the kids didn't do that though
they had to die, because there was no viable alternative, but to say they "deserved it" because of what their psychopath parents did is pretty fucked up
Eh Alexi would've grown up to be as much of an asshole as his father was. If your governmental system practices hereditary rule, that comes with consequences. Obv. I understand that killing kids is upsetting, but I personally don't feel one ounce of pity for the children of a king.
fair point, they definitely had to die, don't get me wrong, but blaming them for what their parents did, even though they almost certainly would have continued it doesn't sit well with me
i'm drunk as fuck so this may not make sense
I mean, we know what they would have done because we're analyzing them as people who would have filled a particular role in society. their heredity binds them to the role and their role ensures the awful things they would have done. it's not really about what their parents did but more what it means to be a member of the royal family in the line of succession.
That's why I've been saying that killing them was the necessary thing to do, but that it isn't something we should celebrate or be proud of. They were children. They hadn't committed any crimes yet. It was an unfortunate necessity and nothing more.
sure, I don't disagree with that take. that's probably true of all revolutionary violence, in the end - justified, necessary, and gruesome. the aesthetic celebration of it is useful for constructing identity but we should be wary of how far we take it.
Useful for constructing an identity? I'm not sure I buy into that. I cringe every time I see a post celebrating the execution of children, and I'm already a leftist, and a Marxist-Leninist at that. That kind of stuff doesn't appeal to anyone who isn't already a hardcore communist, and doesn't appeal to many who already are.
Our justification of the Romanov executions should be purely utilitarian, to explain why the Bolsheviks did what they did and why it was necessary.
right, it definitely excludes anyone who isn't already a communist. but the utility is that it separates committed communists from those who aren't and it happens because it allows us to identify who's with us in the in-group (and it paints a target on the out-group). that's not really enough by itself that we should step into the glorification of violence (that way leads to reactionary politics), but it's very hard to stop it from happening at all.
I'm more describing why it happens than I am trying to justify it. it's worth eroding, I'm with you on that.
Alright, it looks like we agree. That's why I make these comments on these kinds of posts -- It's important to justify the actions of the Bolsheviks, because most libs' take is "noooo evil commies killed the princess," but it should only go as far as utilitarian justification.
i did, hence the post
but yeah, to make my position clear, they definitely had to die, they were related to almost all of the royals in europe, they would have been a rallying point for everyone who wanted the tsars reinstated and imprisoning them in secret would have been impossible
there was no alternative that would not have ended the revolution
the kids didn't do that though
they had to die, because there was no viable alternative, but to say they "deserved it" because of what their psychopath parents did is pretty fucked up
Eh Alexi would've grown up to be as much of an asshole as his father was. If your governmental system practices hereditary rule, that comes with consequences. Obv. I understand that killing kids is upsetting, but I personally don't feel one ounce of pity for the children of a king.
almost certainly, but i'm not a fan of the whole "sins of the father" thing
but it's not sins of the father. it's the continuation of the monarchy.
fair point, they definitely had to die, don't get me wrong, but blaming them for what their parents did, even though they almost certainly would have continued it doesn't sit well with me
i'm drunk as fuck so this may not make sense
I mean, we know what they would have done because we're analyzing them as people who would have filled a particular role in society. their heredity binds them to the role and their role ensures the awful things they would have done. it's not really about what their parents did but more what it means to be a member of the royal family in the line of succession.
That's why I've been saying that killing them was the necessary thing to do, but that it isn't something we should celebrate or be proud of. They were children. They hadn't committed any crimes yet. It was an unfortunate necessity and nothing more.
sure, I don't disagree with that take. that's probably true of all revolutionary violence, in the end - justified, necessary, and gruesome. the aesthetic celebration of it is useful for constructing identity but we should be wary of how far we take it.
Useful for constructing an identity? I'm not sure I buy into that. I cringe every time I see a post celebrating the execution of children, and I'm already a leftist, and a Marxist-Leninist at that. That kind of stuff doesn't appeal to anyone who isn't already a hardcore communist, and doesn't appeal to many who already are.
Our justification of the Romanov executions should be purely utilitarian, to explain why the Bolsheviks did what they did and why it was necessary.
right, it definitely excludes anyone who isn't already a communist. but the utility is that it separates committed communists from those who aren't and it happens because it allows us to identify who's with us in the in-group (and it paints a target on the out-group). that's not really enough by itself that we should step into the glorification of violence (that way leads to reactionary politics), but it's very hard to stop it from happening at all.
I'm more describing why it happens than I am trying to justify it. it's worth eroding, I'm with you on that.
Alright, it looks like we agree. That's why I make these comments on these kinds of posts -- It's important to justify the actions of the Bolsheviks, because most libs' take is "noooo evil commies killed the princess," but it should only go as far as utilitarian justification.
yes, i accept that, and the only good royal is a dead one, but the original post i replied to implied that the kids were also doing the bad things
I didn't read it that way
i did, hence the post but yeah, to make my position clear, they definitely had to die, they were related to almost all of the royals in europe, they would have been a rallying point for everyone who wanted the tsars reinstated and imprisoning them in secret would have been impossible there was no alternative that would not have ended the revolution
He probably would have died from his blood condition.