Communism is the solution for America's problems

[Darth Yan]

So even MacArthur realized that when things have been uber right for a long time you need to implement left wing to balance it out.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Here's the thing, a lot of communism's successes (even if it is on a pile of bodies) requires rather impressive amounts of authoritarianism to accomplish. Given that the US is too individualistic, a good portion of the US hates anything remotely undemocratic, another good portion thinks anything leftward is evil, and the rich would rather move everything than risk not having their stupendous incomes...

... you essentially have to be ready to pull some Stalin-esque bullshit. That and abandon things like privacy and create Cybersyn.

... how about get Huey Long resurrected from the dead while you're at it?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll be frank: few things disturb or dishearten me more than seeing so much of the newfound energy in the Left being channeled into renewed support for Communism. No, communism is not "the answer" to capitalism. It is yet another failed, despotic ideology, which is predicated (at least in its Marxist form) on narratives of historical inevitability, apocalypse, and subsequent utopia which eerily echo standard appocalpyse mythology, and which is filled with stunningly naive and delusional thinking like the idea that a "necessary" dictatorship will up and disappear as soon as it is no longer needed. And to see purportedly Left-wing articles like the OP openly wanking to dictatorships like China's, actually praising it as "Stalin 2.0" as though imitating a system which killed tens of millions of its own people is a model for good and just governance, is simply sickening.

I am a proud democratic socialist, but never, ever a Communist. If the basic definition of socialism is that "the people (through their representatives in leadership, presumably) control the means of production, then I would contend that by definition the only true socialism is democratic socialism. And since people cannot effectively exercise their political rights without economic security, nor effectively protect their economic security without political equality, I would contend that the only true, functional democracy is at least to some extent socialist.The two are mutually-supporting. To the extent that democracy has failed, it is because it is not sufficiently socialist. To the extent that socialism has failed, it is because it is not sufficiently democratic.

No, communism is not the answer. We need to move forward as a society. How disappointing, and yet how predictably human, to see so many people on the Left looking for answers in the failed ideologies of the past (and how very akin to the conservatives).

[K. A. Pital]

I'll be frank: few things disturb or dishearten me more than seeing so much of the newfound energy in the Left being channeled into renewed support for Communism.

You understood it was satire, right?

No, communism is not "the answer" to capitalism.

No, abolition is not the answer to slavery. Look at those barbaric instances during the Haitian Revolution, like the massacre of 1804. All it serves to prove is that these uprisings are just another failed ideology.

And to see purportedly Left-wing articles like the OP openly wanking to dictatorships like China's, actually praising it as "Stalin 2.0" as though imitating a system which killed tens of millions of its own people is a model for good and just governance, is simply sickening.

You do realize that it’s satire, right? I mean, you must have sensed it.

I am a proud democratic socialist, but never, ever a Communist.

Phew! Glad we dodged a bullet there.

No, communism is not the answer. We need to move forward as a society. How disappointing, and yet how predictably human, to see so many people on the Left looking for answers in the failed ideologies of the past (and how very akin to the conservatives).

Well, seems like the bourgeois are pretty afraid of us commies. You might check if you’re by accident protecting the oligarchy’s mega-yachts here, free of charge.

[The Romulan Republic]

I probably should have read it more carefully, but I'm afraid that whatever ability I ever had to detect sarcasm is pretty much dead. A lot of the indicators of sarcasm don't translate well in print, and no matter how ludicrous the position, you can bet there are some people who sincerely believe it. I mean, what even is absurd or realistic in the age of President fucking Trump?

Anyway, my point stands- I've seen a marked surge in interest in Marxist communism on the Left in recent years, and it never fails to dishearten and disgust me. So this is me venting a little.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, what saddens you is my delight! I am very glad to see people going back to the roots. Without Marx’s original analysis of capitalism as an exploitative formation, the left would still be in idealistic jungles of various forms of wishful thinking.

