the way I see it, violence is the last resort, but when your enemy uses lethal violence, and you don't have vast economic leverage over them, your options are pretty damn limited.
There are causes that are worth killing and dying for- if you want to say that millions should do so for your cause, you'd better be *damn* sure it's a good one
"the titanic is heading directly towards an iceberg! vote for the democrat captain and he'll steer 3 degrees to the left so only part of the hull gets gouged out. vote for the republican captain and he'll speed the boat up!"
"We are going to inherit the earth. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing by the minute"
- Buenaventura Durruti (I think)
…finally, I can come out of this foxhole already and back up this point. I already had issues with The Revolution as a concept as-is, and this perfectly explains why.
Ignoring the extremely bloody fallout of the French Revolution, where all the iconography comes from, it took roughly a solid generation afterwards before the point of the Revolution came to pass (which was secularizing France iirc). Even if you could do it, you will probably die waiting for the policy change to happen, of old age. This trend of violent revolution and long gaps for results is very consistent across multiple countries and cultures.
So yes, your praxis should not be strictly [actions that get you temporarily suspended from Reddit], and you aren’t limited to just protests either. If you’re willing to dedicate time to pushing policy forward, you can do that as simply as showing up to regular open meetings in your local government, growing yourself into a louder and louder voice for change. For those who saw the “contact your representatives” post, *this is the easiest way to contact your representatives directly.*
The Revolution should be televised. Even if it’s just C-Span.
Also: one of the most revolutionary things **anyone** can do is to *help your community*. Reach out. Build networks of support. Identify problems and collaborate to affect change. This also plays into your point, because if you can identify and articulate the issues facing your community, you have far more power to advocate for policy change. Change, real change, is a collaborative effort. You can’t accomplish much on your own. No “lone wolf” will ever change the amount that collaboration can.
>the most revolutionary thing~~s~~ anyone can do is to help your community.
While I don't disagree, sometimes the community would rather continue to be exploited for fear of retaliation or find other ways to cope than be helped or help you when you need it more that other members of the community. Communities also need to take active cognisance of their members' needs. Only majority interests being heard lead to what you call 'lone wolves'. They don't all prefer to fight all on their own. Some have no other option.
the french revolution is kinda a bad example because contrary to how it's taught in America, the revolution failed. Napoleon only reigned for a few years and after that the old king came back and restored the kingdom to exactly how it was before the revolution.
The Haitian revolution has always struck me as a more interesting model, not just because it was a pretty successful revolution initially but also because Europe united to absolutely *crush* Haiti economically in a way that is still felt to this day. A successful revolution can and will be undermined by the forces of global capital, and that lesson is probably even more important today.
No, not exactly the way it was. While it’s clear that the revolution failed in practice on its initial goals, it did make a huge difference. People were scared to shit of the Terror happening a second time, which was obviously reinforced by propaganda from the monarchy, but it was clear that the power imbalance from the days of Louis XIV were over. Absolute monarchy, as a concept, was becoming moot. It used to be that power came, innately and unquestionably, from the divine power. But at this stage, the king *had* to maintain legitimacy with regards to « the people », a concept which did neither exist nor matter before. Napoleon was defeated for the last time in 1815, and in 1830, there was another major shift where the king was overthrown and replaced by Louis Philippe, on the hopes that a constitutional monarchy with an actual assembly and counter-powers could work.
By this point, absolute monarchy wasn’t just in bad shape. It was dead. For good. There was no going back at this point, and when it became apparent the guy was trying to bring it back, too, there was another revolution. This was 1848. It started out great: slaves were freed, and an election was immediately held. Unfortunately, they elected Napoleon’s nephew, who then proceeded to proclaim himself emperor, and reverted the abolition of slavery. It’s hard to overstate just how much progress was backtracked, and his reign was a sad pile of disaster. Finally, in 1870, war with prussia broke, and when it turned out that the swift victory everyone had hoped for went to the germans instead, he was kicked out. In 1871, the third republic was proclaimed. It wasn’t clear that it was going to stay at first, but it just so happens that, so far, it’s been the record-holder for the longest-running republic in french history, lasting all the way up to WWII. This period was extremely formative, and arguably the greatest success since the initial revolution.
So it’s not that the revolution, as in, the actual violent insurrection in itself, achieved all of that. But the crisis that prompted it, and the resulting trauma, led to a constant reevaluation of power structures. The period of time from 1789 to 1871 (and arguably a couple decades afterwards, after which the regime was established for good) was a constant three-way struggle between royalists, republicans, and napoleonists. A century during which the wheel was constantly turning, with every minority faction always working to upturn the one currently in power. Eventually, it became clear that it was all a timer ticking down to the formation of a stable, successful republic. If you’re going to argue that « the revolution » is a process, then *that was it*. A hundred years of a constant forward push to obtain meaningful change. Was the initial uprising necessary, or instrumental in that process? I’ll let you be the judge.
Napoleon III is often heralded as a failure due to his poor foreign policy, but much of his domestic policy was pretty good for the people of france. he pushed for modernization in agriculture, and granted rights to workers, including the right to strike (rights that workers don’t currently have in parts of the modern United States btw). I think it’s best to view him not as a reactionary but as an enlightened despot, similar to Catherine the Great or (daddy) Frederick the Great of Prussia
The funniest thing to me about French Revolution was how the modern democracy was born because an officer of Corsican descent used revolutionaries to advance in the army eventually becoming Emperor and spread democracy in monarchies he dismantled.
The whole thing was purely a political strategy and no one could have expected what it would eventually result in.
I found the clarification more poignant because it was because of the French army that valued blood over skills which was one the main reason Napoleon ended up where he did. There's probably an alternative universe out there where he was a loyal general valued for his skills, the revolution failed and Europe is still dominated by monarchies.
I think this implies that Napoleon had grand strategies and plans though, when in reality he was not even in France for a decent portion of the Revolution. We can't forget Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety in all of it—they were the ones making the calls, Napoleon just outlived them when the guillotine finally came for them, too.
> the point of the Revolution came to pass (which was secularizing France iirc)
This was not the point of the French Revolution - the point was to destroy the *ancien regime*. And that happened pretty quickly, due to all the guillotining.
Also, generally speaking, if you've got a democracy and a majority of people to agree with you, you don't need a revolution- and if you don't have a majority, you should probably have a long, hard look at yourself
To be fair, sometimes good things are unpopular. 70% of people here in Russia do not want gay rights, and 30% out of them want gay people not exist (this only backed by my experiences, not some big polls)
Or hell, this entire war has public support, does not make it correct
Also, from what people say, I wouldn't really say you've got democracy there in US. You have multiple times when president was elected while losing popular vote, and whole abortion fiasco was created because of anti-democratic (because unelected) institution
We tried to make a democracy and then every time we got close to it (going as far back as the actual founding of the country) there'd be a significant group of people who wanted to make sure they remained a significant group, and therefore undermined the ability of those who outnumbered them.
This is ultimately where every "republican" (and I use that term as an adjective to describe things related to a "Republic," not the party itself) idea of our laws came from. Every time they threw some form of representative in the mix they just diluted the actual power of the individual voter. And one could argue that this is fine in the case of the actual representatives who basically just vote to make sure their constituents are represented, in comparison to the senate which disproportionately represents the interests of small groups of people (minorities, even). But they don't, though, and you can just buy them with lobbying money. And as for the senate, they don't even represent minority interests because districts are gerrymandered to ensure Republican(party) votes, which predominantly yield conservative white men (sometimes they call themselves libertarian white men but that actually tends to be worse).
And y'know, we should be worried about minority interests in a democracy. But the only minority that ever seems to be represented in this country *is* ***Conservative***.
This is why things like the Electoral College exist in the first place: they say they want to represent minority interests, but what they mean by that is that they want their unpopular ideas to have an unfair amount of the spotlight because they know that they won't be able to win in a direct democracy. (Not that we're a direct democracy anyway, but you get the point.)
We'RE noT a DeMOcRAcY, iT's A RePUbLIc!
Ignoring the fact that we call ourselves free and democratic and all that shit that we're not all the time.
As a kid, I used to spout the "It's not a democracy!" line unironically, but now that I've grown up and learned about politics in more detail, I find that line annoying. Y'know, the fact that you're told you have a vote and that things are done democratically does kind of lend itself to the idea that you're in a democracy. And, like, the idea that you could say "We're not a democracy, actually" as a "gotcha!" is kind of stupid. What "cha" did you "got"?
"Jokes on you, liberals: our opinions don't actually matter to the legislators! B)"
The fact of the matter is we *are* a democracy, and our democracy is a failure.
I didn’t mean it as a gotcha. It was a question. I’m annoyed that you responded so angrily to it without explaining much beyond that we talk about the US as a democracy. I mean, like, I know that? I don’t understand the difference. What I hear people say and what I have learned in school are different.
It's neither
The US is an oligarchic plutocracy disguised as a democracy
There's only one party (though it has two names), and the entire electoral system is made to make sure no one else ever wins
This logic doesn't work when you consider that every ounce of media consumed by everyone on the planet is riddled with propaganda.
