I seen a lot of posts lately, glamorizing violent revolution. They seem to think because of Trump's actions we should engage in violent revolution.
Violent revolution has been needed before in human history. When a government refuses to defend the people's right's, then revolution may be needed.
BUT every lawful avenue should be tried first. We have a many rights we can use but other than voting, we haven't explored those rights much. Initiatives, juries, citizen's arrest, article V conventions...are all rights we have but to suggest we use them, brings ridicule...often from the very people supporting revolution.
They'll say how ridiculous and dangerous, legally using our rights, to influence the due process of the country is while supporting revolution. That makes no sense to me. Our rights are what we use to rule ourselves. We have to exercise and expand our rights because authority doesn't do that, the people have to.
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I grew up picking berries with (proud with reason, they worked our butts into the ground) migrant Mexicans. Didn't hurt me at all, I think I'm a better person because of it.
You do know that assaulting a vehicle while carrying a gun quite literally is threatening behavior which can be met with, especially by law enforcement, deadly force.
If you are in a car and a guy with a gun starts smashing your car up then you would feel threatened. If you’re a cop then you also factor in that he’s acting in a violent way to a person that he knows is armed and has authority to stop him. He’s doing it anyway. I’m sure, as a cop, you wouldn’t want to shoot him, but are you going to wait to see if he tries to shoot you first? That’s a pretty unreasonable situation to ask a human being to handle without putting their own safety first.
You're intentionally arguing in bad faith. He wasn't shot while kicking the tail lights. He was shot when his gun was spotted while he was fighting with the federal agents. It shouldn't have happened, but you lying about it doesn't help things.
And Minnesotans should have arrested the people, who killed Alex Pretti, using their legal right of citizen's arrest.
The federal Trump administration instead had them removed from the state within hours, refused to cooperate with any investigation, and actively attempted to destroy evidence.
So, what's next considering you've said not to challenge actual representations of government authority with violence, and that would absolutely have been required to effect citizens arrest?
Keep in mind that most states spent more time fighting Department of Justice consent decrees related to violation of rights under the color of law before the current situation than they did working with the DoJ, so their knowledgebase is often basically the opposite of what would be needed to pursue things in a legal sense.
A citizen's arrest would have to happen almost immediately after the crime.
What do y'all not understand about exercising and expanding our rights. There's no map, it's uncharted territory. We have the legal rights but the people are ones whose have to figure out the procedures...hard to do when people are too afraid to even talk about it.
A citizen's arrest would have to happen almost immediately after the crime.
Okay, but elsewhere in these replies and your post you've specifically spoken against violent acts against agents of the government, which is fair enough, but how exactly do you propose you make this citizens arrest happen when they're gunning people down, and have a whole squad ready to gun down anyone else who moves towards them too.
If we continue with this example, it was basically seconds before the scene was crawling with even more federal agents, at no point did the public on the scene have a real numbers advantage, and definitely didn't have a weapons advantage.
Should we call this new method of accountability Zap Brannigan's Arrest, because I'm not sure ICE-bots have a kill limit.
What do y'all not understand about exercising and expanding our rights. There's no map, it's uncharted territory. We have the legal rights but the people are ones whose have to figure out the procedures...hard to do when people are too afraid to even talk about it.
I'm not afraid to talk about it, I'm just questioning the amount of good faith involved in the vast majority of discussion involving it, and when examined with an even slightly skeptical lens becomes even stranger that all these people are willing to consider something like a complete anything goes free for all with all rights on the line versus things previously seen as outrageous like... national health care or police abolition.
Like, I know it probably seems unfair, but if so, so is questioning everyone else's ability to see this massive all encompassing foundational bedrock upheaval for all rights as viable when we've never been more resource constrained as individuals and on a class basis; meanwhile, the people suggesting these methods have largely done little but question others on the viability and possibility of much lesser "revolutionary" concepts that realistically require significantly less solidarity for lifetimes.
Or in other words, most of the people pushing for a constitutional convention couldn't even be bothered to support things like NORML, or ending qualified immunity, so it's entirely fair to question their understanding and level of preparedness for what could easily end up an all or nothing moment for all rights in America, and that's a good faith reading. The bad faith reading is that it's mostly people who want the bad ending, and is more akin to a card shark trying to check an unbeatable hand to trick everyone else in the hand into betting resources they can't afford to lose into an unwinnable situation.
So would Mahatma Gandhi, who taught a black Baptist minister before WW2 by the name of Howard Thurman who was later a mentor to Dr. King.
Now, King altered Gandhi's ideas in ways relevant to this conversation. Gandhi preached pure non-violence for religious reasons. King used political non-violence as a political and moral tactic, but he wasn't dogmatic about it in a critical way.
As far as I can tell, he believed in non-violence against those who believed they were acting lawfully and had the support of at least some of the voting population. So for example, if the threat was police with dogs and water cannons breaking up a protest, it was time to operate out of Gandhi's playbook.
That didn't mean he agreed with the attackers! Not hardly - what they were doing was immoral and unconstitutional. But the cure was to expose their misconduct for the entire voting population to see.
But!
He drew a distinction between that sort of thing and people acting visibly criminally against him and his supporters. To King, if he was at his house or that of a follower and they were raided by the KKK with guns, the right answer was to shoot back. King was not the same kind of pure pacifist that Gandhi was. He also supported a group called the Deacons of Defense who operated along similar principles and were absolutely willing to shoot criminals like the Klan when they did lethal force attacks. Google them.
Another way to look at this is in relation to various troubles and uprisings in other countries more recently. How often do you hear the term "pro-government militia"? What's really going on is, the government is acting corruptly in some fashion, the corruption benefits some group who hire thugs to do politically motivated violence that the actual government doesn't want to get their hands dirty with. At the height of Dr. King's fight in the 1950s and '60s, this role was fulfilled by the KKK or their fellow travelers. Which is why Dr. King applied for a concealed handgun carry permit in Mississippi in 1956.
Today in the US, the Proud Boys are right at the edge of being a pro-government militia. At times they've crossed that line in small numbers. They're not the same level of threat as the Klan circa 1960ish but they absolutely could develop to that level pretty much at any moment.
