A Marxist who does not engage in violence is a non-violent Marxist, by definition.
(((Saffi)))
3

“A Marxist who does not engage in violence is a non-violent Marxist, by definition.”

A Marxist is someone who believes in Marxism. Marxism is a creed that must, by definition be enforced by violence. Therefore a Marxist is someone who supports the use of violence.

“Don’t fall into the Cold War trap of assuming that communism means violence and evil, and capitalism means peace and prosperity.”

Do not fall into the trap of making assumptions that because I disapprove of one thing then I must approve of another. Mikhail Gorbachev once summed it up when he said — “Just because I am not carrying a red flag does not mean I must carry a blue one.”

Your assumption is a lazy and fallacious one.

“My original point was simply that the ANC, during its early years, did not engage in interpersonal violence:”

No that was not your original point at all. Your original claim was that the ANC during Mandela’s tenure was not an organisation that engaged in violent attacks against civilian targets.

You cannot change that to — “well they weren't really very violent at the beginning, before they had the weapons, the numbers and the know-how.”

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.