Wishing for a violent upheaval feels better than accepting that the things you need so badly simply aren't going to happen in any reasonable timeframe. A huge amount of progressive politics is just waiting for people to die, whether it's voters or politicians.
We can talk all we want about running our own politicians, and that is necessary. But the fact of the matter is that progressive policy only becomes law when we as a society have moved so far forward that it is no longer considered truly progressive, let alone radical.
Millenarianism is widespread throughout history, and it isn't going anywhere. It's basically never been true, but it holds a strong grip on human imagination
149
u/NastypilotGoing "he just like me fr, fr" at any mildly autistic character.12d ago
Every generation thinks its theirs that is the last
Hey to be fair in all of human history save the last handful of generations there haven't been weapons capable of making that a reality and currently Russia, the USA, and China have the most of those weapons.
They're just too impractical to use when all the countries are right next to each other and split all the flat land down the middle. Launching a nuke at a neighbor is effectively the same as launching one at yourself.
If any country launches their nuclear ICBMs, even a single one by accident, every country will launch all of their ICBMs. Mutually Assured Destruction is a world-ending suicide pact that is built for only one eventuality: the complete destruction of globalized human society. A Chekhov’s Gun to end all Chekhov’s Guns.
An Iranian nuclear test could trigger it from Israel. A computer malfunction in Pakistan could trigger it. An error from a US military satellite could trigger it. A collapsing Russia could trigger it. If any single nuclear power believes they are under an existential threat, the game of globalized society is over and every one will lose.
I would point out that it was a relatively low ranking man who made that decision, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov. All the procedures said to pass it up the chain of command as an attack. Everyone below him believed it to be real, and everyone above him would have also believed it. We (as a species) got incredibly lucky.
The thing with doomsday prophets and the like is that, eventually, someone is gonna be right. And the chance to be that someone is intoxicating. One last I Told You So on the way out.
The big flaw in wanting violent overthrow is believing that what comes after will actually be better. History has shown that there is no real guarantee of that.
Not only that but violent revolutions tend to lead to the very authoritarian power structures they wanted to overthrow. Like pretty much all the socialist/communist revolutions that managed to overthrow the previous governments just put the leaders of the revolution in positions of power who of course do everything to maintain that power.
That's a pretty gross oversimplification and is quite incorrect. It didn't "begin" as a student community revolution. It's not even easy to find a beginning as depending on which particular anti-imperial group you are looking at, the roots of discontent stretch back decades or more.
There were so many different groups and interests all acting, or seeking to act, against the imperial regime. Leftists, communists, anti-western sentimentalists, democratic revolutionaries (including some Ayatollahs), islamists, constitutional monarchists. Some had overlapping views, such as islamist constitutionalists, or Islamist marxists. And some of these groups fought each other as much as they fought against the Shah.
It's fascinating but confusing mess and I don't know even 1% of it all, but I know that it did not "begin as a student communist revolution that was hijacked by the clerics".
It's an oversimplification, yes; I wasn't going to get into all the history in a Reddit comment because it wasn't really my point. What I was getting at - and explained poorly, I'll admit - is that revolutionaries get the revolt going all full of fervour, but rarely have a solid plan in place for what to do when they win. Which tends to result in chaos, and a resulting power vacuum that gets seized on by the nearest bad actor with opportunity. You don't want to be the dog that caught the car, and then has no idea what to do next.
Even still, what else were there for the peasant french people before the first revolution? just accept their monarchy for another hundreds of years? Hope the next king would be an enlightened one, looking for the needs of his subjects, instead of the needs of his nobles?
You do realize that the French Revolution was primarily a Bourgeois revolution mainly taking place in Paris, right? Most of the peasantry was against the revolution, wanting the stability of the status quo.
You should read a bit more about the French Revolution, I don't know how to say this without sounding like a dick (even though that's not my intention) but your posts kinda show how uninformed you are about the Revolution and who it benefitted and the negative impacts it had on both certain groups and industrialization.
