You ever see someone call for violet revolution and just -know- they've never so much as slaughtered an animal for food, let alone placed incredible violence on a human being?
Before you say "Animals are innocent," so are some of the people you will have to kill to make your revolution happen.
Innocent people will have to not only die, but be killed. Good people, even.
You will have to kill them.
You won't have the stomach, because you likely have a good, if flawed, nature.
Your fellow revolutionaries, who will kill you, will not have that.
Have fun with that.
Uh, I don't think when revolutionary people say "violent revolution" they mean "let's go kill a random half of the population". It means "let's irreversibly harm the lives of the corrupt people in power". What, do you think we're animals? Even if violent revolution meant murder explicitly, we know the difference between those who are innocent and those who harm the lives of others.
You will, in the course of your revolution, have to kill innocent people.
You will be required, by the course of reality, the lack of proper information, and the fact that not all innocent people will support you, have to kill innocent people.
You don't understand this, because you likely don't have a comprehension of the depth and breadth of both the problem and the depravity of the solution you would posit.
Being ignorant of these facts does not make them any less real, or true, and your intent means nothing compared to the results, which will be that the streets will fill with the offal and blood of innocent people.
A violent revolution does not care greatly for Blackstone's Formulation. It will snap up innocent and guilty alike, and it will permanently damage all those that engage in it, in ways you cannot reasonably comprehend.
The same people who want this revolution have no arms, have no training, Have no resources, no land, no food, have no means beyond to beg the same men they hate, the police and the state, to do the work of their petty jealousies. That isn't a revolution, that's a coup, an overtaking of the system for the sake of the ideologically posessed at the expense of due process and the innocent, yet again.
To you, whether you articulate it or not, the innocent you will kill are merely incidental. Excused away as acceptable losses, counter-revolutionaries, or not firm enough in their conviction and thereby suitable fodder.
And those who come after you, the more extreme, the more severe, the more willing to be violent and do harm and violate, in every sense of the word, the good and the innocent, will string you up, and feed on you.
You will lament, confused, as has always happened in these sort of things, and cry out "Have I not been a good revolutionary?" As you hold in your intestines from the bayonet, as you cry and bleed in a gutter of the rubble that was once a home, a nation, a place of life, imperfect, but vital, you will remember these words.
Gnash your teeth, and bite your tongue, eat the ash you turned the fields to, and bury yourself under the rubble of the homes you've destroyed. Lament the innocence you violated, your own, and others, posessed by an ideal that was always homicidal, abusive, and vitriolic.
Always remember, revolutionary.
You walk on a thin crust of civility held together by rare and precious things, spun like fine silk.
And below that, is a chasm of hell and depravity so deep and abiding it has eaten entire civilizations, a screaming, hateful void of every indignity and violation, done in an endless cycle of abuse and retribution.
Those precious things strain, like catgut wound too tight.
You can hear them singing, if you listen.
Tread lightly.
TLDR:
Here’s the thing. Bernie Sanders is an objectively good and decent human being. He has flaws. His goals are generally seen as good and for the benefit of the masses. But he is an outlier.
He would not be able to gather the support of the senate, the governors, the House of Representatives or the courts. He would have support from his voting base, and isolated local leaders and senators seeking their own successful careers by joining in Sanders’s leadership. And all that means that Sanders would not be able to pass meaningful legislation.
So, the hypothetical situation of a communist leader in the US is now posed with the very predictable reality of all communist rulers. They have to remove the obstacles to their goal of serving the greater good.
That’s it. That’s the thinking. The justification of believing that your opinions are best for everyone else’s lives can allow you to justify almost any action. Because then it becomes your moral duty to save America by getting rid of the bad Americans.
And Bernie Sanders is one man in a massive governmental machine. And I have looked and I cannot find much about Bernie to hate on. Except he’s one idealistic man, and realistically achieving his goals on a massive enough scale to support socialist beliefs would mean destroying a lot more lives than any of us can truly grasp. It’s not just the corporate fat cats that would lose. It would be all of their employees too. From the VPs down to the doormen. More than half of the United States is employed by companies that could justifiably be called to answer for their crimes before a socialist tribunal.
Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric. Peaceful communist revolutions are possible. But they don’t last. And when the peaceful options end, the violence begins. So get comfortable understanding that you’re advocating for a long and violent war, or rethink your opinions on socialism.
It’s what Kasaron said. You’re gonna have to kill a LOT of innocent people if you really want socialism to take over.
You're right overall, but there's two big problems I'm seeing here.
- Bernie Sanders is not a communist or a socialist. Maybe he was 40 years ago when he praised the USSR after a trip there, but his legislative record for the past few decades is not that of someone who opposes democracy, as all communists and socialists do. Any hypothetical far-left takeover of America would not include him, as the idea that he's some sort of tankie was spread by a combination of him not knowing what words mean and rightists taking that and deciding that yes, actually, this man who's done nothing but participate in the democratic system is akshually the second coming of Brezhnev
- Has there ever, at any point in history, been a peaceful communist revolution? Because I've studied alot of 20th century history, and I've never come across one. Salvador Allende and any others like him don't count; getting elected in a free and fair election is not a revolution.
Fair enough.
-Bernie is as close to a socialist figurehead as I could think of in the current political milieu. He was meant as a readily identifiable example.
-I googled “Peaceful Communist Revolutions” and got a to Wikipedia page (written by someone that is CLEARLY pro-communism). And they repeatedly mentioned things like the Red October revolution in Russia, with the dates of 1917-1923. Whoever wrote that article tipped their hand with that one. Because for 1, that was NOT peaceful. Roving mobs murdered anyone connected to the upper class. Whole families, especially the Romanovs, executed against outhouse buildings. And the funny part was the date. Because 1923 is when it really started to suck if my history class is being remembered correctly. I also mentioned how all of the “peaceful revolutions” fail after a few years, necessitating the predictable violence.
