21st Centuary Socialism

I'm writing this message due to a mail I've received a few days ago. I've read an article from an ex-member of the 21st century socialism about using violence to achieve an aim. His name is Brkic Sulejman and I can noticed that his not able to use this site to post comments and articles. I've read recently his article "By any means if necessary" and also an answer-threat by your website. If I remember well he was told to not re-post that article because you deleted it because it was not appropriate to that website of "new socialists".
First of all I would like to make you understand that by banning out Mr Brkic Sulejman from this website you are doing more or less the job of capitalists. In fact I can notice that you would rather self-censored your own website that to risk to be banned yourself by higher "authorities".
I quite agree with Mr Brkic Sulejman about the use of violence. Why in the previous past this kind of answer to another violence was used and why it would not be anymore today when we've got still the same problems? Why people only refers to the WW2 for exemple? Is that the only fact among all human history who deserve to be fight for? There are places today in the world who can be "cured" only by an extrem agressivity against the ennemy. If your ennemy is violent (Israel, USA in Irak and all over the world...) you must try to be more agressive and brutal to make him understand that you won't bow towards him. It's easy to take side to WW2 or ANC's fights in the past and the conflict is already over. It's also easy to take side to Spartacus against Romans Black american people fight for their civil rights. There is no risk by involving yourself in such struggles. But when it comes to nowdays conflicts, here you are with your "pacifist method". Let's have a walk to the main street and "let's give peace a chance".With people like you we have got more chinese in Tibet than tibetans, Israel slaughtering for decades palestinians, our "leaders" making trouble all around the world for economic reasons and make countries we don't even know where they are our "ennemies". Our goverment wants to deal with irakian oil and make war to them and send our citicens to fight for that? We don't want and we are demonstrating in the main avenue of our cities.Then, they still don't care (but were elected democraticly)about us refusing these wars.What next? You start to blow up our institutions. A bomb at the parliament, at the presidency...everywhere where are the real cocroaches of our society. You start to kidnap a big boss from an oil company....What you think will happened if we are acting like this to reach our goals? You really think that the state will still go to fight abroad when the war comes to the homeland by its own fellowcitizens?
Down with pacific march, they lead to war directly.We are just speaking and organizing since 1917.
By censoring Mr Brkic Sulejman who just said that violence is a mean among others you are blowing a job to the capitalist with your "right" hand while shaking a red flag...with your "left" hand. take care of aids, a pacific march won't help.

Brkic Sulejman was warned that if he reposted his call to murder and kidnap individual capitalists and politicians, he would be banned from participating in this forum. He ignored the warning - hence the ban.

Our editorial position is that political violence is a tactic that is justified only in certain specific circumstances, for example in South Africa during the struggle against apartheid. Advocating violence as a general political principal is unhelpful to the socialist and progressive cause, and we are under no obligation to provide a platform for those who think otherwise.

The editors are responsible, politically and legally, for the contents of this website, including what is posted in the forum. Whilst we encourage and support open debate, this is not a 'free speech' forum where anything goes.

ok, I'm trying to understand what you mean but don't you think that capitalism (sometimes only one decide of the future of many) are using violence each time it's necessary? Without thinking that what they are doing is wrong.They consider people as a marchandise where of course they don't include themselves.Violence is a main leitmotiv of capitalism.In every act of capitalism there is a violent act against people, against us. In that way, why should we be shy, at least to say, that violence must be also used against our tormentor. I don't really see where is the bad thing by kindnap someone who's at the origine of the pain of many.You are aain mentionning South Africa and the apartheid system. Of course I can only agree with you but is that the only one? There are no other causes and fights who deserve to use force, "by any means if necessary"? I remember once on T.V when USA was fighting against iraqis in 2003 and they were on their way to Bagdad. At that time, Saddam Hussein tried to make a kind of threat by saying that "he could use some special weapons against the ennemy if he had to" On TV news programs, we can hear that at the U.N they were condamning this potential acts of Saddam Hussein.Imagine that, some bastards make war to your citicens, in your country, to tale "your" oil and you have to choose your weapons against those parasites?Incredible!!I think that the kurdish problem must be resolve by violence as palestinian problem. The list is too long to continue giving examples of the necessity of violence to end an injustice. I mean, where is the limit of using and not using violence?Who gives the rules?Capitalists again? In fact I just don't understand why the violence of capitalism is in one way "authorized" but thinking differently by saying that they also deserve some part of that violence is wrong. But I also understand that you must be careful of the contents of your site to not be in the "black list" and be consedered as a terrorist group.At least, by auto-censoring yourself from black sheep, you can continue on "socialist speech" while the "capitalist" are laughing at us.