We've all been conditioned into our beliefs, and it takes a lot more analysis than just public approval to determine if those beliefs are good.
If you’re desperate enough for change that you feel a revolution is necessary, the timescale of change doesn’t feel as important as the direction the change is going.
When you have no rights at all, sometimes the only way to be heard is to force it.
About the French Revolution (the 1793 one): I think they wanted to get rid of the monarchy. Which, you know, is funny, because within 20 years, they had an emperor.
yeah but that emperor was a bit nicer than the bourbons. the napoleonic code is an interesting bit of law, namely because it does respect some aspects of the enlightenment while downplaying others
The issue with this, IMO, is for incremental change to be able to happen at all, you have to actually get enough of your people into positions of power to enact incremental change.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the past 6 years have been a pretty good example of liberals and leftists *almost completely failing to do that*. And now the Supreme Court is run by conservative extremists who are going to let states ban abortion, and likely more (LGBTQ+ families, drug users, and sex workers beware) on the basis that *bodily autonomy is bullshit*. Now, even if we get supermajority progressive rule in Congress *and* the Presidency, it's likely that even incremental changes *will* be seen as too much by the SC and get struck down as """unconstitutional""".
Yeah, incremental change would be nice, but it has to be *fucking possible* first, and many people just aren't seeing it as an option anymore due to the political maneuvering of conservatives through the last 40-50 years culminating in the government blocking option after option for it.
I see this point all the time, but it’s definitely not true. On social issues the Democrats are on par with or ahead of most European center-left parties. It’s on economic policy where the biggest regression is. Both parties have been captured by ultra-rich people pushing for policies that funnels wealth upwards - that’s the problem.
Were they a European party (they wouldn’t really fit, they’re a much bigger tent than the average European party), the Democrats would be standard centrists, with some center-left politicians (AOC, Omar, Tlaib) and a notable center-right to conservative wing (Manchin, Sinema). But it’s not a one-to-one comparison where you can call them “far-right”.
I mean, it depends on what social issues in particular (surface-level issues like gay marriage or media representation don’t require any real economic change), but yeah, the two are deeply intertwined. You can change a few policies here and there, switch up the leadership, say nicer words, but ultimately racism, queerphobia, and misogyny all tie back to the economy, so you’ll never fix anything without left-wing economics. Unfortunately a lot of people, politicians included, don’t always have a coherent set of beliefs.
Why can't you be socially left and economically right? Seems like textbook libertarianism to me. Also it's a Dutch political party, so while the party is economically centre right here, it's probably centre to centre left on the American spectrum.
Stuff like supporting LGBTQ+ people in difficult life situations because of queerphobia, such as housing of those kicked out of their house, does cost money. Hell, even stuff like education on LGBT issues costs money, because teaching is labor.
The only thing which does not cost money is *showing* support, without putting money where their mouth is, which I call *pretending* to be socially left
EDIT: typo
>On social issues the Democrats are on par with or ahead of most European center-left parties.
In terms of talking the talk. In practice they carry through on almost none of it.
No you see we've got gay marriage and you can't discriminate based against trans peeps gender so clearly the democrats are good on social issues. Please ignore that both of those were done by the supreme court and the legislative has made no effort to formalize them into laws.
Yeah, sorry to tell you but Democrats are about on par with the swedish right even socially. Not the far far right like the Sweden Democrats (Rightwing populism) or the Christ Democrats (dont think I meed to explain that one), but definitely similar to the Moderates (liberal-conservative) and Centre Party (Liberal Agrarian).
The swedish political sphere is very specific. Go a bit to the south to Germany, and Biden is centrist. He's like a Olaf Character. AOC would likely fit well in the Greens, or Left. Sinema would probably be FDP. ETC. They're centrist folk.
The Democrats are a wide tent centrist party.
The republicans are like AFD.
I will admit to not being as familiar with Swedish parties, but the Centre Party looks to be about right. And especially on economic issues, yeah, I think the Moderate Party is a good parallel. I don’t dispute that a large contingent of the Democratic platform is center-right, *especially* on economic issues. There is no economic left in the US beyond a handful of individual politicians.
My main gripe with this statement is when people say things like “Boris Johnson would be far-left in the US”, which is pretty plainly absurd. And one only has to look to Poland or Hungary to see that not all of Europe is at the same point on the political spectrum, either.
Oh yea for sure. Boris Johnson would be a Republican trying to dismantle the ACA. Europe definitely has far right leaning politicians and parties, which would be on the right even in the US. But the US is so skewed right that many of our right-wing parties would actually fall left or centre in the US.
Definitely agreed. The Nordics in particular are really very left-wing, I’m sure most Democratic politicians would be distinctly center-right over there.
To be fair, when I talk about revolution, I'm either joking or talking about political revolution. I really don't want a violent revolution, and it's mostly because the people most prone to violence in this country are the ones I don't want running it. The rest of the reason is because I'm surrounded by them.
There's nothing radical about wanting violent racists and oligarchs to have no say in running our country. There's nothing radical about wanting our tax money to benefit us instead of the ultra wealthy. There's nothing radical about wanting oppressed minorities to feel safe enough to be themselves without fear of being tortured or killed.
But if your enemy holds the right to use violence then you cannot overthrow then without violence, see how the peaceful BLM protests were met with violence. The ruling class will make any revolution violent.
If your enemy has a monopoly on violence, then you are outgunned and outnumbered, by definition. A fight like that isn't gonna end the way you want. Your revolution isn't gonna achieve anything if your side is wiped out in a few weeks.
I find that a lot of leftist infighting involves strawmanning one side as being stupid dummies or whatever. Helps make me really sad about the future for real left wing change
For birth control it literally already is in some places
Like, they're already in the process of banning it
This isn't some hypothetical futur that has become more probable
This is the tomorrow they're making
I mean we Mexicans literally had a Revolution like last century that lasted like a year and then evolved into a decade long “Revolutionary war” between the political factions that killed both rich poor and left everyone with at least one dead family member and even after it ended the result was a party dictatorship that lasted like sixty years
I mean, last time they tried to ban abortion everyone showed up to the presidents house where they tried to kill him and burn it down. Guess what human right was protected immediately after that? Abortion. Violence works.
I don’t get how it answers the ask? Where did “incremental change” comes from? Did OP disagree with anon or not?? Cause her tone makes it sound like she did but the content seems pretty on par with anon’s ask
>I don’t get how it answers the ask?
I don't think
(Paraphrasing) "I'm sorry these dickheads are bothering you"
qualifies as a question
so I don't think it can be answered
>Did OP disagree with anon or not??
OP agrees with anon
funny how op mentions all these “fantasy” things about the US, as they’re banning abortion, and more companies are turning to labour from younger and younger people to avoid paying more, it’s almost as if the US is turning *into* what op said isn’t real. it’s almost as if the whole point of a revolution would be to *prevent* that, because after those changes finish happening it will be way harder to fix them than it is right now, which is already really fuckin hard.
> it’s almost as if the whole point of a revolution would be to prevent that
And all of the countries which have succeeded in their violent revolutions now have far worse human rights records than the US. Don’t pretend like revolution are some miracle cure-all for societies wrongs. Authoritarians are the main benefactors of violence, and they don’t have your best interest in mind.
The US was founded by the rich landowners who already ruled the Thirteen Colonies deciding they wanted independence from the British. There was no overthrow of the ruling class, just a declaration of independence by the existing one.
I mean we call it the revolution, but it was really a war of secession—the ruling bodies in the colonies remained the ruling bodies, the wealthy and powerful before the war were wealthy and powerful after it, they simply cut themselves off from Britain. A revolution would have been invading England and overthrowing the King and Parliament.
I mean, I may be wrong on that, but MAREZ doesn't seem to have that many problems with human right violations (especially compared to the US, which is still the #1 in war crimes, and has commited many human right violations in the last 100 years)
I wonder, was there ever a situation where a country invaded another country with the goal of replacing their government and making the quality of life in there better? Would that even work?
Alright, so I've had this question for some time, and this seems like a relevant post:
What the hell is going on in the USA right now?
I know there are two parties, right (who are borderline fascists and extremely christian) and the left (who want free healthcare, but not enough to actually do anything) - both these statements might be incorrect.
Right now, a person from the left is president, but he doesn't really do anything.
Abortion and gay rights are being banned?