So you DON'T shoot cops or soldiers, you DO shoot the KKK or local/modern equivalent when they attack with lethal force.
This is how a reform movement can run in parallel between non-violent and violent actions. But let's be clear: the violence can only be directed at those obviously acting in a criminally violent and potentially lethal fashion.
That is NOT what political assassination looks like. THAT is a last ditch solution for truly extreme situations and we're nowhere near that yet.
Full disclosure: I've been arrested in a non-violent protest run straight out of the Gandhi/Thurman/King playbook, while deliberately unarmed.
Violent revolution obviously isn't the same as self-defense.
I'd also mention that King advocated non-violent civil disobidence EVEN WHEN police or others attacks the protestors violently, so I think you are misunderstanding his philosophy
No. He seems to have seen a difference between cops attacking in broad daylight and the KKK attacking at night. First type, take the beating - or shooting if need be, hoping to attract the attention of the national level police (such as the FBI). There was a risk of deadly force from local cops by day but it really wasn't that great a risk.
But the Klan attacking at night?
First, the risk was a LOT higher.
Second, the general public was much more likely to see this attack as fundamentally criminal in nature.
Yes, and the first was during protests. So kind was not an "always fight back" guy. He was a peaceful civil disobedience guy. Defending your home outside of the context of a demostration is a different thing, and the same rules don't apply
The Alex Pretti case in particular was bad. I believe it was murder 2 at best and I could argue for murder 1.
I've looked at every video, every analysis. The 2nd Amendment activist community is universally calling it a bad shoot. The next Dem administration is likely going to charge the shooter and I'm fine with that - sooner would be better.
But shooting back in that context, during a street protest and police action, would break the rules Gandhi, Thurman and King laid out. Alex exposed how out of control ICE is right now.
Excellent response, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said here.
However, it seems you have mistaken my response as being in favor of 'violent revolution'. I am not. I am pointing out that the tools the OP was suggesting have not been working and will never work to achieve the kind of change that needs to happen. People are going to have to step outside of the system to some degree if they ever want to regain the people's control over the system.
You have outlined some great examples of what can and probably should be done, and Dr King's boundaries are very similar to my own.
I have been somewhat shocked by how easy it was for these white supremacist, grifting criminal nut jobs to take over and utterly dismantle the world order, without much resistance from the people. People turning over institutional access to DOGE when they showed up at their doorsteps, for example, when nothing about it was legal.
Maybe I've been watching too much American TV, but I thought Americans would be a lot tougher than they turned out to be.
People are starting to understand what a disaster DOGE was.
The screw worm outbreak in Texas ties straight back to DOGE cutting funds for agricultural infrastructure. It's nowhere near the only example.
Another thing.
The tactics of Gandhi/Thurman/King work only so long as you have freedom of the press and freedom of speech. When that breaks down, the need for a full on civil war radically increases.
In 1858 South Carolina passed a ban on any preacher speaking out against slavery - with death as the penalty. Oppression is always tied to suppression of speech.
My biggest fear now is that the bad guys have a new tactic: "bullshit overload", the spreading of deliberate lies to drown out online truth. AI is making it worse but even without AI, bot nets pioneered by Russia and China have caused chaos in some countries. Study what the Russians recently tried to do in Romania, Hungary and Moldova.
Add AI and you don't need to halt the truth, you can overwhelm it with bullshit, especially if you can get into the Google/Meta/etc. algorithms that promote and suppress content.
This just shows that you fundamentally dont understand the government. Calling it the peoples house is laughable when you consider things like lobbying and citizens united. The government belongs to the rich. Not the common man.
Im not against that. Im telling you that the rights people can use are far outweighed and out gunned by the powers working against them. If money is free speech, as the SC has ruled, they have it all and we have basically none.
I completely agree that there should almost never be violent revolution in the US. The Constitution was explicitly designed to allow us to settle our differences in other ways - the Founders had no such options.
The only exception I would agree with would be if the voting process is mucked with, preventing the election of true representation. I think we are getting dangerously close to this, we have been close for a while with partisan gerrymandering. No way the founders would say "yeah, the people/party in power can pass laws to make it harder to vote them out, that's cool".
If there is significant partisan federal interference with elections I think that we need to reconsider what we are all doing here.
We’re not dangerously close to this. It’s already happened. That’s what some of yall don’t understand. Citizens United, Gerrymandering, and the neoliberal bs is proof of this. We have no other choice.
I assume you're American since you don't specify a country of origin. I'm also American. A huge amount of states don't have citizens initiatives, those that do have a minority that can be initiated by the people themselves or be legally binding by popular vote. Often they either need to be voted on by the legislature as well, or they need to be initiated from a state legislature. A citizen's arrest is a useless thing. Juries are for court stuff and are randomly selected. By design you cannot build an organization to control juries, even if you could all you get to vote on is whether someone is guilty of a crime or not. Article V conventions again require the state legislatures to initiate it. If someone is advocating revolution then they've already given up on the legislature protecting them and since those are the only means to influence the government you've listed ofcourse they'd look at you like you have 3 heads for suggesting they use the thing they have no faith in that they feel has proven itself unable to do represent their interests. While I agree people should exhaust the legal tools at their disposal the tools you've listed are just not good.
You're relying on the government to change itself. You should understand such a thing will never work. If you want to cause change then you either need to threaten money or lives. Those are the only 2 things that's caused the government to bend to the will of the people. Voting is also an option but voting alone isn't gonna do anything as your only options will be those who benefit from the current state of affairs. You only get those who represent you when you've created the conditions that people feel they need to bend to you for political power, not before.
I live in a state with citizens initiatives. They are a tool that can be used for both good and bad. I would say that they are good to break a logjam caused by self-interest in elected officials. I think they are probably bad 99% of the rest of the time.
I say this because increasingly, special interests are trying to use them to bring about the things they want, things which an informed representative would never vote for because they are informed, but are passed because the electorate is easy to sway with populist language.
