all im saying is even if you got rid of the money, the reactionary institutions, did as much education as possible, and most importantly abolished private property. there will always be people who will threaten progress with their beliefs. sure we can certainly reduce their numbers through nonviolent means, but just given enough time, reactionary outbursts are going to happen, and that is when the use of force is necessary, and it would be best to use it proactively before they can. and thats why i think nonviolence is incompatible with communism. we are always gonna need a guillotine on standby.
I know what you're saying, you don't have to repeat yourself.
You clearly don't understand what reactionary means nor what causes reaction. You're using "reactionary" as a stand in for "evil" and positing a moral realism wherein there are good "progressives" and evil "reactionaries". This is idealist.
Non-violence is incompatible with physics, let alone communism. But not because we're constantly going to be fighting against would be warlords. Warlordism will become untenable as a strategy for accumulation under communism. That is one of the ways we know that we have achieved sustainable communism, when it is more effective for anyone to collaborate for resources than it is to compete for resources. So long as we have scarcity we will have the risk of warlordism and therefore we will have the state and therefore we will not have achieved communism yet.
But all of that is based on a material analysis of the system. It does not need appeals to human nature, it has a historically materialist analysis of reaction and reactionaries, and it does not rely on utopianism nor idealism.
Your position is not merely a difference of opinion, it is uninformed.
all im saying is even if you got rid of the money, the reactionary institutions, did as much education as possible, and most importantly abolished private property. there will always be people who will threaten progress with their beliefs. sure we can certainly reduce their numbers through nonviolent means, but just given enough time, reactionary outbursts are going to happen, and that is when the use of force is necessary, and it would be best to use it proactively before they can. and thats why i think nonviolence is incompatible with communism. we are always gonna need a guillotine on standby.
I know what you're saying, you don't have to repeat yourself.
You clearly don't understand what reactionary means nor what causes reaction. You're using "reactionary" as a stand in for "evil" and positing a moral realism wherein there are good "progressives" and evil "reactionaries". This is idealist.
Non-violence is incompatible with physics, let alone communism. But not because we're constantly going to be fighting against would be warlords. Warlordism will become untenable as a strategy for accumulation under communism. That is one of the ways we know that we have achieved sustainable communism, when it is more effective for anyone to collaborate for resources than it is to compete for resources. So long as we have scarcity we will have the risk of warlordism and therefore we will have the state and therefore we will not have achieved communism yet.
But all of that is based on a material analysis of the system. It does not need appeals to human nature, it has a historically materialist analysis of reaction and reactionaries, and it does not rely on utopianism nor idealism.
Your position is not merely a difference of opinion, it is uninformed.