I mean, I actually believe that it won’t be accomplished without bloodshed - but there’s a world of difference between ‘civil unrest’ and ‘civil war’, and I see people fantasizing about the latter far too often. Force is the tool workers use to prevent the use of overwhelming force against the workers - but using it as a tool of overthrow itself is… often strategically unsound, unless matters have already spiraled into chaos.
This is where supposedly communist regimes tend to go wrong - they skip straight to revolution without taking the necessary preparatory steps to do things like level inequality and shore up democracy. This just means that the wealth and power reconsolidate almost immediately into authoritarian state capitalism or similar - generally a worse state than preceded it, and definitely not communism.
Again, I don’t dispute that force is necessary for self-defense, for pressuring the government, and, once taken by democratic means, for use of state force to implement the necessary changes. Only that the use of force to overthrow the government is probably a strategic mistake at this junction, moral issues aside. No coup worth succeeding will succeed, and civil war would be… brutal, even if by some miracle leftist forces emerged and won.
I think we probably agree but are caught up in semantics and details.
For all your sneering stupidity, you forgot your point. Are you saying they’re actually democracies, or that there is a more effective set of material conditiond to establish to stop them rapidly sliding into autocracy?
You seem to think authoritarian states where wealth is consolidated and noone but members of the single party can vote for the single leader are sufficiently democratic and didn’t follow a predictable path toward autocracy - or that it’s desirable and democratic for that to happen. Just about any state that isn’t busy larping at communism does a better job at democracy.
You want to throw the DPRK into the mix too, champ?
Force is fine. Speedrunning straight to toppling the government entirely is at this point a well-established way of creating an autocracy. If that’s the near-inevitable outcome, why topple the government to get something worse? It’s moronic.
You use force to push for change - with the threat of all the violence and revolution backing that. If you have the sustained force required to topple and effectively replace the government with a democratic machine, coercing the existing government into changes to protect your democracy seem straightforward. If you don’t have the numbers or coordination, how do you think starting a government from scratch is going to work out? Helpful hint: Look at historical case-studies.
I don’t understand why ML’s are so keen to bang on about material conditions when they work so hard to ignore them.
I mean, I actually believe that it won’t be accomplished without bloodshed - but there’s a world of difference between ‘civil unrest’ and ‘civil war’, and I see people fantasizing about the latter far too often. Force is the tool workers use to prevent the use of overwhelming force against the workers - but using it as a tool of overthrow itself is… often strategically unsound, unless matters have already spiraled into chaos.
This is where supposedly communist regimes tend to go wrong - they skip straight to revolution without taking the necessary preparatory steps to do things like level inequality and shore up democracy. This just means that the wealth and power reconsolidate almost immediately into authoritarian state capitalism or similar - generally a worse state than preceded it, and definitely not communism.
The force is necessary though.
Again, I don’t dispute that force is necessary for self-defense, for pressuring the government, and, once taken by democratic means, for use of state force to implement the necessary changes. Only that the use of force to overthrow the government is probably a strategic mistake at this junction, moral issues aside. No coup worth succeeding will succeed, and civil war would be… brutal, even if by some miracle leftist forces emerged and won.
I think we probably agree but are caught up in semantics and details.
Nailed it.
Removed by mod
For all your sneering stupidity, you forgot your point. Are you saying they’re actually democracies, or that there is a more effective set of material conditiond to establish to stop them rapidly sliding into autocracy?
You seem to think authoritarian states where wealth is consolidated and noone but members of the single party can vote for the single leader are sufficiently democratic and didn’t follow a predictable path toward autocracy - or that it’s desirable and democratic for that to happen. Just about any state that isn’t busy larping at communism does a better job at democracy.
You want to throw the DPRK into the mix too, champ?
Removed by mod
Force is fine. Speedrunning straight to toppling the government entirely is at this point a well-established way of creating an autocracy. If that’s the near-inevitable outcome, why topple the government to get something worse? It’s moronic.
You use force to push for change - with the threat of all the violence and revolution backing that. If you have the sustained force required to topple and effectively replace the government with a democratic machine, coercing the existing government into changes to protect your democracy seem straightforward. If you don’t have the numbers or coordination, how do you think starting a government from scratch is going to work out? Helpful hint: Look at historical case-studies.
I don’t understand why ML’s are so keen to bang on about material conditions when they work so hard to ignore them.
Removed by mod