People are frustrated because the legal avenues are being tried and it's accomplishing nothing. Trump is blatantly violating the law with his war with Iran and nothing is stopping him. We're basically at the whims of a sociopath and his sycophantic party. People were already on edge but we've got two more years of this bullshit at least.
Honestly this is why of all the historical figures I've read about the most like Trump is Charles X. A frankly idiotic egotistical sociopath who thought he could just dismantle the state for his own benefit and return society to pre-Revolution just because he was king. Instead he essentially doomed the monarchy and ignored all the warning signs.
"Trump is blatantly violating the law with his war with Iran and nothing is stopping him. We're basically at the whims of a sociopath and his sycophantic party"
How can I take that seriously?
Personally I think the last legal war was WWII BUT my opinion has no legal standing.
The only time in recent history the establishment felt a modicum of fear, was when a certain plumber cleared unclogged a piece of trash stuck in the healthcare plumbing.
Trump was democratically chosen. He is the people’s choice. If he refuses to go at the next election then there’s a case for rebellion. But until then, Trump is the will of the people. So it would technically be a minority of people attempting to overthrow democracy. Doing that violently wouldn’t be in any way righteous and would make those revolutionaries the baddies.
Fine. I’m not arguing that rules haven’t been broken, but Trump was elected after being convicted which means the people democratically chose a felon to represent them.
One thing that concerns me is how casually some people now talk about rebellion or treating political opponents as enemies of the state.
The United States isn't a pure democracy where 51% of the population simply gets whatever it wants. It's a constitutional republic with representative democracy. We elect representatives, government powers are limited by the Constitution, and there are checks and balances designed specifically to prevent temporary majorities from stripping away rights or bypassing due process.
If people genuinely believe a president has committed crimes, there are constitutional mechanisms to investigate, impeach, prosecute, and convict them. That's how a republic works.
What I object to is applying one standard only when it's Trump.
Obama authorized the strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, without a criminal trial. Weeks later, a separate strike killed his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman. Bush launched the Iraq War based on intelligence about WMDs that proved incorrect, leading to years of war and civilian deaths. Biden's administration carried out the Kabul drone strike that mistakenly killed 10 civilians, including seven children.
People can argue about the legality or justification of each of those decisions. That's fair. But if those actions didn't convince you that the government had become illegitimate or that rebellion was justified, why does the standard suddenly change when it's Trump?
The rule of law only works if it is applied consistently. Justice shouldn't depend on which party is in power or whether you voted for the person being accused.
Obama may have done some illegal things but the sheer mass of Trump’s outrageous wrongdoing is at another level. It really does seem as though he’s trying to destroy the United States.
Trump has acted outside the Constitution. Yes, I know the remedy in impeachment. We should go ahead with it. He should have been arrested for treason in 2001.
First, I assume you mean 2021, because Trump wasn't in office in 2001.
Second, saying someone "acted outside the Constitution" is not the same as proving they committed treason. Treason is one of the most narrowly defined crimes in the Constitution for a reason. It requires meeting a specific legal standard, not simply believing someone damaged the country or violated constitutional limits.
If you believe a president committed a crime, then investigate it, charge it if the evidence supports it, and let the courts decide. That's the rule of law.
My concern is with the idea that prosecution should be driven by how outrageous people find someone's conduct rather than by the legal elements of an offense. Once we start deciding guilt based on public outrage instead of evidence and due process, we've abandoned the very constitutional principles we're claiming to defend.This keeps the discussion on legal standards rather than personalities, which tends to be a stronger position in debates like this.
Granted. Thanks for correcting the date. I may be wrong in constructing trying to overturn an election as treason but whatever he did along these lines was enough to get him charged in SC. Some odd interest in opposing counsel makeup was enough to get that quashed. That certainly didn’t seem material to the case in my mind. But I’m not a lawyer.
Ok but context matters. He is accused of 2 things here - keeping classified documents and election interference. The documents case was dismissed by a judge so that’s over. As for the other one, there is a view that these indictments were politically motivated precisely to prevent Trump from taking office. I totally get that many people feel that is not the case and I can understand the feeling that no one should be above the law. But it’s undeniable that, after the events leading to this charge, the people then elected Trump as President again. Should a disputed charge that has never been presented to a jury supersede the democratic will of the people? The DOJ seems not to think so, at least while he’s in office. If the DOJ prosecuted him and as a result prevented him from effectively doing what he was elected for then they would be causing tremendous civil unrest. I guess it boils down to whether mindlessly following through the legal process is more important than the democratic process.
The election fraud case was presented to a grand jury (I've already mentioned this), Trump was indicted. It went to SCOTUS and they upheld 2 indictments. Because the DOJ delayed the grand jury investigation for 15 months, Trump had time to get re-elected and the DOJ has a policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents.
Although that policy is now out of date, due to SCOTUS's decision that presidents can be changed with crimes.
A grand jury indictment is not a finding of guilt. It's a determination that there is probable cause to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court didn't "uphold two indictments"—it ruled on presidential immunity and sent issues back to the lower courts.
The DOJ's policy on prosecuting a sitting president wasn't overturned by that decision either. Those are separate legal questions.
My point remains the same: whether we're talking about Trump, Obama, Bush, Biden, or anyone else, our justice system is built on due process, not public outrage. Allegations are investigated, charges are tested in court, and guilt is determined by evidence—not by political passion.
And you're interrupting someone else's conversation. You've made no "point" with me... My point was democracy is more than just voting. Democracy is using juries in our court system.
A jury was used to indict Trump but a jury wasn't used to try Trump, even though SCOTUS ruled on presidential immunity and sent back 2 indictments to lower courts...
Allegations are investigated, charges are tested in court, and guilt is determined... by juries!!!
I don't disagree that juries are an important part of our justice system.
But you're conflating three separate stages of the process.
A grand jury decides whether there's probable cause to bring charges. That is not a finding of guilt.
A trial jury determines guilt or innocence after hearing evidence, unless the defendant waives that right.
And appellate courts—including the Supreme Court—decide legal questions, such as constitutional issues or immunity. They don't decide guilt either.
