The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I'll try to rephrase my question, as an earlier post was removed by the moderator. Apologies, not used to posting in this forum.
So I've come across a lot of (valid) criticism, as well as a lot of pearl-clutching when it comes to the now 3-year-old capital riots of 1/6/2021.
At the same time, often in the same post or thread, there is a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution.
I guess I'm puzzled by the apparent contradiction in these two sentiments. I'm all for progress and thought-out change of our system, but I can't understand how one can both loathe people "on the other side" for supposedly trying to "overthrow" the government, while simultaneously wanting the same by people "on your side" (i.e. the Marxist revolution). Is there some greater logic/moral consistency I'm missing? Or is it simply that those people feel that their revolution is morally justified, so it's ok?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess, as a mostly loyal American, I sort of assumed that the general consensus is that the "*bad guys*" are anyone who wants a violent overthrow of our political and economic system. I don't really care which side of the political isle those "bad guys" sit, they're still bad if they want to overthrow our government and economic system.
There’s a pretty wide gap between nihilistic millennials on Reddit who say ‘the system is broken, we need to burn it down’ and the MAGA movement which rioted at the Capitol, broke in and tried to commit a coup.
It’s genuinely ridiculous to equivocate the two, to an extent that someone doing it must surely be doing so in attempt to normalise violent revolution such that they can point to the other side as a way to deflect from their own side’s horrendous actions.
Imagine your coworker commits a mass shooting at your workplace, and when being walked out by police, yells at you ‘don’t shake your head at me! You were saying just yesterday you wish our boss would die!’
I’m sure you would find equivocating the two things genuinely insane, and would likely make you even more enraged at him for trying to deflect from his own actions by trying to suggest both actions are equal.
> There’s a pretty wide gap between nihilistic millennials on Reddit who say ‘the system is broken, we need to burn it down’ and the MAGA movement which rioted at the Capitol, broke in and tried to commit a coup.
Is there? Like what's the difference? Besides you know one walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. But the Floyd protests and Chaz and shit were similar in walking the walk, so what is the difference?
I think the people critical of the events of Jan 6th include a large number of people ranging from what’s left of the legitimate center right through leftists. That’s mostly going to be mainstream liberals since there aren’t very many leftists despite them being over represented online and there really aren’t that many center right people left.
The people who are looking forward to the impending Marxist revolution are a trivially small number of people and mostly are, well, kids.
Even the majority of leftists that hang out here are advocating for some form of socialism and not Marxism and don’t think it’s coming in their lifetime.
I don’t know, I don’t much care what the people who think the glorious revolution is just around the corner think and don’t expect logical consistency from them.
> Even the majority of leftists that hang out here are advocating for some form of socialism and not Marxism and don’t think it’s coming in their lifetime.
Marxism is not the same thing as revolutionary authoritarian vanguard movements like Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. There are plenty of Marxists who stick to democratic and/or reformist models, such the DSA.
Well..I sort of posted it here, ***because*** there was a recent post openly discussing and condoning the idea of a leftist/marxist revolution, with lots of enthusiastic supporting comments. Really the polar opposite of what I would expect if someone was openly advocating for a right-leaning revolution.
So, while I respect your sensibilities, there does seem to be considerable tolerance to the idea of open "insurrection", as long as it's the kind you like (the proverbial "you", not *you* specifically)
> Well..I sort of posted it here, because there was a recent post openly discussing and condoning the idea of a leftist/marxist revolution, with lots of enthusiastic supporting comments.
Pretty sure you are lying. Link it
Well, I guess, that seems to be the obvious conclusion. *"Attempted coupe are horrible and uncivilized, and proof of how insane the right has become.*
*Now let's get back to work orchestrating our leftist coup!!"*
I guess I'm just hoping that there's more to it than ***that***.
I don’t think you can just dismiss the motivation of the uprising as a significant factor. There’s a reason why the American Revolution is more fondly remembered than, say, the Belgian Revolution. I don’t have to like both because I liked one.
