But the fundamental structure isn’t that bad, and I’m worried we’ll just get something worse if we try a full rebuild.
The chance of making things worse is always a risk, but like the original American Revolutionaries, at some point, we have to bite the fucking bullet and make the gamble, because the status quo doesn’t seem to be heading anywhere good.
The American Revolution was largely a counter-revolution by colonial elites. It preserved existing property relations, entrenched slavery, restricted suffrage and replaced a distant crown with local ruling classes.
I’m not sure that’s something to favorably compare to unless you’re intent on historical revisionism.
The American Revolution was largely a counter-revolution by colonial elites. It preserved existing property relations, entrenched slavery, restricted suffrage and replaced a distant crown with local ruling classes.
You can cry “tankie” all you want, but you can’t refute any of it. It was a “revolution” led by slave owners who didn’t want to pay taxes.
That doesn’t make it a counter-revolution. Marx literally cites it as the example of a bourgeois revolution necessary for the development of a strong proletariat preceding a workers’ revolution. Not to mention the issue was taxation without representation, not taxation itself, as both the States and the Federal government would impose numerous taxes of their own more or less immediately.
Much more nuanced than expected. Okay, yes, the American revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and historically progressive in the sense that it unshackled the forces of production compared to continued British rule. It was still far less progressive and far less admirable than the French revolution, though.
Diva was incorrect in claiming that it was a counterrevolution, since there was no preceding revolution to react against, but the rest is all perfectly accurate.
The thing is that revolution vs. counter-revolution is a VERY important distinction to make here. In characterizing it as a counter-revolution, and, as acknowledged by other comments by the same user, characterizing it as regressive, the point implied by the facts mentioned is not “The American Revolution was deeply flawed”, which I would never dispute, but “The American Revolution was backwards and a negative thing.” The flaws and hypocrisies of the American Revolution ran deep, but it was also a legitimate struggle for bourgeois democracy (complete with the start of privileging of capitalist over feudal modes of production) against a distant imperialist power which denied self-determination to millions who lived under their rule.
That I brought up the American Revolution in the context of the idea of getting rid of the Constitution - with me supporting the idea of scrapping the Constitution despite the danger by that even the ones who wrote it up had to struggle with the thought of "This could get worse, but at some point, we have to take that chance or it will never get better" - and it gets ‘refuted’ by someone claiming it was counter-revolutionary and a bad example (for choosing to roll the fucking dice???) is just campist dribble from that user, whom I am unfortunately familiar with.
French Revolution was much a better bourgeois revolution though, I agree.
I should pay more attention when posting, clearly. I see someone say “tankie” and I fire up the tank, but it appears that our disagreements aren’t that substantial. Unless you’re a trotskyist, of course…
Ah, yes, the anarchist position of vigorously bootlicking Russian genocide and imperialism. I keep forgetting that you’re an ‘anarchist,’ probably because of the boot lodged down your throat, which I generally don’t associate with anarchism. It must be a new strain.
Anything to get off to your favorite genocides, right? Of course, you have to play at Uyghur genocide apologia too. But hey, what’s an anarchist without a little simping for [checks notes] the PRC having PEOPLE’S billionaires?
Not only is that a caricature that doesn’t represent my position or opinions, it’s whataboutism. The topic was how our government has always been a bourgeois dictatorship created by slaveowners. It’s no wonder that a pedophile cabal ended up influential in such a government.
Not only is that a caricature that doesn’t represent my position or opinions,
I believe this is you, fascist.
it’s whataboutism.
I just noted that tankie bootlickers like you are beyond parody. You were the one who objected to the label of tankie, all I’ve done is back up the point you disputed.
I’m an anarchist, I organize with anarchists irl, like multiple days out of my week, every week. Just because a turbo liberal who can’t stop bootlicking american/roman empire doesn’t like my opinions doesn’t make me anything else.
