|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Individuals don't change anything, and terrorism rarely achieves the goals the terrorist want it to. I don't blame non violent protestors, nor do I think that it necessarily the wrong strategy, for right now. But there are hard limits you reach with those kinds of tactics, and they can only work in certain situations (Importantly, they have to carry the implicit threat of violent counterattack if they are not respected). If the ruling class no longer cares about being seen as moral or righteous, they'll absolutely use things like wmds or whatever to maintain power. That's what naked self interest looks like. That's exactly the kind of thing that's happened before, and it can happen again. A major shift in power will not happen without at least the possibility of that occurring. All power ultimately rests on the willingness and ability to use force to compel others.
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Individuals don't change anything, and terrorism rarely achieves the goals the terrorist want it to. I don't blame non violent protestors, nor do I think that it necessarily the wrong strategy, for right now. But there are hard limits you reach with those kinds of tactics, and they can only work in certain situations (Importantly, they have to carry the implicit threat of violent counterattack if they are not respected). That's fair, I think we can agree on that broad point. I'm not categorically against violent protest or revolution, either, under the right circumstances. But as you say, right now, it would be a hard thing to sell to more than a very select few activists. Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am not a genius revolutionary plotter, but it seems to me that if I were willing and ready to commit to violence and terrorism to achieve my political goals against a brutal violent government doing the bidding of capital, I wouldn't post about it on the internet where government assassins could trace my IP address back to me. Exactly! I'm not saying a few goons should go out right now and throw some molotovs at banks, we'd be called fringe radicals and demonized by the media, and easily caught. I'm saying that things won't get better until thousands of people are throwing molotovs every day across the country, faster than they can be caught.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Pretty much. You can write off individuals and gangs. Even a hundred people. You need a thousand, or fifty thousand. Hardcore members. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcc2ltIjNU0
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
The Democrats in congress just did some loving impressive wrangling to handle the budget. Maybe they aren't a total waste. They seem to have managed to surprise even themselves with this show of competence.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Bundys didn't elicit much fear because they were so clearly a bunch of incompetent boobs who couldn't accomplish any of their goals.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The Democrats in congress just did some loving impressive wrangling to handle the budget. Nothing succeeds like success. Hopefully they realize that showing they're willing to fight will be rewarded by their constituents. Kilroy posted:And yet I still have to take off my shoes at the airport because Richard Reid did a thing 16 years ago. Yeah, well, I don't think that was the only political objective he was going for.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
The distinction between 'non-violent' and 'violent' protest doesn't seem like the best. The better distinction is whether a protest is disruptive or not. And, while the situation with law enforcement in America is pretty bad, it's not the case that it's impossible to do anything without the police beating you to death and no one caring. America has not found the cheat codes to authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
There has to be an overall strategy with non-violence protests being a tactic that is part of that strategy. The Civil Right movement used targeted boycotts against businesses that had a large African american customer base. Went to cities that they knew they would get a reaction from law enforcement. Generally picked battles that they had a chance to win or advanced their larger goals. Start small, pick easy targets and build on your success. And organize, organize, organize. When you are fighting against someone with all the power your only chance is numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The Democrats in congress just did some loving impressive wrangling to handle the budget. It sounds it was mostly due to the fact that the hardline tea-parties refused to agree to basically anything which forced the rest of the GOP to work with the Democrats. Basically, the Democrats are lucky that the Republicans in some ways are even more divided than they are. Also, both Trump and the GOP are walking back most of their cuts at this point since they are so unpopular. The Democrats can still act as a moderating force, since they are strictly for the status quo, on the flip side they try to resist change from the left almost as much.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
The republicans are working on a big wallstreet deregulation bill right now. We'll see if centrists are actually worth anything soon
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Lol at the entire Democrat party lining up to attack the Israel BDS boycott movement as being "anti-Israel". A bipartisan letter to the UN bitching about the UN being anti-Israel includes signatures from luminaries such as Tom Cotton, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Cory Booker, Liz Warren, and Good old Bernie.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:The republicans are working on a big wallstreet deregulation bill right now. We'll see if centrists are actually worth anything soon They are worth exactly as much as Wall Street pays. Free market, you know.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
idk if this is posted yet: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html quote:But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later. The problem wasn't mostly turnout: the problem was actually Obama voters who flipped to Trump Typo fucked around with this message at 16:09 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