Besides, Marxism in its various forms has been influential in liberation of literally billions of people from the yoke of the colonial white masters. India, China, decolonization in Africa, parts of Asia, South America. We were behind the 8th of March, the German Revolution, the working hours reductions and factory occupations, the worker’s councils and the Paris Commune. Sure, not always a success and not always perfect, but we work with the people we have, not idealized socialist warriors without blemish. We recognize our mistakes and still remember our legacy of fighting for the workers, with the workers.

What’s on your count?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, what saddens you is my delight! I am very glad to see people going back to the roots. Without Marx’s original analysis of capitalism as an exploitative formation, the left would still be in idealistic jungles of various forms of wishful thinking.

Besides, Marxism in its various forms has been influential in liberation of literally billions of people from the yoke of the colonial white masters. India, China, decolonization in Africa, parts of Asia, South America. We were behind the 8th of March, the German Revolution, the working hours reductions and factory occupations, the worker’s councils and the Paris Commune. Sure, not always a success and not always perfect, but we work with the people we have, not idealized socialist warriors without blemish. We recognize our mistakes and still remember our legacy of fighting for the workers, with the workers.

What’s on your count?

"Liberation" which replaces one tyranny with another is not liberation. As an opponent of American imperialism, I'd think you should appreciate that point.

I don't deny that Marx was an immensely influential figure in history, of course, nor do I claim that all his ideas were entirely without merit. But Marxist communism's support for political violence as the first and only solution, and its advocacy of dictatorship, overshadow and destroy whatever merit it might have had as a tool of liberation in my view.

And Marxists are frankly in no position to look down on others' "wishful thinking" when one of the cornerstones of their philosophy is that the dictatorship of the proletariat will go away when its no longer needed. Or, for that matter, that it will be or remain a dictatorship of the proletariat. History has certainly shown otherwise, to the misery and destruction of a great many millions of people.

[K. A. Pital]

So let me get this straight, are you saying, say, Haiti and China were not worse off as colonies than under their own governments, because their post-colonial governments were not democratic? Just so that I understand what we are talking about. Imperfect liberation is not liberation? Imperfect self-determination is not self-determination?

I must say you should be ashamed of saying things like “destroy ... all merit”, when millions of Marxists have fought fascists and nazis all over the world with risk to life and limb, both then and now. And perished. The fact that we Marxists naturally see further than just this, and see every private company as a dictatorship of capital with the capitalist as the dictator, and seek to extend this fight for worker control to even abolishing capitalist companies as such (though we have our disagreements on how to best achieve these goals), is enough for you to ditch us as baggage you don’t need.

That’s alright. But don’t wonder why the left has resurgent interest in us and our ideas: it is because our opposition to capitalism has been rather consistent, unyielding and unwavering. We were against capitalism before it became trendy

[loomer]

Also, it's not like there's been fairly radical shifts in both marxist theory and praxis over the last fifty years drawing from both inside and outside experiences of the successes and failures of the attempts at implementing socialism (qua path to communism) around the world, or anything.

And just to forestall it... No, I'm not a Marxist myself.

[The Romulan Republic]

So let me get this straight, are you saying, say, Haiti and China were not worse off as colonies than under their own governments, because their post-colonial governments were not democratic? Just so that I understand what we are talking about. Imperfect liberation is not liberation? Imperfect self-determination is not self-determination?

No, I'm not saying that, despite the persistent efforts of you and others on this board to frame me as a colonialist and racist whenever I disagree with them. You are cherry-picking examples and you know it.

Let me ask you in turn: were the students in Tiananmen Square better off because it was Chinese troops killing them rather than British troops? Did the millions of Ukrainians who starved to death under Stalin suffer less because it was a Russian dictator rather than a Western one taking the food from their mouths? Do the Uighurs in Chinese concentration camps have "self-determination" because the camps are not ruled by a Westerner?

Let Western imperialism die in disgrace as it deserves a thousand times over. But do not pretend that the absence of Western rule alone automatically leads to liberation or or justice. Because if you do, you are not actually an advocate of liberation or the people. You are just a tribalist who is fine with atrocities as long as the "right" side is committing them.

