|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 29 2025 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 03:19 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I don't get the optimism honestly, to me, it seems like Trump has enough semi competent people who co-opted his movement and have no need to be in the spotlight but are rather dismantling things in the background and moving things in a direction where nothing can be done after their plans are completed.
The federalist society and other ghouls behind project 2025 who joined hands with the broligarchs are just competent enough that in combination with Democratic leadership being cowards and morons and American public being completely apathetic and susceptible to propaganda they will lock everything down to the point where elections might happen but they sure as fuck won't be fair and even if they are they will make sure that the results that come out of them are good for them.
This new executive order is a perfect example, it's a blimp on a radar and it's basically neutering any sort of attempt at protesting before they even happen in a step that in any other country would be taken as a huge authoritarian overreach. In the USA of 2025 it doesn't even make the front page news. It's a bizarre balance of ranting about how Trump is in the midst of an authoritarian takeover, but how the solution is obviously to vote for incompetent cowards to tell us they're doing the best they can while they basically do nothing to stop it. Eventually that will fix it somehow, is basically the plan of Democrat supporters in the US.
I mean its a better plan than "start a violent civil war in the hope that history will be different this time and things will be better". If you think that the political infrastructure is incompetent and cowards now what do you imagine would be the replacement? Do you think there is an entirely new establishment of politicians capable of taking over the apparatus of state that is just waiting around for the opportunity? That when you create a massive power vacuum in the aftermath of the conflict, it won't be seized by bad actors supported by the same people who support the current leaders?
Simply not liking the situation you are in isn't a hot take my guy. The real world has consequences for your actions that you can't just hand wave away beacuse its hard to think about.
On August 29 2025 04:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2025 03:19 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I don't get the optimism honestly, to me, it seems like Trump has enough semi competent people who co-opted his movement and have no need to be in the spotlight but are rather dismantling things in the background and moving things in a direction where nothing can be done after their plans are completed.
The federalist society and other ghouls behind project 2025 who joined hands with the broligarchs are just competent enough that in combination with Democratic leadership being cowards and morons and American public being completely apathetic and susceptible to propaganda they will lock everything down to the point where elections might happen but they sure as fuck won't be fair and even if they are they will make sure that the results that come out of them are good for them.
This new executive order is a perfect example, it's a blimp on a radar and it's basically neutering any sort of attempt at protesting before they even happen in a step that in any other country would be taken as a huge authoritarian overreach. In the USA of 2025 it doesn't even make the front page news. It's a bizarre balance of ranting about how Trump is in the midst of an authoritarian takeover, but how the solution is obviously to vote for incompetent cowards to tell us they're doing the best they can while they basically do nothing to stop it. Eventually that will fix it somehow, is basically the plan of Democrat supporters in the US. The Democrat version of Thoughts and Prayers
Yeah but the GH option is "fight any attempt to stop the kids from being shot in schools until people are willing to burn down all the schools in an attempt to stop school shootings".
Sandy hook showed that conservatives don't give a shit about dead kids and Uvalde showed that conservatives won't change their political viewpoints if their local police will stand around while their children are shot. You're not going to magic away these people from the country if you tell them that they're wrong and you've got guns so we're doing things different now.
|
Yeah but the GH option is "fight any attempt to stop the kids from being shot in schools until people are willing to burn down all the schools in an attempt to stop school shootings".
I don't see GH having said that
Sandy hook showed that conservatives don't give a shit about dead kids and Uvalde showed that conservatives won't change their political viewpoints if their local police will stand around while their children are shot. You're not going to magic away these people from the country if you tell them that they're wrong and you've got guns so we're doing things different now.
Okay, I mostly agree with this, my question then is why you expect electoral politics to keep these people in a deep and consistent state or marginalization?
We've seen that Americans feel pretty discontented living in what is basically a halved society curated by media corporations, so unless these people are constantly marginalized in such a way that they dont have power we're going to keep getting fascists.
