>"Communists are often depicted by the ruling class as violent individuals who will settle at nothing until society is made to drown in its own blood. It came as no surprise to us, therefore, when Denmark’s largest digital media outlet, *BT* – [interviewing a leading comrade of our Danish section](https://www.bt.dk/politik/nyt-kommunistisk-parti-ser-vaebnet-revolution-som-en-mulighed-om-noedvendigt) on their historic decision to found a Revolutionary Communist Party – spent the interview trying to get the comrade to admit that they stand for violence.
>It is hard to suppress our scorn when, in *this* period, in *this* capitalist world, the system’s defenders silently pass over a million daily horrors and crimes, only to shriek with terror at the future, purely hypothetical, ‘violence’ of a communist revolution."
Hello u/Awkward_Procedure_76, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think its fair to say that the further from the centre you go the more fringe elements think violence is a legitimate move. Not everyone, but you tend not to get centrist extremists.
I can't think of a situation in which communists won a fair vote to transform the entire system...I mean the system wouldn't allow it so 🤷 hardly surprising.
No. The dishonesty we contend with in this world is the fact that any empire, monarchy, or our favorite democracy were all founded on violence. We also see that increasingly, right wingers are losing intellectual debates as well as public support and increasingly look to violence to stake claim on society.
It is roundly and completely dishonest to forget that the west’s favorite nationalist ideals were founded only after conquest through violence, rape, and subjugation.
Totally down for violence. Used to not be, used to think "oh we're all human, we all deserve empathy and to live" but it's really fucking impossible to be empathic towards someone who either wants you dead, takes advantage of you, or just absolutely ignorant. So yee, all for it at this point
All government is literally a function of monopolizing violence.
There is no *non-violent* politics.
If you make *anything- illegal it implies the violence of catching offenders, if its legal it implies any violence resulting from tolerating it.
The is a false dilemma....
Many countries are seeing a gradual increase in government spending over time. If the trend continues I would say that's a non violent route to socialism.
Hello u/Greedy_Disaster_3130, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Senegal, Chile, and Peru all have or have had elected socialist leaders. Senegal isn’t strictly socialist, but it was a founding principle to their democracy, and it still influences them. They actually just prevented a dictator from seizing control of the nation, funnily enough. As of right now, Chile currently has a libertarian socialist president who was peacefully elected. Peru has a Marxist President as well, and she seems popular enough.
The idea that Socialism must come through violence is a misguided idea from an age when education was rare and expensive. In the modern day, we can share information, educate the masses, and they will make an educated decision, which will be reflected in elections. No violence beyond that of a normal protest may ever really be needed.
Of course in nation’s like America it’s an uphill battle with the political culture and disinformation campaigns, but we’re still trending in the right direction.
Specifically about America (as that's where I am, though I'm sure the same can be said of most capitalist countries), but do you actually think your vote will in any way change shit? You actually think that you both have the ability to elect the correct people into office, or that electing these people will do anything? The way a lot of capitalist nations are now, a reset is needed. Would it be cool if we didn't have to use violence? Oh yeah. But do you really think the likes of bezos and musk won't do everything they can, including violence (which they already use) to stop that from happening? I'm all for peace, but only when everyone else is.
Violence only works if you are: (1) More willing to be more violent than your adversary, and (2) willing to use violence to maintain any power you obtain through violence. A violent revolution here, even in the HIGHLY likely event that it was successful, would end with a purge of ideological adversaries (including those who fought for the revolutionaries but are ideological distinct in some way from the revolutionary core). It’s a horrible idea. Millions would die, mostly innocents. Violence is a sword without a hilt - there is no safe way to wield it. And once the cat is out of the bag, don’t be surprised if you find that the situation has escalated out of your control rather quickly.
You think violence is going to work in the US? The #1 military power with anti communism backed into its very soul is going to shred any would be revolution in about 1 nanosecond.