I feel I must respond personally to this. I myself am a socialist, a communist, and I am certainly not a pacifist: I believe violent action is sometimes necessary, as long as it works towards freedom and, in the long term, peace. By this I justify fighting against imperialist forces, and stand by the Muquawama so long as it is directed only against American soldiers and not one's fellow Iraqis; similarly, I justify the fight against Israel as it is the only means of maintaining backbone left open to the Palestinians, until Israel finally agrees to a peace treaty.
I myself try to keep myself as prepared as possible should I ever be needed to defend socialism, for instance if the nations of the Bolivarian Federation came under direct attack by the Empire. As a fit young male I feel I would be obliged to fight as a volunteer in such a war.

However, I was personally shocked by the violence expressed by Mr. Sulejman. I cannot stand for that. True enough, this kind of violence is what we, the left, have ti face against us; but, if we lower ourselves to the same level, then who is in the right? If we were to slaughter eachother mercilessly until only one side remained, what would it matter if the resulting charnel pit were flying a red flag or a blue one?
I understand where the urge to violence comes from - I've felt it myself, many, many times when considering the utter ignorance of many - dare I say the majority - of the priveliged populace of the first world. We feel hopless, standing against the seemingly undominable might of the Empire, unable to show the part of the people what is otherwise so obvious to us. They soak up the media nonsense, choose their political views like their clothing brands, and refuse to do anything that would upset the idyllic life of their imagining. Probably, they'll never turn abgainst capitalism.
Yes, it seems so much easier to just take a gun and blow them all away, doesn't it? Kill all those imperialist war-mongers. Kill all those bourgois fools, too, they don't deserve a socialist world. Nice and simple, right?

But this thought is very, very wrong. Acceptance of our fellow man is even more important than having him accept our views. It is indisputible that we must fight the war against Empire. We must fight with both words and actions, and we must prepared to fight with arms if there is no other option. But the war is long and hard and that must not drive us to desperation and desperate violence. We must fight the long war, and we must keep the red flag flying, but we must also keep it as clean as it can be.
For my part, I'll rather die a hated communist, reviled by the media and feared by the ignorant masses, rather than rise to glory in a haze of blood. True Communism doesn't mean killing. And I'd like to say I'm a true communist.

So no, by sensoring Brkic Sulejman, the 21st Century Socialists are not pandering to capitalist rules, they are standing up for their views - views that I hold as mine, too. This forum is not a stand from which to insight the mob to violence. Mr. Sulejman, though his intentions may be as red as yours or mine, must accept the moral standpoint of this community.

-Aidan.

i socialismo o muerte !

Greetings Comrades!

I'd like to comment on the censorship issue.My views include criticism of Aidan, written in the third person, for which I apologise to him in advance, (I will be happy to address Aidan directly if he wishes, but really my comments should be taken in the context of the whole issue surrounding Brkic Sulejman - and that's all I want to address at this point). This is what I think:

1).Brkic Sulejman shouldn't have been banned from the 21st Century Socialism forum.

2).He is entitled to advocate violence just as pacifists are entitled to advocate non-violence.

3).Capitalist states routinely use violence against weak and defenceless or poorly defended peoples and states throughout the world. The USA is the most obvious example of this, having taken over the mantle and eclipsed Britain in atrocities. Why shouldn't the opponents of the USA et al also be allowed to use violence? Particularly when governments don't represent and serve the people - they serve and represent corporations which encourage them to attack non-compliant regimes or to undermine them as in Bolivia right now etc..

