I did not suggest that there is anything glorious about violent revolution wherein untold numbers of human beings are murdered.
However, barring that violent revolution, the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world would not currently exist.
My point is that it is inaccurate to act like the slow progress of incrementalist democratic reforms is the only way for societal conditions to progress. If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution. Secondary powers, such as Australia, Canada, Israel, etc, were formed through violent settler colonialism. And yet, despite this lack of democratic negotiation and mediation, these are the states that largely control the world.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired. Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
Under that same logic, democratic governments are historical aberrations rather than norms. So why are you trying to apply a concept of how history ‘normally’ is to historical aberrations?
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution.
Formed by violent revolution against non-democratic polities.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired.
Or maybe all the Nordic countries combined have less than a third of the population of the UK alone and didn’t even develop into democratic polities until the 20th century?
Nah, it’s gotta be because they didn’t found their prosperity on violence, not that stupid ‘material conditions’ stuff.
Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
“The US was founded on violence because of the lack of democracy, therefore, voting in a democratic system instead of using violence is missing the essence of America.”
I did not suggest that there is anything glorious about violent revolution wherein untold numbers of human beings are murdered.
However, barring that violent revolution, the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world would not currently exist.
My point is that it is inaccurate to act like the slow progress of incrementalist democratic reforms is the only way for societal conditions to progress. If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution. Secondary powers, such as Australia, Canada, Israel, etc, were formed through violent settler colonialism. And yet, despite this lack of democratic negotiation and mediation, these are the states that largely control the world.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired. Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
Under that same logic, democratic governments are historical aberrations rather than norms. So why are you trying to apply a concept of how history ‘normally’ is to historical aberrations?
Formed by violent revolution against non-democratic polities.
Or maybe all the Nordic countries combined have less than a third of the population of the UK alone and didn’t even develop into democratic polities until the 20th century?
Nah, it’s gotta be because they didn’t found their prosperity on violence, not that stupid ‘material conditions’ stuff.
“The US was founded on violence because of the lack of democracy, therefore, voting in a democratic system instead of using violence is missing the essence of America.”
Do you even listen to yourself