|
|
|
|
|
|
by cs137
1454 days ago
|
|
|
The corporate system is running the world off a cliff. The standard of living is falling all over the world and, in much of it, has been for decades. Global warming threatens to destroy the ecosystem. Democracies are turning or have turned into corporate tyrannies. Everything is getting worse and that's by design--because it's getting better (at least, materially speaking) for the Davos psychopaths. It's better to inconvenience (permanently, if they refuse to accept societal progress) a few thousand people up top now, and get it over with, then lose the entirety of human civilization. |
|
|
But your reply to FredPret presents a false dichotomy - that the only options are do it with little bloodshed, or do it with much. I was (trying to) point out the false dichotomy - FredPret doesn't have to want either of those choices, and in fact, most of us want neither of them.
And presenting people with a false dichotomy, as if those are the only options, is a bit of crummy rhetorical trick. We try to be better than that here.
And to you, specifically, I would say: Beware the fourth option. (First is change with little bloodshed, second is change with a lot of bloodshed, third is no attempt at change.) The fourth option is lots of bloodshed, but no real change (as in the French Revolution, where they swapped a king for the Directory, and then for the Emperor). Just going the bloodshed route doesn't guarantee that you win; if you do win, it doesn't guarantee that the change is progress. Don't be eager to open that door.
Now, in fairness, in your initial post you advocated nonviolent means of making it impossible for the elite to function as the elite. If you are going to try to get rid of them, I applaud your choice of starting point. But you seem far to willing to move to violence if non-violence doesn't get you where you want, and that concerns me.