• WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca
    584·
    2 days ago

    Meanwhile middle aged US veterans armed to the teeth won’t lift a finger to fight tyranny because they might lose their shitty jobs that they hate.

    • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
      1712·
      1 day ago

      Explain to me in detail how you see ‘armed revolution’ playing out in 2025.

      Most local police departments have armored vehicles that can handle rifle fire.

      The 0.01% can hole up in Switzerland or bunkers while their mercenaries handle the rough work.

      And please don’t bring up Vietnam or Afghanistan. The US today is nothing like either of those places.

      • Bluewing@lemmy.world
        41·
        11 hours ago

        Armed revolution has less to do with tactics and more to do with a willingness to die for something you believe in. In 2025, very, very, very few are willing to die period. After all, you just got that new Playstation/Gaming PC/3D printer for Christmas. Let alone “Pledge their honor, fortunes, and lives” for the greater good.

        In 1775, that child piccolo player might not have had a fortune, but they had honor and a life to pledge. And he quite possibly did give his life.

        • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          10 hours ago

          I’m not sure if the video game revolutionaries are sincere or bots.

          Either way, no one has anything to fear.

          If you haven’t seen it, watch “Master And Commander” movie with Russell Crowe.

          One of the characters is an eleven year old midshipman.

          According to what I’ve read, it’s a pretty accurate depiction of what warfare of that time looked like

      • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
        5·
        16 hours ago

        It’ll be a lot of guerilla tactics and IEDs. Iraq and Afghanistan proved exactly how well urban combat works against the US military complex.

        Then will come assassinations, hoarding, and smaller scale civil conflicts. Think resource raids and good old fashioned territorialism.

        If youll accept the analogy, the military is great at blowing up anthills, but pretty shit at finding and eliminating specific ants.

        • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
          53·
          11 hours ago

          You really think that Americans are going to put up with having their comforts taken away by your ongoing war? The second they are mildly inconvenienced by an IED they’ll be calling the cops and pointing out the folks they think planted it. As for the assassinations, who are you planning on killing. The top 0.01% will be behind all the barriers $1 billion can buy, while mercenary troops from around the world will be happy to come over for $5,000/month.

          Also, Iraq and Afghanistan were getting support from outside. You’d have to accept money and support from Putin in order to keep going.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        141·
        1 day ago

        Fighting tyranny doesn’t mean going to war with the US military.

        It can be things like black panther style community patrols. A lot of states are open carry, you could set up armed community patrols around your neighbourhood, and that would make the brownshirts a lot less likely to drop in and start abducting people.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        152·
        1 day ago

        By your logic we should have beat the Vietnamese. In reality, the guerilla forces have a tremendous advantage. We only need numbers and organization. You can’t force the entire population to comply.

        • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
          42·
          1 day ago

          So, the people who couldn’t organize to get Bernie past the DNC are going to be able to put together an actual army?

          • balderdash@lemmy.zip
            32·
            1 day ago

            We only need numbers and organization. There simply is no ruling class without the workers. The entire monetary system is predicated on workers providing services, producing goods, and maintaining infrastructure. As cliche as it sounds, we really have the power.

            The problem is that we are (collectively) convinced that 1) we can solve the problems of capitalism through electing the right person(s) and 2) we can solve the problems with peaceful demonstrations.

            As regards #1, those who work within the system only reinforce the position of the oligarchs. (This is by design. It is no accident that Bernie failed.) As regards #2, mass demonstrations (e.g., Occupy Wallstreet, Woman’s March, BLM, Anti-ICE, etc.) have largely been ignored. Put simply, more extreme resistance is necessary.

            But the urgency of the situation should be a source of motivation. As the search for infinite profit runs contrary to the environment, the global south, and workers at home, the oligarchy will be forced to institute increasingly subtle and blatant forms of violence both domestically and abroad. The choice we’re facing is between socialism or fascism; whether we will effectively employ the appropriate numbers and organization to “eat the rich” is up to us.

              • balderdash@lemmy.zip
                21·
                1 day ago

                You are correct that socialism is by no means inevitable. We just might fall for the Christian White supremacist technologically dystopian fascist state that the wealthy are trying to implement to preserve their position at the top.

                On the other hand, there is a growing class consciousness as the internal contradictions of capitalism become too obvious to ignore. Will class consciousness reach a critical mass? Fascism or socialism, time will tell.