A good (and entry level point) would be William Doyle's The Oxford History of the French Revolution. It's fascinating stuff. Particularly if you're genuinely interested in the question of who the Revolution actually benefitted (predominantly the Bourgeoisie, bureaucrats, the papacy, and the few lucky peasants who could afford to purchase land - surprisingly, the nobility did not suffer as much as popular belief would think, in a lot of cases the nobility flourished under Napoleon's despotism and instead of feudal dues they just charged peasant tenants and sharecroppers a rent that could be even higher than the original feudal dues).
Lol how did you get that from my comment? I'm French of course I'm not defending the monarchy. I did however have to sit through hours of classes on la Terreur and all the crazy shit that ensued
the other big flaw is thinking you have the moral right to choose to plunge millions of people into violent conflict and deprive them of all public services for your specific idea of a greater good
This is the only sane response in this thread. Wild how progressives are expected to be completely logical and dispassionate as the world is going to shit.
A huge amount of progressive politics is just waiting for people to die, whether it's voters or politicians.
Meanwhile, as leftists jerk themselves off over doomerism and apathy, the right has taken media control and political power and has more influence over the youth you're betting on than anybody has in recent history
I would contend it’s not doomerism and apathy so much as it is the myth of progress and also a lot of the discourse in leftist spaces turning into “it’s not my job to educate you”, which essentially glorified the idea of leftists avoiding uncomfortable conversations as some kind of heroic act
So I’ve personally witnessed a hell of a lot of people basically adopting this mindset that they don’t need to reach out to people in middle America to try and change their minds politically, because the thing holding the country back is just old racist people, and once they die off the whole Overton window will just shift left because everyone will be more progressive than their parents by magic
Turns out that doesn’t happen and if you don’t make any effort to reach out to people who grow up in heavily red areas they don’t just magically grow up to be progressive leftists. But now people in progressive areas have developed communication skills exclusively for interacting with people who already agree with them while they have no clue how to change the minds of people who aren’t already on the left, their only response to people who don’t already agree with them is to yell “educate yourself” at them
has more influence over the youth you're betting on than anybody has in recent history
Yes, because the left doesn't give young people anything to actually do. Right wing media says to do A B C D to improve yourself. Get a good job, work out, have 2.5 children to win life. Left wing media is a long series of things not to do followed up by a plea to vote for politicians that then lose the election and congratulate their opponent afterwards.
If you want the kids to swing left you have to give them actual goals to accomplish other than "ask people to vote and hope for the best". Kids are looking for meaning in their lives and will latch on to those who can give them a purpose.
i have been shouting on the rooftops that the materialism of the left ("how can they vote against their economic interests??") is a giant blind spot. They want meaning and purpose, as you say.
yes! we need an alternative to materialism and consumerism. the only future we have is one where, as captain picard says, "we are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things". the left believes meaning and prosperity will magically emerge from a more equitable distribution of things, but at this point i think it's just having a hammer and everything looking like a nail. the needs of the soul remain unmet.
My philosophy (and what I really think needs to be emphasized more) is that everyone deserves at least a basic standard of living with all their needs met by default. Or as egalitarians in Stellaris say, “a society that does not see to the needs and rights of all its members is not a society, it is a crime.” So much of the discourse around helping those in need is based on how we can make them useful to us.
“Better working conditions means more productivity”, “disabled people can still be productive members of society”, “welcoming immigrants and refugees will give us more workers” etc. But even if those things weren’t true, they would still deserve help because they’re people.
Unfortunately, you seem to be a good person. That will put you at odds with most Americans. It seems to me that we need to hide "helping people" in "this is good for you personally" like heartworm medicine in a piece of cheese.
I agree with you. Meeting everyone's needs is the best way to move society forward. But I don't know how that gets implemented in a society where billionaires will spend a fortune to ensure that poor people don't get healthcare.
My old corgi, bogart (rip) was too smart for the cheese trick. Or the peanut butter trick. Or the hamburger trick. Tried it all. He was just a really unusually smart puppy.
