One of the billionares, Dawood inherited a company called the Dawood company (family bizz) that during a labour dispute in a factory they owned, the owner ordered the factory be demolished, with the workers still inside.
4 people died and about 40 where injured, I just see this as revenge.
The working class has run out of patience and time to piddle around with reforming “lost souls”. What matters to working class people, more than anything, is their security, safety, and their livelihoods. The contradictions within the imperial core have become so great, and pushed people to such desperation, that eventually we’re going to engage in a civil war. The souls of nazis are not more important than the lives and safety of their victims. This idealism that you can, or even should save everyone has no solid reasoning in the real world, only in a vacuum, and we do not live in a vacuum. The oscillating between both liberal parties in the US (and other relevant Western countries’ liberal parties) is rapidly coming to an end, and you will find society arriving at their final political destinations: Marxism-Leninism, and Fascism/Nazism. We’re not going to try and engage in extremely expensive ventures of “therapy” for those who are prepared to fight and die to defend capital and empire. We are going to fight them to the death. Once all of those reactionaries are finally gone, they will no-longer be able to enforce their class’ interests upon the proletariat. This is going to happen because we have exhausted all other alternatives. It is the immutable future in the transition from capitalism to socialism, and nothing will change that. It’s best to reserve efforts for those who are malleable enough to be receptive, and prepare for the war that’s coming. Invest in those worth saving, and the others will simply meet us on the battlefield, where our arms will do the talking.
“We’ll kill all our enemies and their voice will never be heard again” is a dead end policy, because all those ideas will emerge again, and we better know how to counter them on an ideological level.
I’m not saying the transition to the communist society will be peaceful and nice - it won’t be - but we should differentiate between the armed resistance and brutal oppression. You won’t shut them up. But you can make your voice heard loud.
You’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve said. This is class war. If an army’s general and strategists, high-ranking officers (etc) die in conflict, they cannot be replaced very easily (if at all). Taking out the brains and strategists behind the empire requires making sure they’re gone, in order to ensure the security of the worker’s dictatorship so it will not be undermined with the threat of counterrevolution. There is no replacement for the US once it goes down, so you telling me “these ideas will emerge again” mean little in the grand scheme. The worker’s state will oppress the bourgeoisie’s ambitions of usurping state power via the power of capital, by pruning them the same way that is done in the People’s Republic of China (take a look at how they crack down on corruption and their billionaires when they step out of line and threaten socialism via privatization and reckless speculation on housing). I don’t care if these ideas “pop up again” from time-to-time, because the brains that harbor them will lack the experience of the old guard that was deposed. The working class has loud voices, and they’re always using them. People who have the wealth, the political and military might to oppose the working class’ interests don’t care about what you want, and will not be “converted” by heartfelt pleas. Being all bark (loud voice) and no bite has never produced a successful revolution anywhere on Earth in history. Politics has little to nothing to do with morals, opinions or disagreements. It has everything to do with class interests. The type of people you defend, the interests of those people, and the type of policies you pursue will expose your interests. You seem to be more adamant about defending people who believe that people’s fundamental humanity is on the table for discussion, which is a red flag. I invite you to contemplate your position, respond in detail about your so-called “solutions” and how they will resolve the threat of hostile minds posing a danger to a worker’s dictatorship. This is a scientific process, not something as intangible as opinions, disagreements or “morals”, which are all subordinate to the interests of the class the person is part of.
My point was (and is), while brutality is inevitable and we won’t take over the world by the power of word alone, we should keep it to revolutionary means, and not to building an oppressive totalitarian state that completely warps the actual meaning of “worker’s dictatorship”.
Exterminating political enemies is necessary to lead a revolution, but it is unsustainable in the long run. Many prominent people pointed out that we should develop class consciousness and understanding of exactly why socialist/communist state is superior and vital for everyone. Just oppressing dissident thoughts will make them burst elsewhere, and at some point cracks will begin to show.
With class consciousness and actual people’s understanding of the matter we can talk about worker’s democracy and worker’s councils (aka Soviets, ironically ruined by the Soviet state itself), and a positive development of the situation without endless struggle and fight.
Again: yes, revolutionary process will require of us that we kill and oppress Nazis, bourgeoisie, and other elements hostile to the means of revolution - that’s necessary and we should do it. But it should be kept to the revolution and actual threats to the state, not any instance of dissident thought. You can’t continuously rule a people-first state with an iron fist, or you’ll turn in into an oppressive bloody dictatorship that benefits no one.