4). A combination of methods to bring down capitalism is the right way forward, non-violent and violent, but violence should only be used when we can justify it in the eyes of the general public who by and large are de-politicised or when there is a significant groundswell of support from the masses demanding a change to the fundamental structure of capitalist political economy. This means that we shouldn't just blunder into violence via acts of terrorism, rather we should fight guerrilla wars, urban and rural, as well as media wars for hearts and minds when concrete social and economic conditions are favourable but in order to take advantage of such conditions we need to be organised and ready in the first place. Trotsky was always opposed to terrorism as was Lenin and I would recommend that Sulejman re-read those guys on this question.

5).Sulejman's post was high-octane powered, but I personally didn't take offence at it. However, when writing for the general public on a forum, we have to consider the socialisation of our readership, the diversity of the audience and the fact that because people on the left are left it doesn't mean they agree on every question or burn with the energy and desire that Sulejman does. Unfortunately, this is a painful truth that revolutionaries have to contend with. There are, quite simply, faint hearted utopian dreamers out there who love the ideals of communism and anarchism but have no clue about what it means to attempt to realise their dreams. Aidan who posted the following in reply to Sulejman reminds me of this type of person:

" For my part, I'll rather die a hated communist, reviled by the media and feared by the ignorant masses, rather than rise to glory in a haze of blood. True Communism doesn't mean killing. And I'd like to say I'm a true communist".

Well, there are a lot of things I could say about this, but I would rather die a communist in a communist world praised by the media and feared by potential capitalists after a revolution in which all the CEOs in the multi-national corporations had been executed. Unfortunately, true communism only comes after capitalism has been eradicated and Aiden shouldn't make such bold claims. We are always on a path of development, it's elementary historical and dialectical materialism and I would be wary of anyone who claims that their ideas on communism represent a "truth". Further to Aiden's comments, being a communist DOES mean killing, because how many capitalists haven't contributed to the deaths of thousands of our comrades and how many wouldn't do so again? How many capitalists just hand over what people ask for? A combination of non-violent and violent methods is inevitable, and Sulejman's post puts the question back on the table if nothing else.

6). I'd like to say that I understand Sulejman's frustration, but it may be better to post more measured comments, and ultimately, he needs to be put back on the 21st Century Socialism forum and be allowed to defend himself!

Despite this I will say that it is counter-productive to go around killing politicians when the general public may react badly to it when there isn't a party or organisation waiting in the wings that is trusted by the people to take up their cause. It does come across as desperate. However, on a lighter note and in a strictly hyperbolic tone, it would be great fun to see reports of targetted worldwide assassinations of G8 leaders and corporate CEOs by unknown hit men! I don't think they would get much sympathy.

Finally, I think that the moderator on 21st Century Socialism reacted high handedly and negatively, "warning" someone not to post inflammatory material instead of engaging the writer in intellectual debate and winning his opponent over to his side.Just striking Sulejman off the forum even after a "warning" is not democratic and smacks of dictatorship. I get the impression that the moderator is afraid of the law and of his site being closed down.I wonder what Marx would have made of such an attitude given his exile and experiences with Neue Rheinische Zeitung?

Killing people is permanent censorship, so Brkic Sulejman is clearly not against the principle of shutting people up. Brkic remains free to advocate the random murder of politicians, just not on this website. The publishers are liable for the content of the site, including (according to some legal experts) the comments. Why on earth would the publishers wish to take responsibility for Brkic's bloodthirsty postings, particularly when they have made it clear that his opinions are out of kilter with the ethos of the website? Legality aside, I suspect that Brkic's deranged rants discouraged 'normal' readers from commenting - that alone is good reason to ban him.

