• alcoholicorn@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      21 hours ago

      They were only able to because of the way he went about it. He could have simply ordered the Department of Education to immediately forgive the loans and erase any record of the debt, and dared the SCOTUS to order him to create new debts (which he could simply ignore).

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Part of not being a dictator is not acting like it, you aren’t going to find a good person acting that way

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          You’re not going to find a good person who puts following rules written to benefit the capitalist class above freeing people from crippling debt.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Maybe you should hang around left wingers more

            Being an evil person to get rid of evil just makes another evil person, you can believe you are good until you die but can you believe the person who comes after you will be?

            MLK jr and Gandhi bettered life for their people without violence

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              5 hours ago

              No oppressed person ever got their rights by appealing to the morality of their oppressor.

              Both these movements would have failed if there wasn’t a violent component demonstrating the alternative if they didn’t choose the more peaceful route.

              If you want more context on how the two method supported each other in the civil rights movement, here’s a good book.

              It’s important to note that King didn’t unilaterally condemn violence, he acknowledged that they were a response to a greater, ongoing injustice, and that the white moderates who pretended to agree with their aims, but opposed them because of their methods were as much if not a greater barrier to civil rights than the klanman.

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              uhhh, maybe you should?

              left wingers have zero respect for laws and will make the world better and fairer by any means necessary.

              as a leftist if I somehow got control of the state I would immediately order for the rounding up and execution of every single person in the country who is either a corporate executive for a top-250 corporation or in possession of assets worth 100 million or more.

              because that would be the most efficient way of rapidly reducing the risk of the wealthy wresting back control.

              and it would be totally ethical

              as for gandhi and MLK, well, india is a fascist dictatorship and, well, how are things looking for black people in the US?

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Not to bat for the disgustingly wealthy, but at the point Leftists have had a successful revolution, we don’t need to execute them outright, just lift their assets and jail them if they resist, or execute if they go on to become terrorists. Learn from successful revolutions, when the Cuban revolution succeeded Castro was actually very lenient in comparison to Batista.

                Revolution is bloody, and we won’t make excuses, but at a certain point it risks dogmatism. Billionaires aren’t like Minecraft characters that drop their inventories on death, revolution is actually very sensible because it’s a lot easier to sieze their assets when the working class has control.

                • bearboiblake@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  don’t get me wrong, if the choice for a non-violent revolution is there, i would take it every time.

                  but if, somehow, i magically became the president without any kind of revolutionary effort, that’s what i would do, and i would be totally justified in doing so

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 hours ago

                    I am not advocating against revolution, I’m a Communist. If you became president of the US without revolution, you would not be able to execute any Capitalist you wanted, that’s more what I am saying. Temper your dogmatism with pragmatism, read theory and study past successful revolutions, such as in the USSR, China, Cuba, Algeria, etc.

                    Random executions doesn’t transfer political power, adventurism was debunked back when the SRs failed to lead the Russian Revolution. Execution is a tool with its own use, but it isn’t the best tool in all situations.

    • taxiiiii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Probably, but I’d only believe that there is really nothing to be done once I see someone actually left-leaning attempt everything in their toolbox.

      I believe Sanders would have tried to change as much as possible in the US. I also believe that he would have failed regarding a lot of things. Would have really liked to see him try though.