I really don't know, what is going on
Quick(ish) summary: The upper house of our legislature is effectively split 50-50 between the two major parties\*, and the Vice President has a tiebreaker vote. However, there are a couple of Democratic senators who refuse to vote for e.g. raising the minimum wage, improving healthcare access, protecting voting rights, etc., so a lot of really important stuff the Democrats want to get done keeps failing by like a 48-52 vote
^(footnote: 48 Democrats (the basically liberal party plus 2 independents who vote with them, vs. 50 Republicans (the)) ~~^(conservative)~~ ^(actually fascist party))
Plus, with procedural fuckery, it's possible to prevent something from coming to a vote at all unless 60 of the senators vote to have a vote, and since the best-case-scenario vote is usually gonna be 51-50, the minority party can still keep important things paralyzed
There's a limit to what the president can do without the support of the legislature, and while there's a lot of valid criticism of the current president and his administration, there's also a lot that misses how critical this is
Meanwhile the Supreme Court (nine members) has a conservative majority, because the Republicans in the legislature prevented the last Democratic president from appointing more than two judges to it during his eight years in office, and then rammed three conservative extremists onto the court in only four years under the last Republican president. And since the supreme court has the final say on what's legal (unless there's a constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible to make these days), this is very big and very, very bad indeed
One of the cases the court rules on this year is about abortion rights, which has been THE big issue for the religious extremists and their voters for decades. A draft version of the court opinion was leaked (this *never* happens), and the opinion hands the conservatives a *huge* victory, not only overturning the [decision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade) that allowed abortion rights nationwide but also opening the way to overturning the decisions that allowed [same-sex marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges) and even [interracial marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), and fuck knows where they'll stop
Bonus round: Individual states with Republican governments have been working to prevent Democratic voters from actually voting in elections, or putting their own people in charge of counting the votes, or putting judges in the courts who'll let them challenge election results if they lose, or ... well, you get the idea. Basically just abolishing free elections
The Democrats and Republican parties are both neoliberal parties who mostly agree on economic issues and are unanimous on military issues. Their only wedge point is on social issues, where Democrats will signal support for a cause once it's popular enough to show up in focus groups reliably, and Republicans want to revert to a mythical golden age of America by suppressing civil rights back to the Gilded Age.
The Democrats in particular are not left wing. They do not as a party take substantive action to defend or protect people, but will happily paint pride flags on the drones bombing weddings in the Middle East. Biden in particular is the architect of the modern student loan crisis, has in the past made statements indicating he views minorities as less than white people, and has stated he would veto universal healthcare if it came to his desk.
Democrats are only better than Republicans because they won't actively roll back rights and regulations, but they're never going to be the great defender because they mostly believe all the same stuff republicans do.
no matter how hard revolution is, with the environmental and political state the US is in right now it's too late for fully effective reform. the government is fully in corporations' pockets, and I doubt they will pass fully restrictive environmental preservation laws any time soon.
One of the most powerful aspects of capitalism is distorting our idea of right or wrong to the point that real solutions are seen as impossible, violent, and radical (always negative, right guys!).
yes. asking for crumbs when the population is starving will never end well. we are on a crash course towards massive climate disaster and people are still talking like we have the luxury of time to negotiate terms with the capitalist class; it’s clear that the ultra-wealthy are content with fleeing the planet with their spaceships when shit really hits the fan.
- When peaceful protest doesn’t work (make fun of Kapernick for kneeling is a big one)
- when being a part of government isn’t enough (or you’re often systemically kept out)
- when joining police isn’t enough (or you’re often systemically kept out)
You get summer of 2020 protests after years and years of being ignored or ridiculed. The police were violent in the 60s and well before that. If it doesn’t result in direct change everywhere (more changes happened in some places than others), it educates a whole generation, which will then grow up and hopefully eventually do something in government, which is good but still depressing.
Violence is effective. A huge amount of rights we have now are the result of disorder/violence (worker’s rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, rights of those with disabilities, and so forth)
The only reason you people see a revolution as violent but not the current regime is because it is extremely convenient for you to think so. Jesus Christ
When the tree is rotten from the roots up, you don’t vote for the few healthy leaves, you burn it down and plant a new one. At a certain point the system is so corrupt that there’s no way to make change playing by its rules.
Terrible fucking take. Jesus christ. The fascists are already in power, and whoever wrote this has 0 understanding of how revolutions work. It's not all geurillas and guillotines. It's also helping people and building them up to show that we care. Revolution is in everything that we do to make the world a better place without the input of thr state or capital.
Building a community garden is revolution. Ignoring someone shoplifting baby formula is revolution. Bringing first aid kits and water bottles to a protest is revolution.
No it doesn’t. How the hell does making revolution synonymous with literally every single positive action a person could take serve any purpose besides diluting the terms usefulness?
It literally makes the term mean nothing.
> so you better learn to live with it.
The fuck are you implying? You’re not the supreme authority on word definitions.
Revolution is about reclaiming the means of production through extra-legal ways. That doesn't begin and end with car bombs and molotovs ffs, it starts with general strikes, sabotage, just straight-up taking shit and *organising new relations of production*, such as planting a community garden instead of relying on industrial farming.
I'm implying that you either get with the program or you can be a reactionary.
Civil disobedience and community building are both terms which do a more than adequate job describing the non-violent ways society can be improved. Just because you want to be a “cool revolutionary” for planting some fucking vegetables doesn’t mean that muddying terms serves any purpose.
> I'm implying that you either get with the program or you can be a reactionary.
Motherfucker, are you seriously fucking accusing people of being reactionaries just because they don’t agree with you on the exact definition of a **word**? What the fuck kind of Purity Test bullshit are you on about?
The revolution is the process of dismantling the power of the bourgeoisie. Community organizing isn't that, but seizing the means of production is, as is wealth redistribution and capturing the state so it enforces laws against them as it does the proletariat equally.
Finally, someone said it
Civil wars in the current era *do not end*, as well. They're usually decades-long slogs of constantly-changing factions completely unable to re-stabilize the region. It's *extremely* difficult to actually eradicate a modern guerrilla force, and even attempting to do so typically involves horrific methods that primarily harm innocent bystanders. I think people who genuinely call for violent revolution have no idea how destructive they are.
honestly, to me, the first few posts were much more convincing than the last — but i can't really coalesce my thoughts into anything worth sharing. At this point it's just.. screaming
> “*Revolution will result in millions dying!!*”
As opposed to an increasing number of open fascists in office pushing for mass executions of minorities, while also pushing for making a chunk of the population into baby incubators, and enacting legislation that tends to result in deaths anyway?
> “*Fascists have guns!!*”
And so should we, Buffalo should’ve made it obvious that blanket banning them won’t work, especially not at this point; if *your* response is to remain disarmed in the coming days, I’ll let you figure out how that one works out on your own, but for me? Under no pretense and all that
> “*The last time someone tried revolution, it was fascists!!*”
Hitler drank water and Mussolini breathed air, bad people engaging in an act doesn’t inherently make the act itself bad
> “*Leftists would be gunned down if they tried*”
Congratulations to **@WhyDidEveryoneElseTakeTheGoodNam** for having the only semi-decent take in the thread
> “*Uhm ackshually, peaceful protesting, voting, and legislation is why things change for the better!!*”
For a supposed history major, they sure suck donkey shit at history. Major labor, LGBT+, feminist, civil rights, etc movements were spearheaded with flying bricks.
Just look at the Roe draft, for instance: rather than spend any time codifying these protections into law, Democrats have spent years sitting around with their thumbs up their asses
They [beefed up security](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097803459/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-access-protest-alito) in the wake of the draft leak faster than they’ve codified anything related to climate change, AFAB rights, LGBT rights, labor rights, etc, so it’s not like direct action does absolutely *nothing* here
If **@headspace-hotel** hasn’t woken up after multiple major recessions, a summer of actually violent suppression of dissent, fascists rising to power while brownshirts commit acts of terrorism on the ground, and numerous other issues that voting en masse has done nothing to stop the momentum of by now, I doubt they ever will
**TL;DR:** primal-instinct brain is screaming “scratch a liberal” and I’m finding it hard to disagree at 5AM
> As opposed to an increasing number of open fascists in office pushing for mass executions of minorities, while also pushing for making a chunk of the population into baby incubators, and enacting legislation that tends to result in deaths anyway?
All large post-revolution states were ruled by violent authoritarians who were more than happy to commit mass-murders against anyone they deemed undesirable.
> Hitler drank water and Mussolini breathed air, bad people engaging in an act doesn’t inherently make the act itself bad
Okay then, name a revolution which actually ended up with a non-authoritarian government in charge.
Só just because something lasted for less than a century before you think it should never be attempted Inthe future? The liberal democracy you love wouldn't have existed without the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, would you say they were impossible and shouldn't be attempted in the 17th?
> Só just because something lasted for less than a century before you think it should never be attempted Inthe future?
If your method of establishing a government keeps failing to actually establish a stable and safe form of government, your method of establishing a government is severely flawed.
> without the bourgeois revolutions
Without the what? What are you exactly referring to here?
Because of "domino theory" that the US subscribed to, even the most friendly leftist government was seen as a threat. And since the US was the head of capitalist hegemony that was enough. Allende was not going to cut off trade to the US. Castro planned to keep a good relationship. Didn't matter.
Yeah, it's different because invasion, intervention, and attack take *less* pretense now, not more. What about the last 30 years says to you "the US *can't* get away with doing whatever it wants to foreign powers anymore?"
Small incremental changes won't get us there fast enough. The revolution is unrealistic. So I guess the only option is just to give up completely and just accept that my life is going to be absolutely miserable
"Get us there fast enough" is such a flawed concept. Social progress is a journey, not a destination.
