How can you agree that inaction is unconscionable, and then claim that there is no acceptable amount of bloodshed to protect a socialist project? Capitalists have and will continue to engage in tremendous bloodshed to destroy socialist projects, the only way to respond is with bloodshed, you cant peacefully protest an invasion or color revolution. You are saying that inaction is unconscionable but that no action that will inevitably need to be taken can be acceptable, it doesn't make sense.
I'm not trolling. I'm just telling you how I see it. I don't think we'll get anywhere with this conversation.
Is it that difficult for you to understand that there are people out there who disagree with your assertion that violence is the only way to solve this issue?
Explain to me in detail how the Vietnamese government should have responded to french occupation and U.S invasion without violence, explain to me how the Batista regime could be overthrown without violence, and how the bay of pigs invasion could be repelled without violence. Explain to me how the USSR should have responded to nazi genocide without violence.
I never said that all violence is never justified. There are obviously times when it is. You and I happen to disagree about a few specific instances.
I think you and I would both agree that the populous of Vietnam should have probably fought back against the French when they came to colonize Vietnam. If they had, the future of the entirety of Asia and the rest of the colonized world and colonialism itself may have been changed forever, and you and I might not even need to be having this conversation right now.
Obviously I'm not an expert on southeast asian history, but from what I understand, Vietnam was a monarchy/empire before the french arrived, and a relatively weak one, apparently. The people should have been able to rise up before the French even got there, to take power from the monarchs themselves. But that very idea was foreign to them, and it seems they were relatively satisfied with the status-quo before the French got there.
So, I guess the best course of action for everyone is to just leave everyone alone? I don't know. There's a lot I don't know.
You literally said there is no acceptable amount of deaths to protect a socialist project. I asked you how a response to capitalist aggression is possible without violence, and you don't seem to have a response. You can disagree with the actions taken by a socialist state, but you better actually research the circumstances before you voice your criticism, instead of basely citing to western propaganda and doubling down when called out. To insist an action is wrong when you haven't even done enough research to formulate an alternative, let alone the bare minimum research to understand why the action was taken in the first place, just reeks of pure western chauvinism.
Acceptance and justification are two very different things.
how a response to capitalist aggression is possible without violence
Mahatma Gandhi had some very effective techniques.
To insist an action is wrong when you haven’t even done enough research to formulate an alternative, let alone the bare minimum research to understand why the action was taken in the first place, just reeks of pure western chauvinism.
You would choose to allow the capitalist to murder?
No. I wouldn't.
So you actually believe China's capitalist government line that "zero" people died in China from Covid? Why are you allowing yourself to be so gullible?
No, there is no acceptable number.
LOL. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. And a vacation home in florida.
I completely agree with you on this.
How can you agree that inaction is unconscionable, and then claim that there is no acceptable amount of bloodshed to protect a socialist project? Capitalists have and will continue to engage in tremendous bloodshed to destroy socialist projects, the only way to respond is with bloodshed, you cant peacefully protest an invasion or color revolution. You are saying that inaction is unconscionable but that no action that will inevitably need to be taken can be acceptable, it doesn't make sense.
I disagree.
Ok, so you are now 100% confirmed a troll, you have :bait: me expertly
I'm not trolling. I'm just telling you how I see it. I don't think we'll get anywhere with this conversation.
Is it that difficult for you to understand that there are people out there who disagree with your assertion that violence is the only way to solve this issue?
Explain to me in detail how the Vietnamese government should have responded to french occupation and U.S invasion without violence, explain to me how the Batista regime could be overthrown without violence, and how the bay of pigs invasion could be repelled without violence. Explain to me how the USSR should have responded to nazi genocide without violence.
I never said that all violence is never justified. There are obviously times when it is. You and I happen to disagree about a few specific instances.
I think you and I would both agree that the populous of Vietnam should have probably fought back against the French when they came to colonize Vietnam. If they had, the future of the entirety of Asia and the rest of the colonized world and colonialism itself may have been changed forever, and you and I might not even need to be having this conversation right now.
Obviously I'm not an expert on southeast asian history, but from what I understand, Vietnam was a monarchy/empire before the french arrived, and a relatively weak one, apparently. The people should have been able to rise up before the French even got there, to take power from the monarchs themselves. But that very idea was foreign to them, and it seems they were relatively satisfied with the status-quo before the French got there.
So, I guess the best course of action for everyone is to just leave everyone alone? I don't know. There's a lot I don't know.
You literally said there is no acceptable amount of deaths to protect a socialist project. I asked you how a response to capitalist aggression is possible without violence, and you don't seem to have a response. You can disagree with the actions taken by a socialist state, but you better actually research the circumstances before you voice your criticism, instead of basely citing to western propaganda and doubling down when called out. To insist an action is wrong when you haven't even done enough research to formulate an alternative, let alone the bare minimum research to understand why the action was taken in the first place, just reeks of pure western chauvinism.
Acceptance and justification are two very different things.
Mahatma Gandhi had some very effective techniques.
And to assume this reeks of inexperience.
:LIB:
Libertarian Anarchist, yes. Anarcho-Communist, yes.
deleted by creator
No. I wouldn't.
So you actually believe China's capitalist government line that "zero" people died in China from Covid? Why are you allowing yourself to be so gullible?
He said yesterday, not over the entire pandemic. If you're gonna start a spat at least read what they type.
Removed by mod
When are you going to admit that your hatred of china stems from the fact that you're a racist bitch?