this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
772 points (94.8% liked)

Memes

45868 readers
1283 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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?

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

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

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

not if history is any indication.

[–] ericatty@infosec.pub 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] dyc3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

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.