You talk about workers uniting against Marxist socialists? I'm confused.

@Krunoslav I was referring to the Canadian truckers/workers uniting against Trudeau and the anti-protests measures taken by the Trudeau government.

@Weltansicht I get what you are saying. It does sound strange though, since Marxism preaches that. Workers of the world, unite.

Off course this never happens. Contrary to Marxist preaching of seizing means of production and overthrowing goverment, in reality workers want to work and have a livable wage. Which is what Canadian truckers were doing if I'm not mistaken. They wanted mandates gone, not the goverment.

I think I knew what you meant to say, but sounds strange to accuse goverment of Marxism and than cheer workers uniting against it.

"Revolutions occurred in almost every European city with more than 50,000 inhabitants. The occasion for the revolutions was hunger. Soup kitchens were the prelude to revolution. The revolutionaries might talk about socialism, those who actually revolted wanted 'the right to work'- more capitalism, not its abolition.

On the contrary, all experience shows that revolutionaries come from those who are economically independent, not from factory workers. Very few revolutionary leaders have done manual work, and those who did soon abandoned it for political activities. The factory worker wants higher wages and better conditions, not a revolution. It is the man on his own who wants to remake society, and moreover he can happily defy those in power without economic risk.

Increasing prosperity for the capitalists has everywhere brought with it increasing prosperity for the proletariat, instead of the increasing misery which Marx foretold. The most advanced capitalist countries are also those where the working class has the highest standard of life.

Revolutions in short are made in the name of the proletariat, not by it, and usually in countries where the proletariat hardly exists."

― A.J.P. Taylor, The Communist Manifesto

And that in a way happened in Canada. Truckers wanted mandates which prevent them from working gone, they explicitly said they want that and do not want to overthrow the goverment. That was their mistake, as they should have known.

"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." - Assata Shakur

Once the smearing campaign and censorship did not work, the tyrant Justin, resorted to force, as it was expected. One can say that Canadian truckers story red piled many people, but it was not going to achieve much more than that. This is typical for communist regimes.

For some reason when people in the west think of workers uniting against tyrant goverment, they think of Ghandi's The Salt March instead of 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre.

Trudeau was not laying when he said he admires dictatorship in China by the CCP. What Truckers did not seem to understand is the way Communist style dictatorship works. They have mistaken CCP style goverment for British Empire style goverment. And that is something I see is still a confusion for many in the Anglo-Sphere.

British had moral standards. Gandhi trained by them, knew about it and saw it as a weakness he could exploit by non violent disobedience movement. It worked. This also worked much later when there was push for pro gay and pro women movements in the Anglo Sphere. But Communist regimes are not like that. Trying to appeal to the morality of the regime that has abandoned it, will only get you killed, beaten or in prison. Eventually that is what happened to the Truckers. There is a reason why Ghandi was Indian, not Chinese or Russian hero.

The Salt March, also known as the Salt Satyagraha, Dandi March and the Dandi Satyagraha, was an act of nonviolent civil disobedience in colonial India led by Mahatma Gandhi. The twenty-four day march lasted from 12 March 1930 to 6 April 1930 as a direct action campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly. Another reason for this march was that the Civil Disobedience Movement needed a strong inauguration that would inspire more people to follow Gandhi's example. Gandhi started this march with 78 of his trusted volunteers. The march spanned 239 miles (385 km), from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi, which was called Navsari at that time (now in the state of Gujarat). Growing numbers of Indians joined them along the way. When Gandhi broke the British Raj salt laws at 8:30 am on 6 April 1930, it sparked large scale acts of civil disobedience against the salt laws by millions of Indians

History has many lessons.

@Krunoslav I think you got my drift at the paradox or conundrum of the workers uniting against the government mandates & control. Also, the reactionary tactics imposed by the government against those engaged in mainly peaceful protests, which is a voter right under auspices of 'democracy'.

I thought when there were pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, there would be support. The US used to support such things, but alas; so it was reverse barometer that America was fully compromised, to me. I suspect we are enthralled by global corporatcoracy.

@Weltansicht Yes. Although Hong Kong feels very un-organic. With a Soros sent to it. That is how they do it, they do regime changes by creating seemingly natural protests, which is anything but natural. And that is what Hong Kong likely was. Started by Soror type characters and promoted by the western media when it was useful and the young people who didn't know what was going on, cough up in the frenzy of it, not realizing that they were never going to win. The Western powers won't get involved directly, and CCP is well prepared to kill squash any such protests, so it was only a matter of time. Just like they were pro BLM riots, but anti Truckers or anti masks, or anti anything that they don't approve. It all points to Hong Kong being an operation to try to destabilize China, just as one in Kazakhstan was to try to destabilize Russia, and 2014 one in Ukraine. Hong Kong smells like that pattern, I doubt it was started organically, although I'm sure once it took off many young people got cough up in it, thinking idealistically, not realistically.

@Krunoslav Could be on all your points. reminds me of what I was thinking about the current SCOTUS pick by Biden in USA & 'it' not being able to define what a woman was in the context of the question. All the MSM clips that were being pushed on YT were live day number whatever. Not a one was anything about where this judge served, who appointed it/her, any dissection of it/her work record or ethics; like that would be done to a conservative nominee. Apparently she/it is a jurisprudence protectionist of the Pizzagate debacle, so much for fair and equal treatment of upholding the existing laws of the land but espousing the 'morality' projections of the leftist is perfectly in accordance with governance. In all fairness to the democrats though, I did see a clip where Cory Booker made it/her weep on a question, supposedly.

@Weltansicht Ah, yes. They should have asked her; "Mam, are you a woman?"

Its quite clear she is a politically aligned activists, and picked because of her ideological identity. Black woman of color as they call it. Same as Kamala Harris, and the rest of the them. Its all driven by this crazy religion, makes no sense at all to think about it in any other logical terms.

@Krunoslav when they project their belief at me in such a manner how ever they choose, I always ask what they will be classified in the distant future when they are dug up by archeologists and classified as what? scientifically speaking of course, unless you are denying science objectivity and empirical truths. Usually they call me a lot of expletives saying I don't understand and then block me.

As for the black woman of color as they call it.....well...it use to be, during segregation days that they were called colored people, and they were offended mostly by it, as they were Negroes. Then some anted to be called blacks, which seemed reasonable, being the Spanish word for black is negro. I also remember a lot of uppity ones declaring Martin Luther King was going to set them free. Which I did not understand, being a military dependent and everyone on base pretty much got treated the same, even the foreign students.

Then it became calling them AfroAmericans. well....not all of the black Americans agreed with that, as it devalued their citizenry, especially the military ones that I knew personally. They stuck with black. The same with the history months crap. You are correct it is all politically aligned activism.

@Weltansicht Yes- True. Personally I always found that words "colored" super strange. I mean what are the rest of us, colorless. Invisible people walking about lol. I find it absurd.

But, it even goes against the very idea of United States as best captured by Theodore Roosevelt.

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all ... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic ... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."

I also find the word nigger really strange. I mean the rule number one since forever in human history was that if you want others to respect you, you first must respect yourself. And I find it absolutely crazy that there are Americans calling themselves niggers all the time and than expect other Americans and people around the world to somehow not have the right to call them the way they call themselves. Absolutely insane.

And this absurdity was best captured by a cool comedy sketch.

How a White Man says the N-Word to a Black Man | Laugh Factory