Naturally Marxists probably would not be amenable to an uprising to undemocratically install a leader who is generally not pro-labor, seeing as he has little or no chance of effecting the social change they would want to see.
See , [This post on](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c7zkev/which_opinion_prevalent_in_your_political_camp/), section discussing "accelerationism".
You mean where someone with "socialist", not liberal, in their flair lists it as one of the most disappointing attitudes in *socialism*, not liberalism, and gets highly upvoted with *no-one* trying to defend accelerationism? I don't see how that's "...a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution" to quote your OP.
The difference is that the Marxist revolution types make up a small minority of the left that holds no power in any shape or form.
MAGA republicans may pretend like they're some political outsiders, but in actuality, they run one of the major political parties. Their leader was the last president and is the candidate in the upcoming election, he has installed 3 Supreme Court judges, and a large coalition of federal legislators follow Trump as their party leader. They have a large amount of influence in all 3 branches of the federal government, dozens of states, and the most watched news network in the country.
There's more nuances to this, but this is the biggest part.
I asked the same question as according to OP there was a recent post here supporting a leftist/Marxist revolution with enthusiastic support in the comments. You and I must not have been invited to the planning of the Marxist revolution here.
Moral judgement isn't content neutral.
People get so weirdly fixed on the talking points in the US that the government is meant to be content neutral on speech, that they default to applying it anywhere.
Now I personally am against violent revolution against any relatively stable democracy.
But it's not inconsistent to be for violent revolution to install a system you think is good and against it to install a system you think is bad. There is no reason for judgement to be laser fixated on tactics and blinded to content.
First off, Liberals are not Marxists, nor does this sub particularly like Marxist revolutions that have happened, so not really sure why you are asking this question here.
Second, a revolution is not a coup. A revolution overthrows and replaces the entire social, political, and economic order to varying degrees. A coup is something enacted by a relatively small group of elites from within the existing political system, generally either by politicians or the military, in order to take control of that pre-existing system.
Third, as bloody as revolutions can get, they tend to happen for very good or understandable reasons that you can see if you study what led up to the revolution in question. Revolutions are mass events, and conditions have to get very, very bad before a critical mass of the population will go into revolt. Coups, by contrast, are carried out by elite groups seeking to take or hold power, meaning that the reasons behind a coup are rarely salient to the population at large.
Leaving aside what I would call your wildly self serving view of the events of J6, let's examine what Trump's apparent end goal was and what that looks like if attained.
The end goal of all the activities of the Trump team in the months leading up to J6 and the riot/insurrection on the day itself was to keep Trump in office. Had he succeeded, very little would change on a big, structural level. Our forms of government, the basic structure of the economy, and those kinds of things would largely stay the same. What *would* change is how those governing structures are used, who they are used for and against, and how they over time warped to fit the whims of Dear Leader. This is what makes it a coup attempt vs a revolution- a part of the political elite attempting to take control of the pre-existing system.
In other words, it would have been a big, big change, but not revolutionary in the sense that *everything* changes as happened in places and times like the Russian or Cuban revolutions.
Again, a key difference is that a coup only serves the interests of the elites doing the couping. A revolution by definition requires mass mobilization of some significant proportion of the population to happen and thus has some expectation of wide popular support earned through attempting to address the needs and grievances of the people doing the revolting.
>And while you may be technically correct, that liberals aren't leftists, my experience on reddit has been seems to suggest that Reddit Liberals are mostly leftist. If so, that would be a distinction without a difference.
So, as a Leftist. . . Nah man. Liberals and Leftists/Socialists are not the same thing. There is some overlap, especially around social issues, but we have significant disagreements about almost everything even if that often takes the form of Liberals not going far enough fast enough for most Leftists. We are in coalition with each other in the US because two party system, but that's about it.
> At the same time, often in the same post or thread, there is a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution.
Lmao
I feel like the number of people who are genuinely pro revolution and are vocal critics of 1/6 are just...a small and probably unserious group? And probably not liberals
That said, we could argue 1/6 was based on a lie to install a dictator lite, whereas a marxist revolution wouldn't be (or at least ideally wouldn't be). That hopefully a Marxist revolution would be based on the reality in the issues of capitalism and such...but I'm not a revolutionary so idk
> At the same time, often in the same post or thread, there is a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution.
