Controversial General Political Discussion

[Uncle Van]

Not same but he did advocate.

In his communist manifesto, Karl Marx said - The Communists… openly declare that their ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow" of all existing social conditions.

Later, at communist league he said - There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society… can be shortened… "revolutionary terror."

For him, violence is necessary if required. He didn't glorify it but he advocated it clearly.

That is not the advocacy for violence like most associate it with. As I said, many think of Stalin, Lenin, and the actual violent revolutions when they think of Marxism. They assume Marxist WANT violence and that the theory is about spreading violence. They say "They're Marxist!" in the vein that they want violence for the sake of it, and has the goal of ruining the lives of everyone. Aimless rioters and gangs per se. Karl Marx and Marxism does not/did not preach violence like Revolutionary Marxism and Leninism.

Marxism is the belief that class war is the central driving force of historical change, and that capitalism by its very nature exploits and creates class inequality, and therefore must be supplanted. It also believes that revolution is inevitable because the exploitation will not stop until revolution starts.

However, Karl Marx did advocate for peaceful solutions if possible, and believed that Democratic avenues to social and economic changes should be taken if available to achieve peaceful process. He just thought that in most situations, democratic process in unavailable for the nation, leaving revolution the only option left. A revolutionist believes any process that isn't revolution is futile.

Marxism = "yeah he gonna blow it up at this rate. Might as well get ready if shit doesnt change."

Revolutionist and Leninism= "Let's blow that shit up right now! "

 

[Logiko]

That is not the advocacy for violence like most associate it with. As I said, many think of Stalin, Lenin, and the actual violent revolutions when they think of Marxism. They assume Marxist WANT violence and that the theory is about spreading violence. They say "They're Marxist!" in the vein that they want violence for the sake of it, and has the goal of ruining the lives of everyone. Aimless rioters and gangs per se. Karl Marx and Marxism does not/did not preach violence like Revolutionary Marxism and Leninism.

Marxism is the belief that class war is the central driving force of historical change, and that capitalism by its very nature exploits and creates class inequality, and therefore must be supplanted. It also believes that revolution is inevitable because the exploitation will not stop until revolution starts.

However, Karl Marx did advocate for peaceful solutions if possible, and believed that Democratic avenues to social and economic changes should be taken if available to achieve peaceful process. He just thought that in most situations, democratic process in unavailable for the nation, leaving revolution the only option left. A revolutionist believes any process that isn't revolution is futile.

Marxism = "yeah he gonna blow it up at this rate. Might as well get ready if shit doesnt change."

Revolutionist and Leninism= "Let's blow that shit up right now! "

Also it's worth noting that even among revolutionnaries of today (in the west mostly) some people consider non violence as the way forward as a real revolution would be most likely suicidal.

The movements of organisations are prioritized.

 

[RyoQ]

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Seems like Aramaki was tailor made for you

 

[Blax Blah]

 

[Blax Blah]

Penguin chads respect everyone's dignity whether they have human rights or not

 

[Reborn]

That is not the advocacy for violence like most associate it with. As I said, many think of Stalin, Lenin, and the actual violent revolutions when they think of Marxism. They assume Marxist WANT violence and that the theory is about spreading violence. They say "They're Marxist!" in the vein that they want violence for the sake of it, and has the goal of ruining the lives of everyone. Aimless rioters and gangs per se. Karl Marx and Marxism does not/did not preach violence like Revolutionary Marxism and Leninism.

Marxism is the belief that class war is the central driving force of historical change, and that capitalism by its very nature exploits and creates class inequality, and therefore must be supplanted. It also believes that revolution is inevitable because the exploitation will not stop until revolution starts.

However, Karl Marx did advocate for peaceful solutions if possible, and believed that Democratic avenues to social and economic changes should be taken if available to achieve peaceful process. He just thought that in most situations, democratic process in unavailable for the nation, leaving revolution the only option left. A revolutionist believes any process that isn't revolution is futile.

Marxism = "yeah he gonna blow it up at this rate. Might as well get ready if shit doesnt change."

Revolutionist and Leninism= "Let's blow that shit up right now! "

You are correct to certain extent.

Karl did say - change can occur peacefully in some cases, however, I would add that Marx believed revolution or use of force is inevitable because there would be resistance from the ruling class.

He didn't preach for violence. He didn't see violence as a goal or a mean which is always necessary.

But he endorsed its use. He even often used strong words regarding violence which makes his stance clear on the matter.

Obviously this isn't as extreme as what we saw later on.

 

[Blax Blah]

Man I will just mention this here since we talked about transgender people and hormones a little bit ago

I said I really hate the idea of trt for men, just found out one of the side effects of trt can also be sleep apnea, worsening sleep, and sleep is the state when natural test is produced, crazy how trt completely destroys the body

 

[Apollo]

https://www.lloydslist.com/LL115665...g-corridor-for-approved-and-paid-for-transits

Iran is moving to formally regulate all shipping going through the strait now.

