Comment by cs137 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs137 | Hacker News Reader

I'm skeptical, correlation not being causation and all that, but nevertheless I think there's an optimistic message here. The social structure of the bourgeoisie is, in fact, fragile, and that can be used to our benefit.

We don't have to use guillotines if we can, with much less violence (ideally, none at all), destroy the upper class's ability to function as a class. It's not that I care either way for their lives on an individual level; but, as a student of history, I recognize the horrible downstream costs of even justified applications of violence. This is doubly true in the US, where it's the biggest assholes (the far right, many of whom openly fantasize about a bloody civil war) who are most prepared to go that way.

It will not take a whole lot to destroy the elite's ability to function as an elite, and once that is done, they are nothing but a deservingly disliked tiny minority that have lost the support on which they rely (both individually and collectively) in order to function. In practice, the efforts will probably not be entirely nonviolent (they will certainly be unlawful, and one must be prepared to return fire when fired upon) but the bloodshed can be kept to an absolute minimum so long as focus is kept where it belongs.

the thing you're missing is that Americans want elite private networks.

so there will always be universities, private clubs, and consolidation of media organizations that function solely due to their network of prior members and influence.

so even if the .01% are more effectively demonized, a surrogate of why they have ability to function as a class will persist.

unless you have a proposal for that too, it pretty much has nothing to do with "bloodshed or not"

You’re advocating class warfare because you’ve decided a particular class should not exist. Very generously you also decree that this should be done with a minimum of bloodshed.

How utterly cringeworthy.

So, you would prefer the job be done with a maximum of bloodshed?

Maybe you should ask us whether we think the job should be done at all.

The corporate system is running the world off a cliff. The standard of living is falling all over the world and, in much of it, has been for decades. Global warming threatens to destroy the ecosystem. Democracies are turning or have turned into corporate tyrannies. Everything is getting worse and that's by design--because it's getting better (at least, materially speaking) for the Davos psychopaths.

It's better to inconvenience (permanently, if they refuse to accept societal progress) a few thousand people up top now, and get it over with, then lose the entirety of human civilization.

So, you think the job should be done. That's cool, believe what you believe.

But your reply to FredPret presents a false dichotomy - that the only options are do it with little bloodshed, or do it with much. I was (trying to) point out the false dichotomy - FredPret doesn't have to want either of those choices, and in fact, most of us want neither of them.

And presenting people with a false dichotomy, as if those are the only options, is a bit of crummy rhetorical trick. We try to be better than that here.

And to you, specifically, I would say: Beware the fourth option. (First is change with little bloodshed, second is change with a lot of bloodshed, third is no attempt at change.) The fourth option is lots of bloodshed, but no real change (as in the French Revolution, where they swapped a king for the Directory, and then for the Emperor). Just going the bloodshed route doesn't guarantee that you win; if you do win, it doesn't guarantee that the change is progress. Don't be eager to open that door.

Now, in fairness, in your initial post you advocated nonviolent means of making it impossible for the elite to function as the elite. If you are going to try to get rid of them, I applaud your choice of starting point. But you seem far to willing to move to violence if non-violence doesn't get you where you want, and that concerns me.

The historical tendency is for the elite to use violence to preserve what they have, in which case it usually becomes necessary to fight back. However, if their will and morale can be corroded to such a point that they accept declining relevance peacefully, that's obviously the best for everyone.

You didn't stop being bourgeois when you embraced communism, buddy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com