Rules TBD.
Depending on the form I'm guessing. But in the early days of the soviet union. Most of the farm owners (rich people back then) were shipped out to siberia. Their farms converted to cooperatives. Wouldn't exactly call it nothing.
Also I doubt that people after a successful revolution will keep themselves from lynching the capitalist class :D
Events from over a hundred years ago have exceedingly limited relevance to the crises of the present day.
Also, I would question the robustness of your claim as you have framed it. Much of the atrocities following the Russian Revolution occurred within the Civil War, which entailed invasions from foreign powers, and in which both sides were perpetrators and complacent in such activity.
I'm not a historian, but there is a part of history from my country, that is still told by the older folk. Soviet deportations to Siberia. It occured after the civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Lithuania
People who ignore history are prone to repeat it, or how the saying goes. I do wish for a more social future, where sin of greed is not rewarded, although I haven't actually heard about a revolution/change of structure, where heads did not roll of the ruling class.
There is something magical about dehumanization of certain people, to force violence upon them and not allowing to execute the final steps of lynching. I don't think it can be done.
I have known only exceedingly few to ignore the events you referenced, and most are themselves ignored if not attacked for doing so.
The objection you seem to hold is that the aspiration to assimilate owners and workers as one class is inseparable from the perpetration of atrocities.
I have come to reject such a view, and in my comment tried briefly to encourage representing events with their total historic context.
Respecting the particular events, the Soviet Union was not the only country to conduct mass detention during the Second World War. I am not inclined to defend any in particular, though others may seek their own opinions.
Socialists at large have tended to oppose structures of power, most notably, the one greater than all others, capital. Unfortunately, capital, as all power, defends itself however it must, ultimately by force. Otherwise, it not would not have continued to hold power.
When violence has erupted, it has been because the powerful would not relinquish their power by will to those who have had been harmed by it and turn against it.
In the present, we should try to understand how we may minimize unnecessary conflict.
At the same time, many are dying and suffering under the cruelty of current systems We should not forget the reasons we seek to end them.
My argument was much simplier than that. Mostly that some history shows, that once people are taught to hate a certain class of people, they will commit atrocities (after reaching a position of power) to the said class of people.
Not gonna lie, I'm not exactly the smartest dude, and separation when the market ends and capitalism begins is still blurry. Sorry if it's not that clear what I'm trying to say.
Socialism is the political movement seeking to transfer control of the economy from billionaires to the public.
As the video explained, billionaires are a problem only with respect to their role in society. We seek to eliminate the role, not the individuals. If they change their role, then they are not a problem.
Markets may occur in a socialist economy. Abolishing markets is preferred by some socialists, but would be feasible only if a viable replacement becomes available.
Just another casual call for violence.
Yes you could argue that making rich people equal could be a form of violence, but you could just the same argue that rich people are committing violence against regular people daily.
The basis of our society is set up to prevent us from using natural resources and using the land of the earth under the threat of violence.
It beats complacency. You’re the type that rolls over.