First off, I'm a huge fan of Shining Path as any communist should be. But the Lucanamarca massacre was some seriously heinous shit (80 villagers hacked to death with machetes). The most disturbing aspect about it is that the leadership defends the massacre openly and proudly.
What are your thoughts?
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
Why should every communist be a fan of the Shining Path? That makes no sense, if I don't like certain communists, or maoism in this case, why should I like them? It's not wrong at all to not like certain ideologies, and the claim that "every communist should like the Shining Path" isn't based on anything other than emotions or non-material reasons.
...
I fail to see what's so disturbing about killing reactionary militiamen.
We as communists know le neutral liberals are just collaborationist working for the status quo, ist est, reactionaries in its very definition. We will make no excuses for the terror.
Fuck off, if I don't like a bunch of peruvian maoists who did jackshit that doesn't make me a reactionary, unless your definition of reactionary is something you just toss around to people you disagree with, brainlet.
at least they do more than shitposting
well, they burned their comander?
I also sometimes find it laughable how seriously people take 80 deaths while western forces kill that many civilians by dronestrike on a weekend
Nice input.
The primary defense of capitalism is basically that yeah it sucks but it isn't quite as barbaric as fascism or "stalinism". We kill people but we don't hack them to death with machetes. We bomb people but we don't use nerve agent.
Humiliated him in a public square, beat him up, threw stones at him, stabbed him, set him on fire AND shot him.
Reactionaries aren't human.
I get the point about class war. It is justified in any system to wage war against the opposing class but honestly I think we should try to be better than any other system in this regard.
That really means nothing.
Thats the point.
I have a hard time picturing a ragtag bunch of commies INNAWOODS having the resources to kill a bunch of fags "humanely".
It's called guns.
They have guns don't they? Nothing wrong with killing but communists should never engage in barbaric violence, torture, and rape. Barbarism actively repels the masses and their support. Communists are liberators of the masses and their behavior needs to reflect that.
Guns are for fighting. Execution by firing squad is bourgeois first worlders in industrialized countries.
We are always mad about police but if it was us we would be doing worse.
This isn't an argument. Why the hell do people say this when criticism is levied against any leftist group especially maoists? Self-critic and critic in general is literally part of maoism.
War isn't all roses.
Sure but if you have a choice you shouldn't pick the unnecessarily cruel one.
It's not about morality, welcome to left extremism 101.
There has to be some morality. At what point do you just say something is wrong no matter who does it? Is genocide allright if good people do it? Imperialism? Slavery?
...
The choice is a terrible tactical decision of misusing resources you need to exist.
...
That's not a question about morality.
...
ty cowadoody
Is it really neccessary to kill children and a 6 month old baby? Or to scalc villagers with boiling water? Or to burn people? And if it was really about not wasting bullets why did they shoot some of them?
How fucking dense do you brainlets have to be? Let's see:
khmer rouge had bullets
farc had bullets
m19 had bullets
shining path had bullets
vietcong had bullets
Every guerrilla and their mother has guns, and therefore, bullets, you braindead mongoloid.
bullets ain't free but the amount you need to carry out an execution of under a hundred people is pretty minimal
Not enough to needlessly waste them.
Ik they aren't,but tell me one guerrilla force that didn't use bullets
Whoever said anything about needlessly wasting them?
...
I don't support any of those. But I understand that its kind of inevitable in a revolution.
What a fucking absurd attempt at a justification. If ~100 bullets are gonna make or break your "revolution" then you got bigger problems than 80 people in a village.
Bro I'm pretty sure very few people here actually defend the killing of children that have nothing to do with the political conflict, it's just bound to happen, no one should actually defend that ffs.
The children in the first and second parts were in specific conditions to be potential threats in the future. Remnants of the Whites and other reactionaries in Russia may well have supported those children making an attempt at a coup later.
But every time the Shining Path is brought up on Zig Forums that's a huge point of contention whereas only open reactionaries give a fuck about communists murking Nicky's kids.
That's still irrelevant for Haiti.
We will make excuses for the terror, I am sorry.
I don't particularly know the situation with Haiti.
That said, killing children for the sheer sake of inflicting terror is pointless wastefulness bordering on the mindless cruelty of reactionaries.
Necessary, as those children could and most likely would later be used to reinstate the aristocracy by foreign powers.
Debatably necessary, more of a consequence of the revolution then a coordinated action in which orders were given to specifically kill children.