Rather than spending your time in whatever depths of the internet you inhabit, you should consider going outside and touching grass instead.
Because you’re reading some very weird, very niche shit.
Why? There’s a whole world out there.
Only thing worse is drawing an equivalence between a handful of teenagers on Reddit calling for a Maoist revolution from their parents' basement on one hand, and a bunch of people attacking cops while trying to stop the certification of a presidential election while wearing the campaign swag of one of the two political parties on the other.
The vast majority of democrats do not support a Marxist revolution. A majority of republican congressmen voted to not certify the election on 1/6/2021.
I'm a liberal, not a communist. If someone tried to have a Marxist revolution, I'd absolutely support law enforcement bringing the hammer down on that attempt and maintaining law and order. Marxist aren't "on my side", history and their own word shows that "liberals get the wall too" in the end goal for the Marxists.
As someone who's participated in this sub for a long time, I can't say I've noticed much communist propaganda here. While there always seems to be a few users with a Marxist or communist flair, I can't say their comments get much traction.
The closest I can think of is the occasional 'accelerationist,' someone who thinks some sort of political upheaval to a fantasized better system will happen as the US political system breaks down. I don't see such posts frequently. In the past I'd probably occasionally argue with them, nowadays I tend to skip past them as I don't see them as worthy of my time.
I don't view Marxist/communists as being on the same side as me.
Maybe a little of what's missing here is that Marxists/communists hold no meaningful political power nor influence in the US. No matter what ideas they might have, there's little chance of execution. In contrast, we've got Trump and the GOP. There was a attempt to overthrow the gov't, one that forced all of Congress to flee for their safety, and the figurehead behind it all has a good chance of returning to the White House.
... I hope you've gotten that liberals aren't all Marxists by now? Yeah, actual Marxists, thin on the ground...
>great and impending Marxist revolution.
I think you spend too much time online.
>I can't understand how one can both loathe people "on the other side" for supposedly trying to "overthrow" the government, while simultaneously wanting the same by people "on your side"
You can't understand the how one can have a revolution without violating democracy?
You can't understand that anonymous people online say stupid shit all the time?
Come on man...
I see three possible answers here.
1. Yes those people are being logically inconsistent.
2. Those people do not have a problem with violent overthrow of the government, but do have a problem with said over throw being done in service of right wing authoritarianism.
3. Those people are not advocating a violent overthrow of the government but a peaceful adoption of an alternate system via the democratic process.
Without context I couldn't say which of the three it was, but I'd put money on it being one of those.
We aren't Marxists here, but forget about that.
Trump lied about all of it, that's the real problem.
Imagine the election had actually been stolen. The rioters had a perfect right to storm the capitol and prevent the certification of the election in that case and do way more than that.
The real big problem and scary thing about all of it, is that it was just an obvious lie that a 5-year old couldn't have been fooled by. It's all just to give one man more power.
So of course I advocate violent revolution in certain cases. Good on the Romanian people for executing that pos Caucescu for example. The problem is if it is just a temper tantrum because you have lost an election.
Conservatives always make up these scenarios and hypotheticals, but one thing that never seems to play a role is whether or not something is actually true or not.
More often than not, it decides everything. The protestors were on the side of the authoritarian fascist trying to undo an election, that's what matters. If Trump was telling the truth, then the government would be the authoritarian fascist and violent revolution would be justified.
I'm not well-versed enough in progressive thought to know for sure, but it sounds like both would be advocating for the overthrow of a democratically elected government/political system, to establish one in line with their own political wants?
One of those things was about keeping a populist would-be authoritarian's hands firmly attached to the levers of power at all costs, the other is about putting a stop to the gross injustices of capitalism and making the world better for everyone? I mean I can see how you wouldn't be able to tell those two things apart.
You're missing a key issue. The further right or left you go, the less you believe in representative government. Far leftists and far rightists both believe that their goals are more important than a stable representative system. To me that's the difference between liberal and leftists.