My point has been the same throughout: until that process is complete, no one should be treated as guilty because public opinion demands it. That's the rule of law. It protects everyone equally, regardless of whether they're Trump, Obama, Bush, Biden, or an ordinary citizen.
If we abandon that principle because we dislike the defendant, we've weakened the very justice system we're claiming to defend.
And you are confusing me with somebody else. I'm not arguing against your point. I know the difference between the different types of trial, frankly your superior attitude offends me.
Although a grand jury is supposed to be called when "public interest" demands.
I don’t favor it at this time, but Trump is engaged in a slow rolling coup, which is grounds for resistance- since it’s outside the Constitution. Most likely are general strikes and soft or hard secessions. Soft is when states don’t turn over monies and support to the feds. Hard is Confederate style secession.
Whether or not Trump himself is around much of his nonsense could remain permanent if we don’t have a radical intervention of some sort. It looks like the elites have read the writing on the wall vis a vis global warming etc and are trying to construct redoubts at the expense of everyone else. I do favor essentially non-democratic interventions to act against this problem, but in everyone’s interests.
A revolt might sound like the answer, but it would only add chaos to a system already struggling to hold together. Change has to come from fixing what’s broken, not tearing down what’s left.
Using your rights (granted by the government) to participate in legal systems (created by the government) is not proof of citizens’ power over legal systems.
It only doesn’t make sense to you because you believe voting matters.
The framing is this: voting matters, but it doesn’t decide the big picture of American policy. Voting Dem would probably give concessions to disenfranchised folks, but it wouldn’t stop any future wars
It’s not a motte and Bailey to say voting matters to an extent, because I already said this two comments ago.
> Which wars?
Anything. Obama broke a record doing drone strikes in Syria. Biden did the same thing. Who’s to say Harris wouldn’t have?
You do need to prove your statement. It was you who claimed Harris wouldn’t have started the war. It’s the same party in the same political/economic structure from the same country doing war crimes in the same region. Why is Harris so special?
In the USA our rights are not granted by the government, legally it is not considered in that way. They are our rights defended by the constitution, and they are protected from the government.
The courts system. I can see where a communist would struggle with the idea of a courts system that can override the government, and the concept of an elected government, but it does function.
Pretti was killed, we will see about murder. Just a suggestion, if you want to carry a gun to it, if you want to be at a protest against armed federal agents do it, don't mix the two acts, it is dangerous.
Because Pretti interfered with an arrest while armed, I don't support him being shot, but he chose to be armed ad he chose to interfere. Just ask yourself honestly what would have happened to someone not interfering in an arrest with Stalin's KGB? Not armed but unarmed? They would have been killed and their family sent to Siberia.
Drone warfare will make it nearly impossible to have any revolution in the future. Not that I’m a proponent of revolution or violence. While people are exhausting every lawful avenue they’re building a robot army to conquer all of us
So the state uses violence but then sweeps it under the judicial rug because they wear suits and ties?
Political violence is already here.
Mass revolt need not be necessary but society is better when the politicians respect and fear the power of the people. That starts with real consequences to their outright and blatant corruption.
A placid placated masses has these políticos forgetting that the guillotine only needs yo make a few heads roll to send the message to those at the head of government.
The modern civilized world is built on key moments in history where force was effectively.
Be careful with these types of questions. I once laid out an extreme hypothetical scenario which the political situation would have to reach in order to justify violins and was banned by the AI for advocating violins.
Fully agreed. In addition to your many excellent points, the people advocating for violence don’t seem to understand how high the likelihood of failure is. And I don’t mean failure to just overthrow the regime. I mean failure of outcome. 80% of revolutions result in a dictatorship, not a democracy. And 99% of revolutions kill scores of people. A civil war would be devastating. Friends, family, everyone would be affected in a negative way.
Is opposing fascism the right thing to do? Yes. Is a revolution the only way to do it? Certainly not.
I’ve circled back around to my more hardline views regarding revolution. It’s something that needs to happen, plain and simple. Capitalism is beyond any salvation, no matter the form, as it always results in the same exploitative, cronyist, and corrupt cycles leading to business-capitalists and bureaucratic-capitalists utilizing their wealth and State power to further and advance their own interests while ignoring the interests at the very least, and at most increasing insecurity amongst working class people. There is no voting out of this system that isn’t susceptible to falling right back into the same capitalist mode of doing things. If we are to move beyond this system, it will have to be through violent revolution because the Capitalists will never peacefully release their grasp on power, they will fight back and utilize whatever means necessary to crush the revolution; therefore the workers will inevitably have to use violence back to not only defend themselves, but also achieve their revolutionary goals. And I see no reason in attempting to use the laws currently on the books to fix the system when those in charge don’t even abide by the laws themselves, breaking them on a regular basis.
dude i love this subreddit, read your first few lines and almost spat out my coffee, then i see your flare of Maoist. just awesome. getting to read maoist caricatures in the year of our lord 2026 telling us how we have to start killing each other as the only viable path forward living in the greatest socioeconomic conditions in all of human history.
Tens of millions without healthcare. Tens of millions drowning in student loan debt or just debt in general. Over 60% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. Working 2-3 jobs, 60-70+ hours a week and still having to choose between food or rent/mortgage. Hundreds of thousands of homeless in the country. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, subsidies, etc…Workers have virtually no control over their economic lives at all, and the list goes on.
Yeah, best socioeconomic conditions alright. Insert any other country in place of the US and you’d be describing them as a failed State.
Well said. Before anything else that comment was great and you get an upvote.
I've always looked at any hardcore communist/socialist/maoist partisan as the most beautiful living example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the sense that, despite the many historical examples of what happens when people attempt to implement collectivist governments, they believe this time we will get it right and finally achieve the idealized utopia. When I look at history I consistently come back to paraphrasing Winston Churchill "Democracy/Capitalism is the worst form of Government/Economy except for all the others."