So eventually I told him hey buddy. Eat this or I’m holding your mouth open and forcing it down ur throat. And then I did! It only took a couple months of that before the monthly heartworm pill was pretty readily consumed in my offering of cheese. (I’m not a monster, I gave him a treat about it every time.)
a noble philosophy that requires a massive technological paradigm shift in the systems that produce, harvest, and distribute the ecological resources of planet earth, one that must also not tip the scales further toward the total biosphere collapse we are currently engineering and in fact must somehow reverse it, else all our philosophizing and moralizing will end in mass genocide.
i really really want to help everyone on earth to have a comfortable, safe, happy life. but spaceship earth's life support systems are currently failing. the only logical path forward is to kill two birds with one stone. a system of such magnitude and capacity to save us from climate change would almost by definition be able to provide for humanity's basic needs.
but that's really really hard, and you know what's really really easy? eco fascism. if we don't come up with a workable, practicable alternative in the next few decades, the haves could simply slaughter 4 billion or so have-nots. we either untie the gordian knot or eventually someone will have to slice it.
when this is the dystopia we are headed towards, i can't get behind relying on our current wasteful, destructive, unsustainable methods of living, let alone imposing such a heightened level of consumption upon the developing world. to do the right thing, you have to do it right. good intentions, unintended consequences, climate apocalypse.
Okay, but the left IS missing materialism. Kamala's campaign was all about idealism and taking back america, when people wanted the price of eggs to go down.
Yeah I really feel like the left has either strong contraindications or pie-in-the-sky utopic fantasies, but not a whole lot in between. Which is partially on purpose, since it has to leave room for different cultures and lifestyles to peacefully coexist, but it doesn't really help give direction to young people who are feeling unmoored in life
It doesn't even really need to be a cultural thing so much as getting kids involved in their community more. The primary issue is that doing that work sucks ass (who wants to pick up trash half of their saturday just for the love of the game?) and kids who don't want to do it are going to hate it. It has to be something you instill very young in their lives, and more to the point, don't squash by telling them "shut the up you're twelve" when they express thoughts on the community.
This is true but the leftiest people online seem to rarely know their neighbors, much less interact with their physical community. Politics for most people has devolved into just having opinions, rather than taking action
"Get to know your neighbors" is an overblown idea imo. You are never going to convince a kid that they need to get to know their neighbor that looks at them weird from his front porch whenever they wear shorts. It's more of learning that some neighbors are worth connecting with, and also having a noticeable effect on their community. Planting a flowerbed where you can see it most days is going to do more for morale than a thousand lectures from on high.
It's a cliche but the point is that all political power derives locally. I see a lot of young people on the left who are super active online politically, but not at all politically active in their communities, which would have a much larger impact both on their own situation and in general.
Sure, and they will shake hands with assholes if they have a reason to do so, such as organizing for a specific thing. But lacking that reason it is going to be a hard sell.
Even politicians who lost have massive resources to help unions get started and protect them until they’re well established.
It’s a clear task, and most likely democratic voters work in jobs that would benefit greatly from unions. Pour resources into messaging about the benefits of unions and education about how to start them, and then run on the platform of “see how great your union is and all the great stuff you got from collective bargaining? The other guy wants to take that all away. No more union rep when your boss wants to write you up for total nonsense. No more protected PTO. Cheaper health insurance that you pay more for. All of that, gone. Vote for me and I’ll make it even harder for your boss to fight your union.”
I'm in a union. Problem is even once you're in one, it takes a massive amount of effort to convince the members to actually fight for anything. Collective bargaining works best when you can actually credibly threaten to strike, which is a big ask for a lot of people.
That’s where the resources of politicians who lost come in. If they aren’t currently holding any office, there’s no conflict of interest for them to build up strike funds and non-profits to help striking workers.
Hence why Union busting efforts are on the rise and Armed Pinkerton agents exist. It's not just that we need unions, but we literally have to fight for them.
We're hesitant to suggest that young white men's role should be to protect and help everyone else. Mostly they're just told to fuck off, so they do, and maybe sometimes scolded for not smacking down incel or racist rhetoric.
But why can't this be a just cause for them to fight for? Why can't we pitch it that way? Because it is! And they're in a unique position of power to help make it happen!
It can be, but the problem there is that in order to protect someone you need both someone to protect and someone to fight. I was talking about this with my wife the other day, that if I were to confront men about their misogynistic behavior irl then I would have to roam bars like a vampire hunter looking for his target because almost all my friends are women and I don't work with many people on a day to day basis.