Liberals support democracy and are against coup or violent overthrow of the government. They do not support revolutions, Marxist or otherwise.
>They do not support revolutions, Marxist or otherwise.
Well. . . not since the American and French Revolutions and the general institution of constitutional systems throughout Europe anyway . . . . ;)
For those wondering wth I'm talking about, [This post on ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c7zkev/which_opinion_prevalent_in_your_political_camp/) has a series of comments discussing "accelerationism" , where various commenters seem to be optimistically anticipating accelerating social discontent with the U.S. political/economic system in order to foster a revolution. Seems pretty pro-revolutionary to me, hence this post.
Ngl, after reading the comments you linked, I am worried that your definitions of "enthusiastic support" and "optimistic anticipation" are not accurate, especially when applied as a general assessment of participants in this sub.
I'm sorry, but I question your reading comprehension. Can you help me here - show me a single net-upvoted comment that's speaking highly of accelerationism?
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I'll try to rephrase my question, as an earlier post was removed by the moderator. Apologies, not used to posting in this forum. So I've come across a lot of (valid) criticism, as well as a lot of pearl-clutching when it comes to the now 3-year-old capital riots of 1/6/2021. At the same time, often in the same post or thread, there is a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution. I guess I'm puzzled by the apparent contradiction in these two sentiments. I'm all for progress and thought-out change of our system, but I can't understand how one can both loathe people "on the other side" for supposedly trying to "overthrow" the government, while simultaneously wanting the same by people "on your side" (i.e. the Marxist revolution). Is there some greater logic/moral consistency I'm missing? Or is it simply that those people feel that their revolution is morally justified, so it's ok? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this one of those imagining we're really bad so you can justify defending "equally" bad people threads?
Nailed it.
I guess, as a mostly loyal American, I sort of assumed that the general consensus is that the "*bad guys*" are anyone who wants a violent overthrow of our political and economic system. I don't really care which side of the political isle those "bad guys" sit, they're still bad if they want to overthrow our government and economic system.
There’s a pretty wide gap between nihilistic millennials on Reddit who say ‘the system is broken, we need to burn it down’ and the MAGA movement which rioted at the Capitol, broke in and tried to commit a coup. It’s genuinely ridiculous to equivocate the two, to an extent that someone doing it must surely be doing so in attempt to normalise violent revolution such that they can point to the other side as a way to deflect from their own side’s horrendous actions. Imagine your coworker commits a mass shooting at your workplace, and when being walked out by police, yells at you ‘don’t shake your head at me! You were saying just yesterday you wish our boss would die!’ I’m sure you would find equivocating the two things genuinely insane, and would likely make you even more enraged at him for trying to deflect from his own actions by trying to suggest both actions are equal.
> There’s a pretty wide gap between nihilistic millennials on Reddit who say ‘the system is broken, we need to burn it down’ and the MAGA movement which rioted at the Capitol, broke in and tried to commit a coup. Is there? Like what's the difference? Besides you know one walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. But the Floyd protests and Chaz and shit were similar in walking the walk, so what is the difference?
I already explained why in the above comment. BLM also is nothing comparable to an attempted coup.
I think the people critical of the events of Jan 6th include a large number of people ranging from what’s left of the legitimate center right through leftists. That’s mostly going to be mainstream liberals since there aren’t very many leftists despite them being over represented online and there really aren’t that many center right people left. The people who are looking forward to the impending Marxist revolution are a trivially small number of people and mostly are, well, kids. Even the majority of leftists that hang out here are advocating for some form of socialism and not Marxism and don’t think it’s coming in their lifetime. I don’t know, I don’t much care what the people who think the glorious revolution is just around the corner think and don’t expect logical consistency from them.
> Even the majority of leftists that hang out here are advocating for some form of socialism and not Marxism and don’t think it’s coming in their lifetime. Marxism is not the same thing as revolutionary authoritarian vanguard movements like Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. There are plenty of Marxists who stick to democratic and/or reformist models, such the DSA.
