I'm not trolling. I'm just telling you how I see it. I don't think we'll get anywhere with this conversation.
Is it that difficult for you to understand that there are people out there who disagree with your assertion that violence is the only way to solve this issue?
Explain to me in detail how the Vietnamese government should have responded to french occupation and U.S invasion without violence, explain to me how the Batista regime could be overthrown without violence, and how the bay of pigs invasion could be repelled without violence. Explain to me how the USSR should have responded to nazi genocide without violence.
I never said that all violence is never justified. There are obviously times when it is. You and I happen to disagree about a few specific instances.
I think you and I would both agree that the populous of Vietnam should have probably fought back against the French when they came to colonize Vietnam. If they had, the future of the entirety of Asia and the rest of the colonized world and colonialism itself may have been changed forever, and you and I might not even need to be having this conversation right now.
Obviously I'm not an expert on southeast asian history, but from what I understand, Vietnam was a monarchy/empire before the french arrived, and a relatively weak one, apparently. The people should have been able to rise up before the French even got there, to take power from the monarchs themselves. But that very idea was foreign to them, and it seems they were relatively satisfied with the status-quo before the French got there.
So, I guess the best course of action for everyone is to just leave everyone alone? I don't know. There's a lot I don't know.
You literally said there is no acceptable amount of deaths to protect a socialist project. I asked you how a response to capitalist aggression is possible without violence, and you don't seem to have a response. You can disagree with the actions taken by a socialist state, but you better actually research the circumstances before you voice your criticism, instead of basely citing to western propaganda and doubling down when called out. To insist an action is wrong when you haven't even done enough research to formulate an alternative, let alone the bare minimum research to understand why the action was taken in the first place, just reeks of pure western chauvinism.
Acceptance and justification are two very different things.
how a response to capitalist aggression is possible without violence
Mahatma Gandhi had some very effective techniques.
To insist an action is wrong when you haven’t even done enough research to formulate an alternative, let alone the bare minimum research to understand why the action was taken in the first place, just reeks of pure western chauvinism.
Mahatma Gandhi had some very effective techniques.
God damn it, I let you bait me again. You are a fucking amazing troll, you know that? If you are serious, though I find that very unlikely, then do some research on Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army if you think Indian independence was solely the product of non violence.
Like seriously though, amazing trolling, you even call me inexperienced and then just point to Gandhi like that even remotely covered my question, top shelf . :bait:
Ok, lets accept your thesis for a moment that the decolonization of India was entirely possible through nonviolent means, how do those lessons apply in the context of a socialist state maintaining sovereignty in the face of capitalist aggression? You cannot non violently resist an invading army, peacefully resisting a coup wont stop you from getting shot.
how do those lessons apply in the context of a socialist state maintaining sovereignty in the face of capitalist aggression? You cannot non violently resist an invading army, peacefully resisting a coup wont stop you from getting shot.
Again, I turn to you to the words of Gandhi:
We will not strike a blow – but we will receive them. And through our pain we will make them see their injustice. And it will hurt, as all fighting hurts! But we cannot lose. We cannot. Because they may torture my body, may break my bones, even kill me . . . They will then have my dead body – not my obedience.
Ok, lets pretend I'm Castro, the Americans have gathered an army of Gusanos that want to restore a brutal regime of mafiosos and fascists, I do not attack them when they land because that would be wrong I guess. I don't attack them when the storm my compound either. I look real smug when they shoot me too, cause I know I'm morally superior. Cuba is restored as a client state of America, and 30 years after I'm dead in the ground and America is tiered of raping my country and it is no longer economically or politically viable to directly control Cuba my people are able to regain sovereignty again through peaceful protest. Then they elect a slightly left of center president and he is immediately assassinated, because even if America isn't directly controlling things in my country they still have the finally say, but at least we were morally correct. Does that sound about right to you? Or do you imagine somehow things would magically work out in this scenario.
It's all a numbers and marketing game, honestly. If you're able to get enough people to follow you, then the Gusanos wouldn't even try to land. Gandhi had the marketing absolutely nailed for his audience, and his people outnumbered the british by at least 1000:1 or something.
Do you not know what the Bay of Pigs invasion was? They did try to land despite the overwhelming support for Castro and the revolution. They were then soundly crushed, why do you think it would be better if they Cuban's never fought back? And remember in the following decades these gusanos would engage in random acts of terrorism on civilians, if you let them in there is no appealing to their humanity, they wanted blood. There is no realistic scenario where allowing them to inflict violence without push back will change their minds and get them to leave. So again, why sacrifice the lives of countless Cuban revolutionaries and peasants to protect some mafiosos and fascists, why is that the better strategy? Why is that even the more moral strategy? I 100% guarantee less lives were lost from resisting the Bay of Pigs, would you insist on Gandhi's strategy even if it is going to result in far more death?
The Bay of Pigs was a) a farce and b) completely different from Gandhi's India situation.
Every situation is different. But I firmly believe that Gandhi's method of getting the people on your side, and resisting occupying forces with nonviolence is the best strategy.
Then fucking explain how it would have worked in Cuba, Jesus fucking Christ. It was a farce because the Cuban government was militarily prepared and destroyed them, it would have been a lot less farcical if they met them with "nonviolence", how do you not understand this? You truly must be trolling, there is no other explanation.