As for China…the story’s a little different. It actively plays with fire on a level at which the true socialist state would already consider it a danger. If anything, I believe China makes the leash on business too loose, but it’s a tradeoff they make to be globally competitive with a big capitalist world. Should we talk about an actual socialism, what happens in China is well beyond a point at which a state should react by cracking down. In a true socialist state, no private business should be able to grow to the level that requires big intervention in the first place (and some would argue it shouldn’t exist at all).
The point of combating ways of thinking hostile to the worker’s state isn’t to twist arms until bones break or tear limbs off. The point is to keep these types from running the country and usurping public discourse. Relevant channels will naturally be developed to give those with grievances a path to express them directly to the government, as is the case in China. China does allow criticism of the government, however matters that are especially sensitive (like the Taiwan issue) are not allowed to be freely discussed without regulation or oversight. Free speech absolutism would serve as a bridgehead for imperialist powers to gain a foothold into the country’s internal affairs, as they’ve already attempted with the grooming of extremist elements in Xinjiang’s Uyghur population. China responded by rehabilitating them once they were discovered, in order to uproot national security threats and threats to the Communist Party without unnecessary loss of life. So, yes, revolution first, reform second. There will be channels for the disgruntled to submit feedback and air grievances, in order to resolve disputes responsibly without unnecessary risk. However, it would be unwise to introduce political chaos by allowing them to speak against the state in an unregulated way without any oversight. The Chinese government works tirelessly to promote class consciousness, develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, and resolve the contradictions within its borders. We will do the same, but will not renounce or rule out the use of force to defend the revolution if individuals with reactionary tendencies develop into national security threats.
You mentioned worker’s councils and worker’s democracy being ruined by the Soviet state itself. This matter is complex and multi-faceted. The Soviet Union was the first and most primitive successful implementation of a socialist union of states, and thus did not have the necessary foresight to safeguard against all possible threats of subversion. They were put under economic blockade by the US, by having their access to the SWIFT payment system revoked. In other words, they had their money turned off in the sense that they couldn’t easily trade with other countries using the international payment system. This resulted in what is known as the “iron curtain”, which was extended to the DPRK and Cuba. They had also been destroyed from the Second World War, having millions upon millions of the most dedicated communists perishing in battle. The Soviet Union should have allowed capitalism to exist alongside state enterprises, in order to partition the forces of capital off into the marketplace and keep them from instead seeking to climb the ranks of the CPSU to pursue their ambitions of living lives of excess. Ultimately, the latter is what caused revisionism to poison and eventually destroy the Soviet Union, as Party officials were seduced by sneaky Western capital’s corrupting influence. China learned from this mistake and allowed capitalists to express and pursue their ambitions within the marketplace, while at the same time keeping them on a tight leash to prevent runaway privatization and usurping of state power, in addition to cracking down on corruption within the CPC itself, even going as far as to pursue retired officials who engaged in corruption to uproot and stamp out threats to the Party’s position and credibility.
The conditions of conglomerates existing in China, like Tencent and Alibaba, are more or less exclusively out of necessity to compete with relevant Western equivalents. In order for China to reduce the size of conglomerates without undermining their position in the global marketplace, the conditions need to be developed. Chinese industry and companies need to be in a position to have surpassed the West’s, and their influence, in order to liberate the global economy from the West’s hegemony. After this is complete, and irreversible, China will gradually work to reduce the size of private enterprise. The CPC recently pivoted to high-quality development and the pursuit of developing China into a modern socialist country in all respects by 2050, which includes worker cooperatives having replaced traditional private enterprise. The current market conditions of China are indeed socialist. It is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and the current conditions correspond to the stage of development socialism has reached within the country. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get carried away by idealist notions of “true socialism” by thinking we can pick and choose which stage of socialism to exist overnight. It must be developed, taking into account the relevant conditions of geopolitics, and the characteristics of the nation itself.
If you have any other concerns you need addressed, I am open to further discussion. If not, I consider this matter closed.
Humans dying is always bad, there’s no reason to be happy about it.
Some dead millionaires doesn’t make communism any closer, and the rest is just a vent for anger at them.
Still, I feel like their riches blew the story out of the proportion. Would it be a few regular people, no one would notice.
One of the billionares, Dawood inherited a company called the Dawood company (family bizz) that during a labour dispute in a factory they owned, the owner ordered the factory be demolished, with the workers still inside.
