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?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

not if history is any indication.

load more comments (5 replies)