Hi Jason

I would suggest that rather than simply posting a rehashed version of what the editors of the site have already stated and running, that it would be better to address all the aspects of Sulejman's post that caused offence and systematically take issue with them.Wouldn't it be better to simply demonstrate through detailed critique that the publishers of the website are obviously opposed to Sulejman's views by articulate and well thought out responses than by panicking at the thought of the thought police knocking on the door?Further to this, my post above asked (indirectly) a number of questions that were intended to start and stir debate. Not least of which would be the issue of engaging Sulejman in discussion in order to convince him of your points of view.

Also my post asks indirect questions of the convictions and preparedness for action of people who post on a website that isn't aligned to a political party - the primary vehicles of political change, like it or not. It also points to questions of legality and illegality when it comes to publishing political material.As I'm sure you well know, our ancestors routinely published political pamphlets, newsletters and newspapers illegally, clandestinely and under the threat of long spells in prison or execution, hence my citing of Neue Rheinische Zeitung as a prompt ( acknowledging that the forerunner to that publication wasn't illegal, but that plenty of others were). Do socialists of the 21st Century have the same mettle? (How about a discussion on the Zapatistas? Masters of media manipulation in cyberspace, or not?) Why not discuss what we can learn from the experiences of those who have gone before us?

You could also have picked up on Lenin and Trotsky on the question of terrorism and violence, or you could have looked at questions of dialectical and historical materialism to highlight the inadequacies of Sulejman's positions. You could have tried to educate him, cultivating a potential top class class fighter, but instead you simply referred to killing as being permanent censorship and left it at that. (What about a discussion on the role of violence in achieving revolutionary social change?)

Further to all this you called Sulejman deranged and implied that he wasn't "normal". Where was the psychological definition of deranged and the accompanying analysis of Sulejman's writing? If indeed, Sulejman's comments discourage "Normal" people from commenting, what does that say about these "normal" people? That they don't have the decency or compassion to help this "deranged" ranter? Or that they don't have the guts to take him on? Who knows what it says about "normal" people?

It appears to me that the 21st Century Socialism people take themselves very seriously and could have illusions of grandeur. Ever visited the class war site? As far as I know it hasn't been closed down and is still floating around in cyberspace. Why not pick up on any of the themes above and get a good quality debate going? The site, even with posts like that of Sulejman could act as a great educational resource.It doesn't help to hide from the fact that the left is diverse and that there are those among us who advocate violence.Engage them.

Rob de Rich

Rob

I have attempted to engage Brkic in debate (as have others), but he was not interested. See here: [21stcenturysocialism.com]

Instead, he continued to post his bloodthirsty monologues on numerous new threads. In my opinion, he was disrupting and abusing the forum. I also wondered what Brkic was hoping to achieve. If he really intends to kill people, announcing his intentions on a public forum is probably not the smartest way of going about it. I am hesitant to offer him advice, but he would be better to quietly get together with other like-minded individuals and invest in fertiliser and other ingredients necessary to make a bomb.

To be clear, I have no issue with you or anyone else debating the circumstances under which political violence might be used as a tactic to support political objectives.

In general, violence should be a last resort and used only when all other means of peaceful opposition have been exhausted. In order for violence not to be counterproductive, it needs to be an expression of the popular will and enjoy mass popular support. Britain, for example, does not meet these qualifications.

The main problem with Brkic's posts was that he was advocating the indiscriminate use of violence and murder against politicians and capitalists, irrespective of whether the actual objective circumstances justified it. Such a course of action would discredit and isolate the left, and (as Aiden said) undermine our morality.

A second problem with Brkic is his general tone, and in particular his inability to comprehend that armed struggle is a tactic, not a principal, and should be used with discretion in order to avoid causing needless civilian casualties.

21st Century Socialism has published a considered piece on this very topic, written by someone who was a gun-runner for the military wing of South Africa's ANC during the apartheid years: [21stcenturysocialism.com]

If you (or others) would like to discuss the issues raised in this interesting piece, I think we could have a fruitful debate. I am not, however, interested in wasting my time responding to Brkic's bloodthirsty monologues.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2008 06:24PM by Jason.

