Way too many people might not explicitly say it, but they clearly unironically agree with these signs, based on their actions and what they say they do and don’t support.
Yes. I’m one of those. Violent overthrows of the current order usually only lead to one clique of oppressors being replaced with another one. “But this time it will be different, for sure!” isn’t a convincing argument.
Nah I’m with you there. I don’t think a violent revolution is likely to work for precisely the same reason you suggest.
But that doesn’t mean not advocating for bold change. Advocating for massive overhauls to how democracy is practised (especially in countries with an electoral system that frankly IMO shouldn’t even count as democracy—i.e. FPTP) and widespread disruptive protests to achieve your goals.
Sure. But that all falls under incremental change. Don’t get me wrong, I do think we really need to change the whole system from the ground up. But that will only work democratically, if the result is supposed to be better than what we have now.
If congress passed a legal regulation for corporations to have more humane practices and standards in specific achievable terms, with punishments for misconduct, I would celebrate that immediately. There is no world where that sign isn’t my actual political philosophy. Same with incremental change, sure big changes are nice but I’ll take incremental every single chance we get. Anybody who mocks those two stances is a moron from my perspective.
I supported big changes like HR 1 For The People Act to try to get money out of US Politics, with all my heart, but fuck all came out of a large partisan bill when it can’t get through the senate.
Way too many people might not explicitly say it, but they clearly unironically agree with these signs, based on their actions and what they say they do and don’t support.
Yes. I’m one of those. Violent overthrows of the current order usually only lead to one clique of oppressors being replaced with another one. “But this time it will be different, for sure!” isn’t a convincing argument.
Nah I’m with you there. I don’t think a violent revolution is likely to work for precisely the same reason you suggest.
But that doesn’t mean not advocating for bold change. Advocating for massive overhauls to how democracy is practised (especially in countries with an electoral system that frankly IMO shouldn’t even count as democracy—i.e. FPTP) and widespread disruptive protests to achieve your goals.
Sure. But that all falls under incremental change. Don’t get me wrong, I do think we really need to change the whole system from the ground up. But that will only work democratically, if the result is supposed to be better than what we have now.
Except for the American revolution, right? Or would you have been on the side of the loyalists?
You could ask the slaves that question. Also, that was more of a fight against foreign occupation than straight up revolution.
If congress passed a legal regulation for corporations to have more humane practices and standards in specific achievable terms, with punishments for misconduct, I would celebrate that immediately. There is no world where that sign isn’t my actual political philosophy. Same with incremental change, sure big changes are nice but I’ll take incremental every single chance we get. Anybody who mocks those two stances is a moron from my perspective.
I’ll point you to the OP’s comment:
Yes, celebrate the incremental wins. But don’t start out stating that your preference is for mediocre incremental change.
I supported big changes like HR 1 For The People Act to try to get money out of US Politics, with all my heart, but fuck all came out of a large partisan bill when it can’t get through the senate.