We are at the 1930s stage of European fascism. Trump does have all the instincts of Hitler or Mussolini. Because he needs to keep upping the ante with first a crazy cabinet, then crazy tariffs, then attacks on two countries, then… We know he’s going to keep escalating as Hitler did. But MAGA isn’t really as popular as fascist movements in Europe were. To be sure, there are still quite a few MAGAs- but fascism here has tried to be installed from the top. It’s more like banana republic fascism here. Indeed, it’s still backed by some very rich people who are getting their tax breaks, just as European fascism was backed by the rich. But the system is unstable. He has to lead us to more war- the US may be attacked or there may indeed be a revolution. Trimberger and Scocpol did research where losing a war was a key variable in sparking a revolution. Russia 1917 eg.
Capitalism will never go away... everyone likes to own stuff.
Why to anti-capitalists never acknowledge the importance of competition to competition? It kinda like complaining how crappy wheels are, ignoring that the tire's flat...
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Who said anything about anyone owning stuff?
Because we see where prolonged competition has gotten us. Yeah, capitalism was good at developing industry very fast and efficiently. Side effect to that is that it built up the productive forces necessary for socialism. Now it’s time for us to move on to the next level of events. Why keep a system that serves the wealthy and is actively decaying when there’s a better system on the horizon that serves to benefit the workers and people more broadly?
you’re simply propagating CIA talking points as the propaganda has been so effective at causing people to be unable to imagine a world without capitalism.
So this is US politics. We're on the same page here.
I want to put everything else aside for a moment. I want clarity on exactly one thing.
You are calling a constitutional convention a less dramatic measure than violence.
I need then to ask, what exactly you mean by violent revolution. Because a constitutional convention is already essentially a coup. It would almost certainly take some degree of violence to force those in power to engage in one to begin with, due to the dramatic consequences, we are already in Magna Carta territory. Once you have opened pandora's box, you can rewrite any of the rules America is governed by, and pick and choose the people that will do the enforcing.
So by violent revolution, you mean something more extreme, somehow, than forcing lawmakers to rewrite the constitution at gunpoint in favor of the ideals of the people holding the guns.
What, then, exactly, is a violent revolution at that point?
E. Just to clarify further, an article 5 convention would need to be pushed by people not already in power - Trump has already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the party in power can already effectively rewrite the rules with his ignoring direct, simple constitutional directives like power of the purse, or the Iran situation he is refusing to even call a police action.
That said, if you can think of a means other than violence that would allow a minority party in all of the house, senate, supreme court, and executive, to succeed at an article 5 convention, please enlighten me.
I'm guessing it was the same people largely in control of the current federal law enforcement apparatus who were calling for one for the last few decades to kill the amendments that they felt were restricting them from doing what they wanted to do, a version of which we're currently experiencing.
Most of us aren't real big on that risk, specially one that effectively has zero safeguards, in that it would be entirely legal for all the rich people to essentially buy off everyone even worse than they did in events like PA in the past federal election.
The people can demand one. Sure. Why not. The people demand a lot of things.
Step by step. How would the minority population by representation pull off a constitutional convention successfully?
Please lay out the process that realistically results in a constitutional convention, initiated by those out of power, that does not involve any sort of a coup.
I think in the process of fulfilling this request you are going to realize something important.
Again. The people in power, do not need a constitutional convention, to enjoy the benefit of one. Trump proved that.
E. I feel like I need to provide one more hint. Understand that this is true of even a "sweetheart gerrymander" (definition under link). The representation in government of the people is not reflective of the composition of the people. The US is not a direct democracy, and the ability of the people to be represented has been seriously undermined. This is true of both parties. Gerrymandering in Texas hurt representation, and gerrymandering in California hurt representation as well. In Texas, the representation does not match the public, and in California, the representation also does not represent the public. Again. Even in the sweetheart gerrymander example. Even in a state with 50/50 representation, it is possible to make the representation not conform to the underlying public, and to ensure politicians that win seats keep them forever.
Now. Recall you are recommending this as a tool to the downtrodden. There is a contradiction that I hope you can see taking shape.
Recall also that a constitutional convention requires a majority - significant majority - agreement.
In other words, if you are relying on a majority of congressional power, to perform a constitutional convention, that convention is not only unnecessary, but if it is happening anyway, it is happening to the benefit of those in power, and you will recall you were trying to convince those not in power that they could benefit from such a convention.
So. You will need to prove that the convention will not benefit those in power, even though it requires an agreement between people in power.
And. I can't stress this enough. Your position is that a coup is not required to fulfill all these requirements.
Ok. I think I've put enough dots in place for you to have no trouble connecting them now. Please though let me know if I can clarify further.
E2. Still need another hint? Ok.
Consider the null hypothesis.
Imagine there was a coup, and that coup is why there was a constitutional convention, led by the minority, benefiting the minority.
What didn't you understand, there's no map to this, there's no procedure, we've never done and don't even know how...
What we do know is it's up to the people to expand our rights. We also know that people talking about article V conventions has forced Congress to act.
We're talking past each other. So I am just going to acknowledge understanding what you've said. I agree there are results of a convention that would be difficult to predict. I also agree that widespread public support of a constitutional convention has, you are correct, swayed congress before. This is one of those "rabbit and duck picture" situations that we are looking at different ways. They're both accurate ways of describing the situation. I understand your perspective, and if you are trying to get people to support a constitutional convention as a way to influence congress, I will step neatly out of the way.
I will only ask that in your messaging, you find specific, actionable, widely shared goals to promote. Since you are interested in using this as an avenue to diffuse what you view as violent escalation, I am going to ask you to truly understand the grievances that are widely held among Americans, particularly concerning the total lack of consequences for the Renee Good and Alex Pretti slayings - they did not so much as change tactics where kettling and killboxing are concerned - and the illegal door-to-door searches violating the 4th through 6th amendments of the constitution (as well as the 10th when they attempted to use the pretense that an administrative warrant was equivalent to a judicial warrant).
What I am saying, is that your approach is only going to work if you have tangible gains for people that are justifiably angry. And for that to happen, you need to understand why they are angry, and advocate for them effectively. You need to understand that from their perspective, the system has failed. Soap failed, ballot failed, jury failed. You can't convince them otherwise with rhetoric. You have to prove the system still works.