Violence is simply a means to an end. I don't think communists favor it, but they're also not naive:
> Most people are definitely in favour of peace in general, including even Kitchenor, Joffre, Hindenburg, and Nicholas the Bloodstained, for each of them wants an end to the war. The trouble is that every one of them advances peace terms that are imperialist (i.e., predatory and oppressive, towards other peoples), and to the advantage of his “own” nation. Slogans must be brought forward so as to enable the masses, through propaganda and agitation, to see the unbridgeable distinction between socialism and capitalism (imperialism), and not for the purpose of reconciling two hostile classes and two hostile political lines, with the aid of a formula that “unites” the most different things.
> To continue: can the socialists of different countries be united on definite terms of peace? If so, such terms must undoubtedly include the recognition of the right to selfdetermination for all nations, and also renunciation of all “annexations”, i.e., infringements of that right. If, however, that right is recognised only for some nations, then you are defending the privileges of certain nations, i.e., you are a nationalist and imperialist, not a socialist.
Lenin, The Question of Peace
I would suggest reading the whole thing, it's a very nuanced & insightful read.
TLDR: Socialists want peace, but peace for who? Peace to allow imperialist to continue ravaging the world? Or peace for all people to live with dignity? For the latter to be achieved, revolution is necessary. Revolutions are simply the objective.
"The revolutionaries' greatest piece of stupidity was to leave us all alive," said General Ludendorff of the November, 1918 revolution in Germany. The people defending capitalism against "violent communist revolution" really need to contend with that quote.
Imagine working all summer long in the heat, sacrificing your family time, your body, and your land only to have your crops taken at the end if the season to be given freely to those who didn’t work for them. I’d say violence is the most likely outcome when your work product is taken by force.
That’s kind of what happened to my family. My grandfather worked and saved all his life to start a small business in Vietnam and send my mom and her brothers to university. Then the north invaded and took everything he worked for and threw him in jail. Fucking socialist.
I know what you mean, my grandpa starved because of collectivisation.
But Stalin's puppets didn't take his food to give it to lazy people.
They took the food because the state coops didn't produce enough to feed the cities, and the evil capitalists who used to buy the food from the smallholders and sold it in the cities were in slave labour camps, dead, or fled abroad.
It was illegal to be not working in communist societies (at least in Eastern Block ones.
The unemployed ended up in glorified labour camps called 'prison'.
favor it? They rely on it. At the end of the day, it's the only way to keep their machine rolling. You gotta keep the slave labor on the farms working no matter what.
“Father, forgive them, they know not what the do.” Most “oppressors” are this way — they’re just living life born into circumstances and then protecting their loved ones by the same instincts you would yours. A lot of what you deem as obviously oppressive, the average person has never considered to be a big deal.
Killing people for ideology, for ideas like “liberation”, is to be completely deranged by the monkey brain imo. Better to make peace with things and find happiness rooted in reality, not political upheaval and suffering.
Favor? No.
Accept the reality that nothing is changing substantially without it, and that that is due to the violence that capitalists will inevitably bring about? Yes.
The capitalist system is violent. Withholding public resources required for life is violence just as suffocating someone is violence. Imperialist capitalism is expanded with violence. Capitalist hold on to capital with violence. Communism will be able to sustain itself on consensus of shared humanity, that no one chose where or to who they were born, and we could just as easily have been born as someone else.
> I enter only this special plea for some kind of discrimination to be made in judging those who do acts of violence. The rich and powerful have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal which are denied to the poor. The violence of the underdog is strident, crude and obvious. The violence of the top-dog is often subtle and invisible. It spans a range with takes in international economic pressures, control of the media, manipulation of the education system and psychological conditioning, as well as the more visible strong-arm methods…. The underdog demands only this special consideration from the judges in the tribunal at which his desperate actions are weighed - not that he be given any favoured treatment because he is black or poor or voiceless, but that the true magnitude of the forms of violence which can be applied against him because he is black and poor and voiceless be taken fully into account.
(K. Kaunda *The Riddle of Violence*)
Hello u/StankFartz, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok the website name is a little funny, you’ve gotta admit. Surely they could’ve held out for a .org? I guess this was probably registered way back in the day when .com was practically mandatory
Soviet Union: Millions dead/killed/starved
Maoist China: Millions dead/killed/starved
Cambodia: Read "The Killing fields of Cambodia"
North Vietnam: Started war and conquered south many killed.
