“Mass murder” is dishonest. Revolution is violent, but is a response to violence. It’s self-defense. Either way, those are the groups most harmed by socialism historically, so when someone tells me they wish these groups haunt me, I can only say that I won’t shed a tear for them. Same as the United Healthcare CEO that got Luigi’d.

There is no class.

Well, that’s a new one on me. I’ve seen people argue that the earth is flat, but this is the first time I’ve seen somebody argue that being rich is the same as being poor. So, congrats on originality, I guess.

Open your fucking eyes. You can no longer see the real wold for the veil of victimization you have put upon yourself. There is no class. And most importantly, stop scheming about some great revolution and CREATE the means of production!

It’s like Charlie Kirk has risen from the dead

Of course colonialism is bad, you won’t get an argument from me in favor of it. That’s why I support countries like the former USSR, who were and are the biggest anti-colonial powers in history. Simply stating that “colonialism is bad, no matter what color” is a subjectivist truism that doesn’t prove one iota of colonialism from socialist countries. It’s the kind of substitution for an argument people who refuse to investigate how colonialism actually functions make, because otherwise you’d make a concrete claim against socialist countries.

As for “the workers denied an education for refusing Leninism,” etc, this is largely nonexistent. In socialist countries, education is typically free and universal, or exceptionally low-cost. Literacy rates went from ~30% to 99.9% in the USSR over the course of a couple decades. Either only .1% refused Marxism-Leninism, proving that acceptance of Marxism-Leninism was and is exceptionally popular in socialist countries, or that education was in fact free and universal, regardless of political views, assuming you weren’t a domestic terrorist. Either way, terrible point on your part.

Religious persecution is largely seen as a dogmatic error by early socialism, but is also overblown. Same for the idea that people were mass punished for participating in bourgeois culture.

I won’t weep for those who worked in tough working conditions out of necessity, instead I will salute them for taking on the difficult work. In many socialist countries, they were and are compensated in reduced working hours for the same pay, more pay for equal hours, or both. Such was common in the USSR for hazardous work.

As for the working classes gaining power, it’s happened many times, such as in the USSR, GDR, PRC, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Office work is still work. Party membership is largely reserved for those exceptionally dedicated and competent among the working classes, and communist parties regularly purge corrupt or lazy officials, replenishing their ranks from the rest of the working classes. Those in administration were and are workers, they do not gain income from capital ownership but from their own labor.

As for the idea that commodity shortages are unique to socialism, this is absurd. Further, the abundance of commodities in western countries comes near exclusively from the spoils of international plunder, through imperialism, unequal exchange, and neocolonialism. The vast productive forces for agriculture in the US were created thanks to colonial relations securing vast amounts of steel and other resources, and yet despite having agricultural abundance Americans often go without eating to save money. The USSR, on the other hand, was found to have eaten more calories and more nutritionally complete diets compared to Americans.

I’m not advocating for revolution for a “fairy tale.” I’m advocating for revolution because I want to decolonize Turtle Island, and get the same gains of socialism for the people living on it. I want to end imperialism and neocolonialism. I want to end climate change and mitigate its effects. Comparing me to the US Empire is ludicrous and horrendously out of touch, considering the US Empire is all of the horrendous issues you accuse socialism of having, but far worse than even your accusations.

Saying that “there is no class” is an absurdity. Class is objectively defined and empirically understood. Class is relation to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Every single economist on the planet, no matter what ideology, agrees that workers and capitalists exist, that feudal lords and peasants exist, that slaves and slave owners exist. Even if you disagree with Marx’s analysis of class society, you cannot possibly deny the existence of class.

And most importantly, I am a worker. I do create the means of production and distribution, as do all workers. Capitalists do not. Revolution ends the massive contradiction between socialization of production and privatization of appropriation, where those who do no labor gain the vast majority of the wealth while those who do labor gain crumbs.

There is no class.

Are you really saying that there is no such thing as class? There is no proletariat and bourgeois?

Socialists do not “uninvent the market,” or “require people to willingly forget what they know,” and certainly not “give up any possession of value.” Socialists solve the contradiction between socialized production, which markets are great at establishing, and private appropriation of the spoils of production, which creates the tiny and wealthy capitalist class. This is not an “un-invention” of the productive forces created by markets, but a solution to markets that have already fulfilled their historic role in creating socialized production.

Those that have their property appropriated are the owning classes, the capitalists, landlords, etc. This isn’t “anything of value,” it’s specifically the means of production and distribution, to create a better society for everyone based on the labor they actually perform and contribute to society.

Further still, socialism is democratic. Capitalism cannot be. Those kept in fear in socialism and deprived of power are the formerly and present owning classes. For the proletariat, the workers, socialism is the first taste of actual democracy. Violent, revolutionary means are necessary to gain this democracy and end the oppression of capitalism, which keeps workers in fear and dictatorial control.

States are inherently monopolies on violence. Either capitalists control the state, or the working classes do. Either there’s capitalism, or socialism. Only once class has been abolished can the state wither away.