Yeah let’s all be extremist terrorists, what could possibly go wrong? Let’s kill those that think even slightly different from us because history has show that to be w great idea, no?
Idiot
Edit: wow, there are a lot more fascists here than I thought, look at all those down votes.
A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery. It cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.
-Mao Zedong
So, you don’t want a revolution, and keep things the same.
I want a system designed by people who know how to design systems. I want those systems to be greed-proof and have clearly laid out goals. I want economic systems to be circular with caps on the highest and lowest while still rewarding those who excel.
I want corporate and income controls. I want environmental policy that fucks over economic policy instead of the opposite. I want to heavily discourage corporate manipulation of human systems (such as addiction).
I want news to be publicly funded and with honesty legally mandated. I want more and better political parties. I want a legal system that doesn’t need a degree and endless buckets of money to tell you if you’re committing a crime or not. I want a legal system that applies to rich and poor in equal measure and with proportional punishments.
Yeah, I want a revolution. The problem is that everyone who also wants a revolution has a very different idea of the outcome of that revolution and I don’t want someone to get in their idiot head that murdering everyone else who deviates from their revolution is a good idea. Because it isn’t unless you want the revolution to be won by 10 hyper-opinionated assholes.
Yeah, reading through the history of the revolutionary period in China through the 60s and 70s shows how just murdering people to be the one in charge isn’t enough. You end up with murderers and psychopaths in charge at the end. The ones who were the best at fucking people over.
That said. I’m pretty sure we could do with a handful of the current psychopaths that are charge falling out some windows.
With what? I know what a revolution is and how they can function.
I was speaking about the outcomes. Just because you get that many people together to agree that something must be done, doesn’t mean they agree with what will happen after you’ve won the revolution.
What policies will be put into place if any? What about when two groups who were formerly together in the revolution completely disagree on what to do with the systems they are building? Do they just all kill each other then?
Sorry. I think I responded to the wrong comment. What you are talking about is Prefigurative Politics. You want the means to justify the end. The problem with revolutions is that it is a coalition against an established power with different ideas of what comes after. I wish I had an answer for you, but I’m just beginning to explore this aspect. Vincent Bevins has a recent book that get into why protests fail and explores the lack of prefiguration in planning. I haven’t read it though. I heard of it from a recent Upstream podcast. Hope it helps.
I appreciate the links and the discussion (not to mention the not devolving into insulting rhetoric).
I am heavily involved in local politics and I’m always interested in revolutionary policies as long as they are economically sound and actually function. Unlike many arguments I’m sure we both had online, I will actively read the links you posted to me.
Doesn’t matter who said that violence is sometimes necessary that still isn’t a valid response to “maybe let’s not just kill people on an ideological basis”
Is every terror attack for political reasons justified then?
“I want to change something and I cant get it democratically so because a revolution requires violence, I have the right to kill everybody” - Is that how you think it works?
Is every terror attack for political reasons justified then?
YES
Who defines what terror is?
What is politics? If the policies that govern a society aren’t working for a group, and they are given no other recourse, what are they to do?
What justifies anything? Can you justify dropping a nuclear bomb on an unaware city to “end the war?” You can, but it erodes your moral authority to other groups.
“right to kill everybody?”
Not everybody. Violence should only be used if it is necessary to achieve goals. There is a reason Nelson Mandela refused to renounce violent struggle.
So a democracy has no value to you? Not everyone can be perfectly happy with the state of society at any point in time. What makes you feel like you are entitled to achieve your goals against the majority’s will?
If the policies that govern a society aren’t working for a group, […] what are they to do?
Either you accept the constitution, in which case you could protest, say your opinion publicly or just accept what the majority wants, OR
You don’t accept the constitution, in which case you can leave the country/society.
You’re conflating a lot of empty signifiers with “democracy.” So, I’ll focus on the specifics of political activism.
If you, and the political group you ideologically agree with lived in Nazi Germany, but were a minority, would it be morally justified to fight against the government with terrorism if you are unable to leave?
Every political group thinks they are justified in their actions. One group’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
I respect democratic decisions and find any form of terrorism against those decisions and thus the democratic system itself unjustifyable.
[About Nazi Germany:] would it be morally justified to fight against the government with terrorism if you are unable to leave?
The Nazis didn’t adhere to the democratic principles themselves, they were very much antidemocratic and were forcibly trying to change the system against the will of the majority (this I find unjustifyable). They were themselves a kind of minority
To answer your question, I think I would be justified to fight that (with force), HOWEVER, it is NOT justified that I push my own minority-opinion (e.g. by establishing a dictstorship with me as the dictator).
Yeah let’s all be extremist terrorists, what could possibly go wrong? Let’s kill those that think even slightly different from us because history has show that to be w great idea, no?
Idiot
Edit: wow, there are a lot more fascists here than I thought, look at all those down votes.
Pfff, learning from history? I don’t see that happening too much these days.
Yeah, let’s do absolutely nothing, and keep things the same.
There’s a pretty large delta between doing nothing and murdering people.
So, you don’t want a revolution, and keep things the same.
I want a system designed by people who know how to design systems. I want those systems to be greed-proof and have clearly laid out goals. I want economic systems to be circular with caps on the highest and lowest while still rewarding those who excel.
I want corporate and income controls. I want environmental policy that fucks over economic policy instead of the opposite. I want to heavily discourage corporate manipulation of human systems (such as addiction).
I want news to be publicly funded and with honesty legally mandated. I want more and better political parties. I want a legal system that doesn’t need a degree and endless buckets of money to tell you if you’re committing a crime or not. I want a legal system that applies to rich and poor in equal measure and with proportional punishments.
Yeah, I want a revolution. The problem is that everyone who also wants a revolution has a very different idea of the outcome of that revolution and I don’t want someone to get in their idiot head that murdering everyone else who deviates from their revolution is a good idea. Because it isn’t unless you want the revolution to be won by 10 hyper-opinionated assholes.
Yeah, reading through the history of the revolutionary period in China through the 60s and 70s shows how just murdering people to be the one in charge isn’t enough. You end up with murderers and psychopaths in charge at the end. The ones who were the best at fucking people over.
That said. I’m pretty sure we could do with a handful of the current psychopaths that are charge falling out some windows.
Now, they are the happiest people in the world. /s
Amazing! I heard they all have their own ponies and people get free iPhones on their birthday
Every citizen has had an Apple Vision Pro for at least 2 years.
This might help.
With what? I know what a revolution is and how they can function.
I was speaking about the outcomes. Just because you get that many people together to agree that something must be done, doesn’t mean they agree with what will happen after you’ve won the revolution.
What policies will be put into place if any? What about when two groups who were formerly together in the revolution completely disagree on what to do with the systems they are building? Do they just all kill each other then?
Sorry. I think I responded to the wrong comment. What you are talking about is Prefigurative Politics. You want the means to justify the end. The problem with revolutions is that it is a coalition against an established power with different ideas of what comes after. I wish I had an answer for you, but I’m just beginning to explore this aspect. Vincent Bevins has a recent book that get into why protests fail and explores the lack of prefiguration in planning. I haven’t read it though. I heard of it from a recent Upstream podcast. Hope it helps.
I appreciate the links and the discussion (not to mention the not devolving into insulting rhetoric).
I am heavily involved in local politics and I’m always interested in revolutionary policies as long as they are economically sound and actually function. Unlike many arguments I’m sure we both had online, I will actively read the links you posted to me.
galleanists are ardently against prefigurative theories of revolution, and i am tending toward them lately.
“Guys Mao Zedong said violence is cool, so we can just start murking people for any reason”
‘Guys, JFK said the same thing.’
Doesn’t matter who said that violence is sometimes necessary that still isn’t a valid response to “maybe let’s not just kill people on an ideological basis”
execpt the nazis, right? we kill the fascists, right?
You fight the Nazis when they’re actively literally killing people, or imminently threatening to, yes. Notice how that is an action, not ideology.
Do you suggest actually just going after people who are ideologically fascist regardless of what they have or have not actually done?
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why fascism cannot be stopped.
That is very much acceptable, killing other people is not.
Has there ever been a political revolution that overthrew the government without violence?
Is every terror attack for political reasons justified then?
“I want to change something and I cant get it democratically so because a revolution requires violence, I have the right to kill everybody” - Is that how you think it works?
YES
Who defines what terror is? What is politics? If the policies that govern a society aren’t working for a group, and they are given no other recourse, what are they to do? What justifies anything? Can you justify dropping a nuclear bomb on an unaware city to “end the war?” You can, but it erodes your moral authority to other groups.
Not everybody. Violence should only be used if it is necessary to achieve goals. There is a reason Nelson Mandela refused to renounce violent struggle.
So a democracy has no value to you? Not everyone can be perfectly happy with the state of society at any point in time. What makes you feel like you are entitled to achieve your goals against the majority’s will?
You’re conflating a lot of empty signifiers with “democracy.” So, I’ll focus on the specifics of political activism.
If you, and the political group you ideologically agree with lived in Nazi Germany, but were a minority, would it be morally justified to fight against the government with terrorism if you are unable to leave?
Every political group thinks they are justified in their actions. One group’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
I respect democratic decisions and find any form of terrorism against those decisions and thus the democratic system itself unjustifyable.
The Nazis didn’t adhere to the democratic principles themselves, they were very much antidemocratic and were forcibly trying to change the system against the will of the majority (this I find unjustifyable). They were themselves a kind of minority
To answer your question, I think I would be justified to fight that (with force), HOWEVER, it is NOT justified that I push my own minority-opinion (e.g. by establishing a dictstorship with me as the dictator).