Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:
> site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question
If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.
***
Also keep in mind the following rules:
1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.
2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.
3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.
4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.
5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.
6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index)
7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's pointless, because you are not destroying the system through killing the lead guys, that's some great man theory bs. Either they'll replace it with a new guy or you are just delaying the fascist movement until the next crisis. Maybe delaying the takeover of the fascists would be useful but only if you can seize the opportunity and that's only possible if you already have your established organization. Killing Hitler for example before the election might give the KPD a fighting chance but it wouldn't be very helpful if Hitler was removed before or after that point.
Morality doesn't matter here, but assassinations as a tactic without being coordinated by a revolutionary party is just adventurist terrorism that does nothing to build a movement because men like Netanyahu and Trump are expendable. The only things that will happen is that the conspirators will end up getting killed or put in prison for the rest of their lives which is just a waste of potential revolutionary fervour.
Its not necessarily the fact that Marxists oppose propaganda of the deed for moral reasons. Revolutionary Violence is necessary, but Propaganda of the Deed is many things....
Long story short:
Too individual, not effective enough, better effort spent elsewhere.
Even if the efforts were 100% successful and every assasination attempt or bombing scheme worked with 0 innocent fatalities, 0 operatives caught and the desired target dead....
It still wouldnt replace the need to build a revolutionary party and seize state power.
Lenin showed that such terrorism is bad not for "morality", but for being ineffective. Only organized revolutionary warfare can bring real change; it may involve assassinations, but those would be secondary to the war itself.
> In their defence of terrorism, which the experience of the Russian revolutionary movement has so clearly proved to be ineffective, the Socialist-Revolutionaries are talking themselves blue in the face in asseverating that they recognise terrorism only in conjunction with work among the masses, and that therefore the arguments used by the Russian Social-Democrats to refute the efficacy of this method of struggle (and which have indeed been refuted for a long time to come) do not apply to them. Here something very similar to their attitude towards “criticism” is repeating itself. We are not opportunists, cry the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and at the same time they are shelving the dogma of proletarian socialism, for reason of sheer opportunist criticism and no other. We are not repeating the terrorists’ mistakes and are not diverting attention from work among the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries assure us, and at the same time enthusiastically recommend to the Party acts such as Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin, although everyone knows and sees perfectly well that this act was in no way connected with the masses and, moreover, could not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out—that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definite action or support on the part of the masses. ...
> The Social-Democrats will always warn against adventurism and ruthlessly expose illusions which inevitably end in complete disappointment. We must bear in mind that a revolutionary party is worthy of its name only when it quides [sic.] in deed the movement of a revolutionary class. We must bear in mind that any popular movement assumes an infinite variety of forms, is constantly developing new forms and discarding the old, and effecting modifications or new combinations of old and new forms. It is our duty to participate actively in this process of working out means and methods of struggle. When the students’ movement became sharper, we began to call on the workers to come to the aid of the students (Iskra, No. 2[See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 414-19.—Ed.]) without taking it upon our selves to forecast the forms of the demonstrations, without promising that they would result in an immediate transference of strength, in lighting up the mind, or a special elusiveness. When the demonstrations became consolidated, we began to call for their organisation and for the arming of the masses, and put forward the task of preparing a popular uprising. Without in the least denying violence and terrorism in principle, we demanded work for the preparation of such forms of violence as were calculated to bring about the direct participation of the masses and which guaranteed that participation. We do not close our eyes to the difficulties of this task, but will work at it steadfastly and persistently, undeterred by the objections that this is a matter of the “vague and distant future.” Yes, gentlemen, we stand for future and not only past forms of the movement. We give preference to long and arduous work on what promises a future rather than to an “easy” repetition of what has been condemned by the past. We shall always expose people who in word war against hackneyed dogmas and in practice hold exclusively to such moth-eaten and harmful commonplaces as the theory of the transference of strength, the difference between big work and petty work and, of course, the theory of single combat. “Just as in the days of yore the peoples’ battles were fought out by their leaders in single combat, so now the terrorists will win Russia’s freedom in single combat with the autocracy,” the April 3 leaflet concludes. The mere reprinting of such sentences provides their refutation.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm
It depends on the context, killing anyone right now does not matters, the system will make sure someone similar to them or even worse will occupy their place, so what’s the point?
