Exterminate social groups!?!?!? The far left would never do that to the kulaks, ukrainians, perceived ideological opponents, jews, political opponents, poles, and a quarter of Cambodia, ever.
Just to be clear, “extermination of a social group” wasn’t ever the extermination of the individuals. Dekulakization was mostly carried out by poor farmers, not by a central authority, and the harshest penalty was normally forced relocation, not murder. The masses were so hungry against the kulaks that the soviet government literally had to introduce maximum quotas of who was designated a kulak because poor farmers were rabid against them.
Dekulakization was a fucking mess, but it wasn’t an extermination in the genocidal sense of the word.
Saying that they didn’t deserve it on the basis of being “a social group” is the most useless thing ever. Fascists are “a social group”, and they should be liquidated just as all captitalists (including kulaks) should be.
Oh, that clears it up, I see now liquidating the right sort of people “who deserve it” is a far-left thing that is righteous, and liquidating the wrong people who, as the right say “”“”“deserve it”“”" is a far-right thing that is evil.
Before I read this, I was a stupid centrist who thought you shouldn’t liquidate groups of people at all, thank you for showing me the right way
I see, your problem is that you think I’m advocating for new violence. What I’m advocating for is the violence of self defense. Capitalists do far worse things to far more people every day on order to maintain their power than would be required by the working class to remove them.
It’s not a whataboutism, it’s a clarification. If you think that violence to maintain an oppressive structure and violence to overthrow that structure are morally equal, then you are a coward hiding behind pacifism in order to endorse keeping the current status quo.
If his point is that the people of the world should roll over and let the rulling class continue to rule over them and never fight back, then all he has pointed out his complacency.
Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn’t involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?
Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn’t make us much better than what the far-right does.
I believe you’ve misunderstood what “eliminating a social class” means, and the history of socialism.
Eliminating a social class doesn’t mean murdering everyone who belongs to it, it means eliminating the position they hold in society. If you take all capitalists, and take all of their means of production and redistribute them among the workers, you’ve eliminated the capitalists as a class, without the need to exterminate the individuals.
An example would be dekulakization in the USSR. Rich peasants, or kulaks, who owned lands and employed other peasants to work their lands, were subjected to forced collectivisation of their lands, between the late 1920s and throughout 1930s. This was promoted by the soviet authorities, but mostly enacted by peasants themselves who denounced kulaks for expropriation. The policy was so popular and poor peasants had such desire to expropriate the kulaks, that the central authorities had to enforce limits on percentage of people denounced as kulaks in a given territory, because it was too much. But the penalty to kulaks was rarely ever execution, it was expropriation itself, and in more extreme cases, exile to other parts of the USSR. Dekulakization took place without the murder of all kulaks, although it was a very chaotic, inefficient, and rather violent process. Of course, Marxist-Leninists are interested in the mistakes of the past, and on how we’d enforce this policy in a more efficient, less violent way. That’s why we’re interested in Marxist history and communist countries, and the reasons why policies were applied a given way, instead of superficial analysis of “X person was bad and that’s why things were bad”.
So you believe that there’s something like a group of people that will always be striving to be these capitalist overlords and that there’s no one in the rest of the population that would display that corrupt desire for power? Either this stinks of eugenics or you’re simply naive.
Firstly what does it help us killing that group, when the system doesn’t change? Secondly if both change, the system needs to be so that people striving to corrupt power will not be able to achieve that power. I’ve yet to see a system that managed that.
The soviet union for one certainly didn’t. In fact that is a playbook example of how not to do it, right besides the first french revolution.
If you believe that by killing the “corrupt overlords” you won’t be getting any more corrupt people striving for power, we’re once again at the point is this eugenics or are you naive.
If you think there hasn’t been an example of an alternative system of putting people in charge of a government, then you’re simply ignorant. Here’s one example for you to chew on:
The driving force of change in Cuba’s system are local organizations. There’s the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, which operate on a neighborhood level, major workplaces and townships also form coherent political blocs, and the people who arise as leaders of the system are just community and workplace leaders who were elected into the system. There are no political parties, no big donors, and no entrenched power structure that vets candidates - its the most a government has ever been made up of regular people, and it’s communists who set it up.
The far left never eliminated Ukrainians, it’s the literal protofascist Putin that’s invading Ukraine.
If you’re referring to Holodomor, there’s no evidence that there was an attempt to particularly affect Ukrainians, and hunger took place in other parts of the USSR. There are no other similar events leading up to it, or afterwards, to make me believe that the USSR wanted to exterminate Ukrainians, and as a matter of fact the second president of the USSR was Ukrainian. There was no war in Ukraine since WW2 during the USSR, until the dismantling of the USSR and the establishing of capitalist regimes in the region.
Saying that the USSR eliminated Jews is purely conspiracy and outright false, there’s no historical example of that, and Jewish people were overrepresented compared to other ethnicities over the whole history of the USSR in government and high-education positions.
Similarly, poles were never eliminated. There was oppression in Poland during the Stalinist oppression as much as there was in the rest of the USSR, but there was no extermination of Polish people for being Polish.
Funny that being so concerned with Poles and Ukrainians, you don’t mention the USSR ending the occupation of Ukraine by Polish nationalists in 1917-1918 during the Polish-Ukrainian war.
Exterminate social groups!?!?!? The far left would never do that to the kulaks, ukrainians, perceived ideological opponents, jews, political opponents, poles, and a quarter of Cambodia, ever.