...but it was still only seventy percent of the reason, which means that the base not fully turning out was also a decisive factor. 80,000 votes in three states isn't a lot! 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
The somewhat good news is Obama->Trump voters have a good chance of flipping again since they are the types of people that vote against the guy in charge when their lives continue to suck. The bad news is that they will flip again when President Not Trump continues with bad policy that doesn't actually help anyone more than treading water as cost of living continues to increase and wages stagnate and the next guy after Trump might be smart enough not to step on a rake every time he tries to implement evil policy. Democrats can't see past the next election (if they can even see THAT) which is a huge problem and it's very evident when you have people saying that nothing needs to change because Trump will be so unpopular anyone can win against him and no mention of what happens after that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Radish posted:The somewhat good news is Obama->Trump voters have a good chance of flipping again since they are the types of people that vote against the guy in charge when their lives continue to suck. The bad news is that they will flip again when President Not Trump continues with bad policy that doesn't actually help anyone more than treading water as cost of living continues to increase and wages stagnate and the next guy after Trump might be smart enough not to step on a rake every time he tries to implement evil policy. Democrats can't see past the next election (if they can even see THAT) which is a huge problem and it's very evident when you have people saying that nothing needs to change because Trump will be so unpopular anyone can win against him and no mention of what happens after that. I could a lot of those voters just not turning out or voting for fringe candidates. In their eyes they probably see a system that completely failed them. The only way they might come back is a candidate is even more aggressive than Trump (while the Democrats will naturally count all of those voters as theirs). Trump's approval rating is low (41%) but possibly still enough to come back from especially if the Dems put up completely unlikable hack.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Putting the capitalists to siege is a losing proposition. They have amassed so much wealth and resources that they could go decades without refreshment and still be fine; unless you could somehow convince every person on the planet to refuse them sale. I think this is generally true, though it depends a bit on the industry in question (i.e. industries that can easily just move operations won't be affected much by nonviolent opposition). I think that ultimately there's a trade-off of sorts between level of violence and public backlash, and the key is to find the "sweet spot" so to speak. I think the best option is probably destruction of property. While you'll still obviously have a bunch of people getting angry, I think that you'd still have at least a non-negligible number of people in support, while I imagine the vast majority of people would respond poorly to actually killing people. If violence against people does occur, it probably needs to be "distributed" and not associated with a particular organization (because if the latter was true the government would quickly crack down on the organization in question). Majorian posted:It's nice that you think you can just handwave them away, but guess what, internet tough guy? Your little pea-shooter gun isn't going to do much against a tank or an F-16. There is no way in which the violent protests that you advocate will be "sufficient." Going to have to disagree some here. Even if you can't win an all-out conflict, the wealthy are going to get nervous if they start getting physically attacked and are very likely to be willing to concede something in exchange for guaranteed safety. It's difficult to truly eliminate a decentralized opposition. Majorian posted:No, just peaceful protests that don't disrupt commerce. A big problem is that, in our modern global economy, many industries can easily just move their operations if problems arise, so the ability of individual to disrupt commerce is very limited unless it's specifically targeted at a domestic industry that literally can't move. This wasn't nearly as true back when labor won its initial gains, so capitalists are in a much better position now than they were back then. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
It is a question of leverage and how much needs to be done to obtain it. In India, the struggle for independence was very long and often violent, and in the end, the salt march was only a part of that story. Personally, I think there is obviously still a place for public protest, but boycotting is very clearly not enough especially since the real power structure in the US is beyond what consumers are able to target. Moreover, in Brazil, a general strike brought some pressure, but again it wasn't enough to stop the government. I think the answer has to be organization and militancy even if violence itself is restricted in favor for the very real threat of violence. If you want to win you have to scare your opposition (all power is terrorism?).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
