Biden’s numbers among young voters have slid during his presidency from the high margins that helped him beat Trump. Several former supporters explain why.
I’ll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn’t really a communist revolution, but rather a group responsible for regime change using the term as they appoint a new elite.
That’s not true, and it shows that you obviously haven’t investigated those revolutions or the theory behind them.
The entire populace would need to see the world differently than they do now.
Yes. This issue is dealt with through communist theory. A revolution is a process. It doesn’t end at a “change of regime.”
Its true that class and money are not immediately abolished, because they can’t be immediately abolished. The abolition of class and momey is a theoretical endpoint of a long period of transition because
The entire populace would need to see the world differently than they do now.
More or less as you put it.
You are saying that because the process isn’t automatic, and people now do not already see the world that way, that the process should never begin
You should investigate the actual revolutions you’re talking about, and read some of the basic theories behind them. If you are still against them, then at lesst you will actually know what you’re talking about, and your critiques would be worth hearing
You are saying that because the process isn’t automatic, and people now do not already see the world that way, that the process should never begin
No, I’m saying that it hasn’t happened yet because humans as a whole aren’t ready for it. Maybe in 150-200 years we’ll be in a different place. Remember that when people said “Please wear a mask, my grandmother has cancer” about 50% of the populace yelled “FUCK YOUR GRANDMOTHER MY LIBERTIES ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT MATTER.” With people like that, you can’t really have communism.
No, I’m saying that it hasn’t happened yet because humans as a whole aren’t ready for it.
Which is what you’re wrong about, because there are nations right now engaged in revolution. The largest nation in earth is currently involved in the most successful revolutionary project yet, which began back in 1949.
You’re not wrong that the revolutionary potential in the imperial core is low for a number of factors. But that’s not the world.
You also said
each time it has been attempted it wasn’t really a communist revolution
Which is not true and was more what i was talking about.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista’s regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it’s puppet states.
I already knew you were saying that. You’re wrong. If you want to talk about communism, you should investigate it first because you don’t know what you’re talking about
If you just want power you dont have to pretend to be socialist. See Pinochet, among many examples. Pretending to be socialist would just be unnecessary extra work and having the most powerful countries as enemies instead of friends.
even liberal and conservative historians agree that the damn commies were actual communists: behind closed doors they didn’t talk about machiavellian power grabs - they used the same historical materialist framework they would use in public. (for example Kotkin is adamant about this in his Stalin bio. Communists believed in communism. Shocker.)
If you want an actual answer, the most peaceful possible solution at this juncture is communist revolution.
Sadly, the moment people try, it’s no longer communism. The entire populace would need to see the world differently than they do now.
I’ll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn’t really a communist revolution, but rather a group responsible for regime change using the term as they appoint a new elite.
That’s not true, and it shows that you obviously haven’t investigated those revolutions or the theory behind them.
Yes. This issue is dealt with through communist theory. A revolution is a process. It doesn’t end at a “change of regime.”
Its true that class and money are not immediately abolished, because they can’t be immediately abolished. The abolition of class and momey is a theoretical endpoint of a long period of transition because
More or less as you put it.
You are saying that because the process isn’t automatic, and people now do not already see the world that way, that the process should never begin
You should investigate the actual revolutions you’re talking about, and read some of the basic theories behind them. If you are still against them, then at lesst you will actually know what you’re talking about, and your critiques would be worth hearing
No, I’m saying that it hasn’t happened yet because humans as a whole aren’t ready for it. Maybe in 150-200 years we’ll be in a different place. Remember that when people said “Please wear a mask, my grandmother has cancer” about 50% of the populace yelled “FUCK YOUR GRANDMOTHER MY LIBERTIES ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT MATTER.” With people like that, you can’t really have communism.
Which is what you’re wrong about, because there are nations right now engaged in revolution. The largest nation in earth is currently involved in the most successful revolutionary project yet, which began back in 1949.
You’re not wrong that the revolutionary potential in the imperial core is low for a number of factors. But that’s not the world.
You also said
Which is not true and was more what i was talking about.
I guess I’m saying that Lenin, Mao, and Castro were after the power grab and dressed it up in the clothing of communism.
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista’s regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it’s puppet states.
I already knew you were saying that. You’re wrong. If you want to talk about communism, you should investigate it first because you don’t know what you’re talking about
Mao literally wearing the “Mao Suit” everywhere, just like a Communist Poser.
If you just want power you dont have to pretend to be socialist. See Pinochet, among many examples. Pretending to be socialist would just be unnecessary extra work and having the most powerful countries as enemies instead of friends.
even liberal and conservative historians agree that the damn commies were actual communists: behind closed doors they didn’t talk about machiavellian power grabs - they used the same historical materialist framework they would use in public. (for example Kotkin is adamant about this in his Stalin bio. Communists believed in communism. Shocker.)