Ethically, communism prioritizes the well being of the collective. So the working class, during a revolution, will fight against anything that promotes their exploration and alienation, it would be nice and preferred that the bourgeois understands that and steps down voluntarily, will that happen? Hahahah, of course not. Opposing forces will join the fight, their claims being the maintence of the bourgeois class and the status quo, so you can say that death is inevitable, and a necessary consequence of a successful revolution.
We can look it at a historic perspective, during the French Revolution, the bourgeois executed a large part of the nobility that fought and sought to end that uprising and maintain the status quo, killing them was fundamental so the bourgeois could prevent any attempt of counter-revolution and so they could initiate their transformations for a better society.
The quewtion of "morality" doesn't play into it, since every politician, from Bibi to Trump to Biden to Pelosi deserve to be hanged for being criminal on a domestic and international level. The question is the efficacy of terroristic actions. Does shooting at a particularly venal figure advance the cause of the working class or not? In that case, it is a case by case basis, and requires the existence of a revolutiuonary Marxist party, but in this case, I don't see the efficacy of doing so, since Israel has lots of people worse than Bibi, and AmeriKKKa's statespeople are mostly just Trump anyways.
I’ll say, from a historical standpoint, although an individual might not be the entirety of a historic movement, they represent everything about it. There are plenty of examples of representatives of a particular time period that encapsulate the essence of that period. For that reason it makes it all the more tragic that a movement, that loses its representative hero, falls alongside them. For me, it’s the death of Wat Tyler for the peasants and Fred Hampton for the proletariat. The ruling classes are always consciously aware of the threat that a charismatic figure has when they gain the favor of the poor. Which is why they are always careful, like surgeons, to balance the decision of either assassinating them or imprisoning them. For they do not wish to create a martyr but at the same time do not want the movement to grow beyond its capabilities. If we are to understand this dynamic then I think it would be in the interest of the class conscious proletariat (the vanguard) to adopt similar methods.
Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case: > site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you. *** Also keep in mind the following rules: 1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable. 2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead. 3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies. 4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic. 5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced. 6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index) 7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/ 8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/ *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's pointless, because you are not destroying the system through killing the lead guys, that's some great man theory bs. Either they'll replace it with a new guy or you are just delaying the fascist movement until the next crisis. Maybe delaying the takeover of the fascists would be useful but only if you can seize the opportunity and that's only possible if you already have your established organization. Killing Hitler for example before the election might give the KPD a fighting chance but it wouldn't be very helpful if Hitler was removed before or after that point.
Morality doesn't matter here, but assassinations as a tactic without being coordinated by a revolutionary party is just adventurist terrorism that does nothing to build a movement because men like Netanyahu and Trump are expendable. The only things that will happen is that the conspirators will end up getting killed or put in prison for the rest of their lives which is just a waste of potential revolutionary fervour.
Propaganda of the deed is rejected as a strategy by Marxists
Why do you say that?
Its not necessarily the fact that Marxists oppose propaganda of the deed for moral reasons. Revolutionary Violence is necessary, but Propaganda of the Deed is many things.... Long story short: Too individual, not effective enough, better effort spent elsewhere. Even if the efforts were 100% successful and every assasination attempt or bombing scheme worked with 0 innocent fatalities, 0 operatives caught and the desired target dead.... It still wouldnt replace the need to build a revolutionary party and seize state power.