Or we can have politics that actually work for the people instead of the ever concentration of wealth towards the top strata of society.
The problem people on the left would identify here is that there appears to be no interest from either party is doing that, both parties are happier to let the elites accumulate wealth than to try anything outside of fascism on the Republican side or 1990s neoliberalism on the Democrat side, and both of these things are unacceptable. Fascism for obvious reasons, and Neoliberalism because it not only helps enable fascism, but because it also causes stratification of wealth because at the end of the day Capitalism wants wealth concentration and when you have enough wealth concentration you will have rampant societal discontent and desperation, leading people to feel like anything is worth a try (fascism, in the US' case.)
I would rather society simply recalibrate itself, wages and cost of living to enter a comfortable satisfying equilibrium where everyone who works can afford apartments or homes near where they work, where we have strong social safety nets so people aren't food insecure or homeless, where everyone shares in the wealth that they create, etc. etc.
We dont have anyone in power who actually wants that though, because at the end of the day Money is Power in the US and both parties serve that power.
So in my case I examine what I think are possible outs,
1. Democracy, Democrats manage to win the House, Senate, and Presidency, they manage to not be up their own asses and wield power super aggressively, add more Supreme Court justices so they control the court, gerrymander Republicans out of existence, implement massive reforms that make life significantly more comfortable and affordable for people.
2. Fascists win, they're too stupid and incompetent and implode on themselves trying to move too fast to take power before theyve meaningfully consolidated control over the military etc. so Fascism cures itself by virtue of overwhelming stupidity.
3. Fascists win, Democrats don't change, they win an election here or there and over time Fascists firmly consolidate power because Democrats offer no meaningful resistance and a decidedly unsatisfying, untrustworthy alternative one too many times.
4. Fascists win, the rest of the world does a WW2 on the US and we do the Germany thing (but probably more of the Japan thing, since I see us denying what we did wrong rather than owning it for any meaningful length of time.)
5. Political violence, Fascists get killed/ousted by force of the populous. They cross too many lines and people start to remember that protests are fucking worthless unless you have the threat of violence, in this case people in power know this and understand that protests nowadays don't have that threat of violence, but in this case what they've done is so heinous that violence is back on the menu and they get violence'd out of power.
And when I think about these outs the only ones that seem likely are the ones that are violent in nature, and if Im going to be left with only violent likely outcomes Id at least prefer to have the violent outcome where the Fascists lose.
It would be nice if society could change on it's own and Democrats could do their fucking jobs well, but I have been given absolutely no indication that these things are likely and have absolutely no interest in pretending that they are.
So I go to the gym, save money, apply for citizenship in sane countries, and hope to take out at least two Nazis before I go out.
|
On August 29 2025 10:13 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah but the GH option is "fight any attempt to stop the kids from being shot in schools until people are willing to burn down all the schools in an attempt to stop school shootings". I don't see GH having said that Show nested quote +Sandy hook showed that conservatives don't give a shit about dead kids and Uvalde showed that conservatives won't change their political viewpoints if their local police will stand around while their children are shot. You're not going to magic away these people from the country if you tell them that they're wrong and you've got guns so we're doing things different now. Okay, I mostly agree with this, my question then is why you expect electoral politics to keep these people in a deep and consistent state or marginalization? We've seen that Americans feel pretty discontented living in what is basically a halved society curated by media corporations, so unless these people are constantly marginalized in such a way that they dont have power we're going to keep getting fascists. Or we can have politics that actually work for the people instead of the ever concentration of wealth towards the top strata of society. The problem people on the left would identify here is that there appears to be no interest from either party is doing that, both parties are happier to let the elites accumulate wealth than to try anything outside of fascism on the Republican side or 1990s neoliberalism on the Democrat side, and both of these things are unacceptable. Fascism for obvious reasons, and Neoliberalism because it not only helps enable fascism, but because it also causes