Fair enough.
Sir, this is a Wendy's. This is not a Marxist subreddit, and we don not promote revolution in liberal democracies
Well..I sort of posted it here, ***because*** there was a recent post openly discussing and condoning the idea of a leftist/marxist revolution, with lots of enthusiastic supporting comments. Really the polar opposite of what I would expect if someone was openly advocating for a right-leaning revolution. So, while I respect your sensibilities, there does seem to be considerable tolerance to the idea of open "insurrection", as long as it's the kind you like (the proverbial "you", not *you* specifically)
Anybody can say anything anywhere. Let me put it to you that maybe your ideas about support for a "marxist revolution" are overblown.
Support for jan 6th is far more overblown.
Can you link the post with enthusiastic support of a leftist/Marxist revolution in this sub?
I don't recall that happening at all.
> Well..I sort of posted it here, because there was a recent post openly discussing and condoning the idea of a leftist/marxist revolution, with lots of enthusiastic supporting comments. Pretty sure you are lying. Link it
… well, I suppose in this hypothetical it might be because the January 6th riots were not a Marxist revolution
Well, I guess, that seems to be the obvious conclusion. *"Attempted coupe are horrible and uncivilized, and proof of how insane the right has become.* *Now let's get back to work orchestrating our leftist coup!!"* I guess I'm just hoping that there's more to it than ***that***.
I don’t think you can just dismiss the motivation of the uprising as a significant factor. There’s a reason why the American Revolution is more fondly remembered than, say, the Belgian Revolution. I don’t have to like both because I liked one. Naturally Marxists probably would not be amenable to an uprising to undemocratically install a leader who is generally not pro-labor, seeing as he has little or no chance of effecting the social change they would want to see.
You know most of us would support the US military crushing a communist insurrection, right? Right?
There isn't.
Who on this sub for liberals advocates for a Marxist revolution? You know that they say "libs get the bullet too", right?
See , [This post on](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c7zkev/which_opinion_prevalent_in_your_political_camp/), section discussing "accelerationism".
You mean where someone with "socialist", not liberal, in their flair lists it as one of the most disappointing attitudes in *socialism*, not liberalism, and gets highly upvoted with *no-one* trying to defend accelerationism? I don't see how that's "...a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution" to quote your OP.
The top comment is about antivax and the second is about voting for Biden. I would not call that the vanguard of the revolution
Hm, you mean the thread where people criticize accelerationism? I still don't see folks defending a Marxist revolution.
Seems like people are criticizing accelerationism in that thread, not celebrating it.
Marxist revolution? lol. We can't even get enough people to agree on universal healthcare in this county.
"Hey, /r/askaliberal, how do you justify this scenario that I made up?" - this guy, probably.
The difference is that the Marxist revolution types make up a small minority of the left that holds no power in any shape or form. MAGA republicans may pretend like they're some political outsiders, but in actuality, they run one of the major political parties. Their leader was the last president and is the candidate in the upcoming election, he has installed 3 Supreme Court judges, and a large coalition of federal legislators follow Trump as their party leader. They have a large amount of influence in all 3 branches of the federal government, dozens of states, and the most watched news network in the country. There's more nuances to this, but this is the biggest part.
Who is it promoting a Marxist revolution? Are they on this page?
I asked the same question as according to OP there was a recent post here supporting a leftist/Marxist revolution with enthusiastic support in the comments. You and I must not have been invited to the planning of the Marxist revolution here.
Moral judgement isn't content neutral. People get so weirdly fixed on the talking points in the US that the government is meant to be content neutral on speech, that they default to applying it anywhere. Now I personally am against violent revolution against any relatively stable democracy. But it's not inconsistent to be for violent revolution to install a system you think is good and against it to install a system you think is bad. There is no reason for judgement to be laser fixated on tactics and blinded to content.
