Who said any of that? The people endorsing violence in this thread are endorsing the violence I described in the post (burning and looting in Chicago). Nyte even posted she'd be happy to have her house burned, as it would be the most moral outcome.
I like how this shit is reframed now. What he means is I criticize the people saying "Death to USA!", the burning of federal courthouses and looting of / extortion of businesses, the people attacking cops
But when it comes to meaningful change as in - police & legal reform, improving the wonderful capitalist system in which we all live, rooting out corruption - this guy is the one who is opposed and maybe even actively working against it. As he doesn't want this system to work, he wants to break it down and build (X nonspecific system which nobody actually wants or can agree on)
Lol, I said modern economics departments in the US and UK. Hint: Marxism was developed in the system of economics. The US and UK by and large primarily teach economics only within the framework of capitalism, disregarding economics that make different assumptions
by the way personally i am not making strong comments on whether violence is effective or necessary. (but i am sentimentally against violence). what i do claim is that most people sentimentally do not like violence. so call to violent revolution is out of touch. i might be wrong, but i doubt it.
and again, when most people sentimentally arent up for violent revolution, it seems a good tactic to encourage them to get on board is to threaten them with violence if they dont. just saying.
1 Like
yea i mean i agree the overall situation would have to get a lot worse before people start considering this sort of thing
well, thats what im saying. but ewiz is advocating for physically fighting the police right now, today. so i think he is out of touch.
well if its just limited to fighting the police maybe it might do some good things under some conditions. i wont say anything strong about the effectiveness of that either. im merely remarking you wont overturn the american capitalist State today. and also i dont think you will ever because it will self regulate to make sure it doesnt get that bad, maybe by mailing poor people checks. which in itself is a good thing.
Dude you're a fucking moron. You wanted your argument to lead to the outcomes of otherization as theorized by Gramsci, yet we're using a completely unrelated definition of the Other. You can't fucking just say the consequences are the same when the reason for those consequences is predicated on the specific definition of the Other. I explained this already
- you claim X implies Y
- i have an incorrect argument that X implies Y
- therefore your argument must be wrong
This benefit is framed in terms of existence in a capitalist society
okay. so your model of communism relies on a model of human nature in which people will work directly in good faith for the good of society at large. i just disagree that will happen, thats all. it doesnt seem reasonable. maybe all my evidence is tainted by capitalism though.
No, don't care about any of that. I had a very basic point and I don't give a fuck what philosophy text you quote about it
The basic point was that by labeling someone "reactionary" you were dismissing his ideas without actually engaging - same as any other tribalistic system of beliefs that create some nondescript "other" and lump their opponents together in it, justifying a kind of nondescript violence and an inability to take in any new ideas or information - which, coincidentally, seems to be a personal and not just political trait of yours
When revolutionary actos break every bank window and continuously break them, burn them down, and such it pretty clearly shuts down systems.
You keep the factory running by engaging and getting those members of industry to take the action. Hint: this is the entire concept of labor organizing in communism, one of the most fundamental things
So what you would like people to do is break every bank window and continuously break them, burn them (the buildings? the windows?) down
That's just banks, what else would you like people to do?
additionally, i would have concerns even assuming that most people will not slack off, whether it will be stable if a minority of individuals who think in strange ways and hate society are introduced. note modern society is robust against that because the FBI will put you on a watchlist. but if a handful of capitalists/facists/feudalists are teleported into communist utopia, is the system stable? what are the regulatory mechanisms that prevent cheating? maybe some cheating is okay and not a big deal, but is there a way to do a big cheat that screws everything up? (note: i am not claiming modern capitalist is 100% secure against cheating either)
I've given so many examples of how this always fails and provided the arguments (even nicely highlighted for you) as to why it always will fail. You haven't responded to either. Care to explain how Brown v Board 2 and Milliken v Bradley aren't explicit examples of this failure and destruction of everything the Civil Rights movement worked for?
Does breaking windows of a bank even do anything in 2020? All of my local banks are small local operations with like 2 employees who are just there to make a minimal effort to sell you an upgraded account or something
Most of us do 90% of banking online
this + who even works in a factory these days are actually very pertinent i think
again if my LLC is an internet company and i only employ myself who am i exploiting and what is the rationale of me being seized?
I would personally devote my life to making sure ewiz's violent communistic/anarchistic ideas do not come to pass.
What does the "burn it down" crowd have in store for me? What is the appropriate level of violence?