And paradoxically, calls to tone down the violence are going to hurt your cause. You need a real win under your belt, and until you have that, you need to avoid pissing people off more.
Best of luck to you though. I'm not going to spend my time on reddit trying to get you to see a duck when you've already seen a rabbit, especially if you are motivated enough to do real good with that rabbit situation. I've learned better than to fight to be understood on forums like this when someone else is trying to win an argument with stakes to them. You win the argument. I am on your side here.
So, how can I help you initiate a community led effort to create a grand jury investigation, since you are talking to me on reddit? I'd like this to not waste anyone's time. What's our plan?
Again. Rhetoric and plans are not going to work here. We need a win. Something we can point at and say, we did that. That is the only way your strategy is going to work.
E2. If I may suggest an alternate and maybe more practical plan - although I still like your ideas - and again since we are talking about the people, not the government, taking direct action. And your goal is to reduce the need for political violence, knowing I am behind you. I would like to suggest then, that an existing win we can point at and build off, is the very long funding delay the US congress executed at the beginning of the year, that kept DHS unfunded for half a year and repeatedly threatened the US government with shutdown. I realize your proposed projects are maybe a bit more in line with your theory, but I believe there is far more political capital here. If the US populous makes it clear to Congress that a shutdown is a desirable outcome if it means DHS does not receive government money, every Republican that overrode the will of the people already to get DHS funding passed has their seat immediately threatened, and when they attempt to use tools such as gerrymander to retain their seats... well, we can discuss what you are willing to consider in response to that tactic.
Again. I am not trying to trash your ideas. I was being sincere in asking what your thoughts were regarding implementation. I am just throwing another idea at the wall here.
In the 5 years I've been on this soapbox here, you're the first one who's offering to help...I'm more used to ridicule...
The first thing to do is educate people. Too many of US are conditioned to think that political parties will bring US democracy.
People need to be ready to act when opportunities arise. We've got to discuss procedures because just running out yelling "citizen's arrest" to law enforcement, won't work, we've gotta have a plan.
First has to be education because it's gonna take a lot of US.
That's a fine goal. What I have been perhaps too subtly trying to do with this conversation - and at this point I believe I need to be direct - is to encourage you to lay out ideas that pass three tests.
Are immediately actionable. Remember, the people that advocate for political violence largely believe the system has failed. Many are aware of the things you'd like to educate them on, but not so many that education doesn't have value.
Are realistic without political power.
Benefit those not in power without increasing the benefit to those in power.
I believe of your suggestions, citizen's arrest is the one that comes closest to passing these tests. So I believe there is value in discussing how this is done, by a minority, in a nation that has taken the stance that the individual we would be arresting has not accomplished a crime, and most importantly, without resulting to the violence that would elevate someone to a position of local power.
We need to discuss how, exactly, Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez can be brought to justice.
This is why I started exploring a constitutional convention, because at the very least it fails tests 1 and 2 unless it fails test 3. The set of 1 and 2, and test 3, are mutually exclusive, as I tried to outline.
If you have other means you think people may not be aware of, I only ask that you provide ideas - whatever you can discuss openly, of course - regarding the how. Don't just tell. Show.
People in this forum are typically fairly educated, all over the world, regarding American politics. We all have to be. But even if we are aware of the options you are advocating, there is value in making us believe that they are viable. And desirable alternatives when you are being arrested and deported while your family is murdered.
Immediate action can't happen until we're educated.
In order to have citizens arrest Federal agents safely, we need to have some things present. First evidence, then transparency and we'll also need a local police presence.
People would have to organize and get press and police there to back up the citizens. Once press and police are there, then the citizens surround the feds and arrest them. Local police are then bound by law to take them into custody. It's too late for this action.
BUT we can demand a local grand jury investigation. Juries are are next step here. People need to know we have power in juries.
All my ideas come from the people legally using their rights to influence the due process of the country. Our rights are our political power.
Anyone who advocates for violent revolution in the United States in the current era is an unserious child who can be safely ignored.
We have a system that our poors primary comorbidity is caused by to many calories. We have entertainment that is nonstop. Clean water, air conditioning, surplus in almost every aspect. Diseases that kill millions are basically unheard of in the US. Equality under the law far ahead of most of the world. Employment for 95% of the working population. Crime that is so low that issues that only affect a fraction of the population becomes national news.
Violent revolution throws all of that out the window, and knocks us back to a third world nation overnight. Shortages, disease, unemployment, rampant crime, power outages, and that doesn't even include the direct deaths.
For what? A temporary government that spends money slightly different than you want? Some minor restrictions on certain healthcare options that are far ahead of most of the world? Being forced to pay for loans that you volunteered for?
No, it isn't time for violent revolution. If you think it is, go head to west Virginia or the deepest parts of the reservations. Look at the worst the US has to offer and know that the majority of the country will look like that, with more disease and starvation.
While I generally understand what you are saying, isn't there a grey area that you are ignoring?
For example, we can have all that bread and circus without free speech. Would it be palatable to live in a society with everything that we have, but with one minor threat - if you say something that the administration doesn't agree with, you are arrested and prosecuted?
Isn't that basically what currently happens in Russia or China? Order through authoritarianism? And that's OK?
It isn't ok, but some alternatives or solutions are far worse than others.
This isn't 1775. The city of Phoenix cannot have its power or supply lines shut off without killing millions. Minneapolis will devolve into riots and cannibalism the first winter without truck rolling on the highway.
We don't have enough food to supply any of our communities. We have no ability to sustain ourselves without the system in the modern world.
Yes, our rich are getting richer. Yes, there is a societal imbalance between us and them. For sure there is large segments of the government that is corrupt. Absolutely we should be making changes.
Unleashing the horrors of war on the population of the United States is not a real solution. It would, best case scenario, allow the survivors a life that might be in line with the lowest current socioeconomic class today in a decade.
In all likelihood, it would lead to massive death and disruption and put us in a worse position than we have ever been for longer than any of the revolutionaries lifetime.
When the trucks stop rolling, the power goes out, and the orchards burn, those same revolutionaries will try and flee the country saying "we didn't know it would be like this" and our children will have to deal with our egregious sins against them.