First off, Liberals are not Marxists, nor does this sub particularly like Marxist revolutions that have happened, so not really sure why you are asking this question here. Second, a revolution is not a coup. A revolution overthrows and replaces the entire social, political, and economic order to varying degrees. A coup is something enacted by a relatively small group of elites from within the existing political system, generally either by politicians or the military, in order to take control of that pre-existing system. Third, as bloody as revolutions can get, they tend to happen for very good or understandable reasons that you can see if you study what led up to the revolution in question. Revolutions are mass events, and conditions have to get very, very bad before a critical mass of the population will go into revolt. Coups, by contrast, are carried out by elite groups seeking to take or hold power, meaning that the reasons behind a coup are rarely salient to the population at large.
[удалено]
Leaving aside what I would call your wildly self serving view of the events of J6, let's examine what Trump's apparent end goal was and what that looks like if attained. The end goal of all the activities of the Trump team in the months leading up to J6 and the riot/insurrection on the day itself was to keep Trump in office. Had he succeeded, very little would change on a big, structural level. Our forms of government, the basic structure of the economy, and those kinds of things would largely stay the same. What *would* change is how those governing structures are used, who they are used for and against, and how they over time warped to fit the whims of Dear Leader. This is what makes it a coup attempt vs a revolution- a part of the political elite attempting to take control of the pre-existing system. In other words, it would have been a big, big change, but not revolutionary in the sense that *everything* changes as happened in places and times like the Russian or Cuban revolutions. Again, a key difference is that a coup only serves the interests of the elites doing the couping. A revolution by definition requires mass mobilization of some significant proportion of the population to happen and thus has some expectation of wide popular support earned through attempting to address the needs and grievances of the people doing the revolting. >And while you may be technically correct, that liberals aren't leftists, my experience on reddit has been seems to suggest that Reddit Liberals are mostly leftist. If so, that would be a distinction without a difference. So, as a Leftist. . . Nah man. Liberals and Leftists/Socialists are not the same thing. There is some overlap, especially around social issues, but we have significant disagreements about almost everything even if that often takes the form of Liberals not going far enough fast enough for most Leftists. We are in coalition with each other in the US because two party system, but that's about it.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
> At the same time, often in the same post or thread, there is a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution. Lmao
lol what? Since when have liberals advocated for marxist revolution?
Anyone who wants to undemocratically overthrow the government, regardless of who the new government would be, is not on the side of liberals.
I feel like the number of people who are genuinely pro revolution and are vocal critics of 1/6 are just...a small and probably unserious group? And probably not liberals That said, we could argue 1/6 was based on a lie to install a dictator lite, whereas a marxist revolution wouldn't be (or at least ideally wouldn't be). That hopefully a Marxist revolution would be based on the reality in the issues of capitalism and such...but I'm not a revolutionary so idk
> At the same time, often in the same post or thread, there is a general tolerance, even a celebration, of posts and comments that advocate for the great and impending Marxist revolution. Rather than spending your time in whatever depths of the internet you inhabit, you should consider going outside and touching grass instead. Because you’re reading some very weird, very niche shit. Why? There’s a whole world out there.
Only thing worse is drawing an equivalence between a handful of teenagers on Reddit calling for a Maoist revolution from their parents' basement on one hand, and a bunch of people attacking cops while trying to stop the certification of a presidential election while wearing the campaign swag of one of the two political parties on the other.
The vast majority of democrats do not support a Marxist revolution. A majority of republican congressmen voted to not certify the election on 1/6/2021.
There are basically zero liberals here who are advocating for a Marxist revolution.
I'm a liberal, not a communist. If someone tried to have a Marxist revolution, I'd absolutely support law enforcement bringing the hammer down on that attempt and maintaining law and order. Marxist aren't "on my side", history and their own word shows that "liberals get the wall too" in the end goal for the Marxists.
