I took a quick look at her comment history and she’s not nearly as bad as a liberal and does advocate for things like abolishing (but not killing) landlords.
But she does kinda come off as an anarkiddie with her wishy-washy comments or her immature worldview.
To be fair even the revolutionaries in China in the 1940s didn’t just kill all the landlords. In fact many of them capitulated and sided with the revolutionaries and were given an equal share in the land redistribution thereafter. We have to remember not to be so bloodthirsty even if the conditions are different here. When the chips fall if there were a powerful left force here in the imperial core there would probably be a similar phenomenon.
Being surrounded by a bunch of communists with guns can be very persuasive.
They didn’t kill all but still a lot, and you have to consider that all of this happened at the end of a long, bloody war. Furthermore, a lot of those landlords didn’t give up but formed the Homecoming Legion to conduct guerilla warfare even after the war had ended.
I just cannot see capitalists giving up their supremacy without either facing overwhelming force or bloodshed, especially because it most likely won’t be them doing the fighting, but, like always, people from the lower classes. They can just sit back and watch and if they lose… well they just move abroad and continue the fight in exile like the White movement did.
So it’s not about being too bloodthirsty, it’s just being consequential about the realities of class-warfare. And I say this as an An-Com.
That’s fine, but if you “advocate” for abolishing landlords but you fold this easily when the laziest wrecker tactics are deployed, you ain’t abolishing landlords when the feds show up and tell you that your tankie friends’ views of people of land are harmful to landlxrds of intersecting backgrounds or whatever.
I admire anarchists but yeah, they lack self-preservation and like I said in my response to Nakoichi, they are completely ignorant of the realities of class-warfare.
I took a quick look at her comment history and she’s not nearly as bad as a liberal and does advocate for things like abolishing (but not killing) landlords. But she does kinda come off as an anarkiddie with her wishy-washy comments or her immature worldview.
To be fair even the revolutionaries in China in the 1940s didn’t just kill all the landlords. In fact many of them capitulated and sided with the revolutionaries and were given an equal share in the land redistribution thereafter. We have to remember not to be so bloodthirsty even if the conditions are different here. When the chips fall if there were a powerful left force here in the imperial core
there would probably be a similar phenomenon.
Being surrounded by a bunch of communists with guns can be very persuasive.
They didn’t kill all but still a lot, and you have to consider that all of this happened at the end of a long, bloody war. Furthermore, a lot of those landlords didn’t give up but formed the Homecoming Legion to conduct guerilla warfare even after the war had ended.
I just cannot see capitalists giving up their supremacy without either facing overwhelming force or bloodshed, especially because it most likely won’t be them doing the fighting, but, like always, people from the lower classes. They can just sit back and watch and if they lose… well they just move abroad and continue the fight in exile like the White movement did.
So it’s not about being too bloodthirsty, it’s just being consequential about the realities of class-warfare. And I say this as an An-Com.
That’s fine, but if you “advocate” for abolishing landlords but you fold this easily when the laziest wrecker tactics are deployed, you ain’t abolishing landlords when the feds show up and tell you that your tankie friends’ views of people of land are harmful to landlxrds of intersecting backgrounds or whatever.
I admire anarchists but yeah, they lack self-preservation and like I said in my response to Nakoichi, they are completely ignorant of the realities of class-warfare.