It is only the bourgeoisie who prevent this; they will use violence either through classic oppression of the working class or direct violence to maintain the status quo of exploitation. The workers would love to be peacefully handed the means of production.
This is one of the best way to demonstrate to liberals that they ARE oppressed even if they don’t feel it. We (the proletariat) have no incentive to be violent if a peaceful end to exploitation is possible, but every day we face the obvious fact that the bourgeoisie will never peacefully surrender their way of life even if it is for the greater good of humanity.
I like to point out that the Russian revolution was an anti-war revolution, and occurred as a peaceful protest without any bloodshed.
The bloodshed happened later, when the UK, Japan, the US, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, China, Persia, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Serbia, Romania, Italy, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and others including the left opposition, invaded the soviet republic. The violence always originates in the reaction.
libs be like "yeah they survived the imperialist onslaught against all odds but they had to wait in line for refrigerators"
While it’s real darkest-timeline shit that every other Revolution failed it’s also fucking lucky that the surviving Revolution was in the one of the most difficult-to-invade countries on Earth.
I think there is something to this.
It is the kind of terrain that stretches an invading army to breaking point, particularly because the invading army does not have the local support of the populous. By the same token, it stretches the home army to breaking point if the home army does not have the support of the populous. This inherently gives revolutionaries the advantage when they have actual support.
For this reason it is in fact inevitable that it would be these locations that succeed and you can count on it being countries with similar logistics and/or geographical problems for militaries that such a thing could occur another time.
"OMFG this can't be real, like WTF we beat those pigs twice and we are sending fucking dogs to space now WTFFF"
this is always a good retort when for when the non-communists say that we just want violence or that violence is ideologically enshrined into communism. To that last one, I'd also add that every political system uses violence, either overt violence or the threat of it, to mantain itself, what changes is who the violence is directed at and to what end. Under liberalism, it is overwhelmingly towards the workers and oppressed in service of mantaining hegemony of monopoly capital.
That was the a BIG revelation for me in my political journey.
There is no such thing as a non violent political ideology, period. Every ideology justifies violence, and the extent to which you think it doesn't is the extent to which the ideology has been normalized and accepted in your mind. A huge contention of political discourse is what forms of violence are justified and who they are justified towards. I have seen people turn fucking WHITE when I begin to break down how their ideologies justify violence on a scale that they have normalized so much its never even occurred to them.
I am a communist because as much as we might love to dunk on and advocate violence towards various people: end of the day any of them could choose to renounce capitalism and relinquish their private property. You cannot "choose" to stop being Jewish, or Gay, Transsexual, or even poor as much as libs wish you could.
Non-violent ideology just ends up as willful acquiescence to the most violent ideology. Although the meaning of violence there is kind of broad.
when mongol warriors wanted to avoid spilling noble blood per their customs, they would roll the victim in a carpet and trample or kick them to death
sorry, did this get debunked or something— I have seen it in several sources
if you think I'm trying to argue with OP I was just going on a tangent off the post, it didn't wind up as funny as I'd hoped
It actually slots in perfectly here, you just have the unfortunate luck of being the only irony take in the thread.
Sorry I fall for a chapo prank confirming I'm the biggest lib: the quote was "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" by JFK, but the post said it was by Fidel.
