My argument is that violent revolution doesn't seem to work out as well as advertised, especially with Marxism.
The Chinese revolution killed millions of people, many who were innocent.
All to end up with an oligarchy ruling over them and fabricating statistics.
This is false. The Chinese Revolution against the Nationalists was bloody, yes, but was caused by Nationalist oppression. What they have now is a functional state with high approval ratings (and no evidence shown of fabricated approval ratings or oligarchy on your part). They aren't perfect, but they are much better off.
Articles from Salon and Cambridge, both of which include vast and thorough references like English Bankers saying "I don't believe the numbers." Lmao
By Tell others, I mean just that.
Marxism may have started out wonderfully ideal. In reality if you express opinions outside of the acceptable party lines - You are silenced or worse. This is true of all of your examples of Marxism.
This happens under Capitalism, to a worse degree.
Definitely not telling folks what to do. Definitely Ideals to hold up in arguments.
You're using Amnesty.org as a resource, a far-right think-tank. This doesn't look better for you.
I disagree that revolution has resulted in the best possible position for Cuba, Russa, China and other Marxist regimes you've held up.
With nothing to support your claims, of course, just your latent chauvanism, where you think you have an "enlightened western brain" rather than letting countries govern themselves.
As stated, I'm not for telling people what to do.
Doesn't seem as if you asked, but I'm against slave labor, authoritarianism, patriarchies, colonialism, corporotocracy and feudalism.
Except you did defend them against improvements like Marxism.
Capitalism never died in the places you think Marxism ruled
It was drastically reduced or outright eliminated, and these countries are better for it.
More Amnesty.org links, more western chauvanism, it's clear you'll continue batting for fascists.