stratification of wealth because at the end of the day Capitalism wants wealth concentration and when you have enough wealth concentration you will have rampant societal discontent and desperation, leading people to feel like anything is worth a try (fascism, in the US' case.) I would rather society simply recalibrate itself, wages and cost of living to enter a comfortable satisfying equilibrium where everyone who works can afford apartments or homes near where they work, where we have strong social safety nets so people aren't food insecure or homeless, where everyone shares in the wealth that they create, etc. etc. We dont have anyone in power who actually wants that though, because at the end of the day Money is Power in the US and both parties serve that power. So in my case I examine what I think are possible outs, 1. Democracy, Democrats manage to win the House, Senate, and Presidency, they manage to not be up their own asses and wield power super aggressively, add more Supreme Court justices so they control the court, gerrymander Republicans out of existence, implement massive reforms that make life significantly more comfortable and affordable for people. 2. Fascists win, they're too stupid and incompetent and implode on themselves trying to move too fast to take power before theyve meaningfully consolidated control over the military etc. so Fascism cures itself by virtue of overwhelming stupidity. 3. Fascists win, Democrats don't change, they win an election here or there and over time Fascists firmly consolidate power because Democrats offer no meaningful resistance and a decidedly unsatisfying, untrustworthy alternative one too many times. 4. Fascists win, the rest of the world does a WW2 on the US and we do the Germany thing (but probably more of the Japan thing, since I see us denying what we did wrong rather than owning it for any meaningful length of time.) 5. Political violence, Fascists get killed/ousted by force of the populous. They cross too many lines and people start to remember that protests are fucking worthless unless you have the threat of violence, in this case people in power know this and understand that protests nowadays don't have that threat of violence, but in this case what they've done is so heinous that violence is back on the menu and they get violence'd out of power. And when I think about these outs the only ones that seem likely are the ones that are violent in nature, and if Im going to be left with only violent likely outcomes Id at least prefer to have the violent outcome where the Fascists lose. It would be nice if society could change on it's own and Democrats could do their fucking jobs well, but I have been given absolutely no indication that these things are likely and have absolutely no interest in pretending that they are. So I go to the gym, save money, apply for citizenship in sane countries, and hope to take out at least two Nazis before I go out.
No he didn't say that but you quoted the thoughts and prayers line from school shootings. I'm positing what his proposal otherwise is.
We are going to keep getting fascists, and we're going to have to keep fighting them back. The fascists don't just go away if you ask them nicely or kill a lot of them. They'll always be back in new forms, the same as they were before we had a name for facists. You are always going to have bad actors trying to take advantage of the systems you make to twist it for their ends. That isn't going to go away with some magical "politics that actually work for the people".
The problem with people on the left is that instead of using their agency to work to create the pressure to become represented and influence, they would rather have tantrums and work against any change in the country. You cannot work against and advocate against the people you need on your side to enact any change in the country, then bitch why there is no change in the country. Making the people who vote democrat your enemy is not how you make your dreams come true. At some point you're going to need to hold elections again, like what happened in Ukraine, or continue an oppressive dictatorship.
The problem with your "5 outs" is that he fascists win with 5 as well. Once you show that you're willing to just use violence, then you justify the fascists to use even more violence, then you get the civil war and a power vacuum. If the "left" refuses to build a coalition with the democrats, they will lose, just like what happened in Weimar Germany. Seeing the Nazi rise to power and wanting to follow that example isn't good. 5 is literaly what caused the nazis to take power, beacuse they were more willing and eager to use violence than anyone else. Antifa was a failure; they didn't win in the end, following their example is bad when its very easy to find out what happened to them.
Can we agree that 1 is the "best" outcome and talk about how we get to that outcome? That a violent civil war is a bad thing, will lead to worse things, and has little to no chance of having a good outcome based on the many examples we have in history?
|
No he didn't say that but you quoted the thoughts and prayers line from school shootings. I'm positing what his proposal otherwise is.