e: Let's table the "violent revolution?" discussion for now, if you guys don't mind - it's been a good one, but at this point I think it's getting a little too speculative.Typo posted:idk if this is posted yet: This is a really good analysis, and I'm glad it preempts a lot of the questions that the JC wing of this debate raise: quote:The findings are significant for a Democratic Party, at a historic low point, that’s trying to figure out how it can win back power. Much of the debate over how to move forward has centered on whether the party should try to win back working-class white voters – who make up the bulk of Obama-Trump voters – or focus instead on mobilizing its base. That's been my position as well: even eking out a victory in the 2020 presidential race will not be good enough. The Dems need to sweep the election on all levels, and to do so, they're going to need to get back in touch with the working class. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:32 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's nice that you think you can just handwave them away, but guess what, internet tough guy? Your little pea-shooter gun isn't going to do much against a tank or an F-16. There is no way in which the violent protests that you advocate will be "sufficient." Hi, sorry to bring it up again but this bothers me a little. This particular line of argument never made much sense because it assumes militaries are fueled by hoorah and magical logistic elves. No military is going to be throwing around the best poo poo they have in a full blown armed revolution, as the logistical basis of said military is for sure going to be compromised. Even the mighty US military needs food, fuel, and ammunition as well as good maintenance schedules for sophisticated equipment like aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Radish posted:The somewhat good news is Obama->Trump voters have a good chance of flipping again since they are the types of people that vote against the guy in charge when their lives continue to suck. The bad news is that they will flip again when President Not Trump continues with bad policy that doesn't actually help anyone more than treading water as cost of living continues to increase and wages stagnate and the next guy after Trump might be smart enough not to step on a rake every time he tries to implement evil policy. Democrats can't see past the next election (if they can even see THAT) which is a huge problem and it's very evident when you have people saying that nothing needs to change because Trump will be so unpopular anyone can win against him and no mention of what happens after that. If that doesn't happen then American democracy is finished. I can't say I'll be terribly sad to see it go, though I'm certain whatever replaces it will manage to be much worse. Majorian posted:This is a really good analysis, and I'm glad it preempts a lot of the questions that the JC wing of this debate raise:
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It would be nice if this article highlighted what the Democratic base is even supposed to be. It's not clear to me anymore. When Democratic leadership talks about turning out "their base" are they just talking about people who are terrified enough of the GOP to vote Democratic no matter what? I think you just nailed it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Hi, sorry to bring it up again but this bothers me a little. This particular line of argument never made much sense because it assumes militaries are fueled by hoorah and magical logistic elves. No military is going to be throwing around the best poo poo they have in a full blown armed revolution, as the logistical basis of said military is for sure going to be compromised. Even the mighty US military needs food, fuel, and ammunition as well as good maintenance schedules for sophisticated equipment like aircraft. The Syrian civil war begs to differ, and that's even with full paramilitary groups on the sides of the civilians. The Syrian government seemed to manage just fine with logistics.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Who's going to do a popular uprising, all of the care mad Democrat voters who live in states with really strict gun laws?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:The Syrian civil war begs to differ, and that's even with full paramilitary groups on the sides of the civilians. The Syrian government seemed to manage just fine with logistics. So they experienced no degradation of performance or capabilities during the civil war? My basic point is what is on paper is not necessarily what would really be able to be utilized, internal strife places significant stress on the abilities of military organizations to function optimally, whose effects range from logistical disruption to desertion. This is separate from the issue of whether such an event is desireable or even likely. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:So they experienced no degradation of performance or capabilities during the civil war? Sure, they did have issues, but they still managed to drop bombs on civilians regularly The American military is far more organized and coordinated then Syria ever was. It would take forever for their logistics to fall apart in a meaningful way. Now, imagine the average American being bombed. Do you really think they would have the spine to hold out long enough for logistics to work against the military? It's a silly thought experiment, is what I'm saying. A revolution doesn't stand a chance. Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Hi, sorry to bring it up again but this bothers me a little. This particular line of argument never made much sense because it assumes militaries are fueled by hoorah and magical logistic elves. No military is going to be throwing around the best poo poo they have in a full blown armed revolution, as the logistical basis of said military is for sure going to be compromised. Even the mighty US military needs food, fuel, and ammunition as well as good maintenance schedules for sophisticated equipment like aircraft. But again, that all depends upon it being a massive, broad-based uprising. I'm not sure a bunch of dudes on the internet blowing up or assassinating Wall Street bankers is going to have much of an effect before the FBI swoops in and snipes them. It wouldn't take tanks or aircraft to take out a domestic anticapitalist terrorist group that didn't have a huge amount of support from the broader public; it would just take special forces. Kilroy posted:It would be nice if this article highlighted what the Democratic base is even supposed to be. It's not clear to me anymore. When Democratic leadership talks about turning out "their base" are they just talking about people who are terrified enough of the GOP to vote Democratic no matter what? Yeah, that's kind of the big question that the Democratic Party needs to be asking itself right now: "what is our base?" The current unstated answer seems to be, "It's ethnic minorities, LGBT people, and coastal professionals," but the problem with that is, it's unlikely that that coalition can win a presidential election anytime soon, much less pull off a takeover of Congress.