You're viewing a single thread.
Any solution that starts with purges is bad.
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.
This is very true. It has happened so many times.
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?
It was me. I was the destroyed system. /s
Like what happened in every capitalist crisis in the last 70 years? O.o
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.
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.