I must say you should be ashamed of saying things like “destroy ... all merit”, when millions of Marxists have fought fascists and nazis all over the world with risk to life and limb, both then and now.

The world owes everyone who fought against fascism a debt, but that does not mean their politics are above reproach. The US fought fascists and Nazis too, but you have no problem condemning America on a regular basis, and even I would not give the US a pass on the injustices of capitalism because capitalism built bombs to kill Nazis, or on the sins of nationalism because said nationalism motivated men to sign up to go fight Nazis.

And perished. The fact that we Marxists naturally see further than just this, and see every private company as a dictatorship of capital with the capitalist as the dictator, and seek to extend this fight for worker control to even abolishing capitalist companies as such (though we have our disagreements on how to best achieve these goals), is enough for you to ditch us as baggage you don’t need.

You assign motives to me that are not my own. I do not "ditch you as baggage" because you wish to abolish capitalism (incidentally, this attempt to implicitly frame me as a supporter of capitalism is a LIE). I reject communism and Marxism for the reasons I stated: because I believe that your ideology is predicated on violence and dictatorship without sufficient willingness to acknowledge the consequences of those actions, because I believe that dictatorship and socialism are contradictory ideologies, and because I have no wish to replace one tyranny with another.

Argue the points I'm making, not the strawman you want to tear down.

That’s alright. But don’t wonder why the left has resurgent interest in us and our ideas: it is because our opposition to capitalism has been rather consistent, unyielding and unwavering. We were against capitalism before it became trendy

You think you can win the argument by making some vague smears against my motives and character, implying that I support colonialism and capitalism and that I only oppose them because its "trendy". And you're probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that you are relying on misrepresentation and inuendo to avoid addressing my actual points.

[K. A. Pital]

No, I'm not saying that, despite the persistent efforts of you and others on this board to frame me as a colonialist and racist whenever I disagree with them. You are cherry-picking examples and you know it.

I am not framing you. I like to know if you would claim that national independence is not worth it because the subsequent government does not live up to your ethical standards. How am I cherry-picking? Care to explain?

Let me ask you in turn: were the students in Tiananmen Square better off because it was Chinese troops killing them rather than British troops? Did the millions of Ukrainians who starved to death under Stalin suffer less because it was a Russian dictator rather than a Western one taking the food from their mouths? Do the Uighurs in Chinese concentration camps have "self-determination" because the camps are not ruled by a Westerner?

It might surprise you, but the right of peoples’ self-determination is not an automatic guarantee against events such as you describe. But saying that there is no difference is indeed a hallmark of colonialist thought. After all, it is the same logic which I explained sarcastically in my first reply: because Haitians had a massacre in 1804, it invalidates their revolution? Make it “no different” from them remaining a colony? Does in your view Tiananmen, Uyghur camps or the famine in Ukraine justify invading China or the USSR, because to you it seems there is no inherent value in the independence of these nations?

But do not pretend that the absence of Western rule alone automatically leads to liberation or or justice. Because if you do, you are not actually an advocate of liberation or the people. You are just a tribalist who is fine with atrocities as long as the "right" side is committing them.

Removing colonial domination is merely a pre-requisite before we can talk about liberation as such. It does lead to the first stage of liberation - achieving the self-determination of certain peoples. Whether this results in justice for every single individual is a different matter entirely. The resulting states are often imperfect. Arguing that this makes their national liberation worthless is the worst kind of argument one could make. It reeks of superiority: “Look what those barbarians do when left on their own! They are no better off independent than they were under our benevolent boot”. You confuse liberation with perfection. Let me ask directly: do you think that the atrocities done by the oppressed side invalidate their right to self-determination? Note how I never denied that the newly arising states commit atrocities, or that the oppressed do not necessarily immediately achieve “justice” after removing foreign rule. You seem to argue from the point of view of a “judge of the world”. If certain people elect or otherwise install bad leaders, it is in your view no different from them remaining under colonial rule? As an example, Zimbabwe should have remained apartheid Rhodesia because Mugabe turned out to be a bad man and his government a bad one?