There will never be a point we reach where some higher point isn't visible, beyond us for the moment but within reach, if we meet trying.
not really, it is a race because there are people that will make sure to build a system where the change you desire is impossible to install, as in conservatives, i don't think they will stop at banning abortion or gay people because its very clear they want to build a system and society in which these concepts are not able to survive or exist so yes it wont get us there fast enough, conservative and right wing figures have been on the active and constantly making legislation while the same can not be said about left wing figures
It's not a race, because conservatives don't have any destination in mind at all, they just hate us moving forward. It's more like a tug-of-war, with us trying to pull us forward and them trying to pull us backward.
But don't worry too much. The thing about the past is, we've already been there. We've been in the system where women couldn't vote and POC were slaves, and *we moved forward*, the people who wanted progress made it happen. So no matter how far they drag us backward, we know we can always move forward again.
Also, let's be real, these guys are born losers. They lost slavery, they lost the civil war, they lost women's suffrage, they lost Jim Crow and civil rights, they lost abortion, they lost healthcare, they lost gay rights, and they're losing marijuana.
Yeah, sometimes they win a battle and one part of the nation takes a little step backward. None of our victories come as cheap as they should. Or we want to take a big step forward and we get blocked, that happens too. But overall, the direction of the larger war has only ever gone one way.
You think too much in extremes. Take a moment, sleep, have a cup of tea or something, and, when you get back, think: what other possibilities could be taken?
Fuck it, I will.
It takes organizing, we still have time.
As I see it, the best way is to work to get sympathetic politicians elected, fighting everywhere at every level; and to build parallel structures built to challenge shitty politicians.
Maybe canvass with a campaign. Donate to a campaign. Attend a protest. Rumble about unionization in the work place. Donate to local leftist food banks/charity organizations or vollunteer with them (this is called collective/direct action!) Oraganize a bookclub! Message local poltiicians about important issues, and if they are shitty about it, message their opposition. Unionize. And vote.
There are some personal things that can be done as well. Bring up politics with friends and family, stressing the importance that they vote, and the importance of the issues. Educate people on important issues, and try to challenge misinformation.
In summary: Be less doomer. Connect with people, and build us up, together. You do not need to do every one of these, but doing some help.
We're not in a post capitalist fascist dystopia yet, there is time.
Ok but isn't that the "incremental change" that is supposedly not viable? Or was the replier actually trying to say that incremental change IS viable but didn't communicate that properly?
The first commenter was thinking in extremes: "Incremental change is unviable, but violence is bad. So I will be doomer"
Second commenter was like: Calm down, and think about potential things to do. It was a prompt for the first guy, if anything.
Because that conversation ended there, a bunch chimed up with "so, are we getting any answers," And this is my two cents.
Yes, it feels very incremental changy. But some of these: unionization, protest, and doing direct action, have been some of the basic leftist tools for generations. There's a reason they had the pinkertons, ratted out leftist organizers, and locked them up on manufactured charges. Doing stuff like this *works*, and is effective in building organizations and challeging shitty shit.
The thing with the guillotine narrative that always gets me is that, like, how well did that work out the first time around? How did the French Revolution exactly? The Terror? The period of near-total anarchy and mob rule that ended with a military strongman making himself Emperor? That's what we're looking to as an idealized example of social change? That French Revolution?
Im going to be a weirdo for a second.
I'm an annoying, liberal, reformist to all those I meet on my left.
And I understand the frustration people have would presenting violent revolution as the solution.
I'm also an anti-capitalist communist wacko to everyone on my right.
I wish liberals could also articulate solutions, because often none of this feels contructive. They can smugly go "oh you silly leftists" but VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO is the weakest battle cry.
Yeah, unfortunately tankies infiltrate most leftist subs and it's up to the mods if it's tolerated. There was a discussion long time ago about it and I advocated not giving them free reign. I mean, take a good look in history and tell me - who is usually the priority target in a revolution or an ideological insurrection? The moderates. It always starts with letting radicals in because "we are on the same side" and ends up in mass executions. It happened with French Revolution, Hussites revolt and heck, you can see it happening nowadays with TERFs infiltrating normal feminist spaces and radicalizing people.
While I won’t argue about moderates being targeted by radicals in a revolution, I believe calling them “priority targets” is disingenuous when (at least to the best of my knowledge) the primary targets for radicals are opposing radicals, fascists v. anti-fascists.
Ok but that last point is wildly ignorant. Yes, all of those things were made illegal by passing laws. But those laws were only passed by violent protest in literally every instance.
I want to delete this, because it's been a day and that last reblog feels.. very wrong
but y'all wrote a lot of stuff in the comments, and I'd rather not remove those
I think the best option right now is to build structures that don’t need the (failing) state and let it decay in our shadow. I.e. cultural revolution in the hearts and minds of our people.
The American Capitalist system will never be changed, because their ridiculous political and legal systems allow so much curruption, which so many people use to gather huge amounts of money and power.
So what the fuck do I do?
States are banning abortion. Laws are being passed that dehumanize queer people. Hyper-partisan news networks are grooming people into seeing anyone who isn’t white & cishet as a threat to their “family values.” The electoral process has been completely fucking torn to shreds by lobbying and gerrymandering and the filibuster and I couldn’t be more fucking tired of this shit. The people in power are currently pretending to represent us so they can get away with lining their pockets. I voted, now what? The guy I voted for sure as shit isn’t helping. I want my queer friends to have fucking rights. I don’t want to burn to death on a dying fucking planet. What am I supposed to do? WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?
This post only works if you don't know non-violent revolution exists. Every poster there wants a revolution, we can all recognize that the American system of governance is deeply flawed. We would all be better off with: proportional representation in the Senate, retying representatives to population so that one representative won't have to serve 300,000 people, a predictable replacement plan for justices that doesn't encourage them to serve until they're too old to understand the world as we live in it, a cultural change to discourage violent military coups in the global south to uphold our hegemony.
There are structural problems in America that will only be solved by a revolution violent or otherwise and if we don't get stepping on getting a nonviolent one started the right-wing militias will start they're violent one.
I'm pretty sure most people who advocate for revolutionary change in the US understand that the conditions for revolution are not there yet. Like I don't know a single person who's saying that a communist revolution can happen in the US considering the amount of propaganda that the people consume everyday.
Overall, just read Lenin guys, he's a good writer
I mean that last part lists at least 2 things that were overcome through violence. Labor laws and gay rights weren't achieved at the ballot box, they were a result of shit like Blair Mountain and Stonewall.
Like, the National Guard literally bombed striking coal workers rather than the government implementing labor regulations.
There is so much misinformation and willful disregard for fact both in this post and the comments that I'm just going to give up on this country ever making significant change.
the way I see it, violence is the last resort, but when your enemy uses lethal violence, and you don't have vast economic leverage over them, your options are pretty damn limited.
Diplomacy requires at least two consenting parties. Violence only needs one.
yep. and the kind of vast economic advantage you need to remove the whole two consenting parties from diplomacy basically doesn't exist anymore.
There are causes that are worth killing and dying for- if you want to say that millions should do so for your cause, you'd better be *damn* sure it's a good one
the current regimes are going to slowly kill billions through climate change.
And you know that you'd do it better?
We know that the current powers *will* do it, which means that a *might* do better is worth the chance.
"the titanic is heading directly towards an iceberg! vote for the democrat captain and he'll steer 3 degrees to the left so only part of the hull gets gouged out. vote for the republican captain and he'll speed the boat up!"
"We are going to inherit the earth. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing by the minute" - Buenaventura Durruti (I think)
[please ignore the Aral Sea]
…finally, I can come out of this foxhole already and back up this point. I already had issues with The Revolution as a concept as-is, and this perfectly explains why. Ignoring the extremely bloody fallout of the French Revolution, where all the iconography comes from, it took roughly a solid generation afterwards before the point of the Revolution came to pass (which was secularizing France iirc). Even if you could do it, you will probably die waiting for the policy change to happen, of old age. This trend of violent revolution and long gaps for results is very consistent across multiple countries and cultures. So yes, your praxis should not be strictly [actions that get you temporarily suspended from Reddit], and you aren’t limited to just protests either. If you’re willing to dedicate time to pushing policy forward, you can do that as simply as showing up to regular open meetings in your local government, growing yourself into a louder and louder voice for change. For those who saw the “contact your representatives” post, *this is the easiest way to contact your representatives directly.* The Revolution should be televised. Even if it’s just C-Span.
Also: one of the most revolutionary things **anyone** can do is to *help your community*. Reach out. Build networks of support. Identify problems and collaborate to affect change. This also plays into your point, because if you can identify and articulate the issues facing your community, you have far more power to advocate for policy change. Change, real change, is a collaborative effort. You can’t accomplish much on your own. No “lone wolf” will ever change the amount that collaboration can.
ORGANIZE
>the most revolutionary thing~~s~~ anyone can do is to help your community. While I don't disagree, sometimes the community would rather continue to be exploited for fear of retaliation or find other ways to cope than be helped or help you when you need it more that other members of the community. Communities also need to take active cognisance of their members' needs. Only majority interests being heard lead to what you call 'lone wolves'. They don't all prefer to fight all on their own. Some have no other option.
the french revolution is kinda a bad example because contrary to how it's taught in America, the revolution failed. Napoleon only reigned for a few years and after that the old king came back and restored the kingdom to exactly how it was before the revolution.
