PRIMARY VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
1-I heard it was a “tankie” wiki, so I came to start a discussion.
2-Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism. I believe that a bloody revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat are unnecessary and even counter-productive to our goals of a more egalitarian and compassionate society.
3-I disagree with your support of socialist dictatorships. “Dictatorships of the proletariat” are often smokescreens for tyranny in the name of socialism, with China and North Korea, in addition to being totalitarian state capitalist and Orwellian monarcho-theocratic regimes respectfully, not even calling themselves Marxist-Leninist. In addition, your support of theocratic and kleptocratic states because they “oppose NATO imperialism” is nonsensical, especially when Russia and China also engage in imperialist escapades, both beyond their borders and inside them (in the form of cultural genocide).
4-I support LGBTQIA+.
5-Stalin and Mao were totalitarian tyrants with a red coat of paint.
6-China is more capitalist than the Nordic countries and North Korea is an unholy hybrid of Orwellian dystopia, fascist state, fundamentalist theocracy, absolute monarchy and Kool-Aid-chugging cult. I haven’t heard much about the others.
SECONDARY VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
2-A non-AuthSoc/“tankie” perspective to start discussions over.
3-I think Native Americans should be allowed to return to their ancestral lands, and be given more rights.
4-I dont know about Marxist-Feminism, but I am a feminist myself.
5-Nonononono. No breaking up families to raise kids in Huxleyan labs, if that’s what you’re implying.
6-I’m not sure. For Singapore, shifting the PAP back towards it’s SocDem, roots. For the UK, fixing the Conservative mess. For Hong Kong, liberating it from Chinese control.
7-I don’t quite see much of one, apart from, like, neo-feudalists (fuck feudalists).
8-Both sides need to find peace. Hamas and the current Israeli administration are both just making things worse.
No one said that the proletarian revolution has to be bloody. Even no one said that there has to be violence. However, the bourgeoisie will first resort to violence. See 1905 in Russia. The red terror was also only a reaction to the white terror. It is up to the bourgeoisie how a revolution will take place. I hope it is understandable what I am trying to say
You shouldn’t even need to frame it from a ‘leftist’ perspective. Just look at America’s own revolution. Up until the declaration of Independence the colonists used nonviolent means, such as petitions, to protest the abuse of the monarchy. Each attempt to request peaceful negotiations was met by more neglect and more abuse. The monarchy refused peaceful transition and opted to be more aggressive and oppressive to the colonists. Once they declared independence, the monarchy needed to put down this insurrection through violence and coercion. History shows us that they were unsuccessful.
America’s own History shows us that when revolutionaries are denied, via peaceful means, the right of secession, the choice is either submit or be defiant. That defiance needs to be snuffed out, and the state has all the tools they need to do that.
I’m sure an analysis of revolutions, successful or otherwise, throughout history would show you that the state had no interest in a peaceful transition. Because the state has everything to lose and nothing to gain.
It’s almost like all of recorded history is defined by struggle between oppressor and the oppressed. Those tend not to be diplomatic relationships.
But maybe I’m talking out my ass, so let me know if I am.
I think you are being clear, I think Liberals have trouble understanding this dynamic. Even among those close to me when we talk socialism, they tent to favor the “why do socialists have to kill to take power” perspective. I say, well, if we ask for it, they don’t give us power. If we take it peacefully via strike or protest, they create violence with a legal system that only protects property owners, when we begin to fight back, they escalate, when we actually fight, we’re called ‘fascists’ because “we’re the ones breaking the law” (The laws that the property owners created to protect themselves).
But Liberals stick to their guns… “Then change the laws!!”. Okay, do it. Change the law, go on, I’m tired of talking. Do it. You can’t, can you… You can’t vote in who you want, everyone on the ballot have licked boot to get the money to be ahead, they aren’t on your side. The judges have licked boot, the lawyers live off the boot.
Oh sure, there are some people on our side. They run for president and get like 3% of the vote. They are lawyers that refuse to work for big-corp, and get paid 50k/yr to do good work, etc. But the judges that work toward “rehabilitation” instead of “retaliation” are considered “soft on crime”. Those lawyers are “not successful”. Those progressive candidates “steal votes from the dems”. Here we are, doing the work, and the Libs don’t care.
So yeah, if we want to make change, it’s up to the bourgeoisie to determine how it goes. But they will always pick violence.
Liberals don’t consider the daily amount of violence required to maintain their current cushy lifestyles. They look at an alternatives and see self-determination and self-defense as violence, yet they eagerly create justifications and defenses for the cancer of capitalism and the daily buckets of blood that sustain it.
Fantastic point and I have brought that up. “Hey your lifestyle requires murder, slavery, child slavery, etc.”, and their response is “yeah that sucks, I hate it, America does do bad things”.
“So let’s fight to change it”
“Violence is not a response to violence”
Is it not… Seriously… Ugh I fucking hate it. Let them use all the guns and you can sit on your “high moral ground”, still leading that cushy lifestyle btw…