The world owes everyone who fought against fascism a debt, but that does not mean their politics are above reproach. The US fought fascists and Nazis too, but you have no problem condemning America on a regular basis, and even I would not give the US a pass on the injustices of capitalism because capitalism built bombs to kill Nazis, or on the sins of nationalism because said nationalism motivated men to sign up to go fight Nazis.

I don’t condemn the US for fighting Nazis, my criticism is generally directed at instances where the US acts like the Nazis (like conspiracy to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, which included lies to the entire UN). Criticism is always useful and of course nobody is above criticism. I just think that the maximalist view of discarding an entire movement which dedicates itself to achieving a better and more equal society is exactly the thing that I’d be wary of.

I reject communism and Marxism for the reasons I stated: because I believe that your ideology is predicated on violence and dictatorship without sufficient willingness to acknowledge the consequences of those actions, because I believe that dictatorship and socialism are contradictory ideologies, and because I have no wish to replace one tyranny with another.

Dictatorship is not an ideology, but a form of government. Our ideology only responds to the fact that the capitalists will not surrender their class power voluntarily, it is not “predicated” on violence, only acknowledges that it is sometimes necessary to achieve political goals. Evidence has shown that what I said is indeed the case, with capitalists sponsoring anti-left coups and fascist rise to power from 1920s and until 2019. From Mussolini to Bolsonaro. Capitalists will use violence to protect their power, the power they have over the workers by virtue of owning capital.

I don’t want to misrepresent you, either, and as you can see I answer all your points directlt. If you feel there is an argument which I failed to address, please point me to it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I reject communism and Marxism for the reasons I stated: because I believe that your ideology is predicated on violence and dictatorship without sufficient willingness to acknowledge the consequences of those actions, because I believe that dictatorship and socialism are contradictory ideologies, and because I have no wish to replace one tyranny with another.

Violence is sometimes necessary. Sorry to bust your bubble, but do you honestly think that the capitalists are going to let us strip them of their power and assets and institute worker control of the economy and government without putting up some kind of fight? No. Even if it's just a matter of having to defend ourselves against mercenaries instead of state violence or a civil insurrection, it is going to take violence (and even if instituting Marxism is done without violence, it will certainly have to protect itself from a right-wing coup with violence at some point. Though maybe without the US there to back it, said coup won't happen). Hell, even getting the most basic of worker protections in this country (the US) has required that working people literally take up arms against the US fucking army. You're a Colorado native, correct? You should bloody well remember the Ludlow Massacre, wherein the Rockafellers hired mercenaries and enlisted the National Guard to murder striking miners and their families in their ramshackle tent city, which was the only housing the capitalist scum allowed. The miners then armed themselves and fought back, only to be castigated for trying to not die for their overlord's profits by the likes of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

As for dictatorship, it is a system of government. Not part of Marxist ideology. Tends to happen when a culture that institutes communism doesn't start off with democratic institutions in place and then conquers others to create a buffer zone. The material and social conditions at the time meant that...well... it was gonna happen. Despite the best intentions of the people who actually kicked the revolution off to start with. It doesn't mean that it has to happen. Hell, there's at least one country I can think of that was doing its revolution through the political process. That is until the United States intervened and backed a military coup to put in place a fascist regime run by Pinochet.

I can actually make a better case that fascism is part of the political immune system of neoliberal capitalist democracies than you can that communism is predicated on dictatorship.

[Gandalf]

I'd like to add that in Australia, local communists assisted Indigenous peoples in the 1920s, as they fought for things like being treated as human beings. That was fucking huge. It didn't really take because Australia at that time was horrific, but they were there when pretty much nobody else was.

