No.473049
I keep running into a particularly insidious type of revisionism. The "Think of the Children!" revisionism. It is stated repeatedly by disguised fascists, royalists, and liberals larping as communists on our board and misusing the concept of empathy that ruling class children can be reeducated, and, failing that, sent to a labor camp. Let me be perfectly clear. The brats of the petit bourgeoisie, of the bourgeoisie, and of the aristocracy cannot be "rehabilitated" or "reeducated" under any circumstances. They must all be liquidated alongside their inbred pedophile worker-hating parents. It is not the duty of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to waste precious and limited resources attempting to coddle and reeducate children who in 99.9…% of circumstances will grow up to be precisely like their parents, to secretly harbor counter-revolutionary opinions, and collaborate amongst themselves to foment bourgeois counter-revolution. I don't care if they're in diapers. You put a bullet in their fucking head. Morality is not real. It is a theistic bourgeois construct regarding property relations. It does not matter if this is "good" or "bad." You put the bullet in the bourgeois baby's brain or he will grow up to kill you and everyone you love and destroy everything you fought for. Do you understand? If not, you are a liberal, a fascist, a royalist, and you ought to be hung by your genitals from the nearest lamp post. You are not a comrade, you are a coward, and vermin, to be exterminated alongside the ruling class, their children, their pets, and their lickspittle servants. This isn't a question of "nurture vs nature" either. This is a question of risk mitigation and victory maximization. I am not "weird" or a "freak" or "hate children" for understanding this. Take heed this quote from Mark Twain (Who, despite being a feckless bourgeois 19th century liberal, was perfectly capable of understanding the need for Revolutionary Terror):
>“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
When the time comes, I don't care if it's your local laundromat owner. I don't care if it's a guy running a hot dog stand. He is bourgeois. You will execute the entire family, or you will be executed along side them. The pets, the maids, doesn't matter. Kill. Kill. Kil
>>
No.473056
That seems like it's a long way from even being a decision we have to make. Like shit's probably gonna hit the fan in 2024, but I dunno if workers are even in a position to take advantage of it - things are probably about to get much worse.
>>
No.473057
>>473049The bolsheviks gunned down the children of Tsar Nik2 because there was a risk they could have gone into exile and become the beginning of a royalist counter revolution which would have been put down with yet more bloodshed. The bolsheviks can't really be blamed for the logic of feudal political power. Designing the feudal political form so that the only way to end it was for everybody in the thrown-succession to be dead, was always going to be a death-sentence for the last generation of royals. Everything ends, it's better to design political systems with a graceful failure-mode. Monarchs who didn't cede political power to democratic institutions are to blame for the slaughter that their structure created. The bolsheviks would have chosen to unelect the monarchical order if that was a possibility. The bourgeoisie in France did the same thing as the bolsheviks when they abolished obstinate feudalism. In some places feudal rulers dismantled their power willingly and transitioned into democracy and avoided becoming a bloodstain in the footnotes of history.
All that said the people who complain about this don't care about children at all, because they never morn any of the millions of peasant born children that died because of Tsarist rule. The correct thing to do is turn "Think of the Children!" back on them, child mortality plummeted under Soviet rule. That means these people are demanding the sacrifice of all those peasant children to safe the children of the Tsar.
The rest of your post isn't very logical. Political convictions and bourgeois sentiment isn't hereditary. All the past methods of dealing with counter revolutions was predicated on a false premise. The false premise that counter revolutions could be prevented. The correct analysis is that counter revolutions will happen and the task of the revolution is to make it fail. So we're going to organize the counter revolution our self and we'll choreograph it to make it fail. We don't have to invent something new, we can appropriate the kabuki theater they invented. If you have to deal with royalists, you build a fake castle with a fake thrown and a feudalism larp. If you have to deal with counter revolutionary neo-liberals you make a fake stock-exchange with line go up as larp and so on.
There are 2 factors why political and economic systems get overthrown. The first one is the old system becomes a fetter on the means of production, and the second one is that the old system uses means of control to prevent gradual change. Class societies have a tendency to find violent ends because ruling classes entrench their power and attempt to wield it to prevent inevitable change. If socialism succeeds in building a classless society there will be nobody in a position to do that and that means societies will gain the ability to continuously adapt to changes in the productive forces without any of the turmoil of past and ongoing prehistory.
>>
No.473067
>>473057>The bolsheviks would have chosen to unelect the monarchical order if that was a possibility.I rather doubt it has ever been that simple. Revolutions don't happen when the people being ruled over are content. They happen when their rulers have done something to piss them off enough to overthrow their system, and at that point their rulers can either expect to be killed themselves in vengeance or cling to power as hard as they can to protect their lives. Non-violent revolutions with non-violent transitions of power are rare precisely because violence-breeding destitution and repression is usually a prerequisite for a revolution to occur in the first place.
>>
No.473068
>>473067>Revolutions don't happen when the people being ruled over are content. They happen when their rulers have done something to piss them off enough to overthrow their systemThe masses make revolution when they think it will make their lives better, collective revenge probably isn't a thing. Masses of people don't get organized just for payback, all that effort that goes into pulling off a revolution, that's motivated by gain. Revenge killings during revolutions do happen of course but they are acts of individuals, and they're usually frowned upon because the after-revolution politics has to recover from the disruption of normality and order.
>at that point their rulers can either expect to be killed themselves in vengeance or cling to power as hard as they can to protect their lives.Not really, the rulers that give up tend to live while those that cling to power usually don't. Clinging to power means using brutal methods and making them selves into monsters. In the end that's what gets them wrecked. And this isn't because of vengeance. It's people having gone through rough times, thinking about all those good people that didn't make it. And then not being able to answer why these horrible monsters should be allowed to survive when the good people didn't. I have read a lot of testimony from the post ww2 period, people complaining about the wrong people surviving is a prominent theme. That sentiment ended a fuck-ton of Nazi collaborators in the last stages of the war.
The N°1 reason why terrible rulers get killed off is because they clung to power too much. Even the most horrible politicians almost never get killed because their hold on power is limited. And getting rid of them usually isn't terribly hard. So if the effort of getting rid of terrible rulers was low enough it's not worth killing them, but if it took a tremendous amount of struggle, people feel that they want to make sure that it's "permanent". Democracies have so little political violence because political power tends to be more ephemeral.
By the way the bolsheviks initially didn't intent to kill the Tsars. After being deposed they were put under house arrest for a long time. The firing squat order was given because there was a risk that they might get released from captivity by opposing combat forces closing in on their position. Dead royals meant that there wasn't anybody to rally around in creating an exile government that makes counter claims for legitimacy of governance.
>Non-violent revolutions with non-violent transitions of power are rare precisely because violence-breeding destitution and repression is usually a prerequisite for a revolution to occur in the first place.Sure that's correct. However "non-violent revolutions" usually aren't perceived as revolutions at all.