Link. Lots of :frothingfash: brainrot in the comments, so be forewarned.
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2022
0 points (NaN% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15910 readers
17 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What does a reasonable measure during a civil war in 1918 have to do with a Marx quote?
The quote also underlines pretty much what Marx point was. Not "weapons are holy", but the working class needs weapons, if you want to take it away from the working class you have to use violence to stop the oppressor. In the case of the civil war the revolutionary parties for all practical purposes were the executive body of the working class in party form. Which means that if you are part of the party it is fine to have weapons.
The only argument here would be how the transition of revolutionary parties to body of the working class goes. Vulgar marxist argued, it comes from here: communism is the real existing movement, and so on and so on.
With other words since obviously the civil war which ended up with a soviet republic did change the present conditions those that achieved it were precisely the communist movement. Which if we go with Lenin, who played part in the revolution as we know, were organized in the communist and revolutionary parties of the time. So 100% coherent in theoretical foundation and practical application.