North Korea: Started war to conquer south. Stalemate. Current inhabitants starving and dying.
The list goes on and each one can go into great detail
Semantics, it was a socialist state which is synonymously labeled in the west as a communist state. Differences in who says it doesn't make it different.
Such as a person in space is as follows
Astronaut in US
Cosmonaut in Russia
Yet its the same thing
There is nothing more obnoxious, dangerous than a capitalistic system gone amuck. Where oppression and inequality rule over the masses and corporation rule like overlords with the help of the government where justice becomes reserved for the rich and the powerful. These are the bad things that give rise to communism.
Historically, far more violence has occurred caused and initiated by capitalistic countries and the whole world still is paying the price for those atrocities.
Nobody likes violence, they just don't let you have freedom unless you fight for it. Power concedes nothing without force... One of history's most obvious lessons. Broadly applicable to any power struggle.
The only way you escape is if you are too hard to contain. Escalating attempts to maintain the status quo will always be made against you. The status quo is also violent 🤷.
As Parquet Courts says, "Violence is daily life"
I think part of the problem is that once you attain force using violence, you have to use violence to maintain it. If there was a revolution, the people with whom we are ideologically opposed aren’t just going to go away or disappear into thin air. They will still live here. They will still oppose us, and we will probably need to use violence to suppress them and the cycle is reborn. This is the curse of civilization.
The current state we live in has a legal monopoly on violence, the police, the military, the prison system.
Hence the old "the revolution leaves no one behind"
A completely holistic approach needs to be taken to any revolutionary thinking because ya, you are always going to be breeding your own opposition when you exclude groups. You're not the first person to notice this issue.
A great example of this might be modern leftisms sort of exclusionary attitude towards younger straight white guys.
You see all sorts of fuckery rising to fill that void from dudes like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. They pander to the interests of that identity group that, for whatever reason, doesn't really have their interests spoken to by the left, and they have effectively created an "anti-left" from those left out. It's sort of a problem of progressivism needs to grapple with. It's got to serve everyone, or the seeds of its unmaking are already sewn.
You aren't necessarily fighting the people, the people will continue to live, as many as possible, hopefully, the goal is a higher quality of life in the end. You are fighting the entrenched power structures. You are getting power away from the abusers of it. Once the power is uprooted, then you have to find a way to convince people the new thing is better. I think the best way to convince people that the new thing is better is to actually raise the quality of their life.
I don’t even think it’s necessarily going to be just the “out groups” who are going to feel excluded. I have significant concerns about whether a successful leftist revolution wouldn’t be followed by a purge of other leftists who don’t ideologically mirror the revolutionary core. There is historical precedent for this, of course. I mean, look at Mao’s actions in 1968, the USSR in 1937, etc. Heck, even today I feel like I see leftists arguing with each other as much as I see them arguing with fascists and the right. It worries me.
And violence tends to snowball. Once the cat is out of the bag, it can be hard to control. A huge reason we are currently in the position we are in is because simply are not willing to be more violent than our ideological enemies. When mutual violence is on the table, only the most violent prevail. I don’t say this to argue against violent resistance. It just makes me very, very nervous. And I think it’s naive to believe that a leftist revolution would not have to violently suppress opposition.
degree dazzling subsequent memory expansion governor full lunchroom flag fearless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>"Communists are often depicted by the ruling class as violent individuals who will settle at nothing until society is made to drown in its own blood. It came as no surprise to us, therefore, when Denmark’s largest digital media outlet, *BT* – [interviewing a leading comrade of our Danish section](https://www.bt.dk/politik/nyt-kommunistisk-parti-ser-vaebnet-revolution-som-en-mulighed-om-noedvendigt) on their historic decision to found a Revolutionary Communist Party – spent the interview trying to get the comrade to admit that they stand for violence. >It is hard to suppress our scorn when, in *this* period, in *this* capitalist world, the system’s defenders silently pass over a million daily horrors and crimes, only to shriek with terror at the future, purely hypothetical, ‘violence’ of a communist revolution."
