Unironically, Trump is going to lose
(archive.is)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
You don't get a critical mass of people if everyone is scared of using violence. That's why many people encourage violence before the critical mass to try to get a critical mass. No one suggests standing on a hill by themselves but you're never going to get a hill full of people of not one person is willing to stand on the hill. Though, to be fair, you only get a critical mass of people when there's no food, water and electricity. Or if the government is involved.
Yes, you do, dummy. Because a glowie retard federal agent like you will bait someone into using violence. There will be a giant crackdown on him and everyone else who supports Trump. Then people will be even more scared than before. In the aftermath of Jan 6, Trump supporters were saying not even to protest because it is a trap. Now that is real fear.
Feds are not people.
Purely hypothetically, in a parallel universe where the place I live was actually oppressive rather than free, democratic and all that, I would be willing to stand on a hill. What I would not be willing to do in that case, is lose everything with zero chance of improvement, and 100% chance of deterioration.
I'm not sure, but probably true.
Oh, so we're good.
I'm just saying historically whenever there's a violent revolution there's usually rich people from the government involved. That's usually because they'll have the resources to be able to make a real stand on a hill and then people will follow along with being able to promote enough propaganda to get significant support.
The peasant classes rarely if ever have risen up entirely on their own unless it was a matter of life or death.
But also, it's rare for radical changes to occur in government without the use of force. The use of force doesn't necessarily need to mean significant violence but the threat of it can be enough as well like when militaries execute coups, they can often be minimal in the amount of violence used.
Your only example is the American revolution. Division in ruling circles is more important.
Peasant revolts were very common, but they were small-scale rather than large scale. It was "keep your hands off us" rather than "we're going to change the central government all the way in Paris".
Use of force can be, from the perspective of the would-be revolutionary, productive or counterproductive. Were I in their position, I would focus on mobilizing discontent, attempting every peaceful avenue (in order to ensure that blame is pinned on the other side, both to fracture the ruling class as well as to bring along your own moderates), and only then, seemingly or actually reluctantly, use the minimum necessary amount of force as a last resort - or even better, use force in response to unjustified force initiated by the other side.
The American revolutionaries were actually quite clever in this. Their slogan was 'no taxation without representation'. This was a slogan many could get behind. But the radicals had no intention of actually accepting representation in Parliament, because they thought or at least argued that they could not be represented so far away. The obstreperousness of the British government prevented a fracture between the moderates and the radicals.
If you want change, step 1 is to do no harm.
But everytime there is change, people are harmed so how does that work?