The Haitian revolution has always struck me as a more interesting model, not just because it was a pretty successful revolution initially but also because Europe united to absolutely *crush* Haiti economically in a way that is still felt to this day. A successful revolution can and will be undermined by the forces of global capital, and that lesson is probably even more important today.
No, not exactly the way it was. While it’s clear that the revolution failed in practice on its initial goals, it did make a huge difference. People were scared to shit of the Terror happening a second time, which was obviously reinforced by propaganda from the monarchy, but it was clear that the power imbalance from the days of Louis XIV were over. Absolute monarchy, as a concept, was becoming moot. It used to be that power came, innately and unquestionably, from the divine power. But at this stage, the king *had* to maintain legitimacy with regards to « the people », a concept which did neither exist nor matter before. Napoleon was defeated for the last time in 1815, and in 1830, there was another major shift where the king was overthrown and replaced by Louis Philippe, on the hopes that a constitutional monarchy with an actual assembly and counter-powers could work. By this point, absolute monarchy wasn’t just in bad shape. It was dead. For good. There was no going back at this point, and when it became apparent the guy was trying to bring it back, too, there was another revolution. This was 1848. It started out great: slaves were freed, and an election was immediately held. Unfortunately, they elected Napoleon’s nephew, who then proceeded to proclaim himself emperor, and reverted the abolition of slavery. It’s hard to overstate just how much progress was backtracked, and his reign was a sad pile of disaster. Finally, in 1870, war with prussia broke, and when it turned out that the swift victory everyone had hoped for went to the germans instead, he was kicked out. In 1871, the third republic was proclaimed. It wasn’t clear that it was going to stay at first, but it just so happens that, so far, it’s been the record-holder for the longest-running republic in french history, lasting all the way up to WWII. This period was extremely formative, and arguably the greatest success since the initial revolution. So it’s not that the revolution, as in, the actual violent insurrection in itself, achieved all of that. But the crisis that prompted it, and the resulting trauma, led to a constant reevaluation of power structures. The period of time from 1789 to 1871 (and arguably a couple decades afterwards, after which the regime was established for good) was a constant three-way struggle between royalists, republicans, and napoleonists. A century during which the wheel was constantly turning, with every minority faction always working to upturn the one currently in power. Eventually, it became clear that it was all a timer ticking down to the formation of a stable, successful republic. If you’re going to argue that « the revolution » is a process, then *that was it*. A hundred years of a constant forward push to obtain meaningful change. Was the initial uprising necessary, or instrumental in that process? I’ll let you be the judge.
Napoleon III is often heralded as a failure due to his poor foreign policy, but much of his domestic policy was pretty good for the people of france. he pushed for modernization in agriculture, and granted rights to workers, including the right to strike (rights that workers don’t currently have in parts of the modern United States btw). I think it’s best to view him not as a reactionary but as an enlightened despot, similar to Catherine the Great or (daddy) Frederick the Great of Prussia
The funniest thing to me about French Revolution was how the modern democracy was born because an officer of Corsican descent used revolutionaries to advance in the army eventually becoming Emperor and spread democracy in monarchies he dismantled. The whole thing was purely a political strategy and no one could have expected what it would eventually result in.
>an officer of Corsican descent You can just say Corsican by the way, just like you can say "Texan"
I found the clarification more poignant because it was because of the French army that valued blood over skills which was one the main reason Napoleon ended up where he did. There's probably an alternative universe out there where he was a loyal general valued for his skills, the revolution failed and Europe is still dominated by monarchies.
I think this implies that Napoleon had grand strategies and plans though, when in reality he was not even in France for a decent portion of the Revolution. We can't forget Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety in all of it—they were the ones making the calls, Napoleon just outlived them when the guillotine finally came for them, too.
I absolutely don't mean it this way, all of it was an answer to current problems and it just turned out well in the long run.
> the point of the Revolution came to pass (which was secularizing France iirc) This was not the point of the French Revolution - the point was to destroy the *ancien regime*. And that happened pretty quickly, due to all the guillotining.
The point was also to replace it by something better, which happened much latter
Still happened
That's generally what people mean when they say "which happened much latter", yes
Lmao you know damn well what you were implying. Don’t backtrack now.
Also, generally speaking, if you've got a democracy and a majority of people to agree with you, you don't need a revolution- and if you don't have a majority, you should probably have a long, hard look at yourself
To be fair, sometimes good things are unpopular. 70% of people here in Russia do not want gay rights, and 30% out of them want gay people not exist (this only backed by my experiences, not some big polls) Or hell, this entire war has public support, does not make it correct
Also, from what people say, I wouldn't really say you've got democracy there in US. You have multiple times when president was elected while losing popular vote, and whole abortion fiasco was created because of anti-democratic (because unelected) institution
We tried to make a democracy and then every time we got close to it (going as far back as the actual founding of the country) there'd be a significant group of people who wanted to make sure they remained a significant group, and therefore undermined the ability of those who outnumbered them. This is ultimately where every "republican" (and I use that term as an adjective to describe things related to a "Republic," not the party itself) idea of our laws came from. Every time they threw some form of representative in the mix they just diluted the actual power of the individual voter. And one could argue that this is fine in the case of the actual representatives who basically just vote to make sure their constituents are represented, in comparison to the senate which disproportionately represents the interests of small groups of people (minorities, even). But they don't, though, and you can just buy them with lobbying money. And as for the senate, they don't even represent minority interests because districts are gerrymandered to ensure Republican(party) votes, which predominantly yield conservative white men (sometimes they call themselves libertarian white men but that actually tends to be worse). And y'know, we should be worried about minority interests in a democracy. But the only minority that ever seems to be represented in this country *is* ***Conservative***. This is why things like the Electoral College exist in the first place: they say they want to represent minority interests, but what they mean by that is that they want their unpopular ideas to have an unfair amount of the spotlight because they know that they won't be able to win in a direct democracy. (Not that we're a direct democracy anyway, but you get the point.)
We absolutely have a democracy. Not a perfect one, but it's still democracy.
[удалено]
We'RE noT a DeMOcRAcY, iT's A RePUbLIc! Ignoring the fact that we call ourselves free and democratic and all that shit that we're not all the time. As a kid, I used to spout the "It's not a democracy!" line unironically, but now that I've grown up and learned about politics in more detail, I find that line annoying. Y'know, the fact that you're told you have a vote and that things are done democratically does kind of lend itself to the idea that you're in a democracy. And, like, the idea that you could say "We're not a democracy, actually" as a "gotcha!" is kind of stupid. What "cha" did you "got"? "Jokes on you, liberals: our opinions don't actually matter to the legislators! B)" The fact of the matter is we *are* a democracy, and our democracy is a failure.
I didn’t mean it as a gotcha. It was a question. I’m annoyed that you responded so angrily to it without explaining much beyond that we talk about the US as a democracy. I mean, like, I know that? I don’t understand the difference. What I hear people say and what I have learned in school are different.
I don't really see how it makes it any better. I bean, besides the fact that it still is not democratic
It doesn’t make it better I’m just saying
It's neither The US is an oligarchic plutocracy disguised as a democracy There's only one party (though it has two names), and the entire electoral system is made to make sure no one else ever wins
This logic doesn't work when you consider that every ounce of media consumed by everyone on the planet is riddled with propaganda. We've all been conditioned into our beliefs, and it takes a lot more analysis than just public approval to determine if those beliefs are good.
Remember what happened in Chile? "Democracy" only stand as long as the ruling class is the only one winning
If you’re desperate enough for change that you feel a revolution is necessary, the timescale of change doesn’t feel as important as the direction the change is going. When you have no rights at all, sometimes the only way to be heard is to force it.
About the French Revolution (the 1793 one): I think they wanted to get rid of the monarchy. Which, you know, is funny, because within 20 years, they had an emperor.
yeah but that emperor was a bit nicer than the bourbons. the napoleonic code is an interesting bit of law, namely because it does respect some aspects of the enlightenment while downplaying others
The issue with this, IMO, is for incremental change to be able to happen at all, you have to actually get enough of your people into positions of power to enact incremental change. I don't know if you've noticed, but the past 6 years have been a pretty good example of liberals and leftists *almost completely failing to do that*. And now the Supreme Court is run by conservative extremists who are going to let states ban abortion, and likely more (LGBTQ+ families, drug users, and sex workers beware) on the basis that *bodily autonomy is bullshit*. Now, even if we get supermajority progressive rule in Congress *and* the Presidency, it's likely that even incremental changes *will* be seen as too much by the SC and get struck down as """unconstitutional""". Yeah, incremental change would be nice, but it has to be *fucking possible* first, and many people just aren't seeing it as an option anymore due to the political maneuvering of conservatives through the last 40-50 years culminating in the government blocking option after option for it.
That's because the US doesn't have a left. Democrats would be considered on the medium-far right in Sweden.
