Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You can have non violent revolutions.
I'm skeptical of that claim, but it's not really important.
To say that any communist that supports violence as a means is a tankie is to say all communists are tankies.
But given that violence alone doesn't make a revolution bad, and that tankie is a perjorative, then that definition isn't fair or even really meaningful.
Revolution varies in the quantity of violence required, but requires at minimum threat of violence. You can't have a revolution by asking politiely and tying your hands behind your back.
Of course not, you do it sneakily in the shadows gradually until it's too late.
You see the beauty of my proposal is It needn’t wait on general revolution. I bid you to a one-man revolution— The only revolution that is coming.
That's a coup, not a revolution, and as such has no real historical examples of representing the interests of the Working Class. The point of revolution is that it is a mass movement of an organized working class, not some random hero commanding the masses into a better existence.
A coup is sudden, I am an agorist. No random heros but bottom-up & decentralised / voluntary.
So you want a bottom-up, loosely organized revolution but don't think it requires any threat of violence to pull off? Has that ever happened anywhere and lasted more than a year or two? Even Anarchists, who espouse decentralization, recognize the necessity of violence in revolution.
Not yet. We haven't all been connected for very long.
Say we fast forward. How do you pull off a non-violent revolution?