• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    There’s a sticking point that no one’s been able to explain to me:

    If you’re in the minority, revolution is against the democratic will of the people.

    If you’re in the majority, you have the votes to actually accomplish something with reform. It’s not like we live in a monarchy, reform is possible under our system.

    If reform isn’t working to bring about your goals, either your goals aren’t popular enough, or they are popular but the people lack the will and organization to vote for them.

    If the people lack the will and organization to vote effectively, they certainly lack the will and organization to topple the government.

    My area of expertise is managing complex systems and change implementation. I sincerely don’t understand how revolution is supposed to work where reform doesn’t. No one has been able to give me an answer that doesn’t bill down to idealistic hope. How is this revolution supposed to be implemented, and why can’t we build the foundation for revolution while simultaneously using the tools we have for reform? Wouldn’t widespread support for reform be the best possible proof of consensus?

    • dzervas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I think (reading aint my cup of tea so I do what I can) that the idea is that the majority of the people are easily swayed

      one could argue that this is the case now with the amount of capitalist and anti-leftist projections

      and the idea to fix the root cause of the above is tackled by each revolution-worthy system - education, free time, access to knowledge, etc.

      though youve got a very good point that if we depend on stupid people to build something better, were buiding it on/with stupid people

      good discussion subject, I’ll take it to my friends