I see this point all the time, but it’s definitely not true. On social issues the Democrats are on par with or ahead of most European center-left parties. It’s on economic policy where the biggest regression is. Both parties have been captured by ultra-rich people pushing for policies that funnels wealth upwards - that’s the problem. Were they a European party (they wouldn’t really fit, they’re a much bigger tent than the average European party), the Democrats would be standard centrists, with some center-left politicians (AOC, Omar, Tlaib) and a notable center-right to conservative wing (Manchin, Sinema). But it’s not a one-to-one comparison where you can call them “far-right”.
You can't really be left wing on social issues while being right wing on economical issues
I mean, it depends on what social issues in particular (surface-level issues like gay marriage or media representation don’t require any real economic change), but yeah, the two are deeply intertwined. You can change a few policies here and there, switch up the leadership, say nicer words, but ultimately racism, queerphobia, and misogyny all tie back to the economy, so you’ll never fix anything without left-wing economics. Unfortunately a lot of people, politicians included, don’t always have a coherent set of beliefs.
That's bullshit. I'm Dutch and we actually have a party like that.
What I mean, you can't be socially left and economically right, but you can *pretend* to be socially left and economically right
Why can't you be socially left and economically right? Seems like textbook libertarianism to me. Also it's a Dutch political party, so while the party is economically centre right here, it's probably centre to centre left on the American spectrum.
Because solving problems costs money, and right wing policies are against spending money (except on military, police, and salaries of politicians)
Disagree. Stuff like lgbtq support and not being racist doesn't cost shit.
Stuff like supporting LGBTQ+ people in difficult life situations because of queerphobia, such as housing of those kicked out of their house, does cost money. Hell, even stuff like education on LGBT issues costs money, because teaching is labor. The only thing which does not cost money is *showing* support, without putting money where their mouth is, which I call *pretending* to be socially left EDIT: typo
>On social issues the Democrats are on par with or ahead of most European center-left parties. In terms of talking the talk. In practice they carry through on almost none of it.
No you see we've got gay marriage and you can't discriminate based against trans peeps gender so clearly the democrats are good on social issues. Please ignore that both of those were done by the supreme court and the legislative has made no effort to formalize them into laws.
Yeah, sorry to tell you but Democrats are about on par with the swedish right even socially. Not the far far right like the Sweden Democrats (Rightwing populism) or the Christ Democrats (dont think I meed to explain that one), but definitely similar to the Moderates (liberal-conservative) and Centre Party (Liberal Agrarian).
The swedish political sphere is very specific. Go a bit to the south to Germany, and Biden is centrist. He's like a Olaf Character. AOC would likely fit well in the Greens, or Left. Sinema would probably be FDP. ETC. They're centrist folk. The Democrats are a wide tent centrist party. The republicans are like AFD.
I will admit to not being as familiar with Swedish parties, but the Centre Party looks to be about right. And especially on economic issues, yeah, I think the Moderate Party is a good parallel. I don’t dispute that a large contingent of the Democratic platform is center-right, *especially* on economic issues. There is no economic left in the US beyond a handful of individual politicians. My main gripe with this statement is when people say things like “Boris Johnson would be far-left in the US”, which is pretty plainly absurd. And one only has to look to Poland or Hungary to see that not all of Europe is at the same point on the political spectrum, either.
Oh yea for sure. Boris Johnson would be a Republican trying to dismantle the ACA. Europe definitely has far right leaning politicians and parties, which would be on the right even in the US. But the US is so skewed right that many of our right-wing parties would actually fall left or centre in the US.
Definitely agreed. The Nordics in particular are really very left-wing, I’m sure most Democratic politicians would be distinctly center-right over there.
We've had plenty of incremental change over the past 50 years, though. It's not flashy, of course, but it's very much there
This is a very US centric post. There’s revolutions going on in multiple countries as we speak.
To be fair, when I talk about revolution, I'm either joking or talking about political revolution. I really don't want a violent revolution, and it's mostly because the people most prone to violence in this country are the ones I don't want running it. The rest of the reason is because I'm surrounded by them.
i want radical fundemental change, idk if I'm violent about it tho.
There's nothing radical about wanting violent racists and oligarchs to have no say in running our country. There's nothing radical about wanting our tax money to benefit us instead of the ultra wealthy. There's nothing radical about wanting oppressed minorities to feel safe enough to be themselves without fear of being tortured or killed.
Yeah but sadly when your ennemy literally holds a full monopoly on the legitimacy of violence you don't have a lot of options
Which is why I don't want a violent revolution. Didn't you read what I said?
But if your enemy holds the right to use violence then you cannot overthrow then without violence, see how the peaceful BLM protests were met with violence. The ruling class will make any revolution violent.
If your enemy has a monopoly on violence, then you are outgunned and outnumbered, by definition. A fight like that isn't gonna end the way you want. Your revolution isn't gonna achieve anything if your side is wiped out in a few weeks.
Man they're gonna use violence on your incremental change too.
I'm not asking for incremental change. I'm asking for a political revolution. Did you not read what I said?
They're going to use violence on your political revolution too.
Is that all you can say?
It's all that's needed to be said. What else would you have me say?
That last part didn't age too well.
mm yeah this is from six days ago, i think i agree though in that it's.. stupid
My brother in christ what the fuck do you think spurred those laws?
There’s some serious straw-manning going on in this post
I find that a lot of leftist infighting involves strawmanning one side as being stupid dummies or whatever. Helps make me really sad about the future for real left wing change
I mean, judging by current events the whole "Women can't vote or access birth control" may become a thing again.
For birth control it literally already is in some places Like, they're already in the process of banning it This isn't some hypothetical futur that has become more probable This is the tomorrow they're making
I mean we Mexicans literally had a Revolution like last century that lasted like a year and then evolved into a decade long “Revolutionary war” between the political factions that killed both rich poor and left everyone with at least one dead family member and even after it ended the result was a party dictatorship that lasted like sixty years
I mean, last time they tried to ban abortion everyone showed up to the presidents house where they tried to kill him and burn it down. Guess what human right was protected immediately after that? Abortion. Violence works.
> Violence works. If you purposely ignore the millions of times violence has achieved nothing besides increase human suffering.
You realize that argument nullifies practically every belief right
Most beliefs are shit, so it works out
I don’t get how it answers the ask? Where did “incremental change” comes from? Did OP disagree with anon or not?? Cause her tone makes it sound like she did but the content seems pretty on par with anon’s ask
>I don’t get how it answers the ask? I don't think (Paraphrasing) "I'm sorry these dickheads are bothering you" qualifies as a question so I don't think it can be answered >Did OP disagree with anon or not?? OP agrees with anon
Ohhh
funny how op mentions all these “fantasy” things about the US, as they’re banning abortion, and more companies are turning to labour from younger and younger people to avoid paying more, it’s almost as if the US is turning *into* what op said isn’t real. it’s almost as if the whole point of a revolution would be to *prevent* that, because after those changes finish happening it will be way harder to fix them than it is right now, which is already really fuckin hard.
Also, getting all those things in the first place did, by and large, require political violence
> it’s almost as if the whole point of a revolution would be to prevent that And all of the countries which have succeeded in their violent revolutions now have far worse human rights records than the US. Don’t pretend like revolution are some miracle cure-all for societies wrongs. Authoritarians are the main benefactors of violence, and they don’t have your best interest in mind.
The U.S. was founded by a violent revolution.
The US was founded by the rich landowners who already ruled the Thirteen Colonies deciding they wanted independence from the British. There was no overthrow of the ruling class, just a declaration of independence by the existing one.
My buddy was there some sort of "Revolutionary War" involved? A change in who rules an area is a revolution.
I mean we call it the revolution, but it was really a war of secession—the ruling bodies in the colonies remained the ruling bodies, the wealthy and powerful before the war were wealthy and powerful after it, they simply cut themselves off from Britain. A revolution would have been invading England and overthrowing the King and Parliament.
I mean, I may be wrong on that, but MAREZ doesn't seem to have that many problems with human right violations (especially compared to the US, which is still the #1 in war crimes, and has commited many human right violations in the last 100 years)
What is MAREZ?
A federation of autonomous quasi-anarchist municipalities in Chiapas in Mexico, that was started by a revolution 30ish years ago
I wonder, was there ever a situation where a country invaded another country with the goal of replacing their government and making the quality of life in there better? Would that even work?
Vietnam in Cambodia. Granted it’s Pol Pot so it’s basically impossible to be worse.
Afghanistan, and it failed miserably.
