this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
1336 points (98.9% liked)
Memes
49804 readers
2636 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're not going to find a good person who puts following rules written to benefit the capitalist class above freeing people from crippling debt.
Maybe you should hang around left wingers more
Being an evil person to get rid of evil just makes another evil person, you can believe you are good until you die but can you believe the person who comes after you will be?
MLK jr and Gandhi bettered life for their people without violence
No oppressed person ever got their rights by appealing to the morality of their oppressor.
Both these movements would have failed if there wasn't a violent component demonstrating the alternative if they didn't choose the more peaceful route.
If you want more context on how the two method supported each other in the civil rights movement, here's a good book.
It's important to note that King didn't unilaterally condemn violence, he acknowledged that they were a response to a greater, ongoing injustice, and that the white moderates who pretended to agree with their aims, but opposed them because of their methods were as much if not a greater barrier to civil rights than the klanman.
uhhh, maybe you should?
left wingers have zero respect for laws and will make the world better and fairer by any means necessary.
as a leftist if I somehow got control of the state I would immediately order for the rounding up and execution of every single person in the country who is either a corporate executive for a top-250 corporation or in possession of assets worth 100 million or more.
because that would be the most efficient way of rapidly reducing the risk of the wealthy wresting back control.
and it would be totally ethical
as for gandhi and MLK, well, india is a fascist dictatorship and, well, how are things looking for black people in the US?
Not to bat for the disgustingly wealthy, but at the point Leftists have had a successful revolution, we don't need to execute them outright, just lift their assets and jail them if they resist, or execute if they go on to become terrorists. Learn from successful revolutions, when the Cuban revolution succeeded Castro was actually very lenient in comparison to Batista.
Revolution is bloody, and we won't make excuses, but at a certain point it risks dogmatism. Billionaires aren't like Minecraft characters that drop their inventories on death, revolution is actually very sensible because it's a lot easier to sieze their assets when the working class has control.
don't get me wrong, if the choice for a non-violent revolution is there, i would take it every time.
but if, somehow, i magically became the president without any kind of revolutionary effort, that's what i would do, and i would be totally justified in doing so
I am not advocating against revolution, I'm a Communist. If you became president of the US without revolution, you would not be able to execute any Capitalist you wanted, that's more what I am saying. Temper your dogmatism with pragmatism, read theory and study past successful revolutions, such as in the USSR, China, Cuba, Algeria, etc.
Random executions doesn't transfer political power, adventurism was debunked back when the SRs failed to lead the Russian Revolution. Execution is a tool with its own use, but it isn't the best tool in all situations.
yeah, the USSR and China are not examples of successful revolutions, neither of those countries are communist
The former Soviet Union was Socialist, and so is the PRC. They haven't reached Communism, but they are examples of Socialism if you count Marxism as Socialist. What makes you say they weren't? Most people would disagree with you, especially Marxists, so I'm not sure what your stance is.
any marxist who thinks that the USSR or China is an example of a successful revolution is either ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, a tankie.
they had some early successes but were immediately co-opted. motherfuckers need to learn about permenent revolution.
now neither country is socialist, both are imperialist and well on their way towards fascism
The vast majority of Marxists globally are either "ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, tankies" then. The idea that the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist is an extremely fringe opinion among all of Marxists, typically limited to Trotskyists, themselves limited to Western Countries and devoid of any revolutions.
Oh, you mentioned Permanent Revolution. I take it you're a Trotskyist, then? That explains your stance, but I really don't see why Permanent Revolution is relevant in any way, the theoretical basis relied on the assumption of the Peasantry as incapable of being truly aligned with the Proletariat and thus eventually would become counter-revolutionary. This ended up being false, and Socialism stabilized in the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and more, effectively debunking its relevancy.
In China, the Trotskyists wished to martyr China by attacking the Kuomintang and the Japanese Imperialists both, rather than allying with the KMT before overthrowing them. Had the Trotskyists had their way, China would remain a colony.
