Censored

You either agree that it's justified to murder the entire American middle class, or you don't. It's pretty simple.

I don't really care if you assessed me as being intellectually dishonest by linking someone's answer to a question I posed. You can call that a flawed point if you want, but they were the ones who -rather shockingly- choose to embrace democide of millions of people - including presumably themselves, their family, and friends - in the name of class warfare.

So yes, the existence of people like that shapes my view of this platform, as does this interaction with you rushing to defend their position (despite the fact that you don't seem to sold on it yourself, since I'm guessing YOU'RE not prepared to be personally murdered for the sake of global justice and eternal class warfare).

It is a truly rare thing that you get someone actually educated and involved enough with a counter position to engaged in meaningful debate - for you to then betray that here by trying to reduce that entire interaction to your singular misrepresentation of a flawed point that you originated yourself ONLY makes the reader walk away with a deeper consideration of your opponent’s positions and a dismissal of your own assertions.

I don't consider it a meaningful debate AT ALL.

I consider it a tiresome debate with someone who is truly fucked in the head. Someone who I later identified as suffering from sociopathy, or antisocial personality disorder.

I could have (and possibly should have) dismissed them based on their earlier comments, when they engaged in genocide apologetics, and denied the existence of the Holodomer (actually claiming conditions in the 30s were somehow "pre revolutionary). Especially after that NUT JOB blamed the Holodomer on American yellow journalism, because no number of first person (primary source) statements from Ukrainians WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE are to be believed.

But I choose to see how they'd respond to my personal litmus test, which was, for me, the final nail in the coffin of communism: The killing of the kulaks. I frame it as the American middle class, because that is the local equivalent of the kulaks. Small time landowners, a few minor landlords, farmers. The American dream involves property ownership, and getting rid of the small time property owners, the somewhat successful peasants whose lives were made worse by communism, was the goal in that particular move.

It is possible to be a communist who believes that dekulikization is a step too far - Trotsky famously was. But that's not the position "our friend" chose to take.

Personally I consider the killing of the kulaks to be a much more appropriate line than the one used to label tankies - which was the use of tanks in Hungary to quell a COMMUNIST uprising by Hungarians who simply wanted communism without the Soviet occupation. In other words, communists who reject stalinism. Personally I prefer PEOPLE who reject MASS MURDER, and communism had failed that test DECADES before the people in Hungary revolted.

So you have no proposed solution, just a diatribe? Not even arresting perpetrators of crimes when known? And don't say that never happens, I happen to personally know some people who were victims of ipv whose abusers are now in jail. You have some great model for crime prevention before it happens? Let's hear it.

It's a nice idea, but doesn't it really only work if everyone is cooperative? How do you deal with the John Wayne Gacys of the world without police? Mob violence?

If only that were true. But sadly, no. Here's a link, I think: https://lemmy.world/comment/10693493

I'll direct you to the key paragraph:

Yes [the Kulaks did deserve being killed], and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.

I agree with @[email protected] . You can either try to copy the policing model used in, say, East Germany or the USSR, with it's delightfully large secret police force, but that's more from the authoritarian political system rather than the socialist policies. Alternately, you could try to copy the policing model used in democratic socialist countries, the nordic model, which is more influenced by their political system rather than socialist policies. Countries with socialist programs have all kinds of different police systems. There's no policing model that always goes with socialism. I will say that socialism may or may not get rid of poverty, it really depends on the wealth of the country. If the country is poor, socialism isn't going to make them rich. Ideally it should reduce inequality, however we see that while it can reduce economic inequality, it does not always adequately address privilege.

Socialist cops. Because state violence doesn't matter when the state is leftist.

Just yesterday I had a conversation here with a self-described communist who thought the entire American middle class should be murdered by a mob for being part of a capitalist society that exploits poorer nations.

So I would categorize that as a leftist on Lemmy suggesting death or violence on people. Not only right wing, either.

What do you think of Chekism?

Socialism isn't a model for policing, unless you love the secret police.

What's this nonsense?

It's called a question. There are two scenarios alternate. There is no supposition of cause and effect.

Is it better to be a queer person in a nation with a strong military that respects and integrates queer people, or a queer person in a nation with a weak military that imprisons and sometimes lynches queer people?

Of course not. Why would you think I'm trying to make that point?