[The Romulan Republic]

I reject communism and Marxism for the reasons I stated: because I believe that your ideology is predicated on violence and dictatorship without sufficient willingness to acknowledge the consequences of those actions, because I believe that dictatorship and socialism are contradictory ideologies, and because I have no wish to replace one tyranny with another.

Violence is sometimes necessary. Sorry to bust your bubble, but do you honestly think that the capitalists are going to let us strip them of their power and assets and institute worker control of the economy and government without putting up some kind of fight? No. Even if it's just a matter of having to defend ourselves against mercenaries instead of state violence or a civil insurrection, it is going to take violence (and even if instituting Marxism is done without violence, it will certainly have to protect itself from a right-wing coup with violence at some point. Though maybe without the US there to back it, said coup won't happen). Hell, even getting the most basic of worker protections in this country (the US) has required that working people literally take up arms against the US fucking army. You're a Colorado native, correct? You should bloody well remember the Ludlow Massacre, wherein the Rockafellers hired mercenaries and enlisted the National Guard to murder striking miners and their families in their ramshackle tent city, which was the only housing the capitalist scum allowed. The miners then armed themselves and fought back, only to be castigated for trying to not die for their overlord's profits by the likes of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

As for dictatorship, it is a system of government. Not part of Marxist ideology. Tends to happen when a culture that institutes communism doesn't start off with democratic institutions in place and then conquers others to create a buffer zone. The material and social conditions at the time meant that...well... it was gonna happen. Despite the best intentions of the people who actually kicked the revolution off to start with. It doesn't mean that it has to happen. Hell, there's at least one country I can think of that was doing its revolution through the political process. That is until the United States intervened and backed a military coup to put in place a fascist regime run by Pinochet.

I can actually make a better case that fascism is part of the political immune system of neoliberal capitalist democracies than you can that communism is predicated on dictatorship.

The history of American-backed coups (and British-backed coups, and Russian-backed coups, and on and on) is long and ugly, and one I am well aware of, but it is somewhat tangential to the main point. I don't wish to get dragged into a debate over the relative evil of America compared to other nations, again. Those sorts of comparisons are basically just a deflection tactic to obfuscate one faction's crimes by focussing attention on anothers'.

For the rest... despite the frequent mis-characterizations of my position on this board, I have never said, and will never say, that violence is absolutely wrong in all circumstances. While I admire the conviction and idealism of absolute pacifists, I am not one of them- I regard non-violent solutions as a worthy goal to strive toward, and generally preferable to the alternative, but I am well aware that the world has not yet reached the point where absolute pacifism is a viable ideology in practice. You may recall my arguments on this board in defense of the American Civil War, World War II, and even the 2001 War in Afghanistan as justified wars (note: just because I believe that some military response was justified, it does not mean that I condone every single action taken in the course of waging the war- any of them). However, because violence is by its nature destructive, and counter to democracy and the rule of law, and because history has often shown that revolutions have a tendency to simply replace one tyrant with another at great cost in lives, I believe that violence should be used only in the most extreme circumstances- ie to defend oneself or others from a direct, imminent, and existential threat that cannot be viably countered in other ways.

If workers exercising their right to peaceful protest are fired on, I will always defend their right to fire back, although pragmatism might sometimes compel one to withdraw from a hopeless fight for practical reasons, and to wait for a moment of greater strength. Likewise, I will always defend the right of the individual to use all necessary force to defend themselves against an assailant. And I do expect (though I would love to be proven wrong) that we will see considerable violence in many nations from the far Right, even if its just more terror attacks of the kind we've already seen. That said, I would prefer, both for philosophical reasons as a believer in the rule of law and for practical reasons of wanting to actually win, that we seek to have as much of the legitimate government on our side as possible in opposing that violence. I think that's possible- democratic socialism is becoming a real political force in the US. I want to focus on winning elections now, so that if we do have to fight, we have legal legitimacy and as much political and military support on our side as possible. That will give us much greater chances of success than relying on Antifa to wage war against the US military.