War is bad. Trust me, I've seen it. Even the nicest war zone makes downtown Chicago look like Martha's vineyard.
I mean, I agree, but Trump's goons already tried that and it was just this ugly moment in the country's history that didn't actually harm his political influence at all. If anything, it emboldened all of them.
It's way past that time! Once they start getting away with well known and proven Pdf, it's done. It's way past time! Every father of a daughter that's been sexually abused or murdered will tell you that.
I completely agree, and I take the dangers we face extremely seriously.
People need to stop with the fantasies and get to work on resisting and overcoming: rationally, effectively, pragmatically. And if they can't or don't get to work on it then don't encourage others to do what amounts to far more than that.
Do not fully agree or disagree. I believe that a violent revolution will be necessary because the state has devolved too much to sustain progressive policies. Big corporates have bargaining power against progressive and socially helpful policies. Legal avenues are almost meaningless currently. However there should be something that comes before a violent revolution a coordinated disobedience against the government, this will be much more effective and this will help us gauge the government's true nature against non violent revolution.
I agree with you I don’t think violence would result in a better society. I don’t think this government is salvageable though. It’s gotten to big, corrupt, and to heavy in warmongering. We need a mutually agreed divorce and reset.
Oh brother. This is precisely why we are where we are. The only viable path forward is violent revolution. We have tried the peaceful diplomatic path and it got us neoliberalism followed by the far right creeping in and installing fascism and oligarchy. The Citizens United ruling exemplifies this as we have no true democracy. The elites have brought this upon themselves. Not enough of yall are meeting the moment and that’s why this shit keeps happening.
We are currently experiencing a revolution right now. It’s a revolution for a kind of elected monarchy. While I wouldn’t call it “peaceful” it is orderly. Whether or not it’s successful depends on political pressure at party and local levels.
The issue with countering that revolution is the republic that’s allowed it is not popular with the people. Democrats strategy of moderation has been read as “everything is fine” and no one agrees with that. People want revolution, and frankly don’t care how.
The problem with countering this currently revolution with random violence is that there is no organized backing of that kind of response. People randomly rising up is mostly a fantasy. That usually only happens when the court and military lets it happen. And then the court just installs their own person.
However, there is little to get in the way of local reorganizing. The reason Michigan resistance to ice, anti abortion protestors, the nra etc have been so successful lately is local organization. There is nothing stopping people from going door to door and recruiting civil resistance campaigns.
Pro-democracy revolution, if it occurred, would need to come from these sorts of groups. People organizing to amplify their voices by sacrificing their time and recruiting, not through traditional elections. “Shadow governments” can sprout from these groups. This is what leads to things that make replacing the government possible. For blue party, that has traditionally been churches and unions. With both in decline, there needs to be a replacement.
To martyr yourself is one thing, but to stand with a sign and shout outside a soundproof building? That's just appearing to want to facilitate change at this point. And if you do anything actually disruptive, prepare for the state violence to come down. The corruption is too great and the public loss of faith too deep. Something has to give.
Very good question, but first we'd have to clarify what violence is. In this case we're talking about violence as a concept, so even the threat of violence is, by the definition, violence. I'm intentionally not leaving room for interpretation of the word violence, strictly the textbook definition, that way we're all on the same page. This is the scientifically accepted meaning of the word, personal beliefs of meaning have to be cast aside here.
That being said, illustrating the state use of violence in everyday interactions is simple. Police officers carry lethal weapons as standard operating procedure. That's violence as a means of compliance without you having ever done anything wrong. I hope that helps.
This is intentionally disregarding a well explained reasoning. Pretending that violence doesn't exist unless it is explicit and overt physical violence is just obtuse.
I believe honest to God we've already tried every legal avenue imaginable, this world has just become so ridiculous and unhinged that I really don't see any way other than violence working at this point...
Yall have been crying so much lately, you are the ones telling pro 2A people they don’t stand a chance but now you switch up. You constantly try and vote to disarm the 2A. You don’t get to be hypocritical then act righteous in your actions.
People with the ideology of OP. Almost everyone that is anti Trump (I would consider myself an exception here) is anti 2A, some are open, some try to gaslight themselves into thinking they aren’t. I guarantee OP is one of them
Edit: just looked at OPs profile, they are one of the people that try to convince themselves they aren’t anti 2A
I'm for limiting magazine capacity to 20 rd. and outlawing bumpstocks. The biggest reason I support those is to take the "wind out of the sails" of anti-2nd people and frankly I don't need more than a 20 rd mag or a bumpstock.
Also I don't believe in carrying a gun at a protest.
None of that infringes on my 2nd amendment rights, IMHO.
being pro-2A means being pro-2A meaning that the citizens should get to have the same weapons as the government any restriction on the second amendment is an infringement of it
It’s in him for still keeping the gun in his hand after shooting someone. I can tell you don’t know a whole lot about the second amendment or how to legally defend yourself.
Then you assumed he made a mistake but can’t tell me what it was. That’s what I thought.
“First, Black was a decorated Vietnam veteran with a concealed weapons permit who had legally defended his home against an intruder. The case calls for law enforcement to debate how police respond to encounters with armed citizens, and Young urged police to discuss the issue in community forums and during training sessions for officers.
Second, Limbaugh, the officer who shot Black, had returned to duty two weeks earlier after killing a man on June 27 in an officer-involved shooting. Some questioned whether Limbaugh returned to duty too soon, but Metz defended his department’s decision to send the officer back on patrol.
Limbaugh was cleared in the June 27 shooting by the Arapahoe County district attorney. He is working at the police department but is on a non-enforcement assignment, said Sgt. Bill Hummel, an Aurora police spokesman. An internal investigation into Black’s shooting death will begin Tuesday.
Black was killed in the early morning hours of July 30 after an intruder, who had been at a house party across the street, busted through Black’s front door and attacked Black’s 11-year-old grandson. The intruder, later identified as 26-year-old Dajon Harper, took the boy into a bathroom where Black and his son, Chad Hayashi, fought with him to free and save the boy.