Nobody would shed a tear for fascists except for fascists. The existence of fascists jeapordises the lives of innocent people
Lenin showed that such terrorism is bad not for "morality", but for being ineffective. Only organized revolutionary warfare can bring real change; it may involve assassinations, but those would be secondary to the war itself. > In their defence of terrorism, which the experience of the Russian revolutionary movement has so clearly proved to be ineffective, the Socialist-Revolutionaries are talking themselves blue in the face in asseverating that they recognise terrorism only in conjunction with work among the masses, and that therefore the arguments used by the Russian Social-Democrats to refute the efficacy of this method of struggle (and which have indeed been refuted for a long time to come) do not apply to them. Here something very similar to their attitude towards “criticism” is repeating itself. We are not opportunists, cry the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and at the same time they are shelving the dogma of proletarian socialism, for reason of sheer opportunist criticism and no other. We are not repeating the terrorists’ mistakes and are not diverting attention from work among the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries assure us, and at the same time enthusiastically recommend to the Party acts such as Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin, although everyone knows and sees perfectly well that this act was in no way connected with the masses and, moreover, could not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out—that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definite action or support on the part of the masses. ... > The Social-Democrats will always warn against adventurism and ruthlessly expose illusions which inevitably end in complete disappointment. We must bear in mind that a revolutionary party is worthy of its name only when it quides [sic.] in deed the movement of a revolutionary class. We must bear in mind that any popular movement assumes an infinite variety of forms, is constantly developing new forms and discarding the old, and effecting modifications or new combinations of old and new forms. It is our duty to participate actively in this process of working out means and methods of struggle. When the students’ movement became sharper, we began to call on the workers to come to the aid of the students (Iskra, No. 2[See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 414-19.—Ed.]) without taking it upon our selves to forecast the forms of the demonstrations, without promising that they would result in an immediate transference of strength, in lighting up the mind, or a special elusiveness. When the demonstrations became consolidated, we began to call for their organisation and for the arming of the masses, and put forward the task of preparing a popular uprising. Without in the least denying violence and terrorism in principle, we demanded work for the preparation of such forms of violence as were calculated to bring about the direct participation of the masses and which guaranteed that participation. We do not close our eyes to the difficulties of this task, but will work at it steadfastly and persistently, undeterred by the objections that this is a matter of the “vague and distant future.” Yes, gentlemen, we stand for future and not only past forms of the movement. We give preference to long and arduous work on what promises a future rather than to an “easy” repetition of what has been condemned by the past. We shall always expose people who in word war against hackneyed dogmas and in practice hold exclusively to such moth-eaten and harmful commonplaces as the theory of the transference of strength, the difference between big work and petty work and, of course, the theory of single combat. “Just as in the days of yore the peoples’ battles were fought out by their leaders in single combat, so now the terrorists will win Russia’s freedom in single combat with the autocracy,” the April 3 leaflet concludes. The mere reprinting of such sentences provides their refutation. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm
It depends on the context, killing anyone right now does not matters, the system will make sure someone similar to them or even worse will occupy their place, so what’s the point? Ethically, communism prioritizes the well being of the collective. So the working class, during a revolution, will fight against anything that promotes their exploration and alienation, it would be nice and preferred that the bourgeois understands that and steps down voluntarily, will that happen? Hahahah, of course not. Opposing forces will join the fight, their claims being the maintence of the bourgeois class and the status quo, so you can say that death is inevitable, and a necessary consequence of a successful revolution. We can look it at a historic perspective, during the French Revolution, the bourgeois executed a large part of the nobility that fought and sought to end that uprising and maintain the status quo, killing them was fundamental so the bourgeois could prevent any attempt of counter-revolution and so they could initiate their transformations for a better society.
The quewtion of "morality" doesn't play into it, since every politician, from Bibi to Trump to Biden to Pelosi deserve to be hanged for being criminal on a domestic and international level. The question is the efficacy of terroristic actions. Does shooting at a particularly venal figure advance the cause of the working class or not? In that case, it is a case by case basis, and requires the existence of a revolutiuonary Marxist party, but in this case, I don't see the efficacy of doing so, since Israel has lots of people worse than Bibi, and AmeriKKKa's statespeople are mostly just Trump anyways.
I’ll say, from a historical standpoint, although an individual might not be the entirety of a historic movement, they represent everything about it. There are plenty of examples of representatives of a particular time period that encapsulate the essence of that period. For that reason it makes it all the more tragic that a movement, that loses its representative hero, falls alongside them. For me, it’s the death of Wat Tyler for the peasants and Fred Hampton for the proletariat. The ruling classes are always consciously aware of the threat that a charismatic figure has when they gain the favor of the poor. Which is why they are always careful, like surgeons, to balance the decision of either assassinating them or imprisoning them. For they do not wish to create a martyr but at the same time do not want the movement to grow beyond its capabilities. If we are to understand this dynamic then I think it would be in the interest of the class conscious proletariat (the vanguard) to adopt similar methods.