[ch4s3]

This is a deeply sick way of thinking. Mangione was and is a fool, a 3rd rate thinker. His manifesto is muddled, factually mistaken, and by his own words he understood the topic poorly. You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. There's no quick fix for political change.

[slg]

>political violence rarely achieves its aims

This country was founded on political violence. When the political violence works, we tend to stop considering it political violence.

[ch4s3]

I did say rarely, and if you are looking more carefully a pluralistic democracy wasn't really what a lot of the founders were after, especially guys like Jefferson. Sure we're happy we got it, but it wasn't necessarily the aim and we got SUPER LUCKY that Washington decided to step down and retire. The former military leaders of revolutions almost never do that.

[slg]

> I did say rarely

And I think you have that backwards. The nonviolence movements of the mid to late 20th century are the exception more than the rule when it comes to achieving change.

[ch4s3]

There’s plenty of evidence that early states often collapsed because people just left. The dissolution of the USSR was also largely non-violent.

[yoyohello13]

> political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries.

Cursory knowledge of history also shows that, when it comes to violence, logic does not matter. People are scared for their livelihoods. If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence. It doesn't matter how futile or counterproductive it is.

[pesus]

> You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims

Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. As another commenter said, the literal founding of the country was based on political violence.

[ch4s3]

> Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence.

Violence by the police against peaceful protestors is what turned public opinion. Violence by political activists did not lead to the Civil Rights Act. You have it backwards.

[pesus]

This is the cursory knowledge I'm referring to - it leaves out extremely pertinent details. The Civil Rights Act did not pass until multiple days of rioting following the assassination of MLK.

The peaceful protestors were also only one side of the coin. Their impact relied on being an alternative to the other side, which was not peaceful.

[ch4s3]

L.B.J. was instrumental in whipping votes for the Civil Rights Act. In his joint address to congress he said "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long. He then went on to personally lobby individual senators until it passed.

It think you're the one who has a cursory understanding here.

[happytoexplain]

It is sick! It's truly sick.

Think about the fact that it is sick, and it is what people are saying.

We are sick right now.

[yoyohello13]

Humans have been killing each other since before recorded history. There is no use pretending it's some exceptional 'sickness'. Rather than dismissing the sentiment as the product of a sick mind, it's more productive to accept it's part of us and try to understand the underlying causes.

[leptons]

Mangione was a one-off, and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did. Just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens. If AI keeps stealing all the jobs, it will come sooner rather than later.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "...French Revolution..."

Well, let's see:

- Most of the nobility escaped the French Revolution unharmed. By the way, wealth is a lot portable for today's magnates than it was for the French nobility deriving their income from their land holdings.

- Some of those who went to the block were nobles but most were ordinary people.

- The leader of the revolution, Robespierre, was himself executed in the infighting after the French Revolution, a very neat own goal. Bonus fact: his time in power was called the Reign Of Terror.

- The First Republic lasted only 10 years before Napoleon Bonaparte took the throne.

In a turbulent time, always seek to be led by those with a proper understanding of revolutions and their context. Generally, those who romanticize the French Revolution don't pass that test.

[leptons]

Well, let's see:

I don't give a shit. When half of the middle class of America is unemployed, it's going to look very different than the French Revolution, whatever might happen.

[ch4s3]

> and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did.

He didn't understand why he did what he did.

> just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens

We should all be trying to actively prevent that. The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars.

[leptons]

>He didn't understand why he did what he did.

That doesn't matter, and I don't think your comment makes any difference. The fact is that a lot of people understand why he (may have) did what he did.

>We should all be trying to actively prevent that. The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars.

The same or worse will happen if it happens here. But when half of middle class jobs are just gone, you don't leave the people with many alternatives but violence.

[q931]

> The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars

And spreading the early iterations of the liberal democracy y’all love so much.

[quickthrowman]

Revolutions usually are bad. The Who puts it succinctly in Won’t Get Fooled Again

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”

Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.

[leptons]

The Who is your evidence? Lol. The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. It needed to happen. And centuries later, the French still don't accept bullshit, they will protest and riot when their protections are diminished in any way. America does protesy and riot too, though not to the same extent, but that will only get worse as things get bad.

Russia is not a good example either, their society has always been a clusterfuck, and probably always will be as long as there are people willing to throw other people put of windows so someone can stay ahead or in power.

[quickthrowman]

> The Who is your evidence? Lol. The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people.

Many people have made comments that are similar in nature, the line from that song is the pithiest example I could think of to express the idea that replacing terrible leaders usually leads to more terrible leaders.

Spending decades fighting wars across Europe under Napoleon was good? I wonder how the troops that invaded Russia feel about the French Revolution lol

[leptons]

Maybe you should visit France today. I'd rather live there than the shithole America is becoming (and has been for a while).

[ch4s3]

> The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people.

What? Napoleon marched them off to war "spending 30,000 lives per month". They didn't get a proper Republic until 1870 and turned into miserable colonial overlords. Moreover the 3rd Republic;s foreign policy helped cause WWI.

[happytoexplain]

Yes, they are usually bad.

That's not really a compelling argument against them, considering why they happen. It's like saying "war is bad". I mean, yes.