However, the difference between my position and Marxism is that while I recognize that violence may sometimes be justified by circumstance, violence is an integral part of Marxist ideology. It is not a last resort, it is a feature of the system. That is where my sympathy with Marxism ends.

If you wish to debate that position, by all means do so.

[Darth Yan]

So let me get this straight, are you saying, say, Haiti and China were not worse off as colonies than under their own governments, because their post-colonial governments were not democratic? Just so that I understand what we are talking about. Imperfect liberation is not liberation? Imperfect self-determination is not self-determination?

I must say you should be ashamed of saying things like “destroy ... all merit”, when millions of Marxists have fought fascists and nazis all over the world with risk to life and limb, both then and now. And perished. The fact that we Marxists naturally see further than just this, and see every private company as a dictatorship of capital with the capitalist as the dictator, and seek to extend this fight for worker control to even abolishing capitalist companies as such (though we have our disagreements on how to best achieve these goals), is enough for you to ditch us as baggage you don’t need.

That’s alright. But don’t wonder why the left has resurgent interest in us and our ideas: it is because our opposition to capitalism has been rather consistent, unyielding and unwavering. We were against capitalism before it became trendy

I linked darth Wong’s article on why the communist manifesto is crap. It has a few fair points but Stalin and the Khmer Rouge ain’t abberations. They’re a faithful end result of communist ideals. Comparing it to Haiti (where whites being slaughtered was due to Dessalines being a monster so consumed with revenge he perverted l’overture’s ideals to get it) communism NEVER ends well. Abolitionism does end well

South Africa turned out better than zimbabwe because Mandela was willing to lay down the sword and seek true reconciliation once he was in power.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh wow, looks like privileged First Worlders lecturing a person from outside the First World on who is a monster (Dessalines? Or the slavers? Or everyone, false equivalence?) and what is correct and good (forgiving slavers, for example). You do realize my views are based on experience and theory both, right, not just on theory alone? I can decide for myself what is faithful and what isn’t, thanks much. You’re not the Holy See.

[His Divine Shadow]

Communist and marxist ideals are deffo going to be a big part of the future even if it's not going to be real communism they are going to be massively influential, so get used to it I say.

Really, it's less about communism and more about how capitalism has failed and is breaking down in front of our eyes, capitalism as an ideology is perhaps the most evil ideology the world has ever seen and if we are lucky, will ever see. Capitalism kills 100 million every 5 years and that's when it's working as intended.

Capitalism might literally destroy the human race yet. So lets hope we manage to destroy it before it destroys us. I worry less about what will replace it, but this cannot go on, we're already off the rails to so to speak, the crash has to come.

[loomer]

I wonder how the anti-Communists in here respond to the Derridean New International.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Communist and marxist ideals are deffo going to be a big part of the future even if it's not going to be real communism they are going to be massively influential, so get used to it I say.

Really, it's less about communism and more about how capitalism has failed and is breaking down in front of our eyes, capitalism as an ideology is perhaps the most evil ideology the world has ever seen and if we are lucky, will ever see. Capitalism kills 100 million every 5 years and that's when it's working as intended.

Capitalism might literally destroy the human race yet. So lets hope we manage to destroy it before it destroys us. I worry less about what will replace it, but this cannot go on, we're already off the rails to so to speak, the crash has to come.

I am as staunch an anarchist as Pital here is a Marxist, so I'm fundamentally of the opinion that the solutions to capitalism lie under the broad spectrum of ideologies covered by the anarchist umbrella. Without getting into too long of a side rant about what this means, I think the simple version is that I identify the same problems with capitalism as a Marxist would but I propose different solutions. I have a lot of specific issues with Marxism, ranging from the practical to the historical to the philosophical, but I think the main thing is that classical Marxism is just outdated. It has very awkwardly tried to redefine itself to encompass the events of the 20th century, but not very successfully; ultimately, Marxism arose out of the Enlightenment, and uses an ontology and epistemology that are nearly indistinguishable from those of bourgeois political economy (in fairness to Marxism, this is ALSO a problem with the classical anarchism of Bakunin and Proudhon, I would just argue that anarchist thought has more successfully evolved in the face of postmodern/post-structuralist critique than Marxism has). That said, despite all of my problems with it, a Marxist is still on the same "team" as us anarchists, that being the team that sees the need for radical social change.

