I mean, historically speaking un-tactical raids (pitchforks & torches) worked, however they did buy up a lot more police/military personnel since then.
I loathe this runaway capitalist system we live in just as much as the next but this violent rhetoric is getting a bit too spicy. Let's tax the owning class into oblivion. Take away their undeserved wealth and make them work for a living like the rest of us. Riot and rebel if our lives depend on it. But these calls for the outright slaughter of other human beings are going too far.
The owner class wrote the rules and will never give up one iota of power. If we want positive change, meaningful progress, it won't be from working within the system.
History only teaches one lesson and it teaches it very plainly: no progress is made without bloodshed. The blood of the worker class has already been spilled, millions of times over.
Capitalists can choose to give up their property and become workers like the rest of us, or they can get the wall and then their property is redistributed. The capitalist class has colonized our society, and their enforcers are the police. And according to Franz Fanon's books on anticolonial struggle in Algeria, colonial relations never go away unless fought with anticolonial violence to oppose the violence of the colonizers. Ultimately, violence is what is needed to force those in power to give up their wealth, and if they gave up their wealth willingly then violence would not be necessary.
I get the violent rhetoric, I really do. But, at the same time, I can't help but feel like more people would be more amenable to social reform that benefits the little guy to the mere detriment of the rich, rather than murdering them horribly. I could be wrong, but doesn't history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?
but doesn’t history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?
Nope! Look at the life expectancy increases under socialist countries, they mathematically have less death!
Also compare red terrors casualty numbers to standard operating casualty numbers. Like 20 million people die of capitalism caused deprivation a year worldwide today.
in all seriousness, no it doesn't. that's whitewashing by liberals. good revolutions are often still violent. because guess what, if you want to challenge power, power doesn't just fucking let you do whatever you want.
I understand. I throw obscene amounts of money at the cash black hole that is rent. I understand entirely how people think that people who make money simply by sitting on assets they own and otherwise provide nothing to society should be, ahem, obliterated. I just think it's still possible to obliterate them with regulations instead of actual murder.
I mean, Kamala is running on policies that would help the little guy. And she might lose to guy who SA's women and said he could shoot someone in the street.
If she wins and we get a peaceful transfer of power, then I'll have more faith in your dream.
But right now, it seems like violence is what the masses crave over social reform.
I'm not against but I feel like we have to establish boundaries. Like how rich is rich game? Is a weathy dude huntable? What about people that won the lotery? I Imagine billionaires are the better target right?!
As with any hunt, the biggest ones are the most impressive. Nobody's going to commend you for taking down a scrawny one when there are billion point bucks out there.