Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 07:23:46 JST Lee 🌏

   • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

   @Radical_EgoCom
   Disagree
   Because to me, "the means justify the ends" includes any kind of violence.
   Any movement that is birthed from "the means justify the ends" will end up rulling in the same way. So we will have replaced one evil for a new evil.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 07:23:45 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     How do you know that any movement to liberate the working class from capitalism that abides by "the ends justify the means" will end up ruling in the same way as capitalism?

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 08:06:48 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     Because there is no motivation, no moral imperative, no logical reason to do otherwise.
     If "any means necessary" was OK to win power, then "any means necessary" will be OK to maintain power.
     When maintaining power becomes the new priority, why would a movement NOT use "any means necessary" to keep that power? Its enemies will not disappear or give up. If they don't use "any means necessary" and loose, it will all have been for nothing.
     A revolution is both the winning of power and the maintaining of power. A revolution is destined to fail if it is birthed through "any means necessary"

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 08:06:48 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     Your argument amounts to a bunch of hypotheticals and "what if" scenarios. Yes, a revolution could potentially use the principle of "any means necessary" as a justification to implement an oppressive authority similar to capitalism, but that isn't proof that it will. And then you end with "A revolution is destined to fail if it is birthed through 'any means necessary,'" but you didn't prove that at all. All you showed is that it's possible, not inevitable.

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 11:07:04 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     It's a good question you are asking here, and it has been well discussed by historians. This article ads some good historical perspectives.
     I like the distinction between Civil Wars and Civil Resistance.
     Please give it a read.
     https://www.civilwarpaths.org/the-long-term-consequences-of-violent-vs-nonviolent-rebellion/

     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 11:07:04 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     This article leaves out one important question, a question that is the reason why I'm not in support of nonviolent resistance as an alternative to violence: Whether nonviolent resistance is more likely than violence at preventing a counter-revolution after the fact. I'll admit that it is possible for a government to be overthrown through nonviolent resistance, but then what? 1/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 11:07:29 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     Even if capitalism were to be successfully overthrown with no violence, how will counter-revolution be prevented, how will the chaotic and uncertain state of the country after the overthrow be remedied, how will the prevention of civil unrest after the uprooting of the system of government be dealt without violence of some kind, without repression of some kind? 2/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 11:08:31 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     It is extremely naive for someone to look at the state of a country after the overthrow of a government and think that it can all be dealt with using absolutely no violence or coercion, without the barrel of a gun. To quote Friedrich Engels from 'On Authority,' "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — ...3/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 11:08:48 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     ...authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?" 4/5

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 11:09:07 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     I recommend you read 'On Authority' for yourself. It pretty much sums up the point I'm making here more articulately. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

     5/5

   • Embed this notice
     Sensitivityi (sensitivityi@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 12:44:21 JST Sensitivityi

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom @MrLee I believe revolution must be accompanied by a shift in our consciousness, from competition to compassion.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 13:00:10 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Sensitivityi

     @sensitivityi @MrLee

     I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean in reference to the comment you're responding to.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 20:41:19 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     This paragraph doesn't at all explain how nonviolent struggle would prevent counter-revolution or civil unrest, so it doesn't cover or answer any of the questions I asked actually.

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 20:41:20 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     The article covers this right at the beginning. "Compared to nonviolent resistance, violent methods put countries on repressive trajectories by normalising state-on-citizen violence among security forces. These new norms and the resulting human rights violations are likely to persist long after the conflict that engenders them. This implies that nonviolent struggle is much more likely to produce a sustainable peace than violent methods."

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 21:01:20 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     Okay, but it still doesn't explain how counter-revolution and civil unrest can be prevented or stopped without using violence.

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 21:01:21 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     What it says to me is that "right values" are key. If you start with the wrong values; "any and all violence is acceptable," a revolution has already gone down the wrong path. It's already made the period after revolution harder to navigate and more violent. I accept that most revolution is neither 100% peaceful or 100% violent.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 21:38:59 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     Creating a truly meritocratic, truly transparent, etc, society is the goal, but in the intermediate phase between the creation of that society and now there will be counter-revolutionary attempts and a lot of civil unrest, and there doesn't appear to be a way to deal with these problems that won't involve the application of violence.

