cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
So engaging in violence is the determining factor for determining who can have opinions?
That’s great news, because Marx drew pretty heavily from the French and US revolutions when discussing his own revolutionary framework. Where do I pick up my badge?
Edit - Just do a revolution! No not that way!
No, you are free to engage in revolutionary violence that results in a socialist society with a communist ruling party or elect your way into a socialist society with a communist ruling party. Plenty of socialists did the latter, they just didn’t live for long. If you do that I’ll gladly listen to you.
Wow that kind of seems like a very narrow view of who can have a voice. It seems to exclude any socialist tradition which is skeptical of revolutionary praxis, or any statecraft which is not based on democratic centralism. Do I have that correct? You only find Orthodoxy and Leninism valid and are not interested in any forms of libertarian or democratic socialism?
Do you think only the successful revolutions have been orthodox marxist or orthodox ML?
You are free to follow the example of libertarian socialists and electoral socialists, but I’d prefer if you didn’t get yourself killed. Why do you only like ideologies that aren’t successful?