The kulaks deserved it and it was the far left that ended the Holocaust.
Very cool, justifying the extermination of a social group as “deserved”. Any more who “deserved it”?
Just to be clear, “extermination of a social group” wasn’t ever the extermination of the individuals. Dekulakization was mostly carried out by poor farmers, not by a central authority, and the harshest penalty was normally forced relocation, not murder. The masses were so hungry against the kulaks that the soviet government literally had to introduce maximum quotas of who was designated a kulak because poor farmers were rabid against them.
Dekulakization was a fucking mess, but it wasn’t an extermination in the genocidal sense of the word.
Saying that they didn’t deserve it on the basis of being “a social group” is the most useless thing ever. Fascists are “a social group”, and they should be liquidated just as all captitalists (including kulaks) should be.
Oh, that clears it up, I see now liquidating the right sort of people “who deserve it” is a far-left thing that is righteous, and liquidating the wrong people who, as the right say “”“”“deserve it”“”" is a far-right thing that is evil.
Before I read this, I was a stupid centrist who thought you shouldn’t liquidate groups of people at all, thank you for showing me the right way
I see, your problem is that you think I’m advocating for new violence. What I’m advocating for is the violence of self defense. Capitalists do far worse things to far more people every day on order to maintain their power than would be required by the working class to remove them.
The good ol whataboutism here again I see…
It’s not a whataboutism, it’s a clarification. If you think that violence to maintain an oppressive structure and violence to overthrow that structure are morally equal, then you are a coward hiding behind pacifism in order to endorse keeping the current status quo.
Man that guy really went all out to assist you in making your point didn’t he?
If his point is that the people of the world should roll over and let the rulling class continue to rule over them and never fight back, then all he has pointed out his complacency.
Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn’t involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?
Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn’t make us much better than what the far-right does.
Liquidation of assests
I believe you’ve misunderstood what “eliminating a social class” means, and the history of socialism.
Eliminating a social class doesn’t mean murdering everyone who belongs to it, it means eliminating the position they hold in society. If you take all capitalists, and take all of their means of production and redistribute them among the workers, you’ve eliminated the capitalists as a class, without the need to exterminate the individuals.
An example would be dekulakization in the USSR. Rich peasants, or kulaks, who owned lands and employed other peasants to work their lands, were subjected to forced collectivisation of their lands, between the late 1920s and throughout 1930s. This was promoted by the soviet authorities, but mostly enacted by peasants themselves who denounced kulaks for expropriation. The policy was so popular and poor peasants had such desire to expropriate the kulaks, that the central authorities had to enforce limits on percentage of people denounced as kulaks in a given territory, because it was too much. But the penalty to kulaks was rarely ever execution, it was expropriation itself, and in more extreme cases, exile to other parts of the USSR. Dekulakization took place without the murder of all kulaks, although it was a very chaotic, inefficient, and rather violent process. Of course, Marxist-Leninists are interested in the mistakes of the past, and on how we’d enforce this policy in a more efficient, less violent way. That’s why we’re interested in Marxist history and communist countries, and the reasons why policies were applied a given way, instead of superficial analysis of “X person was bad and that’s why things were bad”.
So you believe that there’s something like a group of people that will always be striving to be these capitalist overlords and that there’s no one in the rest of the population that would display that corrupt desire for power? Either this stinks of eugenics or you’re simply naive. Firstly what does it help us killing that group, when the system doesn’t change? Secondly if both change, the system needs to be so that people striving to corrupt power will not be able to achieve that power. I’ve yet to see a system that managed that. The soviet union for one certainly didn’t. In fact that is a playbook example of how not to do it, right besides the first french revolution. If you believe that by killing the “corrupt overlords” you won’t be getting any more corrupt people striving for power, we’re once again at the point is this eugenics or are you naive.
If you think there hasn’t been an example of an alternative system of putting people in charge of a government, then you’re simply ignorant. Here’s one example for you to chew on:
The driving force of change in Cuba’s system are local organizations. There’s the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, which operate on a neighborhood level, major workplaces and townships also form coherent political blocs, and the people who arise as leaders of the system are just community and workplace leaders who were elected into the system. There are no political parties, no big donors, and no entrenched power structure that vets candidates - its the most a government has ever been made up of regular people, and it’s communists who set it up.
The far left never eliminated Ukrainians, it’s the literal protofascist Putin that’s invading Ukraine.
If you’re referring to Holodomor, there’s no evidence that there was an attempt to particularly affect Ukrainians, and hunger took place in other parts of the USSR. There are no other similar events leading up to it, or afterwards, to make me believe that the USSR wanted to exterminate Ukrainians, and as a matter of fact the second president of the USSR was Ukrainian. There was no war in Ukraine since WW2 during the USSR, until the dismantling of the USSR and the establishing of capitalist regimes in the region.
Saying that the USSR eliminated Jews is purely conspiracy and outright false, there’s no historical example of that, and Jewish people were overrepresented compared to other ethnicities over the whole history of the USSR in government and high-education positions.
Similarly, poles were never eliminated. There was oppression in Poland during the Stalinist oppression as much as there was in the rest of the USSR, but there was no extermination of Polish people for being Polish.
Funny that being so concerned with Poles and Ukrainians, you don’t mention the USSR ending the occupation of Ukraine by Polish nationalists in 1917-1918 during the Polish-Ukrainian war.