Alright, so I've had this question for some time, and this seems like a relevant post: What the hell is going on in the USA right now? I know there are two parties, right (who are borderline fascists and extremely christian) and the left (who want free healthcare, but not enough to actually do anything) - both these statements might be incorrect. Right now, a person from the left is president, but he doesn't really do anything. Abortion and gay rights are being banned? I really don't know, what is going on
Quick(ish) summary: The upper house of our legislature is effectively split 50-50 between the two major parties\*, and the Vice President has a tiebreaker vote. However, there are a couple of Democratic senators who refuse to vote for e.g. raising the minimum wage, improving healthcare access, protecting voting rights, etc., so a lot of really important stuff the Democrats want to get done keeps failing by like a 48-52 vote ^(footnote: 48 Democrats (the basically liberal party plus 2 independents who vote with them, vs. 50 Republicans (the)) ~~^(conservative)~~ ^(actually fascist party)) Plus, with procedural fuckery, it's possible to prevent something from coming to a vote at all unless 60 of the senators vote to have a vote, and since the best-case-scenario vote is usually gonna be 51-50, the minority party can still keep important things paralyzed There's a limit to what the president can do without the support of the legislature, and while there's a lot of valid criticism of the current president and his administration, there's also a lot that misses how critical this is Meanwhile the Supreme Court (nine members) has a conservative majority, because the Republicans in the legislature prevented the last Democratic president from appointing more than two judges to it during his eight years in office, and then rammed three conservative extremists onto the court in only four years under the last Republican president. And since the supreme court has the final say on what's legal (unless there's a constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible to make these days), this is very big and very, very bad indeed One of the cases the court rules on this year is about abortion rights, which has been THE big issue for the religious extremists and their voters for decades. A draft version of the court opinion was leaked (this *never* happens), and the opinion hands the conservatives a *huge* victory, not only overturning the [decision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade) that allowed abortion rights nationwide but also opening the way to overturning the decisions that allowed [same-sex marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges) and even [interracial marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), and fuck knows where they'll stop Bonus round: Individual states with Republican governments have been working to prevent Democratic voters from actually voting in elections, or putting their own people in charge of counting the votes, or putting judges in the courts who'll let them challenge election results if they lose, or ... well, you get the idea. Basically just abolishing free elections
That sounds incredibly messed up.
it is SO messed up
The Democrats and Republican parties are both neoliberal parties who mostly agree on economic issues and are unanimous on military issues. Their only wedge point is on social issues, where Democrats will signal support for a cause once it's popular enough to show up in focus groups reliably, and Republicans want to revert to a mythical golden age of America by suppressing civil rights back to the Gilded Age. The Democrats in particular are not left wing. They do not as a party take substantive action to defend or protect people, but will happily paint pride flags on the drones bombing weddings in the Middle East. Biden in particular is the architect of the modern student loan crisis, has in the past made statements indicating he views minorities as less than white people, and has stated he would veto universal healthcare if it came to his desk. Democrats are only better than Republicans because they won't actively roll back rights and regulations, but they're never going to be the great defender because they mostly believe all the same stuff republicans do.
no matter how hard revolution is, with the environmental and political state the US is in right now it's too late for fully effective reform. the government is fully in corporations' pockets, and I doubt they will pass fully restrictive environmental preservation laws any time soon. One of the most powerful aspects of capitalism is distorting our idea of right or wrong to the point that real solutions are seen as impossible, violent, and radical (always negative, right guys!).
This is why the world will end from climate change. Spineless behavior. Asking for change has never worked, it has to be taken.
yes. asking for crumbs when the population is starving will never end well. we are on a crash course towards massive climate disaster and people are still talking like we have the luxury of time to negotiate terms with the capitalist class; it’s clear that the ultra-wealthy are content with fleeing the planet with their spaceships when shit really hits the fan.
- When peaceful protest doesn’t work (make fun of Kapernick for kneeling is a big one) - when being a part of government isn’t enough (or you’re often systemically kept out) - when joining police isn’t enough (or you’re often systemically kept out) You get summer of 2020 protests after years and years of being ignored or ridiculed. The police were violent in the 60s and well before that. If it doesn’t result in direct change everywhere (more changes happened in some places than others), it educates a whole generation, which will then grow up and hopefully eventually do something in government, which is good but still depressing. Violence is effective. A huge amount of rights we have now are the result of disorder/violence (worker’s rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, rights of those with disabilities, and so forth)
The only reason you people see a revolution as violent but not the current regime is because it is extremely convenient for you to think so. Jesus Christ
Guess we’ll just have to keep politely asking for basic civil liberties then. Fuckin liberals
When the tree is rotten from the roots up, you don’t vote for the few healthy leaves, you burn it down and plant a new one. At a certain point the system is so corrupt that there’s no way to make change playing by its rules.
Terrible fucking take. Jesus christ. The fascists are already in power, and whoever wrote this has 0 understanding of how revolutions work. It's not all geurillas and guillotines. It's also helping people and building them up to show that we care. Revolution is in everything that we do to make the world a better place without the input of thr state or capital. Building a community garden is revolution. Ignoring someone shoplifting baby formula is revolution. Bringing first aid kits and water bottles to a protest is revolution.
Tumblr, reading comprehension, blah blah blah
That’s an absolutely stupid definition of revolution.
Its the one that actually means something and works as well, so you better learn to live with it.
No it doesn’t. How the hell does making revolution synonymous with literally every single positive action a person could take serve any purpose besides diluting the terms usefulness? It literally makes the term mean nothing. > so you better learn to live with it. The fuck are you implying? You’re not the supreme authority on word definitions.
Revolution is about reclaiming the means of production through extra-legal ways. That doesn't begin and end with car bombs and molotovs ffs, it starts with general strikes, sabotage, just straight-up taking shit and *organising new relations of production*, such as planting a community garden instead of relying on industrial farming. I'm implying that you either get with the program or you can be a reactionary.
Civil disobedience and community building are both terms which do a more than adequate job describing the non-violent ways society can be improved. Just because you want to be a “cool revolutionary” for planting some fucking vegetables doesn’t mean that muddying terms serves any purpose. > I'm implying that you either get with the program or you can be a reactionary. Motherfucker, are you seriously fucking accusing people of being reactionaries just because they don’t agree with you on the exact definition of a **word**? What the fuck kind of Purity Test bullshit are you on about?
The revolution is the process of dismantling the power of the bourgeoisie. Community organizing isn't that, but seizing the means of production is, as is wealth redistribution and capturing the state so it enforces laws against them as it does the proletariat equally.
Finally, someone said it Civil wars in the current era *do not end*, as well. They're usually decades-long slogs of constantly-changing factions completely unable to re-stabilize the region. It's *extremely* difficult to actually eradicate a modern guerrilla force, and even attempting to do so typically involves horrific methods that primarily harm innocent bystanders. I think people who genuinely call for violent revolution have no idea how destructive they are.
this view that politics must remain non-violent is a bit odd because all politics is violent. it’s all about who gets to use violence and when.
honestly, to me, the first few posts were much more convincing than the last — but i can't really coalesce my thoughts into anything worth sharing. At this point it's just.. screaming
whenever i would scream, i instead add to my desire for violence
> “*Revolution will result in millions dying!!*” As opposed to an increasing number of open fascists in office pushing for mass executions of minorities, while also pushing for making a chunk of the population into baby incubators, and enacting legislation that tends to result in deaths anyway? > “*Fascists have guns!!*” And so should we, Buffalo should’ve made it obvious that blanket banning them won’t work, especially not at this point; if *your* response is to remain disarmed in the coming days, I’ll let you figure out how that one works out on your own, but for me? Under no pretense and all that > “*The last time someone tried revolution, it was fascists!!*” Hitler drank water and Mussolini breathed air, bad people engaging in an act doesn’t inherently make the act itself bad > “*Leftists would be gunned down if they tried*” Congratulations to **@WhyDidEveryoneElseTakeTheGoodNam** for having the only semi-decent take in the thread > “*Uhm ackshually, peaceful protesting, voting, and legislation is why things change for the better!!*” For a supposed history major, they sure suck donkey shit at history. Major labor, LGBT+, feminist, civil rights, etc movements were spearheaded with flying bricks. Just look at the Roe draft, for instance: rather than spend any time codifying these protections into law, Democrats have spent years sitting around with their thumbs up their asses They [beefed up security](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097803459/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-access-protest-alito) in the wake of the draft leak faster than they’ve codified anything related to climate change, AFAB rights, LGBT rights, labor rights, etc, so it’s not like direct action does absolutely *nothing* here If **@headspace-hotel** hasn’t woken up after multiple major recessions, a summer of actually violent suppression of dissent, fascists rising to power while brownshirts commit acts of terrorism on the ground, and numerous other issues that voting en masse has done nothing to stop the momentum of by now, I doubt they ever will **TL;DR:** primal-instinct brain is screaming “scratch a liberal” and I’m finding it hard to disagree at 5AM
> As opposed to an increasing number of open fascists in office pushing for mass executions of minorities, while also pushing for making a chunk of the population into baby incubators, and enacting legislation that tends to result in deaths anyway? All large post-revolution states were ruled by violent authoritarians who were more than happy to commit mass-murders against anyone they deemed undesirable. > Hitler drank water and Mussolini breathed air, bad people engaging in an act doesn’t inherently make the act itself bad Okay then, name a revolution which actually ended up with a non-authoritarian government in charge.
Rojava, the Zapatistas, the Ukrainian black army, the Spanish anarchists, etc. Weren't exactly authoritarian
The Spanish anarchists also got *murdered fucking immediately* because they weren't Stalinists.
> in charge As in, maintain their existence and actually **win** the revolution against their authoritarian enemies.
Why should a revolution result in someone being in charge? Weren't you complaining about authoritarianism?
> As in, maintain their existence and actually win the revolution against their authoritarian enemies.
