: Recall The Civil War in France, part three, section four, where Marx DEFENDS the Paris Commune's decision to take hostages, etc., etc. against the class enemy and Marx's letter to Kugelmann (April 12, 1871) in which he admonished the Paris Commune for not taking MORE decisive action than it did.
Those hostages, prey recall, were officers and officials of teh government, not their famillies - nor, cf. krondstadt, were they the famillies of workers...
: All of this, too, was in the 'proletarian cause' you seem to carelessly disregard.
No disregard at all, however, since the essence of Marxian thinking is to examine social relations, it is behooven of us to examine the social relation implicit in a Terror and see whether it is actually effective in teh service of the workers' interests - I think the clear evidence is that it is not.
Violence is hopelessly impractical - every dead person is a brother, mother, sister, friend - all of which causes bad blood. Further, the terror is the tool of a minority, it is necessary for a minority to impose its will, a socialist movement would have no need of terror, or the essentially counter-revolutionary social relations of a terror.
: That's right. Can't tell the difference between capitalists and Marxists anymore, RD?
Strangely, Trotsky also imprisoned proles, and executed more than enough - the cheka imprisoned non-party proles to help gerrymander the soviets - precious few capitalists were on teh recieving end of the red terror.
Further, who is to decide exactly who is acting in the class interest of the proles? It seems, according to trotsky's logic, that any bugger can decide that he is acting in the class interest of the working class, and justify his actions.
: The real amusement is that you call yourself a Marxist.
Well, I looked at my 'marxist contract', and it doesn't seem to include supporting rule by terror.
The acme of Marxian 'ethics' must surely be that humans ought to be in a position to be an end in themselves (quasi kantian stylee), to develop their full human (i.e. social) potential. Violence is inherently anti-social, counter productive, and destructive of necessary resources. Surely it is encumbant upon revolutionaries to avoid violence where ever possible - and political democracy presents us with that possibility - as Marx observed to teh workers of hollabnd (and England).
"Parties do not make revolutions, only nations" Marx, interview with Chicago tribune - interesting quote methinks, just randomly bubbled to my mind...