Every time we chat, and the discussion turns towards capitalism, she’s the one who without any hesitation just says we should kill them all. Now, though, it’s gone further to torture. And she names names. In addition to people like Bezos and Musk, she includes Ben Shapiro, Andrew Tate and others.

I say we should force them to work and maybe learn the error of their ways (After the revolution of course. During it many of these fucks will die and I’ll be glad).

Her current jobs is extremely horrible. She’s being massively overworked, verbally abused and, of course, underpaid. So I get her frustration. But it’s also scary. I don’t want her to get in any trouble.

I don’t know if I should be gently turning her away from imagining a slow and painful torture of capitalists or not. Am I being a lib or is she too extreme?

  • FunkyStuff [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Well there's some use, not to torture at least but every revolution's first step when they achieve control over the courts or if they overthrow the courts is to purge the ancien regime. If the courts in Burkina Faso and Cuba hadn't authorized the executions of the enforcers of the previous reactionary social order, the people would have gotten mob justice otherwise.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Keep in mind, Cuba only killed a handful of hundred people. Like 300 or 700, I can't remember which. They were Batistas worst guys - The torturers and assassins and death squad guys. When the West Germans Fourth Reich finally got their greedy little hands on the files of the dreaded and omniscient Stasi they apparently only found 7 extrajudicial killings. Not seven thousand. Not seven hundred. Not even seventy. Seven.

      When the Nazis surrendered at Stalingrad huge numbers of them died. But when their commanding officer was asked about the deaths he insisted that the Soviets treated them as well as they could. Most of the Nazis died because they weren't on the brink of starvation, they were already starving to death when they finally surrendered and there simply wasn't enough food in the region at that time. A lot of Nazis died in captivity, but from what I understand almost all of them died due to the condition they were in when they surrendered, and due to the horrid scarcity of the war years. As far as I know there was no deliberate program on the part of the Soviets to kill Nazi rank and file troops in any numbers. I was kind of aghast at how lenient the Soviets were with Nazi POWs give the horrible acts of mass murder carried out against Soviet POWs and the innumerable Nazi atrocities. I expected retribution on a massive scale, but as far as I'm aware that isn't what happened. Like don't get me wrong, like 300,000 Nazis died in captivity, but as far as I know it was due to scarcity and privation throughout the USSR in the war years, not any deliberate program of killing. And most of them were eventually repatriated after a few years being held for labor.

      And this is under Stalin. Stalin the fierce and terrible 100 billion victims of communism guy. If Stalin of all people can recognize the value of limiting acts of retribution against literal Nazis captured in the course of a murderous siege that slaughtered a million civilians we can too. If the Red Army soldiers who had witnessed their homes and friends and comrades slaughtered by the Fascist war machine can stay their hands and refrain from torturing every Nazi they encounter to death we can too. If we can't be as collected and pragmatic as the people who suffered in the worst conditions in the worst war in human history we're doing something very, very wrong.

      If I'm wrong about this, if there was some mass program of torturing Nazis, please correct me. But I don't think there was, and I think we have a responsibility to live up to our comrades who lived through the most horrific conditions imaginable without giving in to blood lust and sadism.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      It depends [Puyi] but sure, when it has an extrinsic use that is different

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Rehabilitating Puyi was just good PR as the rest of the feudal class was being liquidated by the revolutionary masses.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          The landlords were killed or driven out by the peasantry for pragmatic reasons (so many people over so much land), but that doesn't represent all of the feudal order. Afaik what remained of the aristocracy, along with many people from the KMT and even some of the Japanese colonial soldiers were reeducated. The CPC took pride in rehabilitating reactionaries where it was viable, though they had no compunctions about consigning them to death where that simply made more sense.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I'm told that in some places where the local lord had genuinely tried to support and aid their peasants the peasants shielded them from violence and they survived the purge. I think that's an important note: The violence wasn't mindless destruction for it's own sake, and there is complexity even in a situation where death was the general rule.