this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
722 points (94.3% liked)
Political Memes
5434 readers
3217 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any solution that starts with purges is bad.
Purges?
When we taking (this) system?
You talking about the ruling class (defined by its ownership of all things)?
(Either way a purge would be just taking away things they shouldn't own anyway)
I don't think purging by political affiliation would directly change modern western systems, so dismantling such system isn't by color, it's ruling class vs everyone & everything else.
I'm thinking more about the plurality of Americans that aren't on board, for whatever stupid reason. Until they are convinced, destroying the system won't really stick, if it's even possible.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/one-third-of-americans-agree-with-trump-s-poisoning-the-blood-comments/ar-AA1suf7p
What does that have to do with "starting with purges"?
How are you dealing with those people? Converting them is incredibly time consuming, and has to be done individually.
Wouldn't stick, but it would still take a century to get as bad is it currently is.
Maybe, unless the replacement is immediately worse based on who seizes control. It's the devil you know vs the one you don't.
No - I was saying that if you change the ruling class without changing the system the power again gets distributed a bit more evenly manner (eg USA 70 years ago vs USA today - same shit but slightly better wealth distribution).
Ofc not modifying the system just means the incentives & rules don't change so you end up with same problems (or same magnitude of problems that never fully went away).
Again USA example, if everyone with over 10m moneys got that surplus distributed to others (fair-ish or not, ofc not perfect) nobody would immediately seize power, megacorps would get new management, politicians would be less sponsored, people had better lives & more free time & options (which includes getting involved in politics, actively or by voting, & seeking a job they enjoy).
Changing the system (so not what described immediately above) however would be a question if for a better system or if its just a power grab.
It's harder to build something than to destroy it. I'd you destroy a system with nothing to replace it, the rich and powerful will swoop into the power vacuum and gobble up more.
Like what happened in every capitalist crisis in the last 70 years? O.o
This is very true. It has happened so many times.
It was me. I was the destroyed system. /s
One example of the top of my head: the collapse of the USSR.
Another example off the top of my head: the creation of the USSR.
yep, violent revolution rarely ends with better conditions for the people
Apart from you very ignorant take:
Who do you think makes revolutions turn violent? The revolutionaries, or the people trying to stop them?