Generic-Commie OP t1_j40cd06 wrote
Reply to comment by unwanted_puppy in Peru protests: 17 dead in fresh clashes as calls grow for President Boluarte to resign | Peru by Generic-Commie
> I don’t know how to put this politely but you’re very confident for someone who is so misinformed.
Could you be any more insufferable >_>
> Positive for who?
The greatest number of people.
> Who gets to decide what is a good or bad outcome?
It's kinda obvious. Why do you feel the need to be so iffy about this? Imagine being a freed slave after some violent overthrow of the slavers and saying "but who's to say this is better." No one would ever listen to you.
> Who gets to say what is a “common good?
If it maximises happiness and minimises suffering, you've got a pretty clear cut case.
> How would you facilitate such a debate and make such a decision about value and direction?
No debate needed. You really think old conservatives, plutocrats and millionaries are just gonna think "OOOOH, Well when you put it like that, it all makes sense. Better just get rid of everything that is responsible for my wealth then!!"
> Local, regional, state, and national representative and deliberative bodies were designed to deal with this exact dilemma
And in cases like Peru, they are very bad at doing that, take way too long and most importantly have an entrenched neo-liberal and fascist class that will make sure change is impossible. So I ask again, why bother keeping it if it only benefits some White millionaire in Lima as opposed to the rest of the country?
> Because you have no better alternative to replace it with
Shockingly, Liberal Democracy is not the only form of Democracy.
> This exact logic is what is used to justify bending rules and corrupting government.
That is only bad in so far as the results of doing that and (just as importantly) who is doing that. For example, some oil billionaires like the Koch brothers bending the rules to get tax cuts and whatever, that's bad.
However, something like the various journee's of the French Revolution, where masses of working class people surrounded the Legislative Assembly to force through much needed economic reform and change? That's good.
I don't think I would need to explain why one of these is bad and one of these is good.
Or take Jan 6. The problem with Jan 6 was not what was done, rather who did it. It was an attempt at a far-right coup over the USA. So it's bad.
> (a handful of well-connected individuals claiming to speak for everyone and being sole arbiter of good and bad)
I don't think the people striking, protesting, launching insurgencies and being shot and killed are a "handful of well-connected individuals claiming to speak for everyone and being sole arbiter of good and bad." I think you're just disconnected from reality.
> Creating a new constitution requires in effect destroying the previous.
Sounds good.
> If there was a popular mandate to do this
(there is, current support for Congress is something like 11%).
And, if there wasn't why would the protests be at this scale? Secondly, why should we care for the will of the industrialists and businessmen in Lima? They only have an interest in the oppression of the natives, many are foaming at the mouth racists.
Paraphrasing Malcom X, "You and I have rights, and I'm not going to wait for some white man to decide that that is the case."
> that would be borne out by the electoral results, meaning you would be able to do with the votes necessary to do it. If you don’t have the votes then you don’t have the mandate.
Why should the natives of Peru wait years and years when they could do it now?
> I never said riots. That would be destructive.
Grow up please.
> The other example you gave are called activism, accomplished with the freedom to assemble and organize people to peacefully achieve a shared goal. This is an internationally recognized human right.
Doesn't change what I said at all.
> Civil disobedience is not revolution.
I don't recall saying anything about civil disobedience.
> It is NOT destructive in its end goal
Maybe it should be. I mean, I remember learning about the start of civil disobedience movements in History a few months ago primarily in England in the 1600s.
It didn't accomplish anything. The monarchy was only overthrown through violent revolution and civil war. The Levellers were only able to get as much influence as they did because of their influence in the NMA (Cromwell and the Army Grandees didn't want to be victims of a coup/revolution from the NMA), as well as the popular support they had in the urban centres.
> It is organized targeted action to obtain a specific desired change using the boundaries and mechanism of existing laws to achieve those ends.
When the law and government exists to ensure your oppression and your suffering this is an immensely naive and harmful way of doing practice.
> These things cannot be achieved without government
They can though. Just make a new one or force the people who withold wages from you to give you them. Simple 'as.
As I said earlier, these institutions are only worth keeping so long as they are able to provide any actual benefit to us. It isn't God, as you treat it. It isn't sacred. The liberal attitude towards "institutions" is just a modern day form of the divine right of kings. If they stop being good to the masses, the masses should destroy them.
> That would literally expose the most vulnerable and defenseless people to the dangers of anarchy.
"No it wouldn't"
unwanted_puppy t1_j40t5fp wrote
> no debate needed
Debate is and will always be needed. You’re debating someone who disagrees with you right now. Dismissing, silencing, or denying the existence of dissent is step 1 of authoritarian oppression.
