submitted 1 day ago by godlessworm@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 day ago

Any meaningful attempt that has any hope of being effective will be forced into violent conflict. They don't want non-violence, they want sublimate resistance against the bourgeois politics into support for bourgeois politics via ultranationalism. Violence is an inevitable contradiction of the "liberal democracy".

[-] ThermonuclearEgg@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

IMHO disciplined nonviolent resistance requires organization and to be backed up with a credible threat (of violence presumably), neither of which are really present here

I'd be cool with a bloodless revolution... pretty sure the USSR was basically accomplished that way

[-] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 day ago

The way I see it, the First Imperialist War (WWI) was the heart of the Soviet revolution. The Red Army defeated the Imperialist forces in order to make it possible to establish a new social order. Famously a lot of blood.

The liberals tried to prevent the Bolsheviks from coming into power by seizing printing presses and all that. I kinda view that more as a failed soft coup.