4 ms·

I guess they engaged with a critique of capitalism that wasn't (and isn't) available to someone with a more basic education, and communism was seen as an altern

by kubb 4y ago

I guess they engaged with a critique of capitalism that wasn't (and isn't) available to someone with a more basic education, and communism was seen as an alternative. A communist back then would point to the capitalist countries committing horrible atrocities of colonialism and slavery. Another factor would be a rhetoric of liberation. Either you fight against the bourgeoisie, or they will keep sucking your blood as long as you live. That's why conflicts were seen as inevitable. I doubt anyone condoned violent mass murder. Khmer Rouge and the Cultural Revolution happened in the second half of the XX century.

rbanffy 4y ago
> A communist back then would point to the capitalist countries committing horrible atrocities Unlike now, where whenever we point to capitalism, we point to shining beacons of freedom and humanity. ;-) > I doubt anyone condoned violent mass murder The fact the Soviet Union and China didn't succeed at implementing an ideal utopian society doesn't prevent others from trying something slightly different (let's say, socdem) in hopes it'll suck less than unregulated capitalism