I'm not trolling. I'm just telling you how I see it. I don't think we'll get anywhere with this conversation.
Is it that difficult for you to understand that there are people out there who disagree with your assertion that violence is the only way to solve this issue?
Explain to me in detail how the Vietnamese government should have responded to french occupation and U.S invasion without violence, explain to me how the Batista regime could be overthrown without violence, and how the bay of pigs invasion could be repelled without violence. Explain to me how the USSR should have responded to nazi genocide without violence.
I never said that all violence is never justified. There are obviously times when it is. You and I happen to disagree about a few specific instances.
I think you and I would both agree that the populous of Vietnam should have probably fought back against the French when they came to colonize Vietnam. If they had, the future of the entirety of Asia and the rest of the colonized world and colonialism itself may have been changed forever, and you and I might not even need to be having this conversation right now.
Obviously I'm not an expert on southeast asian history, but from what I understand, Vietnam was a monarchy/empire before the french arrived, and a relatively weak one, apparently. The people should have been able to rise up before the French even got there, to take power from the monarchs themselves. But that very idea was foreign to them, and it seems they were relatively satisfied with the status-quo before the French got there.
So, I guess the best course of action for everyone is to just leave everyone alone? I don't know. There's a lot I don't know.
You literally said there is no acceptable amount of deaths to protect a socialist project. I asked you how a response to capitalist aggression is possible without violence, and you don't seem to have a response. You can disagree with the actions taken by a socialist state, but you better actually research the circumstances before you voice your criticism, instead of basely citing to western propaganda and doubling down when called out. To insist an action is wrong when you haven't even done enough research to formulate an alternative, let alone the bare minimum research to understand why the action was taken in the first place, just reeks of pure western chauvinism.
Acceptance and justification are two very different things.
Mahatma Gandhi had some very effective techniques.
And to assume this reeks of inexperience.
God damn it, I let you bait me again. You are a fucking amazing troll, you know that? If you are serious, though I find that very unlikely, then do some research on Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army if you think Indian independence was solely the product of non violence.
Like seriously though, amazing trolling, you even call me inexperienced and then just point to Gandhi like that even remotely covered my question, top shelf . :bait:
I'm not trolling dude. And I pay no heed to nazi collaborators.
I'm not saying he's a good dude, I'm saying that he had a direct impact on Indian independence, that's inarguable
It's... arguable, maybe. But the British were never really threatened by him, whereas they WERE threatened by the power of Gandhi.
Ok, lets accept your thesis for a moment that the decolonization of India was entirely possible through nonviolent means, how do those lessons apply in the context of a socialist state maintaining sovereignty in the face of capitalist aggression? You cannot non violently resist an invading army, peacefully resisting a coup wont stop you from getting shot.
Again, I turn to you to the words of Gandhi:
Ok, lets pretend I'm Castro, the Americans have gathered an army of Gusanos that want to restore a brutal regime of mafiosos and fascists, I do not attack them when they land because that would be wrong I guess. I don't attack them when the storm my compound either. I look real smug when they shoot me too, cause I know I'm morally superior. Cuba is restored as a client state of America, and 30 years after I'm dead in the ground and America is tiered of raping my country and it is no longer economically or politically viable to directly control Cuba my people are able to regain sovereignty again through peaceful protest. Then they elect a slightly left of center president and he is immediately assassinated, because even if America isn't directly controlling things in my country they still have the finally say, but at least we were morally correct. Does that sound about right to you? Or do you imagine somehow things would magically work out in this scenario.
I don't know why you're bothering with this but I salute you lol
i don't know either, too much reddit brain poisoning probably
Just sit back and patiently await the ban :grillman:
It's all a numbers and marketing game, honestly. If you're able to get enough people to follow you, then the Gusanos wouldn't even try to land. Gandhi had the marketing absolutely nailed for his audience, and his people outnumbered the british by at least 1000:1 or something.
Do you not know what the Bay of Pigs invasion was? They did try to land despite the overwhelming support for Castro and the revolution. They were then soundly crushed, why do you think it would be better if they Cuban's never fought back? And remember in the following decades these gusanos would engage in random acts of terrorism on civilians, if you let them in there is no appealing to their humanity, they wanted blood. There is no realistic scenario where allowing them to inflict violence without push back will change their minds and get them to leave. So again, why sacrifice the lives of countless Cuban revolutionaries and peasants to protect some mafiosos and fascists, why is that the better strategy? Why is that even the more moral strategy? I 100% guarantee less lives were lost from resisting the Bay of Pigs, would you insist on Gandhi's strategy even if it is going to result in far more death?
The Bay of Pigs was a) a farce and b) completely different from Gandhi's India situation.
Every situation is different. But I firmly believe that Gandhi's method of getting the people on your side, and resisting occupying forces with nonviolence is the best strategy.
Then fucking explain how it would have worked in Cuba, Jesus fucking Christ. It was a farce because the Cuban government was militarily prepared and destroyed them, it would have been a lot less farcical if they met them with "nonviolence", how do you not understand this? You truly must be trolling, there is no other explanation.
:LIB:
Libertarian Anarchist, yes. Anarcho-Communist, yes.