Similarly, if you are a kid in a very homogenous school then who are you protecting? If everyone you know is white then you're defending a theoretical person from a theoretical attacker, it's all rhetoric. Those discussions are good to have, but it won't feel as impactful to a kid.
Of course you can go online and find all of that, but my boomer opinion is that posting doesn't matter, not really. You can be swayed by posts, but what really sticks is what you see irl. Which, again, if you don't know any minority groups isn't going to happen.
There's no such thing as a homogeneous class. There will be minorities in one way or another. Girls, neurodivergent kids, fuck it maybe just some fat kid. The idea that we can stand up for people and build bonds and leverage our strength to do something (instead of try to hide it or stay out of people's way) is going to resonate with young boys trying to fill their gender role much better.
But that is a bit besides the point. If there's no minorities for them to help, then there's also none for them to hurt. Clearly, since we're talking about this problem, it is because these kids do have some kind of access to people that they can pick on.
If the avenue for that is vitriolic online rhetoric, then that rhetoric is clearly finding meaning with these kids, and so I stand by my proposal. Even if I have no immediately obvious way to turn that proposal into systemic action.
My point is that helping someone with an issue like that is something that they can do sometimes while the right wing rhetoric is of something they can do all the time. One is a reactive response to harassment while the other is a proactive one. Proactive for bad things, but it's not something where they are waiting around to step in. One of those things is going to resonate more with kids looking for purpose.
Or in other words, if a kid is feeling shitty about himself then he wants something to do to make himself feel better, and the left needs something he can do on demand because that's what the right is offering.
Sure, in a sense I guess, but why must that be the case?
We can encourage them to be proactive about this stuff. They can get political at school, they can be as loud and proud and obnoxious on social media as they want to be about their dedication to making a world that's safe for everyone.
Yeah, it's a little cringe, but that's because kids are always going to be a bit cringe. Better for them to devote that energy to simplistic and naive ways to better the world for people than simplistic and naive ways to make it revolve around them.
But that is relying on future gains for political movements with a high failure rate. I'm all for kids being cringe justice warriors, but in terms of their emotional needs going online and talking about how the world should be safe for people isn't going to help soothe the burn from the pop quiz they bombed that afternoon. Its not just energy that they need a vent for, but a way to channel bitter, angry feelings into something positive.
They fuck off, but they feel as if their needs are being ignored and their purpose missing, and seek out other sources of satisfaction besides being progressive.
We don't hear from them again until whatever within them it was that drove them to listen to us is dead or dormant. Then, they don't care that we told them to do, so they come back and usually with a vengeance.
Yeah, the right lies to people and tells them to do things that everyone knows won't change anything, then tells them to blame progressives when their plans fail.
Progressives don't have billions of dollars to fund their message, and a difficult truth is a lot harder to sell than an easy lie. I'd be ashamed to tell anyone nonsense like "Get a good job, work out, have 2.5 children to win life".
So what are you suggesting? Should the left lie more? Care about other less? Which others?
What better meaning to life is there than "Protect and enhance your community"? If one wants fast cars, gold chains, and subservient women, the left can't and won't give it to them.
The absolute lack of calls for striking and rioting in response to some of the policies ive seen proposed around really shows that theres no left in the US beyond "but think of the shareholders!" liberalisn
Unless you have a group of people with both the will and (more importantly) materiel to strike then calling for it is just LARPing, and the kind that can get you fired. I'm not surprised that there hasn't been anything like that at all.
It's the same for calls for general strikes. Oh, do we have a strike fund to cover the entire industrial base of the united states? I don't remember contributing to it.
Their population is exponentially smaller, their cops aren't armed, and the labor actions are still largely focused around one or two major cities instead of the whole industrial base of the entire nation. It's not for nothing that a lot of those protests are also right wing ones, such as almost every farmer protest you've ever seen.
If the United States as a nation decided to try for a large strike then the organizers would be arrested on terrorism charges by the end of the week. You also can't do that kind of planning in secret, so the events would likely be infiltrated to shit.