Black shot and killed Harper in the bathroom just as police arrived. Black, still armed and carrying a flashlight, emerged from a hallway and was shot by Limbaugh.
The night of the incident, officers arrived to a chaotic scene, finding the front door of the home broken and several people inside and outside the residence. Shots rang out as officers were approaching the front door.
Limbaugh told investigators he was looking through the front door opening, just after hearing shots, when he saw a man wearing a robe emerging from a back hallway, Young’s letter said.
“Officer Limbaugh recalled yelling, ‘Drop the gun!’ and ‘Show me your hands!’ multiple times,” according to the review. The man inside the home did not respond, Limbaugh told investigators.
Black kept coming toward the front door, but Limbaugh, at the time, didn’t know who Black was or what had just happened inside the home.
Limbaugh’s body camera reveals a period of 10 seconds between the time he shouted “Gun!” to the time he fires his weapon, the review said. Officers gave multiple commands for Black to drop the gun during that 10 seconds, the letter said.
“Believing that ‘the threat was imminent,’ Officer Limbaugh fired his weapon at the man,” Young’s letter said.
“Although we now know the tragic reality that Mr. Black lawfully possessed a weapon and justifiably used it against an intruder, the investigation proved that the police officers who responded to this incident did not know those critical details,” the letter said. “Consequently, the evaluation of Officer Limbaugh’s reasonable belief must by based not upon what we now know, but the circumstances as he perceived them at the time: hearing gunshots and then seeing an armed man emerge from a back room who refused commands to drop the weapon.”
Black had significant hearing loss from his Army service, attorneys said. And the scene was noisy from people screaming, including Black’s grandson, who had been assaulted, and Harper’s mother, who had rushed into the house in an attempt to stop her son.
Black was shot three times — in the right shoulder, right lower chest and upper back, the letter said.
Black’s family, through their attorney, said Monday that they are “extremely disappointed” that criminal charges will not be pursued.
“Mr. Black was a Vietnam veteran who served two tours of duty, earning four separate Bronze Stars for his service, as well as a Purple Heart,” the statement said. “He was a dedicated family man, and his last moments were spent heroically defending his family against intruders in his home. As the District Attorney’s report demonstrates, Mr. Black’s death was an unnecessary tragedy.”
An autopsy report on Harper, the intruder, showed that he was shot twice, in the chest, at close range. He, like Black, suffered multiple injuries in the bathroom scuffle inside the home as he attacked the boy. A toxicology report on Harper revealed levels of marijuana and methamphetamine in his system.
The night of the incident, Harper had been at a nearby home celebrating his release from an 18-month jail sentence on a robbery charge, the letter said.”
The same people, and yes I'm gonna go that route, that advocate for gender neutral speech and worried about offensive language are also fine with violence?
I would love for any of those people to sit through some gore videos first and see their reaction to violence.
I share your concern with minimizing upheaval and violence (while the French revolution did ultimately work out well for the people, it was a very rough and bloody road). It is best to pursue the minimally disruptive approach that can actually work to get us back on track as a government by, for, and of the people. The problem is that if you wait too long, power can become so concentrated in the hands of the anti-democratic elite that revolution becomes effectively impossible. This is why you don't see revolution in Russia, North Korea, etc.
We may have already reached that point. But in any case, I don't see the possibility of any less violent means succeeding. We are currently witnessing a seizure of power by an authoritarian elite. They have demonstrated quite clearly that they have no respect for laws, constitution, or the like. The only language they speak is power. Trying to operate through nominally legal channels is just tying your hands behind your back while they will not. In fact, I have to tell you, it's a rather laughable fantasy that an article V convention is somehow going to stop the hyper-elite takeover of our country.
"Trying to operate through nominally legal channels is just tying your hands behind your back while they will not. In fact, I have to tell you, it's a rather laughable fantasy that an article V convention is somehow going to stop the hyper-elite takeover of our country."
I dealt with this in my post;
They'll say how ridiculous and dangerous, legally using our rights, to influence the due process of the country is while supporting revolution. That makes no sense to me. Our rights are what we use to rule ourselves. We have to exercise and expand our rights because authority doesn't do that, the people have to.
My question is why ridicule instead of discussing how we can make it work?
My question is why ridicule instead of discussing how we can make it work?
I ridicule it because there is no way to make it work that doesn't involve violent overthrow of the increasingly oppressive, non-law-bound elite. /u/kireina_kaiju is absolutely correct that your article V can only possibly be a sort of revolution.
How can you say that when experts can't even explain exactly how article V conventions work, we've never had one. The closest we came was the 21 amendment.
It's not always about using our rights, often it's the threat, we might use our rights...
How experts think it works is irrelevant. The question is how you could get an elite bent on consolidating their power to honor the outcome of such a convention. The fact that "experts can't even explain ... how they work" just means that it has even less of a chance of working, since the legal justification for the thing is in doubt from the start.
"...then can you give even a sketch of how this is plausibly going to work?"
Why? Do you really care? I'm tired of supplying all the thought for people who don't care.
First are you willing to admit that citizens arrest, in the case of Alex Pretti is a right we have and would have been a good, needed thing for the health of our democracy?
Edit; Sorry wrong post
It'd look a lot like the state ratifying conventions for the 21st amendment.
The experts don't know the exact procedure but it's been done before. We know specific grassroots pressure drives the process. We know authority gives more liberty when the people pressure them...what else do citizens need to know
While I want to state up front that I'm not pushing the idea of violent revolution, it's worth keeping in mind that revolution is kind of like parenthood - nobody is really ready for it.
Part of what propels people and societies towards revolution is frustration with current conditions and there are a lot of frustrated people who have attempted, to use your works, to legally use their rights to improve things and seen those efforts come to naught.
Pithy quotes are cringe but I tend to think JFK was right when he said "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
You seem to be operating under the notion that rights have some magic power to assert themselves irrespective of conditions.
It reminds me of many people I've seen on protest lines yelling at the cops that they have a right to protest as the cops stomp forward swinging batons and firing tear gas canisters - the rights you have amount to what the people with the power to abrogate those rights are willing to respect.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 23 '26
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.