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.
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.