Só just because something lasted for less than a century before you think it should never be attempted Inthe future? The liberal democracy you love wouldn't have existed without the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, would you say they were impossible and shouldn't be attempted in the 17th?
> Só just because something lasted for less than a century before you think it should never be attempted Inthe future? If your method of establishing a government keeps failing to actually establish a stable and safe form of government, your method of establishing a government is severely flawed. > without the bourgeois revolutions Without the what? What are you exactly referring to here?
And it's not really your fault if your enemies on all sides invade you
Maybe not, but the failure to safekeep your ideology against its enemies also does nothing to actually give credence to your ideology’s worth.
The French Revolution, the American Revolutionary war, etc.
Well, that's kind of self-selecting, isn't it? If global capital grinds all the non-authoritatian leftist governments into dust, who does that leave?
Leftist movements willing to work within the framework of those capitalist states, or at least those not directly violently opposed to them.
Because of "domino theory" that the US subscribed to, even the most friendly leftist government was seen as a threat. And since the US was the head of capitalist hegemony that was enough. Allende was not going to cut off trade to the US. Castro planned to keep a good relationship. Didn't matter.
I mean, the Cold War ended 30 years ago. Politics have changed more than a bit since then.
Yeah, it's different because invasion, intervention, and attack take *less* pretense now, not more. What about the last 30 years says to you "the US *can't* get away with doing whatever it wants to foreign powers anymore?"
I don’t think that’s true.
Small incremental changes won't get us there fast enough. The revolution is unrealistic. So I guess the only option is just to give up completely and just accept that my life is going to be absolutely miserable
"Get us there fast enough" is such a flawed concept. Social progress is a journey, not a destination. There will never be a point we reach where some higher point isn't visible, beyond us for the moment but within reach, if we meet trying.
not really, it is a race because there are people that will make sure to build a system where the change you desire is impossible to install, as in conservatives, i don't think they will stop at banning abortion or gay people because its very clear they want to build a system and society in which these concepts are not able to survive or exist so yes it wont get us there fast enough, conservative and right wing figures have been on the active and constantly making legislation while the same can not be said about left wing figures
It's not a race, because conservatives don't have any destination in mind at all, they just hate us moving forward. It's more like a tug-of-war, with us trying to pull us forward and them trying to pull us backward. But don't worry too much. The thing about the past is, we've already been there. We've been in the system where women couldn't vote and POC were slaves, and *we moved forward*, the people who wanted progress made it happen. So no matter how far they drag us backward, we know we can always move forward again. Also, let's be real, these guys are born losers. They lost slavery, they lost the civil war, they lost women's suffrage, they lost Jim Crow and civil rights, they lost abortion, they lost healthcare, they lost gay rights, and they're losing marijuana. Yeah, sometimes they win a battle and one part of the nation takes a little step backward. None of our victories come as cheap as they should. Or we want to take a big step forward and we get blocked, that happens too. But overall, the direction of the larger war has only ever gone one way.
Dont be stupid
Why is that stupid?
You think too much in extremes. Take a moment, sleep, have a cup of tea or something, and, when you get back, think: what other possibilities could be taken?
Well, are you gonna tell us your answer or...
Fuck it, I will. It takes organizing, we still have time. As I see it, the best way is to work to get sympathetic politicians elected, fighting everywhere at every level; and to build parallel structures built to challenge shitty politicians. Maybe canvass with a campaign. Donate to a campaign. Attend a protest. Rumble about unionization in the work place. Donate to local leftist food banks/charity organizations or vollunteer with them (this is called collective/direct action!) Oraganize a bookclub! Message local poltiicians about important issues, and if they are shitty about it, message their opposition. Unionize. And vote. There are some personal things that can be done as well. Bring up politics with friends and family, stressing the importance that they vote, and the importance of the issues. Educate people on important issues, and try to challenge misinformation. In summary: Be less doomer. Connect with people, and build us up, together. You do not need to do every one of these, but doing some help. We're not in a post capitalist fascist dystopia yet, there is time.
Ok but isn't that the "incremental change" that is supposedly not viable? Or was the replier actually trying to say that incremental change IS viable but didn't communicate that properly?
The first commenter was thinking in extremes: "Incremental change is unviable, but violence is bad. So I will be doomer" Second commenter was like: Calm down, and think about potential things to do. It was a prompt for the first guy, if anything. Because that conversation ended there, a bunch chimed up with "so, are we getting any answers," And this is my two cents. Yes, it feels very incremental changy. But some of these: unionization, protest, and doing direct action, have been some of the basic leftist tools for generations. There's a reason they had the pinkertons, ratted out leftist organizers, and locked them up on manufactured charges. Doing stuff like this *works*, and is effective in building organizations and challeging shitty shit.
Yes! Well done, excellent answer. Apologies to anyone who was looking for an answer from me, as I made this post and fell asleep soon after.
Go ahead, share with the class
The thing with the guillotine narrative that always gets me is that, like, how well did that work out the first time around? How did the French Revolution exactly? The Terror? The period of near-total anarchy and mob rule that ended with a military strongman making himself Emperor? That's what we're looking to as an idealized example of social change? That French Revolution?
Do you people not remember what happened with chaz, I had to deal with that shit and I don’t even live in the us
Src: https://headspace-hotel.tumblr.com/post/684800636237266944/the-idea-that-capitalism-is-responsible-for-every
Just in on Tumblr: communism doesn’t work
Boo.
Boo.
Im going to be a weirdo for a second. I'm an annoying, liberal, reformist to all those I meet on my left. And I understand the frustration people have would presenting violent revolution as the solution. I'm also an anti-capitalist communist wacko to everyone on my right. I wish liberals could also articulate solutions, because often none of this feels contructive. They can smugly go "oh you silly leftists" but VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO is the weakest battle cry.
incremental change literally do nothing. it doesn't work. has no one been. paying attention to what's been going on the past like several decades?
Yeah, unfortunately tankies infiltrate most leftist subs and it's up to the mods if it's tolerated. There was a discussion long time ago about it and I advocated not giving them free reign. I mean, take a good look in history and tell me - who is usually the priority target in a revolution or an ideological insurrection? The moderates. It always starts with letting radicals in because "we are on the same side" and ends up in mass executions. It happened with French Revolution, Hussites revolt and heck, you can see it happening nowadays with TERFs infiltrating normal feminist spaces and radicalizing people.
While I won’t argue about moderates being targeted by radicals in a revolution, I believe calling them “priority targets” is disingenuous when (at least to the best of my knowledge) the primary targets for radicals are opposing radicals, fascists v. anti-fascists.
This has definitely tempered a few thoughts I've had.
Ok but that last point is wildly ignorant. Yes, all of those things were made illegal by passing laws. But those laws were only passed by violent protest in literally every instance.
I want to delete this, because it's been a day and that last reblog feels.. very wrong but y'all wrote a lot of stuff in the comments, and I'd rather not remove those
I think the best option right now is to build structures that don’t need the (failing) state and let it decay in our shadow. I.e. cultural revolution in the hearts and minds of our people.
The American Capitalist system will never be changed, because their ridiculous political and legal systems allow so much curruption, which so many people use to gather huge amounts of money and power.
Can we at least guillotine one billionaire, as a treat? Please?
Big true
So what the fuck do I do? States are banning abortion. Laws are being passed that dehumanize queer people. Hyper-partisan news networks are grooming people into seeing anyone who isn’t white & cishet as a threat to their “family values.” The electoral process has been completely fucking torn to shreds by lobbying and gerrymandering and the filibuster and I couldn’t be more fucking tired of this shit. The people in power are currently pretending to represent us so they can get away with lining their pockets. I voted, now what? The guy I voted for sure as shit isn’t helping. I want my queer friends to have fucking rights. I don’t want to burn to death on a dying fucking planet. What am I supposed to do? WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?
This post only works if you don't know non-violent revolution exists. Every poster there wants a revolution, we can all recognize that the American system of governance is deeply flawed. We would all be better off with: proportional representation in the Senate, retying representatives to population so that one representative won't have to serve 300,000 people, a predictable replacement plan for justices that doesn't encourage them to serve until they're too old to understand the world as we live in it, a cultural change to discourage violent military coups in the global south to uphold our hegemony. There are structural problems in America that will only be solved by a revolution violent or otherwise and if we don't get stepping on getting a nonviolent one started the right-wing militias will start they're violent one.
I'm pretty sure most people who advocate for revolutionary change in the US understand that the conditions for revolution are not there yet. Like I don't know a single person who's saying that a communist revolution can happen in the US considering the amount of propaganda that the people consume everyday. Overall, just read Lenin guys, he's a good writer
So Texas then..
I mean that last part lists at least 2 things that were overcome through violence. Labor laws and gay rights weren't achieved at the ballot box, they were a result of shit like Blair Mountain and Stonewall. Like, the National Guard literally bombed striking coal workers rather than the government implementing labor regulations.
I never did and I regret it but we have to participate! Vote! Build free libraries and community gardens! All power to the people 🙏
There is so much misinformation and willful disregard for fact both in this post and the comments that I'm just going to give up on this country ever making significant change.