You can NOT overhaul a system that is from the ground up, designed to serve the ruling class. An overhaul is just reformism, meant to maintain capitalism as a legitimate system.
And revolution is just extreme reformism. Where is the line?
I am not an Amerikan. Your country inflicts serious damage and misery everywhere […]
I figured that might be the case. So yes, for you it doesn’t matter as much who gets elected because our foreign policy is similar (not identical-- Democrats still do better on this) regardless of leading party. And you are not as aware of the differences in interior policy. It is easy to accuse me of not caring about people’s lives by not revolting-- but isn’t it then true that you wouldn’t care about our lives when you recommend against voting?
Voting improves our lives a lot and does actually improve foreign relations (eg. Trump had a direct hand in the Iran War, strikes on south american ships, tariffs causing rising prices for consumers in every country involved in us trade, etc.). It is counterproductive and harmful to recommend against voting, even if you believe that it could not lead to total reform that improves the way in which the system works, which it can.
And revolution is just extreme reformism. Where is the line?
No it isnt. Do the word-definition thing again. One seeks to replace a system the other seeks to “fix” the existing system.
Jesus fucking christ, read theory. All your very clever thoughts have already been talked through and deflated over a century ago. This is why people tell you to read, because all of this has already been answered. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
Ok: “In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, ‘a turn around’) is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society’s class, state, ethnic, or religious structures.” - Wikipedia. The page actually spends quite a lot of time expanding on that definition, including several notes that it is often considered necessary to have an extrasystemic component, that is, that a reform from entirely within the system would not count as a revolution. My point was more that revolution is a type of reform, rather than that reform is a type of revolution. You can fix a system by replacing it. You can also fix it in place. There is no fundamental obstacle that appears in the latter case.
My point was more that revolution is a type of reform, rather than that reform is a type of revolution.
As both the wiki and you just stated, it isn’t. Youre welcome to make words mean whatever you want them to mean to you, but it will make conversation harder in a broader context and nigh impossible in an academic one. Instead of arguing with me about this, read Rosa Luxembourg.
And revolution is just extreme reformism. Where is the line?
I figured that might be the case. So yes, for you it doesn’t matter as much who gets elected because our foreign policy is similar (not identical-- Democrats still do better on this) regardless of leading party. And you are not as aware of the differences in interior policy. It is easy to accuse me of not caring about people’s lives by not revolting-- but isn’t it then true that you wouldn’t care about our lives when you recommend against voting?
Voting improves our lives a lot and does actually improve foreign relations (eg. Trump had a direct hand in the Iran War, strikes on south american ships, tariffs causing rising prices for consumers in every country involved in us trade, etc.). It is counterproductive and harmful to recommend against voting, even if you believe that it could not lead to total reform that improves the way in which the system works, which it can.
No it isnt. Do the word-definition thing again. One seeks to replace a system the other seeks to “fix” the existing system.
Jesus fucking christ, read theory. All your very clever thoughts have already been talked through and deflated over a century ago. This is why people tell you to read, because all of this has already been answered.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
Ok: “In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, ‘a turn around’) is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society’s class, state, ethnic, or religious structures.” - Wikipedia. The page actually spends quite a lot of time expanding on that definition, including several notes that it is often considered necessary to have an extrasystemic component, that is, that a reform from entirely within the system would not count as a revolution. My point was more that revolution is a type of reform, rather than that reform is a type of revolution. You can fix a system by replacing it. You can also fix it in place. There is no fundamental obstacle that appears in the latter case.
Interesting link. Will read.
As both the wiki and you just stated, it isn’t. Youre welcome to make words mean whatever you want them to mean to you, but it will make conversation harder in a broader context and nigh impossible in an academic one. Instead of arguing with me about this, read Rosa Luxembourg.