• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      29 days ago

      Most of them. At the very least, Vietnam. Would they be better off still under a colonial system?

      That doesn’t necessarily mean revolution is suited to the present conditions. I just find this idea that revolutions never accomplish anything to be bafflingly ahistorical.

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        28 days ago

        Revolutions accomplish things, but the old problems creep back in because we are humans and we can’t not fuck things up.

        For example, Russia used to be ruled by one person, propped up by wealthy elites. It still is, but it used to be too.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  28 days ago

                  Frankly I think that most of what you’re talking about isn’t really relevant. The question of whether revolutions produce positive or negative results is a political and historical one. Musings on the human condition, feelings of hopelessness and despair, cynicism, those are just reflections of your mental state, and is shit for you to work out. It’s not a reflection of reality.

                  When we actually study history, and look at facts and evidence, comparing before and after, then it’s clear that revolutions do have the capacity to improve things, at least in certain conditions. It doesn’t have to be a necessary part of life, that’s not really the question. Why go through life limiting yourself to only what is necessary?

                  Will things get worse again a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years from now? While Vietnam is still better off today than it would’ve been otherwise, it’s true that at a certain point, the sun will explode. But why is that an argument for not doing something as opposed to doing something? If everything blows up in our faces and we make a whole mess of things, that mess, too, will be temporary and will pass.

                  Regardless, even if life is destined to be nothing but suffering for all eternity, it is still human nature to strive against that, and if it’s all hopeless anyway then there’s no harm in trying shit.

                  As I said, you strive against hunger by eating, even knowing that it won’t last. So why is it that I shouldn’t strive against oppression, just because it may not last?

      • late_pessimistic@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        28 days ago

        Would they be better off still under a colonial system?

        That’s a false dichotomy, be a colony vs revolt violently aren’t the only 2 options.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          28 days ago

          Are you joking? They literally were. That’s why they violently revolted.

          Yeah, I’m sure the people who were willing to indiscriminately drop chemical weapons and slaughter civilians would have just left them alone if they just asked nicely. What?