The “system” is working as intended by the rich elite/<insert antagonist>, which means that it’s fundamentally broken for the general populace, and therefore must be fixed, which is easiest done by first destroying and then rebuilding it?
Seems like an oxymoron to me, but I’m not entirely sure of the context.
The only difference is where you draw the line around “the system” and what you decide to put outside of it. The entire difference is on your head only, and other people have different ideas on theirs.
If a system exists to serve a purpose but does something else it is broken. People may consider completely changing the system into something new to be fixing it, but those who think it needs to be destroyed don’t want the chance of problematic parts of the existing system to be carried over or may even think it doesn’t need to exist in the first place.
Let’s take the FBI. It fucking sucks for minorities because it has always been a shitty, racist, and bigoted organization. Sure, it occasionally enforces civil rights and handles federal crimes, but it is absolutely rotten to the core. Some people might think that firing everyone but keeping the structure could fix it by replacing the horrible people, but it is likely any reform will retain some level of shittyness because continuing to exist means the underlying structure and culture is likely to hang around because it is the same literal agency. Others might want to destroy it by eliminating it by name and replacing it with a new agency that enforces federal laws or maybe they don’t want it at all and want other agencies to handle enforcement on their own. The latter will most likely result in some of the old shitty FBI staff to be hired into either of those outcomes due to having experience, but the idea is that destroying is significant enough that there is a chance that the next time around we might avoid the same mistakes.
A more relatable example might be an old bike. Is it worth trying to repair when the underlying structure is worn out or is a replacement that achieves the same things more likely to have a better outcome. Or maybe you don’t even need a bike because you moved somewhere you can easily walk everywhere and you have other options for exercise.
Can’t those both be true at the same time?
The “system” is working as intended by the rich elite/<insert antagonist>, which means that it’s fundamentally broken for the general populace, and therefore must be fixed, which is easiest done by first destroying and then rebuilding it?
Seems like an oxymoron to me, but I’m not entirely sure of the context.
As the OP said, they are the same thing.
The only difference is where you draw the line around “the system” and what you decide to put outside of it. The entire difference is on your head only, and other people have different ideas on theirs.
Yes, but actually no.
If a system exists to serve a purpose but does something else it is broken. People may consider completely changing the system into something new to be fixing it, but those who think it needs to be destroyed don’t want the chance of problematic parts of the existing system to be carried over or may even think it doesn’t need to exist in the first place.
Let’s take the FBI. It fucking sucks for minorities because it has always been a shitty, racist, and bigoted organization. Sure, it occasionally enforces civil rights and handles federal crimes, but it is absolutely rotten to the core. Some people might think that firing everyone but keeping the structure could fix it by replacing the horrible people, but it is likely any reform will retain some level of shittyness because continuing to exist means the underlying structure and culture is likely to hang around because it is the same literal agency. Others might want to destroy it by eliminating it by name and replacing it with a new agency that enforces federal laws or maybe they don’t want it at all and want other agencies to handle enforcement on their own. The latter will most likely result in some of the old shitty FBI staff to be hired into either of those outcomes due to having experience, but the idea is that destroying is significant enough that there is a chance that the next time around we might avoid the same mistakes.
A more relatable example might be an old bike. Is it worth trying to repair when the underlying structure is worn out or is a replacement that achieves the same things more likely to have a better outcome. Or maybe you don’t even need a bike because you moved somewhere you can easily walk everywhere and you have other options for exercise.