Snowstalker's position always seems to be that violence towards his end is legitimate, but other violence isn't. Once you open the door for condoning violence for political objectives, you're at least recognizing the right of the oppressors to use violence to keep their own power from the oppressed. If violence from the workers to seize the means of production is legitimate, is violence by the owners against the workers to preserve their ownership of the means of production also legitimate?
Not to defend Snowstalker, but any fundamental change of ownership to the wealth in society (a "social revolution") requires violence, so if you believe such a transition is necessary and moral then you have to condone violence - you can to a certain extent redistribure through taxation, but you need force to fundamentally redistribute property (you can do it through democratic control of the state apparatus, but if the wealthy are in any position to retaliate (by setting up a rebel army, attempting a coup, seeking foreign intervention etc.) such a confiscation of property will still require armed force.
My question is if it's acceptable for "workers" to try to "seize" factories etc, why is it not also acceptable for the owner of said factory to hire mercenaries to mow down said workers? If class war is to exist, saying that the bourgeoisie fighting back is illegitimate is rather dirty pool.
Poll