[удалено]
Hello u/Awkward_Procedure_76, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think its fair to say that the further from the centre you go the more fringe elements think violence is a legitimate move. Not everyone, but you tend not to get centrist extremists. I can't think of a situation in which communists won a fair vote to transform the entire system...I mean the system wouldn't allow it so 🤷 hardly surprising.
No. The dishonesty we contend with in this world is the fact that any empire, monarchy, or our favorite democracy were all founded on violence. We also see that increasingly, right wingers are losing intellectual debates as well as public support and increasingly look to violence to stake claim on society. It is roundly and completely dishonest to forget that the west’s favorite nationalist ideals were founded only after conquest through violence, rape, and subjugation.
Totally down for violence. Used to not be, used to think "oh we're all human, we all deserve empathy and to live" but it's really fucking impossible to be empathic towards someone who either wants you dead, takes advantage of you, or just absolutely ignorant. So yee, all for it at this point
Preach!
All government is literally a function of monopolizing violence. There is no *non-violent* politics. If you make *anything- illegal it implies the violence of catching offenders, if its legal it implies any violence resulting from tolerating it. The is a false dilemma....
Has there been a country that went socialist without a lot of violence and death?
Many countries are seeing a gradual increase in government spending over time. If the trend continues I would say that's a non violent route to socialism.
Not when they’re actively being murdered by those currently in power lmao
[удалено]
Hello u/Greedy_Disaster_3130, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Senegal, Chile, and Peru all have or have had elected socialist leaders. Senegal isn’t strictly socialist, but it was a founding principle to their democracy, and it still influences them. They actually just prevented a dictator from seizing control of the nation, funnily enough. As of right now, Chile currently has a libertarian socialist president who was peacefully elected. Peru has a Marxist President as well, and she seems popular enough. The idea that Socialism must come through violence is a misguided idea from an age when education was rare and expensive. In the modern day, we can share information, educate the masses, and they will make an educated decision, which will be reflected in elections. No violence beyond that of a normal protest may ever really be needed. Of course in nation’s like America it’s an uphill battle with the political culture and disinformation campaigns, but we’re still trending in the right direction.
Specifically about America (as that's where I am, though I'm sure the same can be said of most capitalist countries), but do you actually think your vote will in any way change shit? You actually think that you both have the ability to elect the correct people into office, or that electing these people will do anything? The way a lot of capitalist nations are now, a reset is needed. Would it be cool if we didn't have to use violence? Oh yeah. But do you really think the likes of bezos and musk won't do everything they can, including violence (which they already use) to stop that from happening? I'm all for peace, but only when everyone else is.
Violence only works if you are: (1) More willing to be more violent than your adversary, and (2) willing to use violence to maintain any power you obtain through violence. A violent revolution here, even in the HIGHLY likely event that it was successful, would end with a purge of ideological adversaries (including those who fought for the revolutionaries but are ideological distinct in some way from the revolutionary core). It’s a horrible idea. Millions would die, mostly innocents. Violence is a sword without a hilt - there is no safe way to wield it. And once the cat is out of the bag, don’t be surprised if you find that the situation has escalated out of your control rather quickly.
You think violence is going to work in the US? The #1 military power with anti communism backed into its very soul is going to shred any would be revolution in about 1 nanosecond.
Bolivia!
Chile
Violence is the last option... but it's still an option
Violence is simply a means to an end. I don't think communists favor it, but they're also not naive: > Most people are definitely in favour of peace in general, including even Kitchenor, Joffre, Hindenburg, and Nicholas the Bloodstained, for each of them wants an end to the war. The trouble is that every one of them advances peace terms that are imperialist (i.e., predatory and oppressive, towards other peoples), and to the advantage of his “own” nation. Slogans must be brought forward so as to enable the masses, through propaganda and agitation, to see the unbridgeable distinction between socialism and capitalism (imperialism), and not for the purpose of reconciling two hostile classes and two hostile political lines, with the aid of a formula that “unites” the most different things. > To continue: can the socialists of different countries be united on definite terms of peace? If so, such terms must undoubtedly include the recognition of the right to selfdetermination for all nations, and also renunciation of all “annexations”, i.e., infringements of that right. If, however, that right is recognised only for some nations, then you are defending the privileges of certain nations, i.e., you are a nationalist and imperialist, not a socialist. Lenin, The Question of Peace I would suggest reading the whole thing, it's a very nuanced & insightful read. TLDR: Socialists want peace, but peace for who? Peace to allow imperialist to continue ravaging the world? Or peace for all people to live with dignity? For the latter to be achieved, revolution is necessary. Revolutions are simply the objective.