More like
Completely unnesscessary, ordered as a generalized killing with no actual specific targets or pragmatic and necessary goals other then revenge which extended far past the people who committed the execution or were related to the executioners.
talk about strawmen
Let terror be the order of the day.
but user that's mean
don't be mean to reactionaries please
Nobody is arguing that terror should not be used. The thing is that you should probably actually use effective pragmatic terror rather than being an edgier version of a smashie.
The guy I was answering to was saying bullets were scarce, which is complete and utter bullshit, that's why I said that.
...
It's not burgerland, you can't buy them in a supermarket.
Bullets in terms of the scale you are going to use in even a small firefight are indeed a resource you need to manage, because you are going to spend hundreds or thousands of bullets every fight.
Bullets in terms of the scale of executions are not scarce.
Not only that, but Shining Path were a rather small group in the rural third world, with barely any international support to speak of from the soviet or chinese blocks.
Are they just gonna go walk to their nearest Walmart and buy a truckload of shells and hollow points?
Why are you even here.
AFAIK no communist guerrilla has ever used the suppressible fire doctrine. Can you guess why?
So I guess the khmer rouge, vc, m19 etc ran out of bullets huh? Get real.
Immediate goal of the revolution is the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. DoP implies turning state apparatus of terror against the bourgeoisie. Therefore if you disapprove of terror during the revolution, you are an utopist at best, counterrevolutionary at worst.
...
You could use low-caliber pistol rounds that have almost zero combat value or hunting shotguns that exist in almost every rural area ever to commit executions while reserving the bullets you actually use in combat.
Again, bullets on the scale of use in a combat is nowhere near what you would use for executions and the fact that you can only defend your point by bringing in the most incredibly wasteful uses of bullets in combat only reinforces this point
Discussion about morality and revolutionary terror degenerated into discussion about guerilla tactics by people who barely even leave their cities.
t. smashie edgelord
I'm not the guy claiming bullets are scarce though, I'm only challenging the notion that bullets are somehow plentiful for parties like Shining Path which is just as stupid.
For the record, this whole autism is moot since the commander himself admitted to have ordered the massacre to be conducted as brutally as possible, clearly he never had the economy of resources in mind.
Not an argument cucko.
As opposed to what? Couching your defense of counterproductive mass murder in a vulgar interpretation of radical rhetoric?
And it's not "terror" either. A communist movement can hold itself up to a certain degree of virtuous behavior, though.
I'm not trying to argue that bullets are plentiful for groups, I'm making the statement that what is "plentiful" and what is "scarce" is a matter of what the question at hand is.
>I'm a huge fan of Shining Path as any communist should be
No, seriously, stop blackmailing us! The initial thrust was legit communist politics, but they literally fucked up. Read Badiou or about him, "comrade," ffs! Under Gonzalo's leadership the party foreclosed any hope for proper communist praxis as such! They practically devolved into pre-revolutionary terror (against the general populace).
Shining Path < Naxals
I disapprove of terror that doesn't actually do anything like hacking people to death with machetes instead of just shooting them or killing scalding people with boiling water.
Fantastic input cocksucker
marxists.org
You completely missed my argument and started discussing bullets and suppressive fire. My point was that nobody in this thread is qualified to discuss partisan tactics.
Violence is necessary as a whole if you want to achieve a revolution, you can't just single out one specific case and say that that one wasn't necessary.
I know that it's easier to simply cheer for the "good guys" doing "good things", but you need to realize that this is a class warfare.
Credentialism is a dumb thing to latch onto, especially on an anonymous mongolian animutation omegle where every other post is subject to be an artistic work of fiction and falsehood.
I agree with the underlying point though, this was my first post
What was the pragmatic purpose of the terror in this particular, specific case? I am not arguing against terror, I'm asking what was Shining Path intending this case of terror to be directed towards?
If you're murdering people who are part of the liberal status quo when you have no serious level of control over the area and they have no reason to work with you for being reactionary then in what sense is this different from being edgier smashies?
...
...
Absolutely. Terrorizing villagers who aren't enthusiastically communist enough is cool and good. I hate reactionary libs who say things like
Wait a moment…
That's not disturbing at all. Disturbing would be them trying their best to get rid of that memory, because whitewashing our history is a pasttime for opportunists.
Shining Path were adventurists
Yes.
Grasping at straws, gtfo.
Gonzalo devolved from Mao style to Stalin's commandism and the cult of personality around him meant no one was able to carry the struggle on so it lead to stupid shit like Luanamarca. "Witchcraft" isn't a reason to hack someone to death with a machete.
Because the weather underground almost took over the US, oh wait, you're retarded.