So are you or are you not advocating for the murder of Notch? If so, I will oppose you at all costs as I would any extremist. If not, then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?
No. Definitely not as long as he will help to work to make a more just and amicable Society. However if he or others try to violently oppress or push everyone down. All bets are off. One of the things these wealthy people need to remember is that we far outnumber them. And their money only isolates and protects them as long as we are marginally content. Should we ever get focused enough to the point to come for them. They stand no chance. So it’s in their interest to work with us. I don’t care if they have a slightly better life than average. So long as people aren’t homeless and Starving in the streets.
I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of “bourgeoisie”, or merely “the rich”. And (I’m sure you can understand why I’d have a problem) that some folks talk like I’m in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.
I know it’s not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I’ll happily have a beer with you.
I don’t think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling “no true scotsman” even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.
If you just happen to be luckily a member of an ingroup. Chances are you will have minimal issue. But that doesn’t mean people don’t. Your personal experience is yours and yours alone. And not shared by everyone.
There is no nebulous definition of bourgeoisie. If you labor, you’re proletariat. Even if you’re sympathies mistakenly lay with the bourgeoisie. If you live off wealth, and use it to amass more wealth. Bourgeoisie. Owners of many, or large company’s and middle management. Bourgeoisie. Landlords/slumlords bourgeoisie. Career politicians? Bourgeoisie. Stock traders etc? Bourgeoisie.
There is more than one type of communist. So your generalization is well, …highly ignorant. However, when it comes to leninists. I strongly agree. Those are the ones you’re referring to. Anarcho-communists have a hard enough time organizing together let alone finding the desire to go after bourgeoisie. They want to be mostly left alone. Authoritarians of any stripe are the problem. Not communists.
So are you or are you not advocating for the murder of Notch? If so, I will oppose you at all costs as I would any extremist. If not, then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?
No. Definitely not as long as he will help to work to make a more just and amicable Society. However if he or others try to violently oppress or push everyone down. All bets are off. One of the things these wealthy people need to remember is that we far outnumber them. And their money only isolates and protects them as long as we are marginally content. Should we ever get focused enough to the point to come for them. They stand no chance. So it’s in their interest to work with us. I don’t care if they have a slightly better life than average. So long as people aren’t homeless and Starving in the streets.
I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of “bourgeoisie”, or merely “the rich”. And (I’m sure you can understand why I’d have a problem) that some folks talk like I’m in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.
I know it’s not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I’ll happily have a beer with you.
I don’t think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling “no true scotsman” even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.
If you just happen to be luckily a member of an ingroup. Chances are you will have minimal issue. But that doesn’t mean people don’t. Your personal experience is yours and yours alone. And not shared by everyone.
There is no nebulous definition of bourgeoisie. If you labor, you’re proletariat. Even if you’re sympathies mistakenly lay with the bourgeoisie. If you live off wealth, and use it to amass more wealth. Bourgeoisie. Owners of many, or large company’s and middle management. Bourgeoisie. Landlords/slumlords bourgeoisie. Career politicians? Bourgeoisie. Stock traders etc? Bourgeoisie.
There is more than one type of communist. So your generalization is well, …highly ignorant. However, when it comes to leninists. I strongly agree. Those are the ones you’re referring to. Anarcho-communists have a hard enough time organizing together let alone finding the desire to go after bourgeoisie. They want to be mostly left alone. Authoritarians of any stripe are the problem. Not communists.