PRIMARY VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
1-I heard it was a "tankie" wiki, so I came to start a discussion.
2-Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism. I believe that a bloody revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat are unnecessary and even counter-productive to our goals of a more egalitarian and compassionate society.
3-I disagree with your support of socialist dictatorships. "Dictatorships of the proletariat" are often smokescreens for tyranny in the name of socialism, with China and North Korea, in addition to being totalitarian state capitalist and Orwellian monarcho-theocratic regimes respectfully, not even calling themselves Marxist-Leninist. In addition, your support of theocratic and kleptocratic states because they "oppose NATO imperialism" is nonsensical, especially when Russia and China also engage in imperialist escapades, both beyond their borders and inside them (in the form of cultural genocide).
4-I support LGBTQIA+.
5-Stalin and Mao were totalitarian tyrants with a red coat of paint.
6-China is more capitalist than the Nordic countries and North Korea is an unholy hybrid of Orwellian dystopia, fascist state, fundamentalist theocracy, absolute monarchy and Kool-Aid-chugging cult. I haven't heard much about the others.
SECONDARY VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
2-A non-AuthSoc/"tankie" perspective to start discussions over.
3-I think Native Americans should be allowed to return to their ancestral lands, and be given more rights.
4-I dont know about Marxist-Feminism, but I am a feminist myself.
5-Nonononono. No breaking up families to raise kids in Huxleyan labs, if that's what you're implying.
6-I'm not sure. For Singapore, shifting the PAP back towards it's SocDem, roots. For the UK, fixing the Conservative mess. For Hong Kong, liberating it from Chinese control.
7-I don't quite see much of one, apart from, like, neo-feudalists (fuck feudalists).
8-Both sides need to find peace. Hamas and the current Israeli administration are both just making things worse.
No one said that the proletarian revolution has to be bloody. Even no one said that there has to be violence. However, the bourgeoisie will first resort to violence. See 1905 in Russia. The red terror was also only a reaction to the white terror. It is up to the bourgeoisie how a revolution will take place. I hope it is understandable what I am trying to say
I think you are being clear, I think Liberals have trouble understanding this dynamic. Even among those close to me when we talk socialism, they tent to favor the "why do socialists have to kill to take power" perspective. I say, well, if we ask for it, they don't give us power. If we take it peacefully via strike or protest, they create violence with a legal system that only protects property owners, when we begin to fight back, they escalate, when we actually fight, we're called 'fascists' because "we're the ones breaking the law" (The laws that the property owners created to protect themselves).
But Liberals stick to their guns... "Then change the laws!!". Okay, do it. Change the law, go on, I'm tired of talking. Do it. You can't, can you.... You can't vote in who you want, everyone on the ballot have licked boot to get the money to be ahead, they aren't on your side. The judges have licked boot, the lawyers live off the boot.
Oh sure, there are some people on our side. They run for president and get like 3% of the vote. They are lawyers that refuse to work for big-corp, and get paid 50k/yr to do good work, etc. But the judges that work toward "rehabilitation" instead of "retaliation" are considered "soft on crime". Those lawyers are "not successful". Those progressive candidates "steal votes from the dems". Here we are, doing the work, and the Libs don't care.
So yeah, if we want to make change, it's up to the bourgeoisie to determine how it goes. But they will always pick violence.