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Sure, they did have issues, but they still managed to drop bombs on civilians regularly Fair point, the average American is indeed very servile and made of softer stuff than the average Syrian.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Fair point, the average American is indeed very servile and made of softer stuff than the average Syrian. It's not that Americans are wimps, or lack the stomach for revolution. It's just that, as far down as people have fallen compared to the rich- they still have something to lose; they can fall further. It's basically going to take a nationwide famine to really drive an insurrection. It has to be a choice of death by starvation, or death by rushing armed guards, police and military to avoid it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Sure, they did have issues, but they still managed to drop bombs on civilians regularly Also the Syrian rebellion "worked" because a significant part of the army defected, if the army as a whole remained loyal to Assad the war would be over by now
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:The Syrian civil war begs to differ, and that's even with full paramilitary groups on the sides of the civilians. The Syrian government seemed to manage just fine with logistics. the syrian military was also still inside syria. imagine the clusterfuck of trying to transport troops and equipment back from overseas during a civil war
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Typo posted:Also the Syrian rebellion "worked" because a significant part of the army defected, if the army as a whole remained loyal to Assad the war would be over by now Yeah this is a good point too that I didn't consider when I commented earlier. As the right wing essentially owns the US military we can forget that happening. Can't do it by ballot or bullet, so what's left?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
I don't think the ballot can be ruled out but it requires the democrats to either reform or get the gently caress out of the way
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I don't think the ballot can be ruled out but it requires the democrats to either reform or get the gently caress out of the way So it can be ruled out, then?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
for 2020 at least anyway
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:the syrian military was also still inside syria. imagine the clusterfuck of trying to transport troops and equipment back from overseas during a civil war Even assuming most of the US backed a civil war, and it wasn't just a handful of atomized dissidents, it's not like all of our military is overseas. There are plenty of National Guard and military bases with the heavy equipment needed. In the end, you could come up with "what-ifs" until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that American everyday life would have to a hell of a lot worse then it is currently before we saw a revolution. AstheWorldWorlds posted:Can't do it by ballot or bullet, so what's left? Nihilism and self-destruction, honestly.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:So it can be ruled out, then? Yeah, a big reason why the Democrats are so confident is because it is near-impossible to actually topple them as America's second party, a big part of that is just money and state ballot access. I can easily see the US just getting worse since we are now in the no-man land between an functional system of representative government and open revolt. Granted, civil war is a net loss for the people who actually control the country, if anything they want peace. Shooting people in the streets is a sign of extreme weakness.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
quote:Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she takes “absolute personal responsibility” for her 2016 loss. But she doesn't, really. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/02/hillary-clinton-adds-misogyny-and-more-to-the-list-of-reasons-she-lost/ 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Yeah this is a good point too that I didn't consider when I commented earlier. As the right wing essentially owns the US military we can forget that happening. The concentration of corporate power today is I'd say similar to that of early 1890s gilded age, populists and progressives equalized societies 100 years ago, it can happen again In the election of 1912 all 3 parties wanted to fight the corporations: the democrats under wilson wanted to breakup the trusts, the progressives under T.Rooservelt wanted to legislate new anti-trust laws, while the republicans wanted to more vigorously enforce existing anti-trust laws and this is after decades of corporate control of politics and blatantly corrupt presidents: the populists slowly took power from them against incredible odds, from making senate elections decided via popular vote instead being selected by state legislatures to passing Sherman anti-trust legislation and finally culminating in the new deal of the 1930s It can happen again, and 2016 already showed the power of rising populism and the willingness by both the left and the right to reject traditional political orthodoxies The Democrats are ready for a self-proclaimed democratic socialist and the Republicans for Trump, it's pretty obvious the Reagan status quo isn't going to last http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15637 quote:The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. quote:Of all corporations reporting from every part of the nation, one-tenth of 1 per cent of them owned 52 per cent of the assets of all of them; quote:But in that year three-tenths of , per cent of our population received 78 per cent of the dividends reported by individuals. This has roughly the same effect as if, out of every 300 persons in our population, one person received 78 cents out of every dollar of corporate dividends while the other 299 persons divided up the other 22 cents between them. The person who said this isn't Bernie: it's FDR Typo fucked around with this message at 21:15 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 21:05
|
|