GarbageShootAlt2

You can believe that people have different needs and that we don’t all need to be absolutely 1:1 equal in terms of our material possessions etc.

Wonder how this relates to Marxism . . .

The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.

All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.

Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.”

-- some guy, I guess

Instead of engaging with sources, you're trying to pigeonhole this into a ridiculous Holocaust comparison like every atrocity propagandist does.

There were four broad categories of people: The PLA, violent insurgents, civilian protestors (who were there for many different reasons), and also uninvolved bystanders (it's still the capitol of the country after all). There were something like 300 deaths in the area, consisting of members of each of these groups, though I don't know the relative numbers offhand.

No one is denying that civilians died. No one is arguing that those civilians should have died. This is very clear and you're the one being slippery by hinting vaguely at "inching closer" and "plausible deniability" and so on. It's shameful behavior.

You insinuated that there was violence between the two. Like, if I talk about "the poor IDF soldier who was terrorized by children with stones" everyone knows that the irony behind the statement is that the IDF soldier inflicted incomparable violence on the children in that situation. What is not suggested by your remark is that the tanks behaved appropriately by stopping and not threatening the man.

You're just being obtuse in the fashion of a vulgar debatebro.

I sure wish the Democrats had the same awareness.

The Democrats know, they just don't give a shit, and their alliance just leans more towards the international bourgeoisie than Republicans, who favor the national bourgeoisie. They would only be a "threat" if they represented a distinct force that would overtake them, which would imply Democrats are on a different side. Whose side could the Democrats possibly be on except the American and to some extent international bourgeoisie? They certainly are not on the side of the people, and you need only look at voting discourse for a fraction of an instant to see that the Dems don't give a shit about popular sentiments and are happy to tell their otherwise-supporters who want the genocide in Gaza to end that they are Iranian assets or otherwise "Pro-terrorist".

You argue both that there was no massacre and that violent force against the protesters was justified if it did happen.

Seems like one is meant to excuse the other if disproven (Edie is also innocently mistaken in its reading)

He is plainly saying that the violence that happened was not a massacre.

But I shall play the smallest violin for those poor unarmed tanks killed by violent protesters and their terrifying grocery bags.

It's wild that you do the tank man meme after you get linked footage showing that tank man a) did not get run over and b) was blocking tanks from leaving the square.

But davel wasn't talking about that conflict when he was talking about state actors being slaughtered, he was talking about unarmed soldiers being burned to death by petrol bombs and then having their corpses strung up for display as the first shots fired in the conflict between the violent insurrectionists hiding among the protestors and the military.

What use does anyone have talking to hasbara scum who says "Yeah, those ethnicities get unequal rights, but . . ."? You have an unserious position based on zionist chauvinism and are willing to use obfuscation and sleight-of-hand to try to sway people toward it. If there was even a single soul other than myself reading this, I could probably get myself to go through it point by point (even though it would involve the odious task of defending Japan), but I don't see anyone around to write such a thing for, so I only keep writing to you because I am very compulsive in that regard.

I found the smartest hasbara-spewer.

The leftmost in an array of rightwing parties, anyway

There was logistical involvement from the USSR itself, which is what I thought you were referring to. I have nothing to say one way or another about internal factionalism, besides that the whole basis of your riff is still equivocating with or in fact making the Communists out to be worse than the Francoists, which I find to be in poor taste. You come off even worse than those dweebs who fellate the Makhnovist.

Do you have nothing to say to Cowbee?

Utopianism isn't really a movement, though there are of course movements that are Utopian. Utopian is a specialized definition. Conquest of Bread is the most classic kind of Utopian literature, trying to puzzle out a way of building society from the ground up to not have the social ills and poverty Kropotkin saw in his time. Not all anarchists are Utopians (not all of them concern themselves specifically with the positive machinations of the proposed final circumstances), but Kropotkin definitely was.

Hate to be betrayed by not having enough tanks sent to me. Maybe if the Spanish anarchists had all the military equipment they wanted, they would have won, but the war-torn Russians couldn't afford to waste equipment on the shittily organized anarchists, so now I'm going to whinge about it for a century as though that makes them equivalent to (or worse than) the fascists who actually killed them!