> 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?

> 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.

I don’t know how to put this politely but you’re very confident for someone who is so misinformed.

> only worthy of respect so long as they produce positive and good outcomes

Positive for who? Who gets to decide what is a good or bad outcome? Who gets to say what is a “common good? How would you facilitate such a debate and make such a decision about value and direction?

… Local, regional, state, and national representative and deliberative bodies were designed to deal with this exact dilemma and be used as a tool with a rule book to resolve societal problems. This is why they must be respected on principle, not only when you like the result.

> why should anyone shrink away from destroying them?

Because you have no better alternative to replace it with… Your position is self-defeating. This exact logic is what is used to justify bending rules and corrupting government. It can only lead to deepen autocratic behavior (a handful of well-connected individuals claiming to speak for everyone and being sole arbiter of good and bad)… This serves the interests of a few people who get to do whatever is best for themselves.

> the goal was to create a new constitution

Creating a new constitution requires in effect destroying the previous. If there was a popular mandate to do this, 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.

> strikes, boycotts, protests, and riots… called revolution

I never said riots. That would be destructive. 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.

Civil disobedience is not revolution. It is organized targeted action to obtain a specific desired change using the boundaries and mechanism of existing laws to achieve those ends. It is NOT destructive in its end goal, because it’s goal is not the dissolution of the government in and of itself. Its goal is something concrete, such as wages, accountability for an injustice, equal protection of rights, some necessary reform or relief for poverty, etc. These things cannot be achieved without government, so the aim is to get government to do the thing. Not to abolish government the laws that uphold it altogether. That would literally expose the most vulnerable and defenseless people to the dangers of anarchy. Not true leader who claims to care about ordinary people would advocate for such a thing.

> should not be constrained by bureaucracy

Laws. Not bureaucracy. Laws. Your position is disingenuous because you have to minimize the rule of law so you can justify breaking it.

If your position is there is systemic corruption and unjust system of laws, then engage in civil disobedience (not rampant destruction) and be willing to go to jail for it… This is how you break the system, by the sheer inability of the government to enforce the laws that restrict individual liberties. Boycott, strike, impede the specific unjust functions of government, not literally destroy it.

I’ve seen you post this “analogy” all over this thread. It’s beyond disingenuous. Are you suggesting the current party you support is the equivalent of abolitionists? So morally pure and infallible that they should be permitted to be above the law? If that’s the case, why couldn’t they win/maintain power without engaging in corruption?

Is the concept of rule of law that hard to grasp? Whether you support or believe in his ideology or goals is irrelevant. You don’t get to ignore laws because you’re popular.

What a perfect metaphor and explanation for the American socio-economic system in a nutshell:

• the have-not’s
• the have’s
• the have-a lot’s
• those ones who play the three against each other for profit

How do these students socialize with each other once on campus? Are there tribes based on these dynamics? Do they infect every aspect of academic and residential life?

They were like this the whole time. They were just more private about it. And no one believed their victims because Americans do not care about poor people.