The dublin riots, like jan 6 riots, are indeed actually marxist riots as well. I understand you disagree with my assessment, but violent rioting for perceived unjustices is marxism.

In dublin rioters acted violently because they disagree with immigration laws and law enforcement actions. That's marxism 101, using violence in a democratic society instead of the political process to try to achieve your political goals.

On Jan 6, the portion of protesters who became violent and attempted to trespass areas, then illegally enter the capitol building, again acted in a very marxist way: using violence to try to interrupt the democratic process because of perceived great unjustices in the system (in this case the claims the election was rigged).

Again it's not by claiming the election was rigged, or by disagreeing with a country immigration law, that you become a marxist. You become a marxist in those cases when you use violence against society because of what you perceive to be great unjustices perpetrated by society itself.

Farmers protests , like the protests in Kenosha held during the day (which were peaceful) and countless other protests that happen in western countries, aren't inherently marxist nor violent nor criminal, far from it. A peaceful non violent protest can be marxist if it's about asking for marxist values to become the law for example, but that's a different topic.

Marxism isn't only a political ideology, it's also a set of actions, a sort of manual for revolutionaries, and the set of actions can be fully disjointed from the original claims that under marxism justify such violence.

Nice.

No, that's the alt right whingeing. Nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism.

No that's the American right wing whingeing.

So the Ultras over your way having a football riot is... because Marxism? Again violent rioting is for a myriad of reasons, be they political, anger or sheer opportunistic and again maybe you need a breather mate.

You're essentially saying that any protest becomes Marxist the second it turns violent and you're extraordinarily wrong in this respect.

Lots of groups have justified violence. Didn't you say you were from Bologna? You seriously telling me the Bologna massacre for example was inherently Marxist? Or right wing violence/terrorism in general? Seriously?

Luciom has some pretty "interesting" definitions. Apparently, "legality" and "morality" are synonyms, and anyone who breaks a window at a protest is a "Marxist", with overtones of "subhuman" who should be killed.

Luciom, you're a fascist.

Not synonyms no.

With the caveats given about the law being democratically passed, in a country with a liberal constitution, and with no constitutional rights infringed, I claim that acting against the law is inherently immoral yes.

Which doesn't mean that anything which is legal is moral though.

Not sure why you equate asking for draconian treatment of rioters to fascism, given fascists and nazists frequently used violent rioting for political purposes.

I am not sure you understand that if people had shared my view back in the days, law enforcement/militaries would have killed all participants of the beer hall putsch in Munich, and history would have been very different.

As for Italian fascism, there were plenty violent rioting situations which the state actually allowed on purpose, and it's because of people like you despising the ideas I am now promoting (to treat politically motivated violent rioting as an existential threat to the nation, and so use lethal force against it) that fascism actually happened.

You are doing something very evil here, calling fascist the set of ideas that if implemented at the time, would have prevented fascism and Nazism from taking control of Italy and Germany.

People who want to achieve political change through violent riots are indeed not compatible with civil society, and I am not sure why you defend that sentiment or why you want them to be treated with leniency

Yes? How is this controversial?

Political terrorism in a democracy is Marxism! It's a Marxist tool, a Marxist concept, a Marxist derived set of actions.

In fact fascism and nazism operated with Marxist methods to acquire power, often trying to get the consensus of the same people Marxists claimed to represent , often using the same rethoric!

Which is why Togliatti, Italian communist party leader in 1936 tried to appeal to "his brothers with the black shirts" , because it's the ****ing same people lol.

All political terrorism in a democracy is Marxist? You don't actually know what "Marxism" means, do you?

Corpus vile, Goebbels was a Marxist for example



https://fee.org/articles/joseph-goeb...as-the-future/

What Marxism means is what we are discussing.

I am giving you the data and the argument as to why political terrorism in a democracy is Marxism.

All you counter is "I use another definition", but you pretend yours is correct with no argument.

Your definition is so fanciful as to be self-evidently wrong and deluded to anyone capable of using a dictionary, so there is not much for me to add.

Man Marxism is a series of concepts and plans for action ok? You don't need to buy ALL of them to be Marxist, if you do make yours a portion of them, that's still Marxism.

Same as you can claim that drug liberalization is a libertarian goal, and you can call libertarian for that topic an otherwise non libertarian person who is in favour of drug legalization.

Is it more clearer like this? Can you agree on the above?

These are the main pillars of Marxism



Agreeing with any of them, and acting on any of them, is marxism, dictionary-wise Marxism.

Which of these principles were the Jan 6th "Marxists" acting on?

Class struggle and revolution of course.

You know all the references to the evil elite in Washington doing evil to the people and so on? That's class struggle 101.

Revolution is what you aim to achieve literally when you try to subvert the constitutional order

Protesting with Violence is apart of democracy.

Welcome to America.

The alt right are Marxists now. Every day is a school day.

You can frame everything in politics as "class struggle" and call anyone a Marxist by your logic. But that is in fact what you are trying to do - everyone you don't like is Marxist, Marxists are evil and killing them is moral. Dude, you are deranged.

I see. So an act that is illegal in Alabama but legal in New York -- e.g., getting an abortion after X weeks--would be immoral in Alabama but moral in New York.

Makes sense. Does that work with all laws? For example, you can get a learner's permit to drive at age 14 in North Dakota but you have to be 15 in Minnesota. Does that mean that the morality of driving with your parent at age 14 is state-dependent also?

First amendment = you cant stop us from peacefully protesting

Second amendment = stopping us from violently protesting is going to be harder than you thought

Third amendment = can’t keep soldiers in my house which would stop me from protesting

Fourth amendment = can’t just be searching and harassing me on my way to protest

Fifth amendment = don’t have to tell you **** about where my protests are

Man it's not like i am the only one saying so.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-wing-marxism/

And check the actual voters in europe especially. Check the actual voters of the matxist right parties (like Salvini Lega), where they come from. They don't come from liberal, technocratic, pro capitalism positions lol.

Btw not all alt-right is marxist. Tea party types aren't marxist. Wilders (netherland) types aren't marxist.

I laud your continued and indefatigable efforts to live up to your screen name.

But what if they break a window?

I don't understand what is unclear about the idea that breaking the law is immoral PER SE, for people who believe in the utility of the rule of law and it's importance.

I also don't understand what is unclear about the idea that the same act can be moral or not depending on external circumstances.

For example if i am in a country where it's extremely disrepectful to passionately kiss in public and i do, it can be immoral to do so while the same act wouldn't be immoral in other places, because being disrespectful to people that did nothing to you can be considered immoral to some.

IF they start organizing violent riots to pursue their political preferences they become marxists yes

This isn't your "assessment." It's just you trying to save your point by defining Marxism in a highly idiosyncratic way.

Also, it is terrible logic to say X is a tactic used by Y group, therefore all people who use X tactic are part of Y group. By your logic, right wing political violence, by definition, would be impossible.

And by your logic, any government that engaged in propaganda was fascist because fascists engaged in propaganda.

The communists were literally the first people mentioned in the poem, you are a very silly person.

Is it possible to have an unjust law? Was it immoral for slaves to try and escape their masters in 1830?

I almost don't want to know your answer to that last question.