https://twitter.com/Mateba_6/status/1541449829683011586
From the book Revolutionary Social Democracy: Working-Class Politics Across the Russian Empire (1882-1917)
https://twitter.com/Mateba_6/status/1541449829683011586
From the book Revolutionary Social Democracy: Working-Class Politics Across the Russian Empire (1882-1917)
I didn’t say they had to be reactionary. I picked an extreme and mutually acceptable example.
To out my position as bluntly as possible: nothing is unacceptable if it helps/prevents harm to the revolution. Which is the only good until it happens and we are in a position to quibble about such things in the comfort of secure socialism. Look at what happened to the USSR after they stopped being brutal. They fell.
Edit: only good is too extreme. Most good would be a better phrasing albeit still flawed. I’m drunk. Point is, we can’t afford to be idealistic. Deck is stacked against as it is and was.
Agreed in that the revolution can and should be protected at all costs. I’m not squeamish about the violence necessary to carry out and prosecute a revolutionary political project. My disagreement here is about the specific strategy of relying on bourgeois state violence to bolster your own power base. This power can only work in your favor when your goals line up with theirs otherwise they won’t act. Masters tools and dismantling a house yada yada yada
I see what you are saying. My disagreement then boils down to: if you can make use of it….why not? A shoe isn’t a hammer, but if it gets the job done and a hammer isn’t around. Economics 101 brain: substituting goods and all that. Obviously a communist paramilitary death squad is good and preferable, but lacking that finding a way to get somebody else to remove the problem is necessary.
Depends on who exactly is doing the enforcement. If some cop sees "patriotic socialist" and doesn't understand that that means "Nazi", they might just fucking go for it.
And that would be pretty fucking hilarious
This is how you justify covering up a rape case that blows up your organization a few years later.
That would harm the revolution. And be bad. I’m not saying we have to think only in the immediate term. Any long term vision would see the harm in that.
Any long term vision would show that getting your own party members black bagged would harm the revolution. But this mindset isn't about long term vision. It's about holding onto your post because only you will be the true leader of the revolution.
deleted by creator
You see the problem here is you are thinking "enemies" as an external rival group and your own party members, which is what Rosa is accused of doing. Getting your fellow comrades black-bagged by the FBI just so you can hold onto your position isn't good for the revolution. It is the same rape-coverup mindset: "If this rape case comes out we will be outed from leadership and those guys will take over and drive the party into the ground."
deleted by creator
You're assuming with no evidence that she was snitching on reformists and not simply rival revolutionaries. That can all change with specifics of who she was snitching on but I don't know where to find that information. It stands to reason though that mere reformists wouldn't get black bagged.
Saying "snitches get stitches" isn't deontological, it's inherited wisdom of centuries of consequences. It's not absolute, but it's too easy for someone to think they are the exception. Going around saying it's acceptable to snitch is how you end up with zero support from fellow proles and zero trust of your comrades.
Revolution is a tool to ease human suffering. Don't get lost in the ideology.