Have you ever actually been to Chicago ? <| sep |> Nu , la nu e viol . Nu poi fi att de idiot nct s consideri o tentativ de srut viol . <| sep |> I feel bad for not getting this . <| sep |> probably not . No one has really been elevated all that much since the brand split , i don ' t see why those guys would . The Smackdown roster would be deeper though , that ' d be cool . <| sep |> You ' re right , Isis . It is primitive . It ' s incredible that people can exist like this . At least we won ' t have to . Not for long . Computer on . <| sep |> I ' d hardly call high school age kids little boys <| sep |> The wall will provide err you know something to stop illegal aliens coming into the country . <| sep |> Marxists consider terror to be perfectly valid when used against exploiters who refuse to cede power to the emerging class . Cromwell , Robespierre , and other bourgeois revolutionaries are praised in this regard precisely because they recognized the need to carry out terror against the reactionary class of their day the feudal nobility . In this the bourgeoisie received broad support from the masses , even though bourgeois revolutions ended up replaceing one exploiting class with another . Each ruling exploiter class , from slaveowners to the feudal nobility to the bourgeoisie , conceives of its rule as eternal and in accordance with natural law . The bourgeoisie , once revolutionary , becomes reactionary when no longer confronted with the former exploiting class , but instead with the new emerging class the proletariat . That is why today you have bourgeois philosophers , historians , politicians and whatnot all decrying the use of violence , even as they do in fact employ it against movements that pose a serious threat to the capitalist system . So it ' s not a case of bourgeois terror being bad and proletarian terror being good . They ' re both justified depending on the context . EngelsA revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles , bayonets and cannon authoritarian means , if such there be at all and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain , it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists . Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois ? Should we not , on the contrary , reproach it for not having used it freely enough ? Therefore , either one of two things either the antiauthoritarians don ' t know what they ' re talking about , in which case they are creating nothing but confusion or they do know , and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat . In either case they serve the reaction . To again quote a bourgeois revolutionary , here ' s LincolnAny people anywhere , being inclined and having the power , have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government , and form a new one that suits them better . This is a most valuable , a most sacred righta right which , we hope and believe , is to liberate the world . . . More than this , a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize , putting down a minority , intermingled with , or near about them , who may oppose their movement . Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution .