Where are your militias against government Tyranny?
American Militia Members. Where the hell are you? THIS is what you exist for and you are doing NOTHING!
Edit: I've only heard "defense against tyranny" as justification for these militias by these militia
You're viewing a single thread.
To be clear, authoritarianism is rampant on both sides of the aisle. The gross resistance to even basic right wing ideology is proof of that (which to be clear I'm not calling Trump basic right wing). Hell the fact you're calling for violence is more proof.
Left and right, people want to force others to believe what they believe period. If you don't agree you get attacked.
We need to stop "fighting" each other, and start listening to each other. Then, instead of fighting amongst ourselves, we can unite against the common threat. Oligarchy, and plutocracy.
Step back everyone, we've got an Enlightened Centrist here!
Don't call for violence, let's just compromise to allow a little fascism! 🤏
Nobody here is calling for purging wrong-think. There are very obvious and visible threats to our society from an enclave of people tearing it apart. You're making a strawman to conflate targeting them with targeting freedom of thought
More emotional baseless counters from the left.
The problem is that right wing ideology, basic or not, supports oligarchy, plutocracy, whatever you want to call it. Calling basic millitant opposition to oppressive structures an issue of "authoritarianism" and then seeking a solution somehow unburdened by the sin of needing to actually stand for itself or against the larger problem at hand is naive and idealistic.
I do agree that speaking past each other is absolutely a key problem, but speaking against opposition to right-wingers gets in the way of that message.
Or maybe the mere fact that you feel that way is more proof of my point, and why we need to fix the communication. I don't think the left and right are actually that far apart, but identity politics is a wedge movement meant to divide.
If instead we speak about actual policy, and changes we want to se, we may get more traction working together.
Also, left and right both support both oligarchy and plutocracy.
The right sets the conditions for all business to grow which results in people getting rich leaving everyone else behind to fend for themselves. The left set the conditions to decide where exorbitant about of tax dollars go which has proven time and time again to result in nepotism and gross financial mismanagement. See how those broad strokes are simply inflammatory claims?
Orwells Politics and the English Language is a must read on exactly why this kind of dialogue is exactly what they want us to be having.
Violence is not the answer though. Not yet. Uncoordinated violence would just result in thousands dead and no change. Watch Les Misérables again if you doubt me.
The Left stands for some form of collectivized property ownership, while the Right stands for individual property ownership. Ie, the Left stands broadly for Socialism while the Right broadly stands for Capitalism. These are diametrically opposed.
The characterization of the left and right you give, conflating taxes with leftism and business with rightism, is an extremely narrow view of Political Economy that sees Capitalism as the only existing option. This is wrong, and confusing for everyone else.
As for Orwell, I wouldn't really give much credit to that sex abusing chauvanist. He is celebrated in the West as someone claiming to be on the Left, while working with British intelligence agencies and making lists of suspected Jews and communists, both of which he hated. Everyone should read On Orwell in my opinion.
Violence is a tool, and a necessary one, sadly. Millitant organization has only ever been the way the Working Classes have been able to gain real victories. Read Blackshirts and Reds and listen to Blowback, Revolution is the only genuine path that has liberated the working classes.
Spoken like a true commie
Yes. I am a Marxist-Leninist, dirty commie, pinko, whatever you want to call me. You're on a site made by "commies," there are a lot of us here.
I'm realizing that
You're more than welcome to learn more, but calling people "commie" without a hint of irony will probably just be really funny for everyone else.
Considering that communism is responsible for close to 100 million deaths in the last 100 years vs 20 million by radical right wing views, it's wild you don't realize that being a communist is quantifiably worse than being a nazi, and we can all agree that actual Nazis deserve violence.
See, this is what I mean, you're an unintentionally very funny person. Using the 100 million figure comes from the long debunked Black Book of Communism, which included Nazis killed during World War II, was made before Yeltsin opened up the Soviet Archives, which even right-wing historians see as the most accurate, and where the author Robert Conquest literally made up numbers in order to get to the 100 million figure, a nice round scary number.
Moreover, you are far understating the deaths caused by Capitalism. 15 million people die per year of preventable poverty, as a direct result of Capitalism. even if we believe in the already laughably debunked 100 million figure, Capitalism's bloody toll already eclipses the supposed death toll of Communism in a century in less than a decade.
Further still, you are exclusively using the Nazis, not all far-right violence. Churchill caused the deaths of 4 million Bengalis, the US invaded Iraq and killed 1 million people and destroyed their critical infrastrucure on false-pretenses of "WMD" that we know they knew better in order to grab their oil, 7 million people died in the 1990s when Capitalism replaced Socialism in the USSR, half a million were killed or maimed by Agent Orange in Vietnam, millions died from US bombings in Korea and Vietnam, and so, so many more.
Communism, on the other hand, has brought massive improvements in life expectancies, such as doubling in the USSR and PRC, massive jumps in literacy rates, robust safety nets like free and high quality healthcare and education, full employment, childcare, lower retirement ages, and much, much more. It is Communism to thank for the massive reduction in poverty over the last century, thanks to the USSR and PRC, while if only Capitalist countries are checked that number goes up, as in more impoverished. Communist countries also ended famines in countries where famine was common beforehand, like Agrarian China and Tsarist Russia.
See how the Soviets democratized their economy (also read Soviet Democracy ):
Lowered wealth disparity dramatically:
While maintaining one of the most rapidly developing economies in the world (also read *[Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union) ):
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, believing Communism to be just as bad as Nazism, or somehow worse, is a form of Nazi apologia. The truth is that the Nazis were unquestionably worse, and that by trying to minimize their evil you're doing the work of fascists for them. The Communists were the ones who defeated the Nazis and stopped the holocaust, 80% of total World War II combat was on the Eastern Front., without the Red Army the Nazis likely would have won.
If you want to learn, I am more than happy to help. I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List and can help dispel some of the outdated Red Scare mythology that evidently you still believe. However, if you're going to go around calling people "commies" and saying they are worse than the Nazis, then all you'll get is a bunch of essays and articles, books, videos, etc debunking your claims, and a bit of laughter that someone still uses the word "commie" as an insult.
I mean I did the math myself using up to date numbers.
Modern governments are hardly right wing by any stretch. To call the actions of hybrid socialist capitalist states right wing is disingenuous. Mao's China, Lenin, Stalin, the October revolution, the deaths of modern day communism in Cuba, Vietnam, etc..
Modern day USA is not a right wing idealogy. It's a hybrid between both sides of the aisle. Churchill was a right wing politician in a liberal society. Being the farthest right in a leftist democracy is a still being a liberal by all classic definitions. Using actual modern figures the deaths total around 100 million not some antiquated debunked BS propaganda book crafted by a loon (I agree that it was totally insane that people accepted those numbers then).
To say 15 million people die a year to preventable deaths because of capitalism is quite the stretch of the imagination, especially given that almost every major government in the western world is Neo-liberal / semi-socialist in its foundation (and I'm not saying that's bad).
Capitalism as an economic model has been proven to lift millions of people out of poverty. CCCP vs Russian Federation. The lower wealth disparity just means they were all equally poor and no one was doing well. Even some of the most decadent Soviet lifestyles were still horrendous by western standards. That's a terrible statistic used by extreme left propagandists to incite anger and hate. It's relevant in cases like countering the existence of the plutocracy currently running the US government, where the disparity means equal opportunity is no longer possible. The US is not an example of a properly functioning capitalist country. It's an example of an aristocracy turned plutocracy where no amount of hard work can get you to the top. That defies the basic tenants of capitalism.
I was not using exclusively Nazis, I just used them as the easy equalizer of terms that should be raising alarm bells in your head that you've gone too far.
Iraqi invasion was the outcome of aristocracy not Capitalism. Trumps policies are the outcomes of plutocracy, not capitalism.
Capitalism set the conditions for his father to achieve wealth, but those conditions died in the 80s/90s. The fact that Trump was able to lose his wealth time and time again, and that banks are bailed out by government constantly is actually socialism and plutocracy. Those are not capitalistic principles, meaning it's the desire to prop up businesses to protect the people from a failing economy that is allowing terrible business leaders to rule a country. IE, nepotism spawns from government support to business and industry, which is why nationalizing resources and businesses using a socialist model which is what communism and nazism both advocate for will always fail. They end up with the same outcome. A select few close insiders ruling the middle class (plutocracy or aristocracy). Lenin, Stalin, etc. were not common people. They were above the law and were not equals to the common man.
As someone who's second family were those who escaped the union, I can assure you those safety nets are nothing more than numbers on a paper. Saying you have supports when your basic living conditions lacked common necessities, is like bragging about the build quality and speed of a 1960s BMW with a rusted out frame and no wheels sitting in a junk yard. It's a beautifully crafted machine, and engineering marvel, but its state of affairs without proper care and maintenance are a pile of rubble.
Spoken like a true commie
Indeed it is, hence it being absolutely correct.
Whatever you say LenPutin
Why should I listen to someone who wants to dehumanize my existence?
What existence is that?
The existence of someone clapping your moms asscheeks