• 7bicycles [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I like how the results for pro/anti monarchy and pro/anti strong authoritarian leaders are flipped by age group. Just straight up nobody having any shred of coherent thought process here.

    Also I'm sure about half of people from 18-34 being pro military dictatorship is going to play out fine and there is nothing to worry about there.

      • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, basically anyone under 40 has literally never ever seen what a society looks like under anything but crushing, absurdly corrupt neoliberalism and completely unrepresentative politics. No different to plenty of other regressive, isolationist, economically struggling regimes.

    • huf [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      the pro-military-dictatorship percentages would be worrying if the UK were a democracy. luckily for us... :D

    • Commander_Data [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Doesn't it really depend on whose values the military dictatorship is enforcing? I'm not saying that 48% is all communists or even mostly communists, but for us to get the world we want a military dictatorship is necessary for a time, is it not?

      • Sickos [they/them, it/its]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah combining that with the 71% "there are different laws for rich and poor" strikes me as a survey that should have asked if folks are communists.

      • Florn [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        A dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t a military dictatorship. The military must be subject to a civilian government.

        • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
          ·
          2 years ago

          The military must be subject to a civilian government worker's party

          a mistake of the USSR was apoliticizing the military. China still has their army under the party.

          • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Soviet military was not apolitic, but it was subject to a civilian government, and when civilian government went counterrevolitionary, military tried to act in August 1991, but weakly and indecisively, which resulted in abject failure.

      • 7bicycles [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        What's the game plan look like to get the british army to overthrow the state and then also institute socialism at least?

        And why would you want any army as the ruling dictatorship? I can see needing an army, it's sort of a necessary function of a state, I do not see why you need them in charge of things entirely undemocratically

        • Commander_Data [she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          It really depends on what you mean by "army". At first glance I had the same reaction, that a military dictatorship is not good, but if you start to think about it as a people's army it doesn't seem so bad. The prospect of an actual socialist revolution in somewhere like Britain is so far fetched, but if it were to happen that would be the only way I could see it going down. There would be years of reaction to suppress, and I don't see how that's done without a very active and large people's army doing the suppressing.