Multiple governments including India, Pakistan, Iraq, Malaysia and China are all understood to be discussing vessel transit plans directly with Tehran, where officials within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have established a nascent ship registration system for “approved” vessels to agree safe passage.
At least nine ships have now exited the strait via the “safe” corridor that routes ships through Iranian territorial waters via Iran’s Larak Island, which is used by the IRGC Navy and port authority to assess visual confirmation of the vessels.

 

[Apollo]

The latest attacks on Iran's oil infrastructure was a stupid move by US/Israel. This is a tit for tat war, and if you cannot take the consequences of the escalation, then don't escalate in the first place. Iran striking oil infrastructure in the Gulf and Israel causes trouble worldwide, and by Iran making sure its retaliating rather than starting the strikes on this infrastructure its winning the information war.

Now the US is talking about lifting sanctions on IRANIAN oil to relieve some of the shocks the strikes caused. Clown planning.

Last month, the Treasury's Secretary was talking about how sanctions were successful in hurting Iran's economy and leading to the protests in December: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dx2Pg4bKNxw?feature=share
I doubt any long term vision or planning was made regarding this war at all.

 

[Midnight Delight]

I doubt any long term vision or planning was made regarding this war at all

It was likely Reza lying about his insiders in Iran and Bibi going along with it to Trump because he wants an excuse to be pardoned from his trial(war)

 

[Blax Blah]

Btw @Zenos7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_abolitionism

"Although some Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement.[1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements."



Christianity is responsible for the abolitionist movement

 

[Blax Blah]

"
In the fourth century, the bishop Gregory of Nyssa articulated a fundamentally Christian conception of the world that embedded a thorough rejection of the notion that one human could be owned by another and a condemnation of the institution of slavery. The historian Kyle Harper writes:

Humans were granted mastery over the animals by God. But in practicing slavery, humans overstepped the boundaries of their appointment. Gregory proceeded to attack slavery by questioning, philosophically, the paradigmatic act of the slave system: the sale. With penetrating insight, he asked how the human being, the rational creation of God, could be given a "price." What, he asked, could have the same market value as human nature? "How much does rationality cost? How many obols for the image of God? How many staters did you get for selling the God-formed man?" Here Gregory offers a logic that was entirely novel in the ancient world but would reverberate in later centuries with tremendous consequence. "​

 

[MonochromeYoru]

4 European Union Nations including France, UK and Japan have agreed to help US to secure Hormuz

Is Japan sending PS5 pros this time?

 

[Zenos7]

Btw @Zenos7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_abolitionism

"Although some Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement.[1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements."



Christianity is responsible for the abolitionist movement

Congrats

 

[Midnight Delight]

Feels good knowing that we banned slavery before any of you, including the self righteous Perfidious Albion

 

[Reborn]

The latest attacks on Iran's oil infrastructure was a stupid move by US/Israel. This is a tit for tat war, and if you cannot take the consequences of the escalation, then don't escalate in the first place. Iran striking oil infrastructure in the Gulf and Israel causes trouble worldwide, and by Iran making sure its retaliating rather than starting the strikes on this infrastructure its winning the information war.

Now the US is talking about lifting sanctions on IRANIAN oil to relieve some of the shocks the strikes caused. Clown planning.

Last month, the Treasury's Secretary was talking about how sanctions were successful in hurting Iran's economy and leading to the protests in December: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dx2Pg4bKNxw?feature=share
I doubt any long term vision or planning was made regarding this war at all.

I think it's more to do with elections and I am not talking about US midterm elections.

Iran proxy war through Hamaz and Hezbollah is not hidden from anyone. There's strong dislike for Iran in Israel. You can say popular sentiments is in favor of taking action against Iran.

Bibi has been advocating actions against Iran for a long time as well but his hands were tied.


This year Israel has legislative elections and survey was showing that Bibi's party was behind in polls.

I think war against Iran became a domestic political necessity for Bibi.

At the same time, Trump was on hot seat due to Greenland fiasco followed by Epstein files.


So perhaps both thought a campaign against Iran would help them more in elections.

But I don't think they expected Khamenei's death and Iran's hard stance which followed leading to Hormuz control.

Now, you can clearly see the difference in their stance.

Bibi says it was bound to a long term campaign while Trump who isn't so diplomatically tuned said it was weeks long campaign.

Short campaign is also evident from build up around Hormuz before war started. I doubt US can make such a strategic blunder if they were planning or were anticipating long campaign.

 

[Reborn]

Is Japan sending PS5 pros this time?

They are sending SHs crew

 

[Midnight Delight]

This year Israel has legislative elections and survey was showing that Bibi's party was behind in polls.

It's still behind tho

He pretty much relies on Haredim , Far Right Mizrahim and Far Right Muslims(Mansoor Abbas) for control

 

[Reborn]

It's still behind tho

He pretty much relies on Haredim , Far Right Mizrahim and Far Right Muslims(Mansoor Abbas) for control

Okay but this further shows that it can't be coincidence that both Trump and Bibi's were under domestic political pressure, had elections this year and outlook for both weren't looking good.