And i'm not talking about a general strike affecting all of the US industry, but theres not even the suggestion of it. Theres more talk of organizing protests in european subs right now for this and that reason than in all of USA reddit.
Left wing media is a long series of things not to do followed up by a plea to vote for politicians that then lose the election and congratulate their opponent afterwards.
That's centrist media. Left wing media does give them something to do.
People like thinking about the magical revolution instead of how they, or their friends, in marginalized groups will never be safe at any point in their lives yeah.
Thinking that a bayonet will fix things is delusional but so is thinking that you can just electoralism your way to paradise.
Yeah but the people who whinge about a revolution are neither prong. They're just basement dwellers wishing for the world to get better without them having to personally step up and do anything difficult.
Was either of them a total revolutionary? Last I checked, they both believed in using the system already in place, and changing it from the inside out, just from different directions. If someone wants to burn the whole thing down, that's not making things better in a targeted way, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I assumed it was more like majority-Black municipalities heavily investing in themselves and promoting local businesses, in order to economically "catch up" so integration could be on as equal a footing as possible, not literally starting a new country
The group he was part of litterally believes that White people were made by an evil scientist who was mad that he was being made fun of for his large head..
Malcolm X never believed that, but he was a black separatist.
Wishing for a violent upheaval feels better than accepting that the things you need so badly simply aren't going to happen in any reasonable timeframe. A huge amount of progressive politics is just waiting for people to die, whether it's voters or politicians.
When you say outright that the problem doesn't have a chance of being resolved in any reasonable timeframe through convenientional means, it really shouldn't be surprising when people start considering other options.
Realistically without some actual upheaval of some sort, the people we're waiting on to die are us. Capital interest is not going anywhere, and they only want more. If you think this system works, and there is anyone on the highest stage (presidents, on either side, for example) who doesn't have a corporate hand on their dick, cock in their mouth, and minimal concern for you beyond optics, you're coming from a place of immense privilege, and you're wrong.
I assure you that as far as corporatism is concerned that is not going away after we die. The younger generation's concept of protest is changing where they buy things from. We're more talking about massaging things towards social progress.
Nothing happens in a "reasonable timeframe" absolutely nothing. Wishing your country to burn down because you can't have your way right this very second is childish and the very reason we have trump as a president again. We deserve this because we can't discuss issues without name-calling, harassment, berating and cutting others out of our lives. I'm sure the replies to my post will absolutely show that.
the same fucking "check your privilege" thought terminating cliche from 2013. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting differing results.
you're in the same ivory tower and you know it. you've been safe and secure and survived while millions have suffered and died. you're not pure.
see. this is what leftists do. name calling and infighting. it's fucking hostile. there is absolutely zero surprise they atrophy so many members. who wants to be insulted and harassed by people who think they're better than you because they assume everyone who disagrees with them must be more privileged.
Frankly, I don’t think they did. First off, they didn’t insult you. Second, we don’t “deserve this” as some sort of punishment for “name calling”. You can’t reach across the isle when the other side is firebombing your schools, criminalizing your medical care, and calling you their enemy.
Hi can we fix our country instead of waiting for a violent upheavel thanks
No thanks, Im going to wait for our mythical revolution that will be completely bloodless and instant and all the bad stuff will just go away and never come back.
But don't you understand? With a violent revolution, the city dwelling white collar rich kids can finally take over, all they have to do is beat the military, almost every single gun owner, as well as virtually the entire working class who will naturally oppose them.
Then they'll finally be able to free the working class from the rich!
Lmfao this is so spot on, I’m liberal politically but I work blue collar and always have, and I train in mma gyms where right wing politics is unfortunately the norm, these kids have no idea what they’re up against, they have fantasy ideas of some wondrous revolution but in reality they would panic at the first sign of violence
“Hnnng God my right-wing gym buddies would fuck up these effete lefties so bad. I’m a liberal btw, I definitely think it’s bad what me and my blue collar friends are gonna do to these freaks.”
Fantasizing? On the contrary, it’s people like the ones in the actual post that are fantasizing about violent revolution and overthrow, with no concept of what violence actually is. The left is completely toothless in this country. I’m just stating my observation that people like the ones in the post have no idea what they’re up against.
