There is no discussion of “destroying a regime” though. What we seek to build are resilient communities.
I get that you’re doing some figuring out here. But you’re actively talking online about things that are now illegal speech. Fidel is an example not of blindly destroying a regime but an example of the importance of building community. Or, organizing.
Now building resilient communities is a great action, but by itself it doesn’t lead to a system change except by evolution.
In any case, my speech is not illegal in any sense. I am not advocating for violence at all and much less in any specific case, since the discussion is purely theoretical and valid for any country or regime.
You can play those semantic games if you want. It won’t get you anywhere.
I need you to look up the Palmer raids or any other red scare nonsense in this country. No amount of “technically the constitution” is going to make your words “legal”. The laws are made up and enforced with extreme violence by white supremacists.
The reason I say this to you: any sort of discussion about merely changing the system is going to be seen as treasonous. Mamdani was named by doj in conjunction with npsm 7 or whatever it is.
Analyze the material reality of the situation and act accordingly. I spend a lot of my time in my communities. Not all have the same overlapping goals. But none of them advocate for a revolution, that’s an extreme risk for almost no upside.
We can be very specific in contexts that are irrelevant to the US and it wouldn’t change anything. I just decided that I am talking about Eritrea. Also, while it increasingly looks like certain political thought is going to be prosecuted in the US, making the spread of it revolutionary, it is currently not. It’s not the situation of 100 years ago. Getting back there, I give you that, but not there yet.
And the whole discussion is about what accounts for revolutionary acts. I love that you work in communities working on improving life, but if they don’t advocate for a revolution, they are not revolutionary. That’s not an insult at all.
There is no discussion of “destroying a regime” though. What we seek to build are resilient communities.
I get that you’re doing some figuring out here. But you’re actively talking online about things that are now illegal speech. Fidel is an example not of blindly destroying a regime but an example of the importance of building community. Or, organizing.
Now building resilient communities is a great action, but by itself it doesn’t lead to a system change except by evolution.
In any case, my speech is not illegal in any sense. I am not advocating for violence at all and much less in any specific case, since the discussion is purely theoretical and valid for any country or regime.
You can play those semantic games if you want. It won’t get you anywhere.
I need you to look up the Palmer raids or any other red scare nonsense in this country. No amount of “technically the constitution” is going to make your words “legal”. The laws are made up and enforced with extreme violence by white supremacists.
The reason I say this to you: any sort of discussion about merely changing the system is going to be seen as treasonous. Mamdani was named by doj in conjunction with npsm 7 or whatever it is.
Analyze the material reality of the situation and act accordingly. I spend a lot of my time in my communities. Not all have the same overlapping goals. But none of them advocate for a revolution, that’s an extreme risk for almost no upside.
We can be very specific in contexts that are irrelevant to the US and it wouldn’t change anything. I just decided that I am talking about Eritrea. Also, while it increasingly looks like certain political thought is going to be prosecuted in the US, making the spread of it revolutionary, it is currently not. It’s not the situation of 100 years ago. Getting back there, I give you that, but not there yet.
And the whole discussion is about what accounts for revolutionary acts. I love that you work in communities working on improving life, but if they don’t advocate for a revolution, they are not revolutionary. That’s not an insult at all.