• gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why, also, do you conflate violence against workers or minorities with violence against liberals (and people mislead and cynically used by said liberals). These are not the same thing, and no socialist I know is opposed to political violence in principle. And neither, by the way, are liberals. One of these things is clearly always wrong, the other is or is not, depending on the circumstances.

    • soulless@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most I know are generally opposed to violence, with some exceptions allowed for any revolution or class struggle.

      When it comes to countries like the US or China, using violence in the form of the military or police against your own population is such a big difference in power that any violence ought to be as minimal as possible.

      Using tanks and rifles against a group of civilians is so far beyond that, that it’s not within what I think any of the IRL socialists I know would deem appropriate or acceptable.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, understandable. But a bunch of lib students who think they deserve better careers and want to do full on shock therapy probably shouldn’t be put in the same category as marginalized groups that do not want to eat shit constantly.