I won’t disagree with really any of that, and I’m not completely against the idea of total revolution, but revolution requires people.
In November, 30% of people didn’t bother to vote at all, and another third voted for fascism.
How bad will it have to get before people care?
How much worse than THAT, will it take to get MAGA to realize they fucked up?
At that point you might have enough people to actually do something, but also the restrictions on freedom will have gotten stronger, and there will be strong measures in place to prevent dissent.
It may be inevitable, but I don’t want to live in that country. And if I can hold it off long enough that my children don’t have to live in it, maybe they can turn things around. I see a lot of potential in these kids. They can do a lot of good once the Boomers die off.
Let’s slow the bleeding as much as possible before going straight to amputation.
I appreciate that you’ve got some hope for our rotted out system. I don’t. The only hope for the future I see is a present in flames.
That being said, while I don’t think there’s any hope of reform the point I was making was that incrementalism has brought us tRump while bold action, not even revolution, almost a century ago staved off fascism for this long. If I’m mistaken and reform is possible I find it wholly inconceivable that it would be brought by the incrementalists, rather it would come by some stroke of luck that someone like Sanders… probably a bit harsher than him would attain high office and force positive change like FDR did.
I don’t think anyone wants the conditions of a revolution or the immediate aftermath thereof but it is a question of how bad would that be in the short-term verses how bad will it be in perpetuity, barring revolution at some later date. As is I couldn’t morally justify bringing kids into this apocalyptic hellscape.
The people of Vietnam rebelled against their French overlords with effectively nothing but their chains to begin with and then fought off a superpower to keep their independence. The people of Cuba deposed a fascist tyrant from similar destitution. It’s not easy but it’s entirely possible no matter how totalitarian the state is.
Don’t leave out the part where that force positive change that was created **under **FDR was actually forced positive change that was created by his socialist Secretary of Labor, Francis Perkins. When left to act on his own FDR did things like lock Japanese people up.
As usual, it was socialists that created the change needed for the working class
I agree entirely. It’s impressive the act of deception that produced a nation so anti-socialist while looking at it’s own history it’s been the socialist who’ve done the most for the people.
I won’t disagree with really any of that, and I’m not completely against the idea of total revolution, but revolution requires people.
In November, 30% of people didn’t bother to vote at all, and another third voted for fascism.
How bad will it have to get before people care?
How much worse than THAT, will it take to get MAGA to realize they fucked up?
At that point you might have enough people to actually do something, but also the restrictions on freedom will have gotten stronger, and there will be strong measures in place to prevent dissent.
It may be inevitable, but I don’t want to live in that country. And if I can hold it off long enough that my children don’t have to live in it, maybe they can turn things around. I see a lot of potential in these kids. They can do a lot of good once the Boomers die off.
Let’s slow the bleeding as much as possible before going straight to amputation.
I appreciate that you’ve got some hope for our rotted out system. I don’t. The only hope for the future I see is a present in flames.
That being said, while I don’t think there’s any hope of reform the point I was making was that incrementalism has brought us tRump while bold action, not even revolution, almost a century ago staved off fascism for this long. If I’m mistaken and reform is possible I find it wholly inconceivable that it would be brought by the incrementalists, rather it would come by some stroke of luck that someone like Sanders… probably a bit harsher than him would attain high office and force positive change like FDR did.
I don’t think anyone wants the conditions of a revolution or the immediate aftermath thereof but it is a question of how bad would that be in the short-term verses how bad will it be in perpetuity, barring revolution at some later date. As is I couldn’t morally justify bringing kids into this apocalyptic hellscape.
The people of Vietnam rebelled against their French overlords with effectively nothing but their chains to begin with and then fought off a superpower to keep their independence. The people of Cuba deposed a fascist tyrant from similar destitution. It’s not easy but it’s entirely possible no matter how totalitarian the state is.
Don’t leave out the part where that force positive change that was created **under **FDR was actually forced positive change that was created by his socialist Secretary of Labor, Francis Perkins. When left to act on his own FDR did things like lock Japanese people up.
As usual, it was socialists that created the change needed for the working class
I agree entirely. It’s impressive the act of deception that produced a nation so anti-socialist while looking at it’s own history it’s been the socialist who’ve done the most for the people.