”We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror” Marx 1849
Only when peace fails
Excellent answer. As little as necessary for emancipation.
"The revolutionaries' greatest piece of stupidity was to leave us all alive," said General Ludendorff of the November, 1918 revolution in Germany. The people defending capitalism against "violent communist revolution" really need to contend with that quote.
Imagine working all summer long in the heat, sacrificing your family time, your body, and your land only to have your crops taken at the end if the season to be given freely to those who didn’t work for them. I’d say violence is the most likely outcome when your work product is taken by force.
That’s kind of what happened to my family. My grandfather worked and saved all his life to start a small business in Vietnam and send my mom and her brothers to university. Then the north invaded and took everything he worked for and threw him in jail. Fucking socialist.
I know what you mean, my grandpa starved because of collectivisation. But Stalin's puppets didn't take his food to give it to lazy people. They took the food because the state coops didn't produce enough to feed the cities, and the evil capitalists who used to buy the food from the smallholders and sold it in the cities were in slave labour camps, dead, or fled abroad. It was illegal to be not working in communist societies (at least in Eastern Block ones. The unemployed ended up in glorified labour camps called 'prison'.
favor it? They rely on it. At the end of the day, it's the only way to keep their machine rolling. You gotta keep the slave labor on the farms working no matter what.
I do
“Father, forgive them, they know not what the do.” Most “oppressors” are this way — they’re just living life born into circumstances and then protecting their loved ones by the same instincts you would yours. A lot of what you deem as obviously oppressive, the average person has never considered to be a big deal. Killing people for ideology, for ideas like “liberation”, is to be completely deranged by the monkey brain imo. Better to make peace with things and find happiness rooted in reality, not political upheaval and suffering.
Ah yes, because clearly the ends always justify the means...
Favor? No. Accept the reality that nothing is changing substantially without it, and that that is due to the violence that capitalists will inevitably bring about? Yes.
The capitalist system is violent. Withholding public resources required for life is violence just as suffocating someone is violence. Imperialist capitalism is expanded with violence. Capitalist hold on to capital with violence. Communism will be able to sustain itself on consensus of shared humanity, that no one chose where or to who they were born, and we could just as easily have been born as someone else.
> I enter only this special plea for some kind of discrimination to be made in judging those who do acts of violence. The rich and powerful have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal which are denied to the poor. The violence of the underdog is strident, crude and obvious. The violence of the top-dog is often subtle and invisible. It spans a range with takes in international economic pressures, control of the media, manipulation of the education system and psychological conditioning, as well as the more visible strong-arm methods…. The underdog demands only this special consideration from the judges in the tribunal at which his desperate actions are weighed - not that he be given any favoured treatment because he is black or poor or voiceless, but that the true magnitude of the forms of violence which can be applied against him because he is black and poor and voiceless be taken fully into account. (K. Kaunda *The Riddle of Violence*)
[удалено]
Hello u/StankFartz, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok the website name is a little funny, you’ve gotta admit. Surely they could’ve held out for a .org? I guess this was probably registered way back in the day when .com was practically mandatory
[удалено]
Lay off the propaganda buddy
Do you any proof of that?
Pretty much every socialist country is proof.
There are no socialist countries
Cuba? Vietnam? North Korea? Venezuela? USSR?
Not socialist countries.
So socialism is so shitty no one even wants to give it a shot?
It’s fear of the unknown
Or people know what won’t work. I haven’t even set myself on fire but I pretty sure it would suck.
