That’s what they tell you. Funny, though, that nothing changes - for better or worse - until the threat of violence enters the picture.
Slavery wasn’t ended until the nation was ready for civil war.
Global fascism wasn’t stopped until the Nazis were slaughtered.
Peaceful protests are worthless on a small scale, in terms of affecting change. BLM protests, 1% protests, pro-choice protests - all are great for showing unity among your “tribe”, but they don’t directly change anything.
That’s why Trump is cracking down with ICE and weaponizing the DOJ. That’s why we see headlines like “Six Antifa protesters convicted of terroristic threats”. Keep the protests small, keep the average Joe scared of taking to the streets, stoke the fear of violence erupting and legal entanglements.
It’s a key tenant of several social conflict theories.
I’m no expert, but the way I understand it, many early sociologists focused on the systems and structures of society. They emphasized the order and structure of “civilized” societies, usually with a bias toward European societies.
Then people like Marx and Weber came along and proposed that these societies were not “civilized”, but rather oppressive. They pointed to class struggles and oligarchs. Other sociologists began to highlight the struggles of marginalized groups like women and people of color. They followed the money and power.
SO, as an example, we use a landlord and his tenant. We could describe the relationship as mutually beneficial. The tenant needed a roof over his head, the landlord provided one. The system functions as intended, benefiting both parties.
But we might look deeper and see that housing prices are inflated. The tenant can’t afford a house, but the landlord owns 20 properties. The tenant wants to own property, but he’s shut out. The system is still functioning as intended, but the intention is to make the rich person more money and keep the poor person oppressed.
Obviously, there’s no hard and fast rules. There’s no final answer.
Sure there are infinitely more people who suffer from this than people who benefit.
But people have a limited amount of energy to do things or even think.
I believe with people who actually have to work for a living, most of the energy goes towards immediate necessities: the daily tasks, working, getting food on the table, paying bills etc.
A huge amount of energy and even time is consumed by stress alone that results from living like this.
The tiny amount of energy and time people have for passions and socialising are probably spent on those or resting, or just escapism.
How can people living and feeling like this actually change things ?
I’d assume massive systemic change needs consistent mass movements.
People would need to have time and energy to think and act. We’d also need willingness to do those things. It feels like not thinking and not acting consumes less energy and time, and therefore is the more likely choice.
If it is possible to change things for the better for the vast majority of people, why aren’t they changing ?
Things aren’t bad enough yet. Watching the political scene for the past 10 years has been like a frog slowly acclimating itself to a boiling pot of water that eventually kills it.
Also, power IS power. Do you find yourself wondering why North Koreans put up with their Dear Leader? Or how the USSR was able to control half of Germany, along with Ukraine, Belarus and a dozen other nations?
You’ve been taught that in America, power resides with the people. But it never did. Power always follows the money. Those who own property have the power. It’s always been this way, a struggle against all the greedy, power-hungry fucks who can’t get enough.
You know who could hurt rich people? Poor people.
You know who hurt people? Hurt people.
The cycle doesn’t end unless you end it. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
That’s what they tell you. Funny, though, that nothing changes - for better or worse - until the threat of violence enters the picture.
Slavery wasn’t ended until the nation was ready for civil war.
Global fascism wasn’t stopped until the Nazis were slaughtered.
Peaceful protests are worthless on a small scale, in terms of affecting change. BLM protests, 1% protests, pro-choice protests - all are great for showing unity among your “tribe”, but they don’t directly change anything.
That’s why Trump is cracking down with ICE and weaponizing the DOJ. That’s why we see headlines like “Six Antifa protesters convicted of terroristic threats”. Keep the protests small, keep the average Joe scared of taking to the streets, stoke the fear of violence erupting and legal entanglements.
Isn’t that one of the key definitions of fascism?
It’s a key tenant of several social conflict theories.
I’m no expert, but the way I understand it, many early sociologists focused on the systems and structures of society. They emphasized the order and structure of “civilized” societies, usually with a bias toward European societies.
Then people like Marx and Weber came along and proposed that these societies were not “civilized”, but rather oppressive. They pointed to class struggles and oligarchs. Other sociologists began to highlight the struggles of marginalized groups like women and people of color. They followed the money and power.
SO, as an example, we use a landlord and his tenant. We could describe the relationship as mutually beneficial. The tenant needed a roof over his head, the landlord provided one. The system functions as intended, benefiting both parties. But we might look deeper and see that housing prices are inflated. The tenant can’t afford a house, but the landlord owns 20 properties. The tenant wants to own property, but he’s shut out. The system is still functioning as intended, but the intention is to make the rich person more money and keep the poor person oppressed.
Obviously, there’s no hard and fast rules. There’s no final answer.
You know who hurts people? Greedy rich people. It seemed fitting when they dragged Mussolini through the streets.
Sure there are infinitely more people who suffer from this than people who benefit.
But people have a limited amount of energy to do things or even think. I believe with people who actually have to work for a living, most of the energy goes towards immediate necessities: the daily tasks, working, getting food on the table, paying bills etc. A huge amount of energy and even time is consumed by stress alone that results from living like this. The tiny amount of energy and time people have for passions and socialising are probably spent on those or resting, or just escapism.
How can people living and feeling like this actually change things ? I’d assume massive systemic change needs consistent mass movements.
People would need to have time and energy to think and act. We’d also need willingness to do those things. It feels like not thinking and not acting consumes less energy and time, and therefore is the more likely choice.
If it is possible to change things for the better for the vast majority of people, why aren’t they changing ?
Things aren’t bad enough yet. Watching the political scene for the past 10 years has been like a frog slowly acclimating itself to a boiling pot of water that eventually kills it.
Also, power IS power. Do you find yourself wondering why North Koreans put up with their Dear Leader? Or how the USSR was able to control half of Germany, along with Ukraine, Belarus and a dozen other nations?
You’ve been taught that in America, power resides with the people. But it never did. Power always follows the money. Those who own property have the power. It’s always been this way, a struggle against all the greedy, power-hungry fucks who can’t get enough.