• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yes, of course I can read. You rejected my interpretation, and I very clearly explained how your rejection is baseless. What is a “non-violent leftist regime?”

    • CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      No. That’s not what happened. I rejected the idea that having a violent revolution makes a regime violent by definition. This whole time I’ve been talking about regimes and you’ve been talking about revolutions. It’s really that simple of a miscommunication.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’ve been talking about both revolutions and states, which you call “regimes” to sound scary. States are itself tools by which one class dominates the rest, this is inherently violent.

        • CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You don’t get to tell me what I mean when I speak. Regimes, revolutions, and states are all different things and I would never use one of those terms to mean another.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I have never once said states and revolutions are the same thing, only that the only way to create a leftist state is revolution, and that states themselves are inherently violent towards the non-dominant class. Regimes are just scary words for states in common lingo, so please explain what a regime is.