[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)


IRC Chat




File: 1659319175703.jpg ( 352.15 KB , 1600x1224 , peace-of-westphalia-ratifi….jpg )


Was gonna make this thread on that other site but got smacked with an insane bullshit ban for hurting a janny's feelings, so let's see if we can get an interesting discussion here instead. Since the end of the Thirty Years' War and the Peace of Westphalia, Western warfare had been conducted through rules of engagement excluding the targeting of civilians. Sherman's March to the Sea was an early exception, and the Japanese civilian bombings in China in the early 1930s seemed to shock many Western powers at the time. However, it wasn't until World War II when the major powers threw this idea completely out the window and began targeting civilians in mass with the justification that long-range aerial bombardment can theoretically quickly bring a conflict to an end where previous conventional wars had been bogged down. Modern military power is such that most belligerents can reduce the others' cities to rubble or kill each others' populations indirectly through the targeting of infrastructure if they choose to.

Let's say the workers in a country have just won a revolution against their own capitalists and they now find themselves at war with other capitalist powers. Is there any room left for restraint among anti-capitalists when it comes to targeting noncombatants in the 21st century? Can or should anti-capitalists engage in "just" warfare when fighting for their existence?


Contrary to the delusions of extremely online "le realpolitik-pilled" edgy contrarian channers, morality is an important part of liberatory socialist politics. So no, targeting non-combatants is a big no in all or (according to your view) almost all cases. Wrt the latter view, I recall reading a PhD level philosophy paper specifically on terrorism and its morality that argued quite persuasively that the only scenario in which a party to a conflict would be justified in targeting non-combatants of its opponent in the conflict would be in a scenario where their opponent is pursuing a total war, genocide extermination policy against that party or nation and its civilian population. So for instance, the author brought up Israel/Palestine and argued that Palestinian terror tactics were, in his view, justified by the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaign carried out in Gaza and the West Bank which could be considered genocidal. I don't have the paper at my fingertips but I can find it for you if you wish.


Wait nevermind, found it. The paper is called
>"Can Terrorism be Justified"?
<by Tomas Kapitan
>in Richard Fumerton and Diane Jeske, eds.Readings in Political Philosophy(Broadview Press, 2011), 1068-1087


Those noncombatants of the capitalist powers are just as proletariat as the noncombatants of your hypothetical revolutionary country. Pro-revolutionary's are going to take the side of the revolution, if "just" or "unjust" war has to be done, so be it.
Terrorists, bandit states, are just as bad as capitalist empires like the United states, I won't take sides on their battles. The Israeli working class is as proletarian as the Palestinian working class. Also suicide bombings used by Palestinians are not expressions of desperation, but attempts to secure political supremacy by the organizations that send them.


File: 1659320992662.png ( 152.6 KB , 455x420 , 1658872791556163.png )

Nothing is more cringe than the term "terminally online." It's not even close to making an actual point. It's just a petty personal attack. For better or worse morality doesn't objectively exist. It isn't real. I'm sorry you cannot seem to grasp this concept. That doesn't mean that we can't be moral. It just begins with a simple understanding that morality is not objectively codified, but, based on opinion and we can choose and change how we think we should and should not behave in society. Thinking otherwise is a vestige of christian morality; To believe in objective morality is to cling to christian dogma of the past 8 centuries. Let it go. The world is ours for the taking.

To answer your question, of course, I would say yes because any revolutionary government or any freshly established and won over communist or socialist power will require a bill of rights for its citizens. This is the largest mistake the soviet union made time after time after time; Over stepping the rights of its citizenry.


Which belligerents have decided that mass targeting of civilians is acceptable in warfare over the last century anyway? Perhaps an interesting pattern will emerge.


OP and this thread are stupid and lame.


Not as lame as your butt.


Suck it.


Anyone knowledgeable on the subject know if the Soviets bombed out cities during WWII, much like Britain, Germany, the US, and Japan?


They didn't have the capability to do so but Stalin probably would if he could, especially if it was in retaliation for German attacks.

Unique IPs: 5

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]