unwanted_puppy t1_j40t5fp wrote
Reply to comment by Generic-Commie in Peru protests: 17 dead in fresh clashes as calls grow for President Boluarte to resign | Peru by Generic-Commie
> 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