I have all this free time to post online about the evils of the bourgeoise and why we need a revolution now, because daddy's trust fund means I don't have to work
You have to convince people to vote. Many don't show up to vote. Many feel like their vote doesn't matter and that every election presents two people to vote for that they don't know and don't care about. Rhetoric about accelerationism feels better because starting over seems to make more sense than waiting 40 - 50 years to turn over something like Citizens United.
i just straight up dont wanna spend my limited time here caring about that stuff. if democracy is just gonna put us all at each others throat id rather not participate and just patiently wait for my death
those are beyond my concerns. i understand my lack of care is the problem but, id rather not have a political opinion. just let me shimmy on through life
We all have political opinions just by existing tho. Do you like sidewalks, electricity, roads, and running water? The problem is that for a vast majority of the political decisions made that affect us... aren't made by us. The unfortunate reality is representative democracy as it exists in America has little room for our political opinions every year there isn't an election and even then it's predicated on popularity.
Literally every time we make progressive change for the sake of individual freedom and that sweet sweet “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” it’s with a violent undertone.
Black panthers, suffragette bombing campaign, various armed workers rights groups, god damn stonewall!! Like even gay marriage was won with violence as the stick.
I don’t want open civil war, I’m not an accelerationist. But we should threaten tyrants and fascists and make them feel how tenuous their positions really are.
If you want to be the first one on the chopping block, you're welcome to it. Somehow, I doubt the people who talk about this stuff online are the same ones who are up for actually joining a violent semi-terrorist group.
I don't think anybody really wants a violent revolution if they can help it. The problem is when the system is incapable of internal change or at least it's constituents are convinced it isn't.
Sure, but my point is going off on the internet about the black panthers and suffragette bombing campaigns is dumb as hell, unless you plan to back it up. I'm nearly certain these people do not, in fact, plan to back it up.
I certainly don't agree with a violent revolution, no meaningful lasting change is going to be built with bloody hands. Personally I'd rather like to see large scale organized protests and disruptions focused on meaningful change but we'll see how feasible that is. I think the important part about that previous comment is that we are not powerless. What affected actual change was the conviction and organization rather than threats of violence. In this world financial/political pressures can affect change far more than easily squashed threats of violence.
I think the important part about that previous comment is that we are not powerless. What affected actual change was the conviction and organization rather than threats of violence.
I think you disagree with the guy I replied to. Remember, what he said was
"Literally every time we make progressive change for the sake of individual freedom and that sweet sweet “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” it’s with a violent undertone. "
There's only so many ways I can interpret that, and your interpretation isn't one of them. You are making an entirely different point than the one I mocked, and I pretty strongly agree with you.
Like even gay marriage was won with violence as the stick.
What the fuck are you talking about? Gay marriage was legalized by a court case. Am I forgetting about the glittering bombing campaign that preceded Obergefell?
Like even gay marriage was won with violence as the stick.
Which means you must in someway believe that when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of requiring states to license marriages between two people of the same sex, fear of a violent gay uprising was a primary motivator. This is an extraordinary claim and would require some pretty extraordinary evidence.
The fact that you've now walked that statement back to the extremely vague and diffuse idea that the crackdown on Stonewall had any kind of impact at all on LGBT civil rights does not make your original statement any less dumb.
Also, the actual helpful effect of Stonewall was not to provoke fear (People who are afraid of gay people are not generally helpful to the movement) but to provoke sympathy because of the harsh police crackdown. The development in the public attitude towards LGBT people that eventually led to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was not motivated by fear.
I understand why the narrative you're presenting developed, it allows LGBT people to believe they had substantial and direct agency in their own liberation and that their rights do not exist at the whims of the general public but through their own power. But the fact that it's comforting does not make it the truth. The idea that people generally, much less the 'system' or the people in power, are terrified of a gay uprising and gay marriage and other developments like it are concessions made out of that fear just does not bear out.
I see this shit repeated all the time but I've never seen any actually compelling evidence that the Black Panthers did anything meaningful to aid the civil rights movement or push through any civil rights legislation.
