I'm sorry this the this kind of (far-left) political comment that usually starts the argument from 'basic human decency' and gets to calls for mass murder in the span of a sentece or two is as hilarious as it is sad :(.
And unfortunately very common. I'm not sure what you think when posting this, but this wont endear people to your ideas.
I'm sure there are communities where this is a standard stance that gets cheered, which I'm sure a lot of people would find quite concerning.
The problem with political violence is that the other side will do the same thing, and you end up with an IRA situation where the country descends into sectarian violence.
>is that the other side will do it anyway and you end up dead.
Preemptive first strike logic[1] aside. This logic doesn't work because political violence never gets out of hand so fast that an entire political movement can be wiped out. On the other hand by starting/advocating for political violence you're almost certainly going to get the descent into sectarian violence before you can wipe out all the "fascists".
That just leads to the second problem. Do you think a few car bombs would have stopped Nazis in their tracks? Or it would just create even more antipathy towards Jews?
The Nazis succeeded in wiping out their opposition through violence. Why is that you think that Nazis were able to, but the German left (in this hypothetical) would not have been able to do so in kind?
The Troubles had a lower per capita body count than Detroit during the 80s. Part of their doctrine was "bomb with warning", usually to maximize property damage without random civilian casualties.
(Still quite a bit of murder of informers, soldiers, lawyers, and a teenager who happened to be in the wrong car. As well as government snipers firing into a crowd, planting a bomb on a band, and so on)
>How many people died under the totalitarian regimes that preceded them? These oppressive regimes did not start in a vacuum.
You're proving my point. Political violence just leads to a cycle of more political violence and/or totalitarianism. The Chinese Communists, if you recall, were violently put down by the Nationalists in the civil war. Starting political violence to stop the "fascists", just condemns your society to that fate. Not to mention that people who engage in political violence aren't exactly the most sane people. What makes you think they'll stop at "fascists"? The Bolsheviks eventually turned against the Kulaks, once their allies, and Mao launched the Cultural Revolution to consolidate power and push out rivals.
Violence is coming whether you like it or not. People are already struggling and food prices will only go up this year given the buffoonery with antagonizing Iran. If we're going to have violence either way, I sure know where I'd prefer it be directed. I leave it as an exercise to the student to make up their mind on where it should be. I'm sure the answers are Legion.
We are definitely more in agreement than disagreement.
Yes, the communist regimes were absolutely awful - both from nuts-and-bolts logistics failures as well as what was described in an earlier thread here as "prerogative" application of the law.
And unfortunately very common. I'm not sure what you think when posting this, but this wont endear people to your ideas.
I'm sure there are communities where this is a standard stance that gets cheered, which I'm sure a lot of people would find quite concerning.