4 people died and about 40 where injured, I just see this as revenge.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2568939
https://www.dawn.com/news/1715841
Aaaand now his descendants will inherit the company anyway. It’s not even the guy who called the shots who died.
ghosts of those workers had there revenge even if they had to wait a generation
Wrong, at the very least, nazis dying is good
Billionaires paying to drown will not bring communism but it’s pretty damn funny
Nazis figuring out they believe in bullshit is good.
Their death should come as a last resort if they themselves come to threaten someone else (say, Jews).
The working class has run out of patience and time to piddle around with reforming “lost souls”. What matters to working class people, more than anything, is their security, safety, and their livelihoods. The contradictions within the imperial core have become so great, and pushed people to such desperation, that eventually we’re going to engage in a civil war. The souls of nazis are not more important than the lives and safety of their victims. This idealism that you can, or even should save everyone has no solid reasoning in the real world, only in a vacuum, and we do not live in a vacuum. The oscillating between both liberal parties in the US (and other relevant Western countries’ liberal parties) is rapidly coming to an end, and you will find society arriving at their final political destinations: Marxism-Leninism, and Fascism/Nazism. We’re not going to try and engage in extremely expensive ventures of “therapy” for those who are prepared to fight and die to defend capital and empire. We are going to fight them to the death. Once all of those reactionaries are finally gone, they will no-longer be able to enforce their class’ interests upon the proletariat. This is going to happen because we have exhausted all other alternatives. It is the immutable future in the transition from capitalism to socialism, and nothing will change that. It’s best to reserve efforts for those who are malleable enough to be receptive, and prepare for the war that’s coming. Invest in those worth saving, and the others will simply meet us on the battlefield, where our arms will do the talking.
“We’ll kill all our enemies and their voice will never be heard again” is a dead end policy, because all those ideas will emerge again, and we better know how to counter them on an ideological level.
I’m not saying the transition to the communist society will be peaceful and nice - it won’t be - but we should differentiate between the armed resistance and brutal oppression. You won’t shut them up. But you can make your voice heard loud.
You’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve said. This is class war. If an army’s general and strategists, high-ranking officers (etc) die in conflict, they cannot be replaced very easily (if at all). Taking out the brains and strategists behind the empire requires making sure they’re gone, in order to ensure the security of the worker’s dictatorship so it will not be undermined with the threat of counterrevolution. There is no replacement for the US once it goes down, so you telling me “these ideas will emerge again” mean little in the grand scheme. The worker’s state will oppress the bourgeoisie’s ambitions of usurping state power via the power of capital, by pruning them the same way that is done in the People’s Republic of China (take a look at how they crack down on corruption and their billionaires when they step out of line and threaten socialism via privatization and reckless speculation on housing). I don’t care if these ideas “pop up again” from time-to-time, because the brains that harbor them will lack the experience of the old guard that was deposed. The working class has loud voices, and they’re always using them. People who have the wealth, the political and military might to oppose the working class’ interests don’t care about what you want, and will not be “converted” by heartfelt pleas. Being all bark (loud voice) and no bite has never produced a successful revolution anywhere on Earth in history. Politics has little to nothing to do with morals, opinions or disagreements. It has everything to do with class interests. The type of people you defend, the interests of those people, and the type of policies you pursue will expose your interests. You seem to be more adamant about defending people who believe that people’s fundamental humanity is on the table for discussion, which is a red flag. I invite you to contemplate your position, respond in detail about your so-called “solutions” and how they will resolve the threat of hostile minds posing a danger to a worker’s dictatorship. This is a scientific process, not something as intangible as opinions, disagreements or “morals”, which are all subordinate to the interests of the class the person is part of.
My point was (and is), while brutality is inevitable and we won’t take over the world by the power of word alone, we should keep it to revolutionary means, and not to building an oppressive totalitarian state that completely warps the actual meaning of “worker’s dictatorship”.
Exterminating political enemies is necessary to lead a revolution, but it is unsustainable in the long run. Many prominent people pointed out that we should develop class consciousness and understanding of exactly why socialist/communist state is superior and vital for everyone. Just oppressing dissident thoughts will make them burst elsewhere, and at some point cracks will begin to show.
With class consciousness and actual people’s understanding of the matter we can talk about worker’s democracy and worker’s councils (aka Soviets, ironically ruined by the Soviet state itself), and a positive development of the situation without endless struggle and fight.
