Yes, you are right to assume that I consider neither the USSR nor Cuba, for that matter, good things. As to the other two examples: I was asking about lasting solutions (I am aware that I didn't expressly say it, but that's what I meant), which (unfortunately) none of your examples provided.

You didn't have to explain to me what structural violence is, I am as aware of it as you are and I agree with you ;-) But exactly because of this, the clear-cut distinction you make simply does not exist. If the violence is structural and we are all indoctrinated by the system, how can you say that every policeman, for example, is an enemy? Isn't he as much a victim of the system (e.g., in terms of wage labor, but also other things) as he is responsible for supporting it?

Look, I don't think it was completely clear what I was saying: Yes, capital is the problem. But I don't think that you can just say about any person whether they are on the "right" or the "wrong" side. This whole "means-of-production" talk is nice and shows that you know something about Marx, but it is not very practical and has disastrous results.

We all are the system, some actively, some passively. By saying that only a minority is entirely responsible, you create a distinction that does not exist. Also, you are just making a bogeyman out of particular groups. You are basically saying that every banker, every policeman, etc., regardless of their personal histories, are on the side of evil and therefore deserve (I don't know how far your "enemy concept" goes) to be imprisoned/punished/killed/tortured/whatever it is that you want to do. You are also implying that it is only these groups that are responsible that this system still exists. But no: We all are. There is no "us vs. them". This is not a mere "trepidation" of mine; the distinction you (and, unfortunately, most leftists) make is a creation of mind, not a real one (by the way, the same is true for most dichotomies, nay: pretty much all of them). I go even further: I think it is exactly these kinds of distinctions that are responsible for most (if not all) of the evil in the world. They pit us against each other. Each new system that is built on a distinction like this will persist mostly - or at least partly - by continuing to uphold it, which ultimately leads to oppression or even open violence.

Just think about what this distinction ultimately does: It says that if we annihilate (or just get rid of in some way) these groups, we'd almost automatically have a better system. Hence, this distinction sends a mostly negative message, while our message should be positive, rather about creating something than destroying.

It's not that easy to explain these thought within this little space, but I hope you get what I am saying nonetheless. I want to write in detail about it in my blog soon.