Why do people assume revolutionary action must be violent? Emmeline Pankhurst will want to have words with them.
replyDont defend accepting corruption, thats so lame
replyBut, being more respectful to you and who i orignally replied to — yes actual revolution could/would be brutal and could/would create a much worse daily life for the non-elites.
replyStill, as I bet you could agree when not aguing semantics, its inexusable for people to declare we should accept corruption
> yes actual revolution would be brutal, and could/would create a much worse daily life for the non-elites.
reply50% of revolutions in the past 200 years have been non-violent, and the non-violent ones have a much higher success rate. Even for violent revolutions, most aren't brutal. When there is brutality, it's usually because the pre-existing conditions were already brutal.
I appreciate that info
replyYes we should just calmly ignore private insurance death panels, propped up by politicians, killing treatable people at scale rather than put the fear in a few thousand rich people physics didn't see fit to spare from eventual biological death anyway (since they love to trot out that argument).
replyTo say nothing of the processed food and automobile industries.
You really need to read up on your history.
replyMhm, and is this history in the room with us now?
replytakes notes
Return? We never had a reign of terror. There have been hundreds of peaceful revolutions.
replyWhat's your alternative? The present situation is intollerable and even a bad solution is better than no solution.
replyCowards like you would have a us a British colony to this day
reply