Today, the Russian Federation certainly is Capitalist and extremely Nationalist, but the PRC is still Socialist. I wrote a post on some common problems that some people run into when trying to determine Mode of Production. I also made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, if you want to check it out. I think you'd benefit, especially since you took more of an adventurist route.
i'm not going to get into a debate about it, because i have better things to do, sorry.
i would agree that the USSR was socialist, but very quickly stopped being so, and now it is capitalist. that's not what i call a success.
Fair enough, but I would say that examining what went right and what went wrong is an imporant duty for any socialist examining the USSR not just dismissing it outright. Many of the issues and problems with Soviet Union can be applied to any country building socialism as can many of the benefits. So we must learn what to keep and what to leave aside, as it remained Socialist until the very end of its existence.
And for what it's worth, I reccommend that first link I sent. I think what I described in that could be useful for you.
i still think you're assuming what my actual, real-life views are from a silly what-if scenario! i am never gonna be in control of anything more powerful than a barbeque.
but if somehow i got to mind control the president or something, yes, i'd take advantage of that brief control to eliminate as many capitalists as possible
You can't just kill Socialism into existence, though. That's Idealism, not Materialism. That removes the entire process of Historical Materialism, and erases the foundations of Scientific Socialism, as opposed to Utopianism. I recommend reading or revisiting Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
i wouldn't be trying to will socialism into existence, though, i'd just be having a little fun :3
That's "tankier" than the "tankies" you demonize, though. Kinda just confused here.
You got temp-banned from a different comm for breaking the rules, I don't think picking fights is a good usage of your time to be honest.
How so?
Pretty different context, I was asking for clarification from someone who used "tankie" unironically to ask them what they meant, you used it as an unironic insult, and further this is a different comm.
You understand the difference between actually using a word and referring to said word’s past usage by others, right?
The USSR hasn't existed for 35 years you arrogant fucking western dipshit.
You definitely aren’t a leftist
yes, i am. i know how horribly evil capitalism is and i would gladly make that sacrifice.
The sacrifice of being a fascist is definitely left wing
yeah you're not a leftist, you have no fucking idea what fascism is if you think what i wrote was fascistic, lmfao
violence against oppressors isn't fascism, it's justice.
Let’s play spot the difference
-Every fascist
-you
i would completely dismantle the economy, the police force, the military, prisons, and the government. i would cease the recognition of all countries and borders.
but yes you're right, i'm willing to use violence to make the world a better place, because i believe that i'm right, and i'm not scared of sacrificing all that i have and all that i am to achieve that.
i wouldn't be able to peacefully retire, of course, i would need to be brought to justice for my crimes, but i would gladly accept the punishment, because it's the right thing to do, and i know i would reduce the suffering of billions.
There wouldn’t be billions left if that were achieved
And it still brings about whomever takes over now has a massive power vacuum at their disposal
of course there would, there would be approximately 8 billion people still alive
there would be no power vacuum because there would be no power - all forms of power that might have been siezed in a power struggle would have been dissolved
the result would be a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Each of us would only need to work approximately 10 hours per day or so to ensure that everyone in the world has all of their needs met and a decent standard of living.
the society we currently have is based on slavery, exploitation, murder and theft. i'm not saying that i have a perfect solution, but we need to abolish capitalism at the very least, or fascism will remain inevitable
Okay so you clearly put no thought into this at all but maybe a comedy skit will explain it in a way you can understand
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs&pp=ygUMV2t1ayBhbmFyY2h5
i've put way more thought into it than you have, considering you were calling me a fascist before and now you're ridiculing me for being an anarchist
if you can describe fascism and anarchism in your own words i'll delete my account
I was pointing out the problem with just killing the people in charge as it just puts different people in charge
Fascism is a hierarchical system of government with a controlled capitalistic economy
Anarchy is a lack of people in charge/a lack of authority
i don't see the problem? just keep killing whoever is in charge until nobody tries anymore. permenent revolution.
btw, your definition of fascism would also fit like pretty much all nations, and your definition of anarchism is like someone knew a bit of greek and tried to guess. an-archy, against heirarchy, boom done!
capitalism is when people are prejudiced against money and freedom is when you don't have to pay at the BDSM club
You’ll come around when you’re googling those terms tonight
Shhhh... Everyone be quiet, the King of the Leftists is speaking!