soviets, I just find calling the execution “aesthetic communism” anathema.
I think talking about “killing” in a vacuum is meaningless. I’m sure most people would be against it in the abstract, but I think killing monarchs in a revolution is a justifiable action. I don’t feel insulted by anyone saying I support the Romanov execution, because that would be true, but by the implication that I support killing for the sake of it. It’s hard not to read that into the last paragraph of the comment I replied to. I certainly don’t think it takes bad faith to interpret it that way.
With the whole federation thing, it’s really hard to tell between genuine criticisms and liberals concern trolling. I’m sorry for the initial reaction.
I don't think the execution was aesthetic communism.
I dislike the picture you posted, and I tried to put into words why I felt it crossed my line. One of the reasons for that was that it gave me the vibe of being something an aesthetic communist would like - I don't know if you've ever met the type, but they're kinda weird. They're stalinists because of western propaganda, not in spite of it. I can see how my phrasing made it seem like I was accusing you of being such a type, and that was not my intent. I'm sorry.
I agree on the first part, I'm sorry about the second part.
I get it, though I also experienced this before federation (new account now, who dis?) and saw it happen as well. Wether it's wreckers or libs, we end up being on edge, and then this happens. It's regrettable but it is what it is. Thanks for your apology about your initial reaction.
I think you might be talking about "nazbols" there? People who hear western propaganda about Stalin being "as bad as Hitler" and decide that makes the USSR totally awesome because of all the oppression, and supporting this false, cartoon villain version of a union of nations.
I thought nazbols were communists that liked the "persecution of minorities" bit of Nazism, but we're otherwise commies in their politics. Maybe? I don't think these types have a solid theoretical foundation anyhow
Ah it's about that... Yeah death for me will always be a last resort. Because if it's glorified then we will be no better. We use death as a last ditch to resolve Contradictions.