[Darth Yan]

Oh wow, looks like privileged First Worlders lecturing a person from outside the First World on who is a monster (Dessalines? Or the slavers? Or everyone, false equivalence?) and what is correct and good (forgiving slavers, for example). You do realize my views are based on experience and theory both, right, not just on theory alone? I can decide for myself what is faithful and what isn’t, thanks much. You’re not the Holy See.

1.) No they aren't. In Experience Communist Russia was a shithole; people fled Eastern Germany for a reason and EVERY attempt to put Marxist theory in practice has failed (putting socialist ideals in placed combined with others has worked out fine though, but that unrestrained capitalism is a nightmare doesn't change that unrestrained communism is also evil.) In practice no. Stalinism and all those other regimes WERE faithful and the end result of any attempt to put communism in practice. So no. Anyone who thinks Communism is an idiot.

2.) Don't be cute. I was clearly referring to Dessalines alone. The massacre of Haiti's whites had no viable purpose other than sating his lust for revenge. That the french colonialists did even more monstrous things doesn't make the fact that they butchered civilians AFTER THEY ALREADY WON justified (also Touissant L'Overture would have been absolutely horrified by what Dessalines did and even at the time a lot of blacks were uneasy, as seen by the fact that the soldiers kept putting things off until Dessalines personally went to each city to force them to do it.) So no. He WAS a monster, and he is burning in the fires of hell just like the french colonial overlords. Guess what. Being on the receiving end of the oppression is NOT a get out of free card for committing atrocities.

3.) Again, no. You shouldn't just be lovey dovy kumbaya forgive. But there is the phrase "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If you cling to hatred and anger all it does is fester and warp you. You shouldn't forget the wrongs of the past but clinging to hatred of another person is NOT healthy.

Nelson Mandela understood that. It's why when he took power he had the truth and reconciliation committee put in place and had ALL parties involved (even his own) forced to hold an accounting. He didn't just enact mass revenge against the white population because he knew it would be stupid and pointless.

Seems to me you think that kind of attitude is bad and that oppressed people should always choose bloody revenge

PS Here's Darth Wong's essay; That Capitalism ALSO has monopolistic tendencies and is flawed doesn't change that communism is also evil

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html

[Gandalf]

Yan, does that essay you keep citing (but weirdly never quoting) engage much with texts written after the 1800s?

[Darth Yan]

it quotes straight from the horses mouth. Marxism is built on the somewhat legitimate but ultimately deluded ramblings of a utopian daydreamer

[Gandalf]

it quotes straight from the horses mouth. Marxism is built on the somewhat legitimate but ultimately deluded ramblings of a utopian daydreamer

So how do you address revisions made since?

[loomer]

it quotes straight from the horses mouth. Marxism is built on the somewhat legitimate but ultimately deluded ramblings of a utopian daydreamer

You are aware, of course, that the Manifesto is in fact a pamphlet and not the sum of all Marxist thought and theory?

[Darth Yan]

Even if that’s true that doesn’t make Marxism more legitimate. K A Pital ignores this, as well as the fact that communist economies have universally been disasters or that the ussr did its own share of atrocities in the Cold War.

He also tried to imply Romulan is opposed to any attempts at revolution and reform. That’s crap. South Africa was an example of successful decolonization. Zimbabwe was not but even then had black majority rule been granted back in 65 rather than in 1980 things may have been different. Haiti would have been successful if L’Overture hadn’t been betrayed and died in prison paving the way for a psychopath like Dessalines to pervert his vision).

Contrary to what you may think the oppressed CAN become the oppressor, and being on the receiving end of cruelty does NOT give you the right to inflict cruelty back. That KA thinks it does says a lot about him.