• Shizrak@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Okay so once you’ve non violently seized the means, and they come to violently take them back, then what?

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If you’ve seized em you’ve seized em. The system is no longer available for their exploitation. So did you or didn’t you?

      Again, have fun with the violence, but once that cat is out of the bag you always get 2 things:

      1. Spillover violence outside the “pure” original intentions
      2. Power vacuum
        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I’ve fundamentally contested what you said.

          If you have seized the means and systems, the billionaire class are by definition deplatformed.

          • Shizrak@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            But still not answered the question.

            I’ll reword it for you, since you want to be pedantic about it.

            You’re in the process of seizing the means. They see this and don’t like it. They respond with overwhelming violence (as they have repeatedly in the past)

            Now what?

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              If peacefully unionizing or organizing folk are attacked, they are morally free to defend themselves, even in an organized way.

              Establishing killsquads and public executions will not stay “pure” and will cause massive spill over violence.

              There’s an important distinction between the two.

              Above I provided a meaningful reply to “what’s your solution”. You can argue it might not be effective, but I’m certainly not avoiding anything. I made my point, and my suggestion.

              • Shizrak@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I was just trying to show that taking the high road effectively does nothing, when the opposition is willing to stoop to any level to win.

                And that, historically, whether we are non-violent or violent, both have been countered with violence.

                You’re absolutely right about the spillover violence, but I would contend that we’re currently experiencing that anyway, as inequality runs rampant and people are forced to crime to survive.

                We’ve been trying the peaceful way for my entire lifetime and made no real progress. Perhaps it’s time for a different approach. I’m not really comfortable with it morally, but I’m also not morally comfortable with things staying the way they are for another generation.