> striking, protesting, and launching insurgencies
Ok… One of these is not like the others. Maybe you don’t know what civil disobedience (strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, protests,etc) is. It’s troubling the you keep lumping together violent with non-violent resistance. I assume that’s because you see nothing wrong with violent insurrection. Only who is doing it, as you said. So in this amoral world view, nothing is inherently or fundamentally wrong. It’s only wrong if its results are bad for the largest number of people. Or it’s only wrong if I don’t like the group doing the action. So 1) minority rights will not exist and 2) justice will be determined by the subjective and arbitrary whims of whoever is in power.
> should destroy them
Out of curiosity, what would you replace it with? Since you think this is all every simple and seem to have it all figured out.
Edit - You also said yourself that the problem is people in Peru are bad at deliberative democracy. It sounds like there’s a need for bottom up education, not destruction.
I just want to add that I actual agree with your assessment of the problem. Wealthy inequality and concentration of power in the hands of a few, with a dash of racist fascism, who work to ensure change doesn’t happen.
But what I’m saying to you is that this is not caused by the government or its institutions. It’s caused by corruption and individuals who abuse those systems with impunity. You want to remove corrupt individuals? Charge and impeach them, bar them from holding office. You want to reduce the oversized influence of the wealthy? Regulate or ban the use of unlimited money in elections or publicly finance them.
Generic-Commie OP t1_j40ybrq wrote
> Debate is and will always be needed.
Sometimes. Just not with if you should have rights or not and not with the oppressed and the oppressor.
> Ok… One of these is not like the others.
All of them included violence.
> It’s troubling the you keep lumping together violent with non-violent resistance.
In Peru, these protests were often pretty violent (and that is a good thing).
> So in this amoral world view, nothing is inherently or fundamentally wrong.
I don't think you know what amoral means.
> It’s only wrong if its results are bad for the largest number of people.
And/or if it fails to minimise suffering for the most amount of people and maximise happiness for the most.
> So 1) minority rights will not exist
Yes they will. Because eliminating the rights of the minority does not actually maximise happiness.
Funnily enough you are saying this in this context, given that the current constitution and congress is very much against the rights of natives in Peru.
> justice will be determined by the subjective and arbitrary whims of whoever is in power.
idk wtf just happened in ur head that made u come to that conclusion but ok.
> Out of curiosity, what would you replace it with? S
That's up to the people of Peru, but if you ask me; Direct Democracy, Council Democracy and/or Democratic Centralism (if the latter, or maybe even the formers, under the leadership of a revolutionary mass-based party. Kinda like some of the parties in Peru rn).
> You also said yourself that the problem is people in Peru are bad at deliberative democracy.
"No I didn't"
> But what I’m saying to you is that this is not caused by the government or its institutions.
Yes it is. The history of every single government in existence has been the history of a certain class that wants to keep its power.
In the times of post-agriculture that was centred around the pacification of slaves or people that were not the chosen patriarch or whatever. Without the state/government, the contradicting interests between the slave and the slave owner would easily result in societal collapse until someone made a state that could enforce its will and pacify one of the other classes.
Under feudalism this expanded to be the king over the peasentry (and some parts of the nobility, gentry and merchants).
Under Capitalism it was to ensure the dominance of the Capitalist class as opposed to any other. Be that a feudal class in the times of the French Revolution or the working class now. In other words, the Peruvian state was and is orientated around the suppression of native rights and worker rights. especially when it uses the same structure made by the fascist Fujimori. Advocating for "respect" for institutions and trying to get rights in this context is naive at best and chauvinistic at worst.
This is just an overly simplistic view of history and government. Reducing the issues to just "individuals" and "a few bad apples" instead of looking at the systems does nothing to make sure this doesn't happen again.
unwanted_puppy t1_j42ofkp wrote
> direct democracy, council democracy, democratic centralism like some of the parties in Peru rn
Translation: referendums, local governments, and single party rule
So your revolutionary new idea is to empower the existing parties you like through voting…? What is the point of violently destroying a system and starting from scratch… if you’re end goal is replacing it with a similar or identical system anyway? Why not just remove the elements of corruption instead?
Generic-Commie OP t1_j45e7me wrote
> Translation: referendums, local governments, and single party rule
That is NOT what that means holy shit bro what is u on😭
> if you’re end goal is replacing it with a similar or identical system anyway? Why not just remove the elements of corruption instead?
Appartently you've discovered something everyone else has missed if you think Leninist Democratic Centralism = liberal democracy (Somehow???)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments