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”
Sure, but the nazis were actually committing violence against their “undesirables” systemically, en masse. Same with slave rebellions, they were very much so morally just.
However killing my dad because he doesn’t think drag queens should be doing story hour is a bit different. He’s not putting drag queens in camps with signs like “Hosen Macht Frei,” he’s not in support of violence or pogroms to stop them, he’s not attempting to take France and Poland and kill their drag queens, he just is old and doesn’t understand and says words about it. Imo killing people for using their words in a way we don’t like is A) fucked up and B) stooping to the level of the actual nazis, like, the WWII ones.
fascist is a specific thing i’m saying we should attack, and while transphobia is often part of a fascist ideology and movement, it is not sufficient to determine whether the ideology or movement is fascist.
tldr i didnt say we should kill your dad, i said we should kill fascists.
No I’m not saying you said that, I’m saying others do. While I agree with you about actual fascists, my problem with currently advocating for political violence is the people who would use it on my dad are not in the minority of political violence supporters saying “drag people from their homes.” They already call people with that exact view fascists even without knowing if they do support using violence on drag queens or “just don’t like it.” It seems we’re kinda in the minority of that one and I’m just speaking out against that.
(Also btw I think it’s technically homophobia, afaiu drag queens or kings aren’t necessarily trans, some just do that for the shows. Right?)
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.
Considering their creative views on intellectual property it was probably the Fruit Eyes Expert from AliExpress
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.
“All politics are local.” Your actions are commendable and you are a hero.
galleanists are ardently against prefigurative theories of revolution, and i am tending toward them lately.
I’m ignorant about Galleanists. Where should I look to learn?
you found the best source i can find. click a coupla the links there.
i also found a book written by his grandchild available on archive.org for digital lending.
I’ll give it a look. Thanks.
“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?
>You kill the Nazis when they’re actively literally killing people, or imminently threatening to, yes.
what’s the point of waiting til it’s happening or it’s imminent? you know who they are and what they are doing. stop it now by any means necessary.
“lmao yeah just murk people who haven’t actually done anything”
Nazis, not people.
Sure, but the nazis were actually committing violence against their “undesirables” systemically, en masse. Same with slave rebellions, they were very much so morally just.
However killing my dad because he doesn’t think drag queens should be doing story hour is a bit different. He’s not putting drag queens in camps with signs like “Hosen Macht Frei,” he’s not in support of violence or pogroms to stop them, he’s not attempting to take France and Poland and kill their drag queens, he just is old and doesn’t understand and says words about it. Imo killing people for using their words in a way we don’t like is A) fucked up and B) stooping to the level of the actual nazis, like, the WWII ones.
fascist is a specific thing i’m saying we should attack, and while transphobia is often part of a fascist ideology and movement, it is not sufficient to determine whether the ideology or movement is fascist.
tldr i didnt say we should kill your dad, i said we should kill fascists.
No I’m not saying you said that, I’m saying others do. While I agree with you about actual fascists, my problem with currently advocating for political violence is the people who would use it on my dad are not in the minority of political violence supporters saying “drag people from their homes.” They already call people with that exact view fascists even without knowing if they do support using violence on drag queens or “just don’t like it.” It seems we’re kinda in the minority of that one and I’m just speaking out against that.
(Also btw I think it’s technically homophobia, afaiu drag queens or kings aren’t necessarily trans, some just do that for the shows. Right?)
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why fascism cannot be stopped.