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.
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.