Hi Jason

Thanks for your response and for the links. I understand your position clearly and I think that I'll leave it at that for now, although I may pick up on the offer of a discussion on the ANC piece later on.I understand that to reply to all of the topics I popped up with above would take considerable time and energy.

I will just say though, that dialogue is the key, even with the most intransigent people.

Rob

Sorry, I've been gone a long time.

In response to Rob De Rich:

Firstly I take no offence at your criticisms of my viewpoints. I understand some of the ideas behind your points.

Of course, I was rather shocked at being referred (indirectly) as a 'faint hearted utopian dreamer', though, as I generally consider my viewpoint to be a very sober outlook on the situation I am in. I seriously doubt that I will see socialism triumphant in my lifetime - so it may well be 'muerte' and not 'socialismo' for me, but I'm O.K with that, so long as there's a possibility of a better world emerging some way down the track for future generations of people.

But I certainly believe that if we surrender ourselves to slaughtering our opposition, then socialism/communism will *never* succeed. When I say I'd rather die a 'hated communist' than 'rise to glory in a haze of blood', I mean that if I chose the latter path I would have already failed communism by creating one more reason for people to hate and fear it.

I must clarify, though, that I 'ent automatically opposed to all forms of violence, I can even condone the execution of one's immediate enemies in some situations. But a 'haze of blood' implies indiscriminate killing, as advocated by Brkic and (sadly) pursued by many communist nations in history.

By saying that I consider myself a 'true' communist I certainly don't mean to say that those who don't follow my particular brand aren't communists. I believe that there needs to be a general unity among leftists, and we can't just sit around squabbling about ideological purity. All I mean to say is that even though I'm not crying for the blood of the bourgois I am still committed to the communist ideal, therefore a 'true' communist and not a 'utopian dreamer'.

Jason has already voiced the reasons, perhaps more clearly than I had, why I do not accept Brkic's ideology and support his banning from this forum. Yes, dialogue is necessary - and I will take this moment to say that, prior to his banning, I sent a personal message to Brkic expressing my concers about exactly this piece of text, that I had found elsewhere online. The response he gave seemed absolutely reasonable, and I decided to reevaluate my opinion on him. Imagine my horror to later find the selfsame atricle, posted unaltered on this website. Some people you just can't talk to, and if they're not willing to accept the moral standpoint of a community, they don't belong in it.

I hope I have clarified my earlier post. It comes a little late, but I felt I needed to explain myself in case you misunderstood.

i socialismo o muerte !

-Aidan. (by the way, that's Aidan with a second 'A' not an 'E')


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- communism AND atheism AND freedom AND truth -



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2008 07:49PM by Aidan.

You do a lot of talking on this forum, the few of you. Are you actually involved in any kind of concrete activism?
Dejan

dejan pasic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do a lot of talking on this forum, the few of
> you. Are you actually involved in any kind of
> concrete activism?
> Dejan

Yes, though only in a very minor sense. Just so's you know, I'm only eighteen, but besides anti-war protests (what I don't really consider proper activism) I'm busily trying to organise a leftist group where I live. Damned hard when most leftists around don't know the hell what they're talking about, but well... I perservere. But I plan, in years to come (once I'm done with uni) to head to Latin America and find a way to really serve the revolution there - or else get a job in my country that is involved with Latin America (who knows, maybe they'll eventually have U.S.A.N offices opening here...)

The main barrier between me and activism is the fact that there's very little I can do by myself, (hence I'm trying to organise). And as it is, most leftists around are either a bunch of anti-system depressos (only choose the left as a way of 'rebelling') or angry and violent Pol-Pot wannabes. If'n you don't mind me being a little crude about it. The first group are approachable and can potentially become truly political; the second are much to eager to be activists, and in my opinion should rather be kept away from activism.

I'd be happy to hear any suggestions you have for how I can improve my activist life in a productive way. (I'm serious, I'm not being sarcastic)

i socialismo o muerte !

-Aidan.

You are doing good, I guess, for the time being.
Start a group, tell people to start groups and then connect.
Look into Situationism, great ideas.
Take care
Dejan

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Dejan