Yeah, sorry, sometimes I can't help my need to play with language, when given the slightest chance.
HopeOfTheGunblade
joined 1 year ago
What would you say was the least violent revolution that succeeded, by whatever metrics you use for those words?
Hi. I voted uncommitted. In the primary. Also, I advocated for others to vote uncommitted, in the primary. There, it's a useful signal. In the general, it's handing the country to people gleefully proclaiming they want to round you up, and who openly and blatantly showed their disregard for your continued existence by letting a plague run rampant on the basis that cities vote blue and are more crowded so would suffer more death.
I'm not sure why you think that letting the Republicans win by voting third party does anything but make things much, much worse, than not letting them win. First past the post elections are in part a keynesian beauty contest, and if you can't recognize how that is the case, I don't think you have a lot to correct me on.
Biden being less terrible doesn’t make him a force for good.
No, but him being adequate to not dragging leftists out behind the barn and having them shot is a necessary basis for any sort of improvement.
What do you think Revolution is? Bombing everyone?
Bombing everyone seems inefficient to the goal, which in a revolution is overthrow of the existing order. I'm not aware of any peaceful overthrowings of existing orders, can you point to some?
Wasn't familiar with that term, looked it up. That looks like reform within the system rather than seizing the state. To do "through industrial unionism, seeks to unionize workers according to industry and advance their demands through strikes, with the eventual goal of gaining control over the means of production and the economy at large through social ownership," you need to not get shot when you strike. Trump would absolutely hire the Pinkertons of old to kill strikers and union leaders. Biden has been an outlier in how good he has been for unions, and capital is trying to use the captured supreme Court against him in that. So, I'd prefer that he stay in office and keep doing that, while yes, absolutely, 1000%, organize and do strikes and generally fight harder from within the system than just casting a vote every four years. Just don't flip the table or encourage others to rather than do these things, is my perspective, and that's what revolution means in my understanding.
How would you do so nonviolently? Would you get your people into office? That seems like the nonviolent way to seize control of the state, but if there is another, I'm interested to hear it.
Seems to be working for the Nordic countries. I genuinely think that if you try a revolution in America, what you get will not be socialism. If you're lucky, you will fail and get violent government rerribution. If you aren't lucky, you'll get full on authoritarianism, with mass bloody purges of undesirables of all shades. The rate of revolutions leading to good outcomes sucks. Mostly you get various flavors of dictatorships. Often with state sponsored mass murder.
Revolutions, on average, make things worse. Seriously, the outcome of the median revolution is pretty terrible. Things need to be incredibly bad before it's an improvement in expected value to do a revolution, instead of trying to improve the existing system.
I agree that that's fucked. Giving the red team power means that number gets bigger, faster, and that no improvement whatsoever takes place. Perfection isn't on my political menu, do you have a suggestion that isn't accelerationism or not influencing the situation at all? Because "vote third party" sure doesn't seem to have "sent a message" in any way I can recognize. It just enshittified the country faster. Looks like harm reduction is the order of the day in politics while encouraging improvement via other means.
Not made -31.5 billion. Lost -31.5 billion. As in they brought in that much, not cost it.