I know, its why I hate when certain people interact with GH.
We are going to keep getting fascists, and we're going to have to keep fighting them back. The fascists don't just go away if you ask them nicely or kill a lot of them. They'll always be back in new forms, the same as they were before we had a name for facists. You are always going to have bad actors trying to take advantage of the systems you make to twist it for their ends. That isn't going to go away with some magical "politics that actually work for the people".
We made them go away half-decently after WW2. Mostly by killing them. Would've been better if we had killed significantly more of them.
While I agree they will always be around in some form, we can keep them firmly out of power by meeting people's needs, preventing people from feeling desperation to such a degree where they turn to fringe political ideologies. We also need to have much firmer controls on media, letting billionaires control media is a huge mistake, but its a mistake that Capitalism is always going to bend towards because Capitalism likes billionaires and billionaires can buy power. Its something neither Democrats nor Republicans have any interest in curbing, Democrats are happy to let shit ride so long as their billionaire donors are making bank and Republicans only shut it down when they cant exert control over it.
The problem with people on the left is that instead of using their agency to work to create the pressure to become represented and influence
We had a good Bernie moment and the DNC ubiquitously told us all to go fuck ourselves. The current candidate for VA Governor sent me a fucking email after Hillary lost blaming AOC. Progressives and leftists can try as much as we want to push for policies that we want, and we will always get told to fuck ourselves by the DNC.
Because at the end of the day, centrists would prefer fascism to anything to the left of Richard Nixon. The constant screeching to moderate moderate moderate is idiotic, moronic, I can't say enough mean things about that brain dead impulse. Kamala Harris was more likely to win when she was letting Tim Walz run wild than when she sidelined him for the fucking Cheneys.
Moderate and centrist campaign dipshits are more responsible for Democrat losses than leftists will ever be.
You cannot work against and advocate against the people you need on your side to enact any change in the country, then bitch why there is no change in the country.
Holy shit this is literally the Democrat playbook as soon as they lose an election
Making the people who vote democrat your enemy is not how you make your dreams come true.
I didn't make the Democrats my enemy, the Democrats make the Democrats my enemy by virtue of doing things like propping Donald Trump up in the first fucking place because they thought hed be an easy win. They are my enemy because Nancy Pelosi thinks that we need a Strong Republican Party. They are my enemy because they are the plumbing through which Fascists have flowed to power. If they want to stop making me their enemy then they can fucking do better.
The problem with your "5 outs" is that he fascists win with 5 as well. Once you show that you're willing to just use violence, then you justify the fascists to use even more violence, then you get the civil war and a power vacuum.
Fascists didn't win WW2. They lost actually. In the scenarios where I said Fascists lose its because Fascists are no longer in power and are no longer alive/in position to acquire power and the power structures in play have taken steps to plant their feet on Fascism's throat.
Also, I hate this dumb argument, "once they exercise power and you exercise power in return, then you justify them exercising power!" as if Fascists arent going to do that shit anyways. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Better to try to use power to get them the fuck out than to just wave your hands in some vigil as they mow you down with guns because they're going to do that because they're Fascists.
If the "left" refuses to build a coalition with the democrats,
Maybe Democrats could try building a coalition with the left instead? Maybe Democrats could take a little responsibility for their wild unpopularity?
5 is literaly what caused the nazis to take power, beacuse they were more willing and eager to use violence than anyone else. Antifa was a failure; they didn't win in the end, following their example is bad when its very easy to find out what happened to them.
I would define the Allied powers as Antifa and they beat the Nazis, thus winning in the end.
Can we agree that 1 is the "best" outcome and talk about how we get to that outcome? That a violent civil war is a bad thing, will lead to worse things, and has little to no chance of having a good outcome based on the many examples we have in history?
