I get the violent rhetoric, I really do. But, at the same time, I can’t help but feel like more people would be more amenable to social reform that benefits the little guy to the mere detriment of the rich, rather than murdering them horribly. I could be wrong, but doesn’t history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?
but doesn’t history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?
Nope! Look at the life expectancy increases under socialist countries, they mathematically have less death!
Also compare red terrors casualty numbers to standard operating casualty numbers. Like 20 million people die of capitalism caused deprivation a year worldwide today.
Ok but the rich, and tgerefore powerful will block said reform or even weaponize it. We’re at 40 years of losses for the little-guy. We’re down to the bone and they’re still cutting while the pigs still feed at the public through
in all seriousness, no it doesn’t. that’s whitewashing by liberals. good revolutions are often still violent. because guess what, if you want to challenge power, power doesn’t just fucking let you do whatever you want.
I mean, Kamala is running on policies that would help the little guy. And she might lose to guy who SA’s women and said he could shoot someone in the street.
If she wins and we get a peaceful transfer of power, then I’ll have more faith in your dream.
But right now, it seems like violence is what the masses crave over social reform.
I understand. I throw obscene amounts of money at the cash black hole that is rent. I understand entirely how people think that people who make money simply by sitting on assets they own and otherwise provide nothing to society should be, ahem, obliterated. I just think it’s still possible to obliterate them with regulations instead of actual murder.
I get the violent rhetoric, I really do. But, at the same time, I can’t help but feel like more people would be more amenable to social reform that benefits the little guy to the mere detriment of the rich, rather than murdering them horribly. I could be wrong, but doesn’t history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?
Nope! Look at the life expectancy increases under socialist countries, they mathematically have less death!
Also compare red terrors casualty numbers to standard operating casualty numbers. Like 20 million people die of capitalism caused deprivation a year worldwide today.
Ok but the rich, and tgerefore powerful will block said reform or even weaponize it. We’re at 40 years of losses for the little-guy. We’re down to the bone and they’re still cutting while the pigs still feed at the public through
counterpoint:
in all seriousness, no it doesn’t. that’s whitewashing by liberals. good revolutions are often still violent. because guess what, if you want to challenge power, power doesn’t just fucking let you do whatever you want.
No, but power can be subverted. Maybe I’m hopelessly optimistic, but I think there’s still a non-violent solution.
not if history is any indication.
I mean, Kamala is running on policies that would help the little guy. And she might lose to guy who SA’s women and said he could shoot someone in the street.
If she wins and we get a peaceful transfer of power, then I’ll have more faith in your dream.
But right now, it seems like violence is what the masses crave over social reform.
I agree 100%. I’m as left as probably most people here, but I just don’t understand why the first course of action is to claw the opps eyes out.
I understand. I throw obscene amounts of money at the cash black hole that is rent. I understand entirely how people think that people who make money simply by sitting on assets they own and otherwise provide nothing to society should be, ahem, obliterated. I just think it’s still possible to obliterate them with regulations instead of actual murder.