Militantism vs Pacifism

Crow: When you stop somebody from hurting themselves, that's probably the classic counterexample.

admin: Bar that example for now, even though I do believe that causes serious harm to the society your stalinist regime is trying to protect.

If you use any sort of violence against a person, it is harmful. Whether it kills or injures them or not.

Pacifists are disgraced by your existence.

Crow: I agree that harming somebody is always wrong. People twist the meaning of violence until just about everything qualifies as violence to prove a point though. I can't breathe anymore without somebody calling me violent for doing so. To me, violence means that you are trying to hurt somebody, even if not physically. Given that, I abhor all violence. But obviously it will always depend on that definition.

admin: I agree that harming somebody is always wrong

Do you believe prisons harm someones life, liberty, and happiness?

I can't breathe anymore without somebody calling me violent for doing so

That is because you are violent. A self loathing humanity hating stalinist.

Honestly, your existence is a plague on the intelligent free thinking people, but I am forced to tolerate you.

Given that, I abhor all violence. But obviously it will always depend on that definition.

What is your definition, what is that definition based on, and what is the origin of that definition?

Crow: They don't harm life, they harm liberty, and might harm happiness. That's not to say that the person is harmed overall. Restorative justice can work.

I defined it in the previous sentence.

admin: The state was built on violence and you support it(being inherent to the state). You claim to be against all violence but the state reserves the right to use violence.

admin: They don't harm life, they harm liberty, and might harm happiness. That's not to say that the person is harmed overall.

I thought you believed any harm done was wrong. Now you only believe physical harm is wrong?

Do you deny that liberty and happiness are needed for a happy life?

Do you view humans as just shells and husks for bodily organs, with no compassion for the state of being inside them?

Answer each question. I ask them for a reason.

I defined it in the previous sentence.

What is that definition based on, and what is the historical origin of that definition?

Bi0Hazard: That wont work. He doesn't consider prison to be violent.

He will only acknowledge that the usage of force is needed to maintain the state (straight out of Mussolini's pen btw)

Crow: The state relies on coercion, threatening violence. If admin wants to rely on peaceful means and no violence, then he really should look into a pure voluntary society. If he disagrees, then he believes state violence is justified.
Depending on what he considers to be violence, maybe his ideal state doesn't count as violent.

Bi0Hazard: Depending on what he considers to be violence, maybe his ideal state doesn't count as violent.

His ideal state is a communist utopia with no markets, no violence, no work, and no dissent.

In other words, no need for politics.

Crow: His ideal state is a communist utopia with no markets, no violence, no work, and no dissent.

In other words, no need for politics.
Your basically calling admin a Marxist. Believing the state will one day wither away on its own, and capitalism will become obsolete.

Bi0Hazard: He is not a marxist. Abolishing the state is nowhere in his plan.

It has been proven that authoritarian socialism does not lead to Marx's vision for a communistic society.

Modern states are more oppressive than ever before in history. The conglomerate of western liberalized democracies is worse than the Soviet Union and Maoist China combined. It is effective .

Crow: He is not a marxist. Abolishing the state is nowhere in his plan.
There is no state in the communist utopia.
It has been proven that authoritarian socialism does not lead to Marx's vision for a communistic society.
Marx believed the state would become unnecessary and wither away in a post-capitalist society(when capitalism becomes obsolete).
You said this: His ideal state is a communist utopia with no markets, no violence, no work, and no dissent.
Are you calling him a communist? or what would you call it?

Bi0Hazard: There is no state in the communist utopia.

No shit. That's what I just said.

Admin does not believe in abolishing the state.

Marx believed the state would become unnecessary and wither away in a post-capitalist society(when capitalism becomes obsolete

And the period of transition out of capitalism was known as Socialism. Very clearly he called for the people's revolution to abolish the state.

You are restating the obvious.

Are you calling him a communist? or what would you call it?

He is a Stalinist at worst, and a Trotskyist at best. As long as he believes in the existence of the state, he is not a Marxist.

Crow: No shit. That's what I just said.

Admin does not believe in abolishing the state.

and you said this earlier: His ideal state is a communist utopia with no markets, no violence, no work, and no dissent.
See the contradiction?
He is a Stalinist at worst, and a Trotskyist at best.
Stalin was militant. Admin is arguing pacifism here. Admin is a social democrat liberal, not a stalinist(or trotskyist).
As long as he believes in the existence of the state, he is not a Marxist.
Marxists believe in the existence of the state as well, they just believe that it will wither away.

Bi0Hazard: Stalin was militant. Admin is arguing pacifism here. Admin is a social democrat liberal, not a stalinist(or trotskyist).

He is definitely a Trotskyist. I would go a step further and say he is closer to Stalin than Trotsky.
.
Social democracy is just a filler replacement to fool people into thinking the beliefs are any different than fourth international communism. They are not. What admin believes in Trotskyism.

Marxists believe in the existence of the state as well, they just believe that it will wither away.


Through socialism. Marx spoke against the vicious cycle of states. Socialism was his means of getting rid of it.

He essentially foretold an inevitable revolution against the state, which should be followed by a socialist state, eventually rendering the state useless.

See the contradiction?

No.

Where both Marx and admin are wrong, is that socialism does not create further self sufficiency and liberty.

It increases the power of the legitimized rulership, and makes the population dependent on the state to the degree the socialist policies are enacted.

Crow: Social democracy is just a filler replacement to fool people into thinking the beliefs are any different than fourth international communism. They are not. What admin believes in Trotskyism.
So, are you saying that there is no difference between social democracy and trotskyism? or are you saying that admin really wants stalinism/trotskyism and just uses social democracy to cover it up? Those are both unfounded.
You said that admin wants a communist utopia and you said there is no state in the communist utopia and then you said admin doesn't want the state abolished.