I have talked about how to get to that outcome and Ive illustrated why I think its the most unlikely of the outcomes because Ive watched Democrats be completely and absolutely obstinate. They refuse to change, they refuse to meet the will of the electorate, they refuse to change campaign strategy, they refuse to do fucking anything that might lead to Outcome 1.
You're free to try to convince me Outcome 1 is likely, but Ive been watching the Democrats since Trump lost and youre going to have to do an unbelievable job making an argument that the Democrats are anything more than lazy feckless morons.
Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs.
|
Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs.
I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost.
You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary.
The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled.
|
On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled.
Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change.
And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence.
Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting.
|
On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting.
When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence.
As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal.
Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war?
|
On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war?
You are being obtuse. Would you had prefered the República didn't fight that war ?
|
On August 29 2025 12:43 Zambrah wrote:
I didn't make the Democrats my enemy, the Democrats make the Democrats my enemy by virtue of doing things like propping Donald Trump up in the first fucking place because they thought hed be an easy win. They are my enemy because Nancy Pelosi thinks that we need a Strong Republican Party. They are my enemy because they are the plumbing through which Fascists have flowed to power. If they want to stop making me their enemy then they can fucking do better.
I just wanna interject here. Nancy Pelosi said that because Republicans appealed to more fringe right-wing (i.e. far-right) groups for support. To strengthen the party means - in her mind - to strengthen non-radical Republican support so that the far-right won't be offered a seat at the table.
|
On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:
The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled.
This is something that is often misunderstood. The USSR fell apart both peacefully and violently. Violence against increasingly upset populations was the norm and cost many people their lives. The "peaceful" part was a rare exception, where the leadership was so fractured that it couldn't prevent the collapse. The final collapse was peaceful because there was insufficient cohesion in leadership that could've upheld the status quo - violently or otherwise.
When power/leadership is consolidated, then I don't see much hope of a successful peaceful revolution. Then again, I also don't see much hope of a successful violent revolution. Basically I think people should throw the idea of revolution out of the window altogether. The thing that actually works is an undermining of leadership.
|
On August 29 2025 15:56 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war? You are being obtuse. Would you had prefered the República didn't fight that war ?
My point is that advocating for violence is unlikely to lead to a better outcome, and good outcomes can be achieved without violence. What is your point?
|
On August 29 2025 16:05 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:
The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. This is something that is often misunderstood. The USSR fell apart both peacefully and violently. Violence against increasingly upset populations was the norm and cost many people their lives. The "peaceful" part was a rare exception, where the leadership was so fractured that it couldn't prevent the collapse. The final collapse was peaceful because there was insufficient cohesion in leadership that could've upheld the status quo - violently or otherwise. When power/leadership is consolidated, then I don't see much hope of a successful peaceful revolution. Then again, I also don't see much hope of a successful violent revolution. Basically I think people should throw the idea of revolution out of the window altogether. The thing that actually works is an undermining of leadership.
Revolution works too. The French monarchy was overthrown. The immediate result was awful, but the French still commemorate the storming of the Bastille proudly, because in the long run, despite the Reign of Terror and even the Napoleonic wars, eventually the republics that followed were worth it.
More recently, Syria revolted violently against Assad and, once again, over a decade later, succeeded. There's probably still years of turmoil ahead in which the country may very well return to some form.of totalitarianism.
Revolution can definitely work, it's just often really messy. Can you give examples of this "undermining" you advocate instead? I wouldn't say the Soviet Union's leadership was undermined. Just that they failed. There was no serious opposition in the Soviet Union. It's mainly just that the political and economic policy failed for decades to do what it set out to do. Eventually it had failed enough that even the leadership knew it. They weren't undermined, they were just bad at their jobs. Unsurprising, given the sheer size and scope of running a top-down planned economy.
|
Is there any reason to assume a revolution in the US would result in "saner" people ruling?
If anything I would assume it goes even more authoritarian, maybe just with another flavor to it than under Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
