I believe if everyone who was against the current oligarchy started placing guillotine stickers everywhere, like you might for a favorite band, people would feel less isolated in their distaste for the current system.

And in an ideal world those who the guillotines are for might realize just how much they are in the minority.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        No, that would be a most uncharitable interpretation of what I’ve been saying (and rather a loaded question.)

        • HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          31 minutes ago

          You’re still simply wrong about political violence never working.

          Love it or hate it, through the vast majority of history, it has accomplished tons.

          It has also occasionally backfired or otherwise made the situation worse.

          For whatever reason, you want to focus on the latter and call it “always.”

      • Rimu@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Violent revolutions have a huge risk of producing prolonged violence, authoritarianism, or other disastrous outcomes, even if they succeed in overthrowing the old regime.

        On the other hand here are some successful non-violent revolutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

        Nonviolent revolutions generally produce better institutional outcomes than violent ones (it’s science).

        Also watch out for selection bias - we tend to remember revolutions that became enormous historical events. Check out this table of pitiful forgotten revolutions and note how many “Suppression of the rebellion” there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts

        • OilyArena@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Holy liberal brainrot. Did you just seriously link the wikipedia article for “color revolutions”, a series of CIA-backed counterrevolutionary and deeply reactionary insurgencies, as a list for successful non-violent ‘revolutions’?

          All of those color revolutions had massive detrimental effects on the population, skyrocketing inequality, destroying decades of progress in women’s liberation (the ex-Yugo regions for example still aren’t close to catching back up), and destroying education systems and economies, forcing them to sell out to international capital.

          So how exactly did they produce “better institutional outcomes” than actual Socialist revolutions? Easier to exploit on the world market? Better startup culture? Lmao

          • Rimu@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Is the CIA in the room with us right now?

            image

            https://lithuania.lt/news/life-and-work-in-lithuania/the-baltic-way-how-holding-hands-changed-history/

            On August 23, 1989, a momentous event unfolded that would forever leave its mark on history. Two million people joined hands, creating an unbroken human chain that spanned over 600 kilometres, linking the capital cities of Vilnius in Lithuania, Tallinn in Estonia, and Riga in Latvia. This awe-inspiring display of unity and determination became famously known as “The Baltic Way.” It was a peaceful protest against the illegal Soviet occupation and also one of the earliest and longest unbroken human chains in history.

            The Baltic Way was more than just a physical connection; it was a profound political demonstration for freedom.

            Remarkably, within just six months of this transformative protest, on March 11, 1990, Lithuania declared its independence, becoming the first of the Soviet Republics to do so.

            • OilyArena@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              You don’t even know what you’re talking about, conflating apples and oranges. The Baltic independence movements aren’t referred to as color revolutions, those happened in the 2000s in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

              And of course, something cannot be the result of foreign involvement, awful racial-nationalist thought that has plagued the Baltics for ages (and still does), and malevolent capital interests if lots of people are holding hands, that much is clear.

              • Rimu@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Whatever man, they’re all examples of successful nonviolent revolutions. Successful in the sense that they overthrew the previous regimes and what came after was probably better than what would have come after if they achieved the same thing violently.

                I’m just a guy trying to make sense of the world and share the fragments of what I’ve managed to piece together and you come in here throwing around insults and making aspersions. Not cool.

                • HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  27 minutes ago

                  When you encounter someone who is starting to get nasty and bad faith in a political discussion like this (“You don’t even know what you’re talking about”), remember to check their instance.

                  This particular user is from lemmy.ml, which tells you a lot if you’re familiar with lemmy.ml users; it’s incredibly rare that they’re not actively pushing some form of propaganda, 99% of the time being anti-West propaganda.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        That depends on how you define success. It also depends on how you define revolution. If the French Revolution can be defined as ending when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, then I think that qualifies as a failed revolution.

        • sydd@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          But there’s been successful revolutions, so the cycle of violence does not always escalate.

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            The cycle will escalate until it is broken. How long it runs before it gets broken might be a useful part in defining “successful revolution”: the successful ones break the cycle of violence as early as possible.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Not all acts of violence use physical force; not all uses of physical force are acts of violence.

        • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Did the food consent to being harvested?

          No, because no food can, other than arguably humans, but that’s usually illegal.

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            I would count killing and eating an animal as a non-violent, physically forceful act, all else being equal. I realize that puts me at odds with many vegetarians and vegans, but in the context of violence against other human beings I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

            • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              Violence is any act which removes the rights from another being, this includes the right to live, this includes the right to autonomy.

              Even vegans commit violence, plants can feel, and don’t consent to being eaten. (Gets a bit funny when it comes to stuff where it’s not actually alive though, just a vector to spread seeds)

              Edit: bad internet connection made this post 3 times