Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Exactly my point. It seems like your immediate response to near-universal disagreement with your position is to accuse those who disagree with you of being delusional. Five stars for creativity.
It may shock you that we crazy Bushitler residents of Conservativeland think that it would be wrong to attempt to violently overthrow the Bush administration. Why? Because the system provides both a definite termination of his time in office, as well as a mechanism for removing him earlier than that date. Why on earth wouldn't you "utilize" one of these two systemic features rather than destroy the entire system. If you are unable to see the negative consequences of this precident, I am afraid I may not be able to articulate just how terrible an idea such a coup would be. Essentially, we lumpenconservatives (we all have exactly the same opinions, so I can legitimately speak for a majority of the American population) believe that, if all regimes hated by considerable minorities were overthrown by violent methods, no government would be sufficiently stable. Coups are always a bad thing. This is not to say that they are never preferable to the alternative.
But let's be serious: you agree (in principle) that it would be better to overthrow the U.S. government and fight a civil war to replace Bush with unelected liberal leaders... than to wait until 2008? The conservative propaganda must have corrupted my consciousness beyond repair because I think you're crazy.
|
What I thinki roachboy is responding to is summary dismissal of his points simply on the basis of his (perceived political orientation)--that is, all things "left" synonymous with all things "other." He outlined it pretty carefully given the medium we're utilizing but alas....posts keep coming in lumping his perspective in with some small group trying to do the improbably and, as roachboy himself stated, the undesirable.
Yet you come back with why can't you understand that it would be a bad idea to overthrow the government...this in direct contrast to his own words:
Quote:
|
further, i think that any such attempt would be a debacle, not just in itself, but also in that it would provide a pretext for responses that would make the present situation seem like some vacation idyll.
|
so then it becomes obvious that not much is done to understand what exactly he wrote and much more weight is granted about what one might think he thinks about your orientation...and reaction against that.
never said "crazy"
never said "bushhitlers"
never said "conservativeland"
never said "lumpenconservatives" (at least in this thread)
yet, at least in regard to the last coin of phrase, he isn't pulling it out of his ass, it's a label that is only properly understood with a critical reading of marxist texts.
Does the following fit the conservative standpoint in this thread?
Quote:
|
According to Marx, the lumpenproletariat had no real motive for participating in revolution, and might have in fact an interest in preserving the current class structure, because members of the lumpenproletariat often depended on the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy for their day-to-day existence. In that sense, Marx saw the lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary force.
|