Looks like we upset a few too many 
residents over at lemmy.ca. I didn't see a post about this on here, so I thought I'd go ahead and make one.
2 of 4 reasons why are basically just PPB lol, and a third is for calling for executions of landlords 
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
143 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13547 readers
22 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean Maoist anti-landlord action wasn't even against, like, some guy who owns 4 houses, it was against literal feudal lords who treated their peasants as slaves in Corvée/Robota (the latter being the Czech term for it, I think?) systems of forced labour. They deserved it as the position structurally guaranteed and required brutality. Plus they often had the means of armed resistance because of this ownership of land. I mean it's not even to say that the Maoist redistribution of land was perfect, but it's not like those peasants who acted in excess against their feudal lords had no reason to be extremely angry and vengeful. No, murder probably isn't necessary, but if it happens one needn't cry over it.
By contrast the landlord class of capitalism (not counting the literal aristocracy that still exists in the UK and such) is far smaller in its land holdings and its structural power within society. It can be swept aside with no significant violence if a socialist state came to power, since unlike the old feudal lords they have no independent mechanisms of coercive power. I do not believe in wanton violence and killing-violence is awful, traumatising, and just generally horrific-but in the case of Mao-era China sometimes it was necessary when strong landlords with coercive power resisted redistribution. It is sad any time violence is used, but that doesn't mean it is always wrong. Even libs agree with this, e.g., the police, WW2, the Falklands War, or whatever.
Aight give me your take on the Falklands War
I don't know if it'll be popular here mind you!
I think the Falklands War was justified, yes. The island has only ever been settled by British people and there is no indigenous population beforehand. There is no valid legal claim from Argentina through Spain to the island, and, above all else, the islanders (as the original settled people) want to overwhelmingly remain British. As a fervent believer in the right to self-determination, that alone makes it worth defending by force (ethically speaking). The island is of little strategic use (the British govt probably would've given it up eventually if the Argentines had not invaded-they were willing to negotiate on the issue) and it's only important now because of the war!
So the Argentine junta invades and occupies the islands + mistreats the islanders for its own domestic reasons. Attempts at rapid diplomacy failed and the Argentines had no intention of withdrawing. Thatcher sees it as a great political opportunity and goes to war and the British win.
Many years later, as if to confirm this right to self-determination, a referendum on the status of the islands is done in 2013. Literally only 3 people vote against remaining part of the UK as an overseas territory. Bare in mind yet again that there is no indigenous population and it is not a settler-colonial society as such. I think the protection of the right to self-determination against an aggressor by force of arms is justified. I know Thatcher used it for her own political purposes, but there was realistically no other choice that would have ended in a more moral/ethical situation.
It just being nearer to Argentina is not a valid claim whatsoever and makes no serious sense.
Yes, agree.
The only thing that irks me is that there's only 6k britbongs living in those islands, and feels like rule-of-thumb kicking britbongs back to the UK always seem like the correct thing to do. But yes, they live there.