• systemglitch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    By that logic it’s never okay. Some of th best changes in history grew from overthrowing government.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Generally speaking what follows a violent revolution is usually a few decades of war, poverty and tyranny.

      It’s quite unlikely that you’ll be better off in the 2-3 following decades than when you started. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. You might be better off or worse off, depending on the ability of the new government

    • JayJay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would say a peaceful change by vote of the people (not politicians) would be a better way than violent revolution. Violent revolution can be justified, but it will end up hurting many people and destabilizing a country. War from internal and external parties would be garunteed. Peaceful revolution is not an easy nor even plausable outcome, but it would harm far fewer people.

      Im curious: How does not voting show you wish for revolution? My view is that I’d rather vote for someone who is working within the system (corrupt and broken though it may be) than someone who wants to tear it down and install a dictatorship. Not voting just means you’re complicit and signals you don’t prefer one over the other. I don’t like either, but i definitely have a preference.

      • systemglitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Tough question I don’t have an answer for. Both established parties are corrupt beyond measure, pandering to the same group behind closed doors.