Ungoliantschilde

You ever see someone call for violet revolution and just -know- they've never so much as slaughtered an animal for food, let alone placed incredible violence on a human being?

Before you say "Animals are innocent," so are some of the people you will have to kill to make your revolution happen.

Innocent people will have to not only die, but be killed. Good people, even.

You will have to kill them.

You won't have the stomach, because you likely have a good, if flawed, nature.

Your fellow revolutionaries, who will kill you, will not have that.

Have fun with that.

Uh, I don't think when revolutionary people say "violent revolution" they mean "let's go kill a random half of the population". It means "let's irreversibly harm the lives of the corrupt people in power". What, do you think we're animals? Even if violent revolution meant murder explicitly, we know the difference between those who are innocent and those who harm the lives of others.

You will, in the course of your revolution, have to kill innocent people.

You will be required, by the course of reality, the lack of proper information, and the fact that not all innocent people will support you, have to kill innocent people.

You don't understand this, because you likely don't have a comprehension of the depth and breadth of both the problem and the depravity of the solution you would posit.

Being ignorant of these facts does not make them any less real, or true, and your intent means nothing compared to the results, which will be that the streets will fill with the offal and blood of innocent people.

A violent revolution does not care greatly for Blackstone's Formulation. It will snap up innocent and guilty alike, and it will permanently damage all those that engage in it, in ways you cannot reasonably comprehend.

The same people who want this revolution have no arms, have no training, Have no resources, no land, no food, have no means beyond to beg the same men they hate, the police and the state, to do the work of their petty jealousies. That isn't a revolution, that's a coup, an overtaking of the system for the sake of the ideologically posessed at the expense of due process and the innocent, yet again.

To you, whether you articulate it or not, the innocent you will kill are merely incidental. Excused away as acceptable losses, counter-revolutionaries, or not firm enough in their conviction and thereby suitable fodder.

And those who come after you, the more extreme, the more severe, the more willing to be violent and do harm and violate, in every sense of the word, the good and the innocent, will string you up, and feed on you.

You will lament, confused, as has always happened in these sort of things, and cry out "Have I not been a good revolutionary?" As you hold in your intestines from the bayonet, as you cry and bleed in a gutter of the rubble that was once a home, a nation, a place of life, imperfect, but vital, you will remember these words.

Gnash your teeth, and bite your tongue, eat the ash you turned the fields to, and bury yourself under the rubble of the homes you've destroyed. Lament the innocence you violated, your own, and others, posessed by an ideal that was always homicidal, abusive, and vitriolic.

Always remember, revolutionary.

You walk on a thin crust of civility held together by rare and precious things, spun like fine silk.

And below that, is a chasm of hell and depravity so deep and abiding it has eaten entire civilizations, a screaming, hateful void of every indignity and violation, done in an endless cycle of abuse and retribution.

Those precious things strain, like catgut wound too tight.

You can hear them singing, if you listen.

Tread lightly.

TLDR:

Here’s the thing. Bernie Sanders is an objectively good and decent human being. He has flaws. His goals are generally seen as good and for the benefit of the masses. But he is an outlier.

He would not be able to gather the support of the senate, the governors, the House of Representatives or the courts. He would have support from his voting base, and isolated local leaders and senators seeking their own successful careers by joining in Sanders’s leadership. And all that means that Sanders would not be able to pass meaningful legislation.

So, the hypothetical situation of a communist leader in the US is now posed with the very predictable reality of all communist rulers. They have to remove the obstacles to their goal of serving the greater good.

That’s it. That’s the thinking. The justification of believing that your opinions are best for everyone else’s lives can allow you to justify almost any action. Because then it becomes your moral duty to save America by getting rid of the bad Americans.

And Bernie Sanders is one man in a massive governmental machine. And I have looked and I cannot find much about Bernie to hate on. Except he’s one idealistic man, and realistically achieving his goals on a massive enough scale to support socialist beliefs would mean destroying a lot more lives than any of us can truly grasp. It’s not just the corporate fat cats that would lose. It would be all of their employees too. From the VPs down to the doormen. More than half of the United States is employed by companies that could justifiably be called to answer for their crimes before a socialist tribunal.

Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric. Peaceful communist revolutions are possible. But they don’t last. And when the peaceful options end, the violence begins. So get comfortable understanding that you’re advocating for a long and violent war, or rethink your opinions on socialism.

It’s what Kasaron said. You’re gonna have to kill a LOT of innocent people if you really want socialism to take over.

You're right overall, but there's two big problems I'm seeing here.

Fair enough.

-Bernie is as close to a socialist figurehead as I could think of in the current political milieu. He was meant as a readily identifiable example.

