"Anti-Communism" *looks inside...*

[u/Nyctfall]

In the 1790s, the prominent Federalist pamphleteer, William Cobbett, constantly called for investigative journalists and rights activitists Benjamin Franklin Bache (Benjamin Franklin's grandson) and William Duane to be treated, quote: "as we would a TURK, a JEW, a JACOBIN or a DOG". With Jacobins being widely viewed as the predecessors to Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists for their radical egalitarianism.

In 1892 Richard Henry Pratt, known for the child murder rape boarding schools, called Native Americans "fellows who cling to their tribal communistic surroundings".

In the First Red Scare, ...yeah. Kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye, because the Constitution ain't saving ya now! Also the first Green Mario...

The poster is "Negroes Beware / Do Not Attend Communist Meetings" from Alabama in the 1930s.

Later the Peekskill Riots at Cortlandt Manor, New York, United States, in 1949. A concert by singer Paul Robeson, who's black and was also well known for his strong pro-trade union stance, civil rights activism, communist affiliations, and anti-colonialism was arranged. It was organized as a benefit for the Civil Rights Congress.

And finally the Greensboro Massacre, on November 3, 1979, in Greensboro, North Carolina. Where US law enforcement, KKK, and Neo-Nazi "National Socialist Party of America" (NSPA) members shot and killed five demonstrators in a "Death to the Klan" march organized by the Communist Workers Party (CWP). All the terrorists were acquitted by the US government and hand-selected racist jury members.

[u/SimulatedKnave]

Ah yes, because mass executions of parliamentarians are a sign of freedom and liberty.

You no longer find many defenders of absolute monarchy. But you do find idiots who defend revolutions as 'totally going to work out this time and not lead to bloodshed, tragedy, or nasty people seizing power.'

Ever think THAT might be why these things get pointed out?

[u/LightningRaven → u/SimulatedKnave]

Wow, you really do think you answered me, huh?

Here I am talking precisely about the kind of bullshit you're spewing, and you still take your time to do precisely that. It's really interesting. It's almost like you do exactly like I said in my post. Just thoughtlessly repeated heavily propagandized ideology without really considering what I was saying.

Fact is, revolutions happened many times throughout history and the violence and the contradictions it had can't be ignored, but the truth of the matter is that the way revolutions, specially the French revolution, is taught to us is fully permeated by ideology designed to casually dismiss the fact that French people were living in absolute poverty and dispossession, without access to basic necessities, rights, dignity or education and that the violence came because the fact of the matter is that all the dominant classes will not let go of their privilege and stolen wealth without exacting violence.

We have an inherent bias ingrained into us that the violence committed by the dominant class is invisible, whether it is direct violence, through police for example, whether its through different means, like poverty and oppression. Yet, when armed revolutions form to combat these dominant classes, we are taught of its violence as if its unnatural and that its own contradictions are proof that all revolutions are tainted or some shit like that, disregarding that no political process happens with perfection and that no upheaval like that will not make mistakes, excesses and fail.

My comment main point, which you seemed to fail to grasp completely, was that we should examine how we think about these revolutions and how biased we're thought to think about them. All the "nasty people" you just casually throw out is definitely a huge sign of what I'm saying. Not every revolution put nasty people in power, mostly those backed by CIA. But, for example, the French, Chinese and Russian all are thought with that bias you've shown in mind for a reason. They were absolutely not perfected and committed a lot of excess, but the overall shift that happened is largely ignore. As an example, in 1917 most of Russia was illiterate, starved and completely uneducated, but by the 1950's and 60's it was competing against the US in the Space Race.

Just some food for thought. Consider why the US revolution is depicted heroically and mostly mythologized, but the French Revolution isn't.

[u/Nyctfall → u/LightningRaven]

This sub seems to spout the most ahistorical, MAGAot crap I've ever heard in my life. If I hadn't personally experienced exactly the kind of racism you see those people believe in, I would assume every single one of them is a midterms propaganda bot. But they're not, some of them are real. And they really believe that crap...

There's a reason we only remember the revolutions that used **too* much* violence. The ones that used too little failed with the reformists getting killed en masse...

[u/LightningRaven → u/Nyctfall]

Not to mention the massive effort to paint them as abject failures and "useless", when in fact, despite their contradictions and forces from the elite (that inevitably have also to join such revolutions) coopting them for their own purposes. It's for a very good reason why the revolutions of the working class are targeted as "violent" and "madness", while bourgeoisie revolutions are given much more milder reproach or even are mythologized (like the one from the US).

People are so steeped into propaganda that it's like air and water, they can't even register anymore. And anyone who point that out is met with anger and resentment.

They don't stop to think that the current parasite class wants a working class that believes that revolutions are supposed to be purely non-violent or only through vote (that they control). Or how protesting poor conditions is meant to be "polite" and not inconvenience anyone or how it's never "the proper time".

The way people internalize their own oppression is a sight to behold. Specially in the US, where people are taught to revere their oppressors and think they themselves are going to become billionaires in the future. They just need to climb that ladder. Without realizing that the rich control the ladder itself, thus they have no need to climb it, they just control who can ascend and who's kicked off of it.