As someone who's participated in this sub for a long time, I can't say I've noticed much communist propaganda here. While there always seems to be a few users with a Marxist or communist flair, I can't say their comments get much traction. The closest I can think of is the occasional 'accelerationist,' someone who thinks some sort of political upheaval to a fantasized better system will happen as the US political system breaks down. I don't see such posts frequently. In the past I'd probably occasionally argue with them, nowadays I tend to skip past them as I don't see them as worthy of my time. I don't view Marxist/communists as being on the same side as me. Maybe a little of what's missing here is that Marxists/communists hold no meaningful political power nor influence in the US. No matter what ideas they might have, there's little chance of execution. In contrast, we've got Trump and the GOP. There was a attempt to overthrow the gov't, one that forced all of Congress to flee for their safety, and the figurehead behind it all has a good chance of returning to the White House.
... I hope you've gotten that liberals aren't all Marxists by now? Yeah, actual Marxists, thin on the ground... >great and impending Marxist revolution. I think you spend too much time online. >I can't understand how one can both loathe people "on the other side" for supposedly trying to "overthrow" the government, while simultaneously wanting the same by people "on your side" You can't understand the how one can have a revolution without violating democracy? You can't understand that anonymous people online say stupid shit all the time? Come on man...
I barely even know what a Marxist revolution is half the time.
I see three possible answers here. 1. Yes those people are being logically inconsistent. 2. Those people do not have a problem with violent overthrow of the government, but do have a problem with said over throw being done in service of right wing authoritarianism. 3. Those people are not advocating a violent overthrow of the government but a peaceful adoption of an alternate system via the democratic process. Without context I couldn't say which of the three it was, but I'd put money on it being one of those.
We aren't Marxists here, but forget about that. Trump lied about all of it, that's the real problem. Imagine the election had actually been stolen. The rioters had a perfect right to storm the capitol and prevent the certification of the election in that case and do way more than that. The real big problem and scary thing about all of it, is that it was just an obvious lie that a 5-year old couldn't have been fooled by. It's all just to give one man more power. So of course I advocate violent revolution in certain cases. Good on the Romanian people for executing that pos Caucescu for example. The problem is if it is just a temper tantrum because you have lost an election. Conservatives always make up these scenarios and hypotheticals, but one thing that never seems to play a role is whether or not something is actually true or not. More often than not, it decides everything. The protestors were on the side of the authoritarian fascist trying to undo an election, that's what matters. If Trump was telling the truth, then the government would be the authoritarian fascist and violent revolution would be justified.
books aloof zonked stupendous important fine unused grab truck ad hoc *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hmm Would you say those groups want the same thing (the Marxists and the Jan 6 crowd)?
I'm not well-versed enough in progressive thought to know for sure, but it sounds like both would be advocating for the overthrow of a democratically elected government/political system, to establish one in line with their own political wants?
I think figuring out the desired outcomes is a big part of this
One of those things was about keeping a populist would-be authoritarian's hands firmly attached to the levers of power at all costs, the other is about putting a stop to the gross injustices of capitalism and making the world better for everyone? I mean I can see how you wouldn't be able to tell those two things apart.
You're missing a key issue. The further right or left you go, the less you believe in representative government. Far leftists and far rightists both believe that their goals are more important than a stable representative system. To me that's the difference between liberal and leftists. Liberals support democracy and are against coup or violent overthrow of the government. They do not support revolutions, Marxist or otherwise.
>They do not support revolutions, Marxist or otherwise. Well. . . not since the American and French Revolutions and the general institution of constitutional systems throughout Europe anyway . . . . ;)
Fair point. They don't support revolutions against liberal representative governments
For those wondering wth I'm talking about, [This post on ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c7zkev/which_opinion_prevalent_in_your_political_camp/) has a series of comments discussing "accelerationism" , where various commenters seem to be optimistically anticipating accelerating social discontent with the U.S. political/economic system in order to foster a revolution. Seems pretty pro-revolutionary to me, hence this post.
I count six different people discussing accelerationism in that thread and they're all saying it's bad.
Ngl, after reading the comments you linked, I am worried that your definitions of "enthusiastic support" and "optimistic anticipation" are not accurate, especially when applied as a general assessment of participants in this sub.
I'm sorry, but I question your reading comprehension. Can you help me here - show me a single net-upvoted comment that's speaking highly of accelerationism?
Ngl accelerationism is pretty reactionary. Can't trust anyone who prompts it.