-I googled “Peaceful Communist Revolutions” and got a to Wikipedia page (written by someone that is CLEARLY pro-communism). And they repeatedly mentioned things like the Red October revolution in Russia, with the dates of 1917-1923. Whoever wrote that article tipped their hand with that one. Because for 1, that was NOT peaceful. Roving mobs murdered anyone connected to the upper class. Whole families, especially the Romanovs, executed against outhouse buildings. And the funny part was the date. Because 1923 is when it really started to suck if my history class is being remembered correctly. I also mentioned how all of the “peaceful revolutions” fail after a few years, necessitating the predictable violence.

when anticommunists tell u that “you havent paid attention to history” or “you need to study history” what theyre really saying is “why wont you take at face value the biased and often reductionist history you were taught by capitalists about why socialism is evil”. when they talk about “studying history” theyre not interested in talking about every coup the cia backed, every terrorist group the us funded in order to “fight communists”, every war that imperialist powers started over profit, or every innocent person killed in those wars. they dont want to talk about the history of violent racism and police brutality, or about every person the us government has tortured, or the history of suppression of leftists and the working class, or how companies fund right wing death squads, they just want to say “the ussr is why communism is bad”

ok since this post made a lot of people who cant stand to see capitalism critiqued in any form mad im going to provide sources for all the shit im talking about. 

if you want to tell leftists they need to study history but you dont want to look at any of the crimes of capital, or the crimes committed in upholding capitalism then you dont give a shit about studying history. if you can recognize that gulags were fucked up and horrible, as you should, you cant turn a blind eye on the american prison system where people are being forced to work for almost no pay. so the question is do you actually care about studying history or do you just want to deflect off every critique of capitalism

You’re right.

Communism and Socialism have been repeatedly undermined in recent history by the powers that be.

You’re right, trickle down economics has NEVER WORKED.

But.

Communism and Socialism are based on the ideals of Marxism. Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital as a critique on Capitalism. Marx took the ultimate extreme opposite of Capitalism to show the flaws through the comparison. The key aspect is that Marx created a Utopian Concept, and people reacted to his Utopian Concept as if it was a blueprint, instead of a warning.

Utopian Concepts are flawed political models because they are based on the belief that everyone can agree to behave in the best interests of those around them. And, to a degree, people can do that. That’s why Socialism and Communism work in small, isolated communities.

I don’t think Capitalism is the best method, and I have no idea what the best method would be, but Socialism and Communism are not the answers either.

its really obvious from this that you dont understand any of what marx ever said and if you ever actually read marx or bothered to understand what marxism is youd realize its the complete opposite of utopian, or idealistic or anything else you said here

LOL.

OK, sure. Enjoy your beliefs and I will enjoy mine.

when anticommunists tell u that “you havent paid attention to history” or “you need to study history” what theyre really saying is “why wont you take at face value the biased and often reductionist history you were taught by capitalists about why socialism is evil”. when they talk about “studying history” theyre not interested in talking about every coup the cia backed, every terrorist group the us funded in order to “fight communists”, every war that imperialist powers started over profit, or every innocent person killed in those wars. they dont want to talk about the history of violent racism and police brutality, or about every person the us government has tortured, or the history of suppression of leftists and the working class, or how companies fund right wing death squads, they just want to say “the ussr is why communism is bad”

ok since this post made a lot of people who cant stand to see capitalism critiqued in any form mad im going to provide sources for all the shit im talking about. 

if you want to tell leftists they need to study history but you dont want to look at any of the crimes of capital, or the crimes committed in upholding capitalism then you dont give a shit about studying history. if you can recognize that gulags were fucked up and horrible, as you should, you cant turn a blind eye on the american prison system where people are being forced to work for almost no pay. so the question is do you actually care about studying history or do you just want to deflect off every critique of capitalism

You’re right.

Communism and Socialism have been repeatedly undermined in recent history by the powers that be.

You’re right, trickle down economics has NEVER WORKED.

But.

Communism and Socialism are based on the ideals of Marxism. Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital as a critique on Capitalism. Marx took the ultimate extreme opposite of Capitalism to show the flaws through the comparison. The key aspect is that Marx created a Utopian Concept, and people reacted to his Utopian Concept as if it was a blueprint, instead of a warning.

Utopian Concepts are flawed political models because they are based on the belief that everyone can agree to behave in the best interests of those around them. And, to a degree, people can do that. That’s why Socialism and Communism work in small, isolated communities.

I don’t think Capitalism is the best method, and I have no idea what the best method would be, but Socialism and Communism are not the answers either.

Have we reached the demand yet?

It was never a democracy. We are a Capitalist nation. By definition, the United States is a capitalist society. Look up communist, and they probably link to Cuba, China, North Korea, the former USSR. Well, look up capitalist, and you have got the USA.

Warren Buffett or Bill Gates? They do not have checking accounts with a balance in the billions. They live exceptionally well, but they actually control a large enough portion of money so that they, themselves are accountants. They are money hubs. That is capitalism.

You fix capitalism by spending money with other capitalists.

Translation: go outside. Go to town and shop at that place that has been there forever. If you can still find that place.

My Grandmother lived in upstate New York. She lived in a town called Little Falls, about an hour in each direction between Syracuse and Albany. It is a beautiful city. Just gorgeous. Pine trees and steep cliffs everywhere. The canal goes up there too. It needs locks for boats to go upriver. Basically, they make temporary pools in a river that raise the boat up steeper areas. They put the boat in between two dams, made of steel and concrete. That area gets flooded to a level higher than the river at the back of the boat. The dam at the front of the boat goes away, and the boat goes on its way.

We built that. By hand. The whole thing is like a steel sculpture.

That town is there, and it reminds me of the photos from after World War II. And nobody lives there except old people that remember why it is a great city.

Capitalism is a fix: spend money. But... fuck. I do not have any. Do you?