I’m an anarchist, I organize with anarchists irl, like multiple days out of my week, every week. Just because a turbo liberal who can’t stop bootlicking american/roman empire doesn’t like my opinions doesn’t make me anything else.
lmao, a literal whataboutism in response to your literal genocide denial being shown. Hypocrisy inside of two comments, impressive even for a tankie.
Have fun playing “Sieg Heil!” games with your favorite Nazis, red fash.
The chance of making things worse is always a risk, but like the original American Revolutionaries, at some point, we have to bite the fucking bullet and make the gamble, because the status quo doesn’t seem to be heading anywhere good.
The American Revolution was largely a counter-revolution by colonial elites. It preserved existing property relations, entrenched slavery, restricted suffrage and replaced a distant crown with local ruling classes.
I’m not sure that’s something to favorably compare to unless you’re intent on historical revisionism.
You tankies are utterly beyond parody.
You can cry “tankie” all you want, but you can’t refute any of it. It was a “revolution” led by slave owners who didn’t want to pay taxes.
That doesn’t make it a counter-revolution. Marx literally cites it as the example of a bourgeois revolution necessary for the development of a strong proletariat preceding a workers’ revolution. Not to mention the issue was taxation without representation, not taxation itself, as both the States and the Federal government would impose numerous taxes of their own more or less immediately.
Much more nuanced than expected. Okay, yes, the American revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and historically progressive in the sense that it unshackled the forces of production compared to continued British rule. It was still far less progressive and far less admirable than the French revolution, though.
Diva was incorrect in claiming that it was a counterrevolution, since there was no preceding revolution to react against, but the rest is all perfectly accurate.
The thing is that revolution vs. counter-revolution is a VERY important distinction to make here. In characterizing it as a counter-revolution, and, as acknowledged by other comments by the same user, characterizing it as regressive, the point implied by the facts mentioned is not “The American Revolution was deeply flawed”, which I would never dispute, but “The American Revolution was backwards and a negative thing.” The flaws and hypocrisies of the American Revolution ran deep, but it was also a legitimate struggle for bourgeois democracy (complete with the start of privileging of capitalist over feudal modes of production) against a distant imperialist power which denied self-determination to millions who lived under their rule.
That I brought up the American Revolution in the context of the idea of getting rid of the Constitution - with me supporting the idea of scrapping the Constitution despite the danger by that even the ones who wrote it up had to struggle with the thought of "This could get worse, but at some point, we have to take that chance or it will never get better" - and it gets ‘refuted’ by someone claiming it was counter-revolutionary and a bad example (for choosing to roll the fucking dice???) is just campist dribble from that user, whom I am unfortunately familiar with.
French Revolution was much a better bourgeois revolution though, I agree.
I should pay more attention when posting, clearly. I see someone say “tankie” and I fire up the tank, but it appears that our disagreements aren’t that substantial. Unless you’re a trotskyist, of course…
I’m an anarchist tyvm
Ah, yes, the anarchist position of vigorously bootlicking Russian genocide and imperialism. I keep forgetting that you’re an ‘anarchist,’ probably because of the boot lodged down your throat, which I generally don’t associate with anarchism. It must be a new strain.
Anything to get off to your favorite genocides, right? Of course, you have to play at Uyghur genocide apologia too. But hey, what’s an anarchist without a little simping for [checks notes] the PRC having PEOPLE’S billionaires?
Not only is that a caricature that doesn’t represent my position or opinions, it’s whataboutism. The topic was how our government has always been a bourgeois dictatorship created by slaveowners. It’s no wonder that a pedophile cabal ended up influential in such a government.
I believe this is you, fascist.
I just noted that tankie bootlickers like you are beyond parody. You were the one who objected to the label of tankie, all I’ve done is back up the point you disputed.
I’m an anarchist, I organize with anarchists irl, like multiple days out of my week, every week. Just because a turbo liberal who can’t stop bootlicking american/roman empire doesn’t like my opinions doesn’t make me anything else.
lmao, a literal whataboutism in response to your literal genocide denial being shown. Hypocrisy inside of two comments, impressive even for a tankie.
Have fun playing “Sieg Heil!” games with your favorite Nazis, red fash.