127

submitted 1 year ago by Nationalgoatism@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just reposting this excellent point from lemmygrad

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I agree with your points overall but i feel frustrated since the argument about avoiding revolution and counterrevolution was ignored.

My apologies. Thanks for calling that out and giving me a chance to respond before going on the offense, it was not intentional but came from a but if shock at how quickly several fellow leftists that I've had good interactions with, on a leftist unity site, turned on me seemingly without missing a beat.

The argument rests on the fact that it was not some malicious murder done out of evil in the heart of a vengeful prole (though I would not blame them for it) but instead a politically motived killing caused by the material reality and historical risk monarchial heirs have proven to be time and time again. This is not dehumanising.

I agree with nearly all of that. I do, disagree on the last bit though. To my thinking "they are x, so must be killed regardless of is they have committed crimes" is dehumanization. It is placing them in a category that exempts them from fundamental human rights. I do understand the motivation and it may have ultimately been the correct choice to prevent more suffering, especially in the absence of many examples at the time of heirs of deposed rulers NOT later attempting counter-revolution. China did later show that it can be done, I think.

I still cannot not agree with that "end justifies the means" ethics approach, especially when it comes to children, who have a greater ability to change.

I don't really get the point about being jumpy by the mention of walls. For one thing it is a common refrain both on this site, and "to be put in front of the wall" or similar phrases are normal in many languages. Assuming that a left unity site would be talking of killing other leftists, strike me as a strange initial assumption.

I don't really see why anarchists would be extra hurt by the talk of walls, if you are here referring to historical conflicts. It was not as though that fighting was a one-sided affair either. The makhnovosts made use of secret police, and were in a lot of ways quite repressive. Reaction and counterreaction is not tied to a specific ideology.

This comes from historical treatment of anarchists and other leftists in the aftermath of revolutions, not directly the meme itself. Dehumanization of a group of enemies makes it easier to later dehumanize allies who don't fully agree on how to organize society. Summary execution and similar acts of violence forces those who carry it out to change in order to reduce the impact of the trauma, and is likely to cause reduction in empathy, etc. Empathy is vital. That's why I object to such a thing being a common refrain.

When it comes to Makhno and the Greens, I do philosophically have to side with the Greens - my loyalty is to common folk who have always suffered the most in every conflict in documented history. Both Red and White armies treated them as ripe for exploitation and seizure of resources, without consideration of the impact on their ability to survive. The formation of a military force for mutual defense was a necessity.

I think the idea of wanting to take protection of minorities and LGBTQ+ seriously, but then also being squeamish at the allusion or mention of violence, strikes me as incoherent as well.

The language used was too open. It wasn't "transphobes who have harmed people" or "bigots that participated in lynchings". It was simply "transphobes". Language and context matter greatly to me (possibly due to not being neurotypical), especially when talking about ending human lives. I took the meme to be akin to the monstrousity of "kill them all and let god sort them out"; alluding to indiscriminately killing without considering ignorance or psychological trauma from abuse that can be addressed.

Protecting people against reactionaires will, at times, require violence. Likewise will the changing of the system require violence.
That is to me a sad fact, but it is only grotesque because we do not consider how much violence is used every day to maintain the system as it is.

Sadly, I do agree. Non-violence alone did not win workers rights or the rights of minorities. As much as I detest it, it does appear from all evidence something that is a necessity, in the face of those that understand no other language.

[-] Egon@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Many turned on you.

Yeah, I noticed that and it is regrettable. I think some people are on edge, but that doesn't really justify things. I've been on the receiving end of a few dogpiles here, and it's always been frustrating, because it's not really due to anything other than some users assuming you mean the worst, and then digging their heels in.
I also think some users on this instance feel inundated with a surity that they are on "the right side of history" and therefore they do not need to ever examine their own ideology. It's frustrating. Many of these people are Marxists, yet self-crit us something they only think they should do when they get dogpiled.

It is dehumanising.

In retrospect I can see how I completely misphrased my viewpoint. It is dehumanising, you are correct. However it is not the people killing the royal family doing the dehumanising, it is the system which they exist in itself. From the moment those kids were born they were royals, and that fact made them into something other than people. That other thing cannot exist without being a threat to a democratic society.
I think Robespierre stated this argument quite well against king Louis:

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. . . .

...

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.

...

Regretfully I speak this fatal truthÑLouis 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 disputeÑsuch 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.

Makhno and the greens.

I did not bring that up to argue who was good or bad, but to show that his idea of anarchists just suddenly being put in front of a wall is sectarian. I will again point out that the framing of the reds being oppressive as opposed to the makhnovosts is sectarian as well. Makhnovia had a secret police, political repression and persecution as well. It was war, it's necessary. I will not go into a discussion of makhnov versus the Soviets, it's just gonna be pure sectarianism and we will gain nothing from relitigating conflicts from a century ago. I'm sure you didn't intend any sectarianism on your part.
I brought up makhnov and alluded to Spain in order to highlight that people were executed as result of fighting against each other. It was not some sudden turnabout, it was the result of one side losing a conflict both participated in.
Either way being hung up on these events from a time before we were born seems very counterproductive to me. As I've already pointed out, it's not tied to some leftist infighting conflict, the only one I've ever encountered that mentioned that connotation is you.

The language was too open.

While I agree it is not specific, I'd like to point out that is a meme. It's not supposed to communicate more than a thought, not an entire concept. It is posted on a leftist forum, and it is assumed you can somewhat interpret its meaning on your own. It's not supposed to be taken 100% seriously, not everything has to be serious all the time. It's meant as joke for us and a threat towards those harbouring a transphobic sentiment.

violence is necessary.

Yea, at times. I don't think it should be glorified, but I don't think that sentiment is black and white either.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

First of all, thank you for the good and productive discussion and not assuming malice or sectarianism. Neither malice nor sectarianism were indeed meant; quite contrary, I want for us to learn from these events and encourage empathy and positive interactions in the hopes of avoiding such in the future.

In retrospect I can see how I completely misphrased my viewpoint. It is dehumanising, you are correct. However it is not the people killing the royal family doing the dehumanising, it is the system which they exist in itself. From the moment those kids were born they were royals, and that fact made them into something other than people. That other thing cannot exist without being a threat to a democratic society.

I don't entirely disagree there and thank you very much for the Robespierre, I've not read him directly before. I find myself that much more glad that such decisions have not been required of me. Royals were not always royals, so, I do not believe that it is something immutable about them the moment that they are born. But, in the context, at the time, I cannot say that it was not the way to save the most lives.

Either way being hung up on these events from a time before we were born seems very counterproductive to me.

Absolutely. I just want to do what I can to avoid rhyming with the harms caused by such divides and help keep it hard to dehumanize our comrades in this struggle.

While I agree it is not specific, I'd like to point out that is a meme. It's not supposed to communicate more than a thought, not an entire concept. It is posted on a leftist forum, and it is assumed you can somewhat interpret its meaning on your own. It's not supposed to be taken 100% seriously, not everything has to be serious all the time. It's meant as joke for us and a threat towards those harbouring a transphobic sentiment.

A very good point. I may have been a bit extra sensitive there due to having been close to kids who suffered senseless violent deaths and my own personal baggage.