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 21:39:00 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     Yes, you are right.
     If we are to stop counter-revolution, then we must do something that humanity has never really succeeded in doing. But someing it absolutely must do to survive and something that's essential to humanity's evolution. That will be to build truly meritocratic, truly transparent, truly inclusive, truly egalitarian, non patriarchal, grassroots democracies that never allow any one person or group to ever claim too much wealth and power.
     Given what we see happening in the USA right now, and it is only going to get much worse, there will be a huge appetite for this kind of peace.

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 22:04:13 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     Those goals will never be reached because "violent methods put countries on repressive trajectories." Once on those trajectories, it gets harder every day to pivot.
     There, of course, will always be that messy, chaotic period after a revolution. There will always be random acts of violence, but the message must always be peace and non-violence. We have seen examples like Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa.
     I agree there will always be resistance to change after a revolution, but there is also an overwhelming desire for unity too that can be channelled into peacefully quashing counter-revolution.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 22:04:13 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     "...there is also an overwhelming desire for unity too that can be channeled into peacefully quashing counter-revolution."

     HOW? That's the question I've continually asked you that you've yet to answer. How can counter-revolution be stopped or prevented without using violence?

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 06:14:30 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     "The vast majority will support a transition to a truly transparent, truly egalitarian [...]society."

     "There will be some counter-revolution, but non-violent "keeping the peace" actions will suffice."

     "...if violence against people is part of that plan, it's far more likely that any revolution will fail."

     Nothing but unsupported claims and assumptions. You don't know if people will support a transition to a transparent egalitarian society. You can't see into the future. 1/

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 06:14:31 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     You appear to think that counter-revolution is this overwhelming force, post revolution. (Please correct me if I am wrong on that)
     I don't agree that is the case.
     Let's imagine the USA, post revolution, in 2032. Priot to revolution 100's of Millions will have been plunged into poverty, the billionaires have run amok, committed endless crimes, started pointless wars, kids will have been drafted and died, mass violence has been committed against, the people, etc, etc.
     The vast majority of Americans will want change. The vast majority will support a transition to a truly transparent, truly egalitarian, truly... society. There will be some counter-revolution, but non-violent "keeping the peace" actions will suffice. Because the end goal is truly a better country. People crave peace in these situations. There is always a good window of opportunity to turn good will into good progress.
     Yes, there are lots of ways things may not pan out as planned, but if violence against people is part of that plan, it's far more likely that any revolution will fail.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 06:14:50 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     People will want some form of stability in a post-revolution setting, which could take the form of a transparent and egalitarian society, or as a totalitarian fascist society, or as an authoritarian capitalist society. You don't know, and to claim otherwise would be a lie unless you have future vision. You once again claim that nonviolent actions will be better than violent actions at stopping counter-revolution without actually proving it, and I'm starting to get very annoyed. 2/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 06:14:59 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     If you don't have evidence that nonviolence is better than violence at stopping counter-revolution then stop claiming that it is, and if you do have evidence then just present it already because this whole conversation where I give logical arguments as for why violence is necessary to stop counter-revolution only for you to just keep repeating the opposite view over and over is infuriating. 3/3

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 06:47:15 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @MrLee

     The question was, "Can nonviolence be used to stop or prevent counter-revolution, and can it do it better than violent methods?" The answer from you seems to be "I don't know for sure, but it seems better to me," in which case, I don't care. If you want me to believe that nonviolence is more efficient than violence in this regard, then you're going to have to prove it. If you can't, then that sucks for you.

   • Embed this notice
     Lee 🌏 (mrlee@aus.social)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 06:47:16 JST Lee 🌏

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     I am not your enemy here. I believe we want the same thing. It's just we have very different ideas on how to achieve that, based on our life experiences and knowledge.