Well thought out, John. A good historical example is the resistance of the Vietnamese to successive attempts by empire to control them: French, Japanese, French again, and finally the USA. The issue is; violence by whom against whom and for what purpose. I do think, however, you need a far more nuanced perspective on Tucker Carlson.
Yes on tit for that, which embodies the moral principle of proportionality. There are a good many things our side can agree with Carlson on if you have actually seen some of his recent statements and interviews.
If I understand your previous comment about needing a more nuanced view re Tucker Carlson, your point is what you express in this comment: "There are a good many things our side can agree with Carlson on if you have actually seen some of his recent statements and interviews." I agree with this point.
What needs to be added to it, however, is this. Any person who serves the oppressive ruling class by working to prevent the have-nots from removing that ruling class from power by MISLEADING the have-nots (i.e., by channeling their anger and aspirations in a way that leaves the ruling class in power) must, in order to gain a following among the have-nots and thereby be able to mislead them, express at least some of their righteous anger and some of their good egalitarian aspirations. This is what Tucker Carlson and Robert Reich and, to one extent or another, ALL U.S. politicians do. It is their job. It is why they have platforms that reach millions of people, paid for by the billionaire class. And the ones that are good at it have LOTS of followers.
One task of the egalitarian revolutionary movement is to help people tell the difference between a good leader and a misleader. This requires making the egalitarian goal explicit, and contrasting to it the non-egalitarian goals that the misleaders try to make the have-nots aim for instead of the egalitarian goal of removing the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor.
Thus Robert Reich says we should aim for Equal Opportunity (to get rich) and not for No Rich and No Poor. Tucker Carlson says we should aim to have Donald Trump be president instead of Joe Biden.
Well thought out, John. A good historical example is the resistance of the Vietnamese to successive attempts by empire to control them: French, Japanese, French again, and finally the USA. The issue is; violence by whom against whom and for what purpose. I do think, however, you need a far more nuanced perspective on Tucker Carlson.
I agree re the Vietnamese, and use their struggle as an example of class war in my post re class war at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/class-war-yes-terrorism-no?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web .
What would a more nuanced perspective of Tucker Carlson say? Do you agree with my general endorsement of the Tit-for-Tat principle?
Yes on tit for that, which embodies the moral principle of proportionality. There are a good many things our side can agree with Carlson on if you have actually seen some of his recent statements and interviews.
If I understand your previous comment about needing a more nuanced view re Tucker Carlson, your point is what you express in this comment: "There are a good many things our side can agree with Carlson on if you have actually seen some of his recent statements and interviews." I agree with this point.
What needs to be added to it, however, is this. Any person who serves the oppressive ruling class by working to prevent the have-nots from removing that ruling class from power by MISLEADING the have-nots (i.e., by channeling their anger and aspirations in a way that leaves the ruling class in power) must, in order to gain a following among the have-nots and thereby be able to mislead them, express at least some of their righteous anger and some of their good egalitarian aspirations. This is what Tucker Carlson and Robert Reich and, to one extent or another, ALL U.S. politicians do. It is their job. It is why they have platforms that reach millions of people, paid for by the billionaire class. And the ones that are good at it have LOTS of followers.
One task of the egalitarian revolutionary movement is to help people tell the difference between a good leader and a misleader. This requires making the egalitarian goal explicit, and contrasting to it the non-egalitarian goals that the misleaders try to make the have-nots aim for instead of the egalitarian goal of removing the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor.
Thus Robert Reich says we should aim for Equal Opportunity (to get rich) and not for No Rich and No Poor. Tucker Carlson says we should aim to have Donald Trump be president instead of Joe Biden.