You call for revolution but are anti gun.
You call for revolution but can't do a push up.
You call for revolution but still believe in calling things "conspiracy theories".
You call for revolution but won't organize anything.
You call for revolution but still think protests will work the way they're going.
You call for revolution but still want to live comfortably.
You call for revolution but have no plans for afterwards.
You call for revolution but you're asking someone yo do it for you; and even once they do it you'll just make a post on TikTok or an edit saying you stand with them, turn them into a martyr and move on.
You call for revolution but aren't prepared for one.
You call for revolution but are too worn down to actually do anything.
You call for revolution but the own revolutionaries you idolize would hate you.
You call for revolution but won't actually read what's available.
You call for revolution but you're clearly not enraged enough.
You call for revolution but you have a moral superiority complex.
You call for revolution but are too patronizing and pretentious to get others to join your cause.
You call for revolution but won't be the radical flank effect.
You want reform not revolution. Just stick to Mamdani and stop pretending to be something you aren't dear god. You don't care about Luigi Mangione, you don't care about Fred Hampton, you don't care about Thomas Sankara, you aren't an anarchist, you aren't this ultra Marxist, you just want reform and thats fine just say it.
Comments
Displaying 2 of 2 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
SarahBernhardt
Is there anything, you think, that is good in armed revolution?
How exactly do you expect a group of a quite fit, armed with rifles (at best) and some magazines to fight with trained rapid response teams of police or God forbid army?? Guns you talk about are for nothing, matter of fact they could even make the situation worse as with bloodshed you'll lose ANY moral mandate you might have had earlier from the point of view of the rest of the world and simply become another (one of many) terrorist organisations (and its worth remembering that those groups dont make ANY difference for how does the capitalism function, at best they do nothing and at worst they spread fear, paranoia and convince state to embark on projects related to invigilation as example).
And I only talk about trying to overthrow one state, do you think that such brutal actions wont provoke international actions? If danger is considered grave enough, all major powers could come and annihilate such group in its entirety in a single weekend.
That is the reason why I think actions like that are impossible and perhabs are just a romantic view shared by militarists for whom there is nothing so beautyful as dying of infection in some random trench.
I'd argue that the only way left is the pacifist way, there was an interesting study done which concluded that non-violemt opposition was around twice as effective in overthrowing goverments than was violent one (it was about 20th century countries too so not that far off).
How?? By organizing and protecting labor unions, fostering completely Independent medi, sources of communication and the most importantly; organizing alternatives free of (as much as possible) of influence from state and market. First with the necessities like food, water and shelter (through thorough contracts regarding who owns certain piece of land so it wont just be ripped away), then one can move to services which dont have as a requirement any special infrastructure, perhabs education or various trades, with it developing preferably democratic, non-hierarchical structures based on exchange, sharing (of material goods and knowledge) and mutual aid.
That way one can include everyone (from child to very old people) into your "alternative" system, which functions like a hole inside a state, people will still work, still pay taxes but they'll gain freedom and you might slowly expand, promote your ideas, show WHY it is a better option, a better life, people I think are quite likely to listen to actionable, step-by-step done alternative which visibly helps them in life.
That way you can simply move on from capitalism and state control, by veeery slow dissolution of this unequal, unbalanced (by share of power) relationship with state and capitalism
I hope for some response bescuse this is a really interesting topic
Hello!
While I myself do like the idea of a hole inside the state, I think the moment the mutual aid, independent trades, etc. Start SERIOUSLY threatening the pockets of the Epstein class they would come down on it HARD. Police raids, laws, tax evasion charges, sending people to spy and dismantle it from the inside and arresting and killing leaders to stop it(similar to what they did to the Black Panthers). I don't believe revolution is possible at all in the current United States. We live in a nation that is more than willing to kill their own citizens (Kent State massacre, Ludlow Massacre) and peaceful movements for change in this country are brought down the second they are deemed a threat(Pullman strike, The Rainbow Coalition). I don't think it's possible to slowly dissolve something by following the law when they have army and police on their side to enforce their rule.
I do agree that some peaceful ways do work, Bus boycotts as an example, I don't believe those movements would've worked or happened now. The bus boycotts took a year and people nowadays are back to supporting Pro Israel companies after a couple weeks of boycotting(obviously not talking about people who cannot afford to boycott, food deserts and poverty and such). Nowadays, they love pacifists and such because there's no threat to their survival. They can manage those protests through the public and waiting out the protests. It's the acceptable way to rebel to the oppressor.
I'm not sure what study you are specifically referencing but it sounds like the one done by Chenoweth(correct me if that's not the one you're referring to) but those peaceful movements are only successful because of the radical flank effect. The example I'll give is that Martin Luther King Jr. needed Malcom X to be successful, it's well known that MLK was not popular during his time but do you think he would've been paid attention to nearly as much if Malcom X wasn't in the picture? I don't mean to downplay MLK's work but they would've ignored him as just another peaceful guy who wants change. If you give people only 1 option they can very easily turn away and say no, if you give them two options: The peaceful protest vs the "by any means necessary." They will make a choice because one options sounds good. They will pick moderates because they are scared of the radicals. Gandhi would've just been ignored as just a guy starving himself if he didn't have literal nationalists for the British to compare him to and decide that he was the better alternative.
Now history has shown that entire governments can be overthrown by people determined enough to fight for a better future for their people(Thomas Sankara or Vietnam for examples). These aren't small groups with guns attacking a whole army, the reason why these revolutions work is because they are organized and had people from the enemy army switch sides.
I don't believe we'll get this ever though in the US because nobody would truly commit themselves to the fight. Everyone's just going to keep "voting for change", hope the Epstein class changes their ways(even though we know what they're doing now), and swear dancing in a frog costume is doing something to fight imperialism.
by VAMPIREBLOODBAG; ; Report