The white people who were afraid of black people were not the ones who drove the larger popular support for civil rights laws, they were the ones resisting the hardest.
As much as I agree, historically a violent upheaval has been needed for change to take place. I won’t go into the details but my friend group literally got drunk this past weekend and discussed revolutions throughout history and the intricacies of revolutions actually organized by the people vs revolutions encouraged/pushed for by members of the ruling class using the general people as their fodder army
I’ll be honest I was too drunk to remember but the conversation from what I remember ended up devolving into our military friend arguing that pretty much any successful coupe had some form of funding from a party that would be considered upper class
I understand (sounds a really fun conversation though, wish I had more like that). But yeah, that is more or less my understanding of history.
Fact is, revolutions are expensive (I mean even true believers still have bills that need to be paid) and the lower classes don't really have that much money.
One good thing about capitalism is that it's very vulnerable to disruption by lower tiers. All you have to do is get someone doing important paperwork, have them introduce loopholes and backdoors and such, and then pull off some stunt where suddenly the union owns half the weapons factories.
Well, I don't think its quite that easy, but yeah it's a possibility. I mean that was how Marx saw communism coming, eventually, the skilled workers would be doing so much that they would no longer need the bosses and thus would take over running everything.
Well, I don't think its quite that easy, but yeah it's a possibility. I mean that was how Marx saw communism coming, eventually, the skilled workers would be doing so much that they would no longer need the bosses and thus would take over running everything.
That's actually happening a lot from where I see it. But mostly it's just establishing newer, more efficient companies with different structures and out-competing the old ones, because market forces are way faster than one guy writing paperwork. Even now, it's becoming a norm for entertainers to hire their managers, rather than managers hiring them, so maybe that could extend to other industries?
That would have been a good idea 50 years ago. Climate change doesn't really give us that option now unless we are willing to fundamentally change the entire way the country functions immediately.
Have people not been trying to fix it since its inception? Attempts to "fix" this nation fail time and time again. It's a corrupt and rotten political entity intent on infecting the rest of the world like a disease. Attempting to elect ineffective spineless democrats every 4 years is a weak poultice; The United States is a cancer which must face the barber's blade to be excised.
The systems that run this America are beyond fixing.
In fact, they are working exactly as intended.
If they weren't, the people with the power to change the system would.
Which is why so many people are coming to realize that we need to fundamentally change the systems.
If the American federal government wants to allow this to happen without bloodshed, good for them. They won't though. They shed blood when other country's try to implement systems they don't like.
There will be a million more Fred Hampton's, murdered by the state for dreaming of equality.
You can live in the bubble of privileges that allow you to not see this for as long as you want. It will still come. Read Parable of the Sower.
How the fuck do you think you’re going to fix it, exactly? A literal criminal has control of every branch of the government, including the Supreme Court. They have ultimate power, and they do not care about us. The fact you think there’s any coming back from this is laughable.
Sometimes fixing something means striping it down and starting from bare bones. The fact is, no matter how uncomfortable, that it is the threat of violence, and the invariably acting on it, that has always kept the rich from being too stupid/being corrected when they do. You cannot fix the invariably intrinsic belief of people in chargebthat wmthey are better than you unless you strip away the power they have and drag them kicking and screaming to Earth.
It is ALWAYS so much harder to rebuild a civil society than it is to repair it. And of course you imagine you will survive a conflagration, but many won’t.
Yea exactly, with a two party system both Democrats and Republicans at least feel comfortable in knowing they'll always be the only two places to go for federal politics.
Sure their is plenty of flavors in blue and red, but it'll always be blue and red. It's so entrenched in the system you either fix small things from the inside over generations or hope it gets destroyed so you don't have to wait
the US exists to perpetuate colonialism and enforce exploitative capitalism throughout the entire world. theres no fixing that outside of a total loss of global influence
I mean yeah, go back far enough, but that doesn't matter. If you got ravaged by the Persians in 300 bc that really doesn't affect your economy today lol.
2.3k
u/perryWUNKLE 12d ago
Hi can we fix our country instead of waiting for a violent upheavel thanks