Again: yes, revolutionary process will require of us that we kill and oppress Nazis, bourgeoisie, and other elements hostile to the means of revolution - that’s necessary and we should do it. But it should be kept to the revolution and actual threats to the state, not any instance of dissident thought. You can’t continuously rule a people-first state with an iron fist, or you’ll turn in into an oppressive bloody dictatorship that benefits no one.
As for China…the story’s a little different. It actively plays with fire on a level at which the true socialist state would already consider it a danger. If anything, I believe China makes the leash on business too loose, but it’s a tradeoff they make to be globally competitive with a big capitalist world. Should we talk about an actual socialism, what happens in China is well beyond a point at which a state should react by cracking down. In a true socialist state, no private business should be able to grow to the level that requires big intervention in the first place (and some would argue it shouldn’t exist at all).
The point of combating ways of thinking hostile to the worker’s state isn’t to twist arms until bones break or tear limbs off. The point is to keep these types from running the country and usurping public discourse. Relevant channels will naturally be developed to give those with grievances a path to express them directly to the government, as is the case in China. China does allow criticism of the government, however matters that are especially sensitive (like the Taiwan issue) are not allowed to be freely discussed without regulation or oversight. Free speech absolutism would serve as a bridgehead for imperialist powers to gain a foothold into the country’s internal affairs, as they’ve already attempted with the grooming of extremist elements in Xinjiang’s Uyghur population. China responded by rehabilitating them once they were discovered, in order to uproot national security threats and threats to the Communist Party without unnecessary loss of life. So, yes, revolution first, reform second. There will be channels for the disgruntled to submit feedback and air grievances, in order to resolve disputes responsibly without unnecessary risk. However, it would be unwise to introduce political chaos by allowing them to speak against the state in an unregulated way without any oversight. The Chinese government works tirelessly to promote class consciousness, develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, and resolve the contradictions within its borders. We will do the same, but will not renounce or rule out the use of force to defend the revolution if individuals with reactionary tendencies develop into national security threats.
You mentioned worker’s councils and worker’s democracy being ruined by the Soviet state itself. This matter is complex and multi-faceted. The Soviet Union was the first and most primitive successful implementation of a socialist union of states, and thus did not have the necessary foresight to safeguard against all possible threats of subversion. They were put under economic blockade by the US, by having their access to the SWIFT payment system revoked. In other words, they had their money turned off in the sense that they couldn’t easily trade with other countries using the international payment system. This resulted in what is known as the “iron curtain”, which was extended to the DPRK and Cuba. They had also been destroyed from the Second World War, having millions upon millions of the most dedicated communists perishing in battle. The Soviet Union should have allowed capitalism to exist alongside state enterprises, in order to partition the forces of capital off into the marketplace and keep them from instead seeking to climb the ranks of the CPSU to pursue their ambitions of living lives of excess. Ultimately, the latter is what caused revisionism to poison and eventually destroy the Soviet Union, as Party officials were seduced by sneaky Western capital’s corrupting influence. China learned from this mistake and allowed capitalists to express and pursue their ambitions within the marketplace, while at the same time keeping them on a tight leash to prevent runaway privatization and usurping of state power, in addition to cracking down on corruption within the CPC itself, even going as far as to pursue retired officials who engaged in corruption to uproot and stamp out threats to the Party’s position and credibility.
The conditions of conglomerates existing in China, like Tencent and Alibaba, are more or less exclusively out of necessity to compete with relevant Western equivalents. In order for China to reduce the size of conglomerates without undermining their position in the global marketplace, the conditions need to be developed. Chinese industry and companies need to be in a position to have surpassed the West’s, and their influence, in order to liberate the global economy from the West’s hegemony. After this is complete, and irreversible, China will gradually work to reduce the size of private enterprise. The CPC recently pivoted to high-quality development and the pursuit of developing China into a modern socialist country in all respects by 2050, which includes worker cooperatives having replaced traditional private enterprise. The current market conditions of China are indeed socialist. It is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and the current conditions correspond to the stage of development socialism has reached within the country. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get carried away by idealist notions of “true socialism” by thinking we can pick and choose which stage of socialism to exist overnight. It must be developed, taking into account the relevant conditions of geopolitics, and the characteristics of the nation itself.
If you have any other concerns you need addressed, I am open to further discussion. If not, I consider this matter closed.