I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of "bourgeoisie", or merely "the rich". And (I'm sure you can understand why I'd have a problem) that some folks talk like I'm in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.

I know it's not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I'll happily have a beer with you.

I don't think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling "no true scotsman" even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

If you just happen to be luckily a member of an ingroup. Chances are you will have minimal issue. But that doesn't mean people don't. Your personal experience is yours and yours alone. And not shared by everyone.

There is no nebulous definition of bourgeoisie. If you labor, you're proletariat. Even if you're sympathies mistakenly lay with the bourgeoisie. If you live off wealth, and use it to amass more wealth. Bourgeoisie. Owners of many, or large company's and middle management. Bourgeoisie. Landlords/slumlords bourgeoisie. Career politicians? Bourgeoisie. Stock traders etc? Bourgeoisie.

There is more than one type of communist. So your generalization is well, ...highly ignorant. However, when it comes to leninists. I strongly agree. Those are the ones you're referring to. Anarcho-communists have a hard enough time organizing together let alone finding the desire to go after bourgeoisie. They want to be mostly left alone. Authoritarians of any stripe are the problem. Not communists.