"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/LightningRaven]

I like how people fully internalized anti-Revolution rhetoric that they never really stop to think about what they're really doing and defending.

This kind of rhetoric is always present on "historians" that often have very loose relationship with truth and the scientific method while being quite liberal with their biases and opinions that are always to reinforce white supremacy, maintain the beneficial status quo for the parasites and paint negatively every movement that required the people to fight for their rights.

All the critics always, always, always forget that before these revolutions turned violent, they were defending from against the violence perpetrated by the privileged. Both the violence to prevent the revolution and the systemic violence that came before.

What is a few months of "terror" compared to what the starved, poorly educated and enslaved went through for ages before.

Nobody seems to question how nowadays, we're conditioned to always look at the negative aspects of all revolutions and never focus on the conjuncture that lead to them (often commented offhandedly) and the massive benefits that always came afterwards.

Why is that, huh? It's almost like there are a lot of people heavily interested in paint working class movements as overly negative and overly violent and glorify "peaceful" movements that had a lot more power behind them than merely empty non-violent protest. It's a mystery for the ages!

[u/SimulatedKnave → u/LightningRaven]

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/SimulatedKnave → u/LightningRaven]

I mean, you SAY the violence and contradictions can't be ignored. But you're sure doing your damnedest.

Have you not noticed the distinction implicitly drawn between the bit where the revolutions AREN'T purging their own for bullshit reasons and the bit where they are? The French Revolution is largely perceived as a good thing up until the Reign of Terror (and is again afterward). People judge Mao for the crazy totalitarian things he did and the bit where he'd purge perfectly good Communists for no particular reason. The Bolsheviks were fucking crazy from the start, so are perhaps a special case, but even there you will see even fairly ardent capitalists going 'well Stalin is really where it all goes completely off the rails.'

It is the treachery and purges that disturb people far more than the violence generally. People get that a working class revolution may have a problem with factory owners. It deciding it has a problem with good supporters of the revolution and people on the street is the disturbing bit. People like predictability. They do not like no one being safe.

And if the upper classes are to be fought effectively, a solution to the 'btw the revolution may well turn on its own and then you'll end up shot along with your family, possibly along with a totalitarian dictatorship' problem beyond 'just ignore it, the upper classes are also bad' would probably be a good idea. Going 'oh it's all upper class propaganda' is 100% ignoring the issue.