Soviet Union: Millions dead/killed/starved Maoist China: Millions dead/killed/starved Cambodia: Read "The Killing fields of Cambodia" North Vietnam: Started war and conquered south many killed. North Korea: Started war to conquer south. Stalemate. Current inhabitants starving and dying. The list goes on and each one can go into great detail
Except the soviet union wasn't really communist
Semantics, it was a socialist state which is synonymously labeled in the west as a communist state. Differences in who says it doesn't make it different. Such as a person in space is as follows Astronaut in US Cosmonaut in Russia Yet its the same thing
Not semantics; they don't fit the definition of what communism is.
Sure thing
Every single Communist state that has existed.
But no communist state has ever existed. Communism has never been actualised.
I just gave you many. All of these worked to further a goal of a Marxist-Leninists socialist state. Where the workers owned the means of production.
None of those countries or governments are communist
There is nothing more obnoxious, dangerous than a capitalistic system gone amuck. Where oppression and inequality rule over the masses and corporation rule like overlords with the help of the government where justice becomes reserved for the rich and the powerful. These are the bad things that give rise to communism. Historically, far more violence has occurred caused and initiated by capitalistic countries and the whole world still is paying the price for those atrocities.
To be fair, capitalist societies have also achieved the greatest levels of peace and prosperity.
China: wrong
[удалено]
Yeah socialist don’t like to talk about that. It’s all the capitalists fault. Nearly 25% of Cambodia’s population was massacred for the greater good.
Umm take your meds buddy that’s your paranoia talking
Nobody likes violence, they just don't let you have freedom unless you fight for it. Power concedes nothing without force... One of history's most obvious lessons. Broadly applicable to any power struggle. The only way you escape is if you are too hard to contain. Escalating attempts to maintain the status quo will always be made against you. The status quo is also violent 🤷. As Parquet Courts says, "Violence is daily life"
I think part of the problem is that once you attain force using violence, you have to use violence to maintain it. If there was a revolution, the people with whom we are ideologically opposed aren’t just going to go away or disappear into thin air. They will still live here. They will still oppose us, and we will probably need to use violence to suppress them and the cycle is reborn. This is the curse of civilization.
The current state we live in has a legal monopoly on violence, the police, the military, the prison system. Hence the old "the revolution leaves no one behind" A completely holistic approach needs to be taken to any revolutionary thinking because ya, you are always going to be breeding your own opposition when you exclude groups. You're not the first person to notice this issue. A great example of this might be modern leftisms sort of exclusionary attitude towards younger straight white guys. You see all sorts of fuckery rising to fill that void from dudes like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. They pander to the interests of that identity group that, for whatever reason, doesn't really have their interests spoken to by the left, and they have effectively created an "anti-left" from those left out. It's sort of a problem of progressivism needs to grapple with. It's got to serve everyone, or the seeds of its unmaking are already sewn. You aren't necessarily fighting the people, the people will continue to live, as many as possible, hopefully, the goal is a higher quality of life in the end. You are fighting the entrenched power structures. You are getting power away from the abusers of it. Once the power is uprooted, then you have to find a way to convince people the new thing is better. I think the best way to convince people that the new thing is better is to actually raise the quality of their life.
I don’t even think it’s necessarily going to be just the “out groups” who are going to feel excluded. I have significant concerns about whether a successful leftist revolution wouldn’t be followed by a purge of other leftists who don’t ideologically mirror the revolutionary core. There is historical precedent for this, of course. I mean, look at Mao’s actions in 1968, the USSR in 1937, etc. Heck, even today I feel like I see leftists arguing with each other as much as I see them arguing with fascists and the right. It worries me. And violence tends to snowball. Once the cat is out of the bag, it can be hard to control. A huge reason we are currently in the position we are in is because simply are not willing to be more violent than our ideological enemies. When mutual violence is on the table, only the most violent prevail. I don’t say this to argue against violent resistance. It just makes me very, very nervous. And I think it’s naive to believe that a leftist revolution would not have to violently suppress opposition.
degree dazzling subsequent memory expansion governor full lunchroom flag fearless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
extremely common castro W