At the risk of being labelled a debate guy I'm gonna talk about a couple of things you said.
A coup d’etat is an seizure of power, and there was no instant where any of the participating parties came close to claiming control of any government apparatus.
That explicitly wasn't the goal. Look at what Yeltsin did to Russia, parliament was opposed to him so he got rid of the parliament. These people weren't trying to form a new government they were trying to empower Trump.
There was no subduing or defection of armed bodies; the whole farce was broken up by nightfall by riot cops.
There was though. There was deliberate actions taken by the capitol police, there was actions taken to delay response.
Considering their goal (as much as they had a goal) seems to be hostages and/or murder I think the sabotaged police response is extremely relevant and is probably the best argument for what makes this a legitimate attack vs a riot.
The narrative of ‘WE ALMOST LITERALLY HAD A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP’ is useful for liberals like you, because it permits you to frame a utterly heinous institution that is responsible for a multitude of actual fascist coups that have killed millions of people across the world as a sort of victim and imply we should have gratitude for it’s continued existence.
As much as we all shit on Amerikkka we should also acknowledge that collapse of America is likely to lead to immense amounts of suffering and death.
Acknowledging the attack for what it was cuts both ways. You can't insult people and call them libs and misrepresent their arguments while also refusing to actually do any real analysis of the situation. I don't think many (any?) are doing lib shit like claiming PTSD or demanding terrorism charges for everyone involved.
If they came through the right door and found someone like Omar, Tlaib, AOC, Bernie, etc... they probably kill them. Probably in horrific fashion with the entire country watching. I don't think it should be swept aside as lib shit, even though I think the democrats are and will handle it in awful fashion.
I hope you wouldn't be labeled a debate guy for elaborating on request, haha.
That explicitly wasn’t the goal. Look at what Yeltsin did to Russia, parliament was opposed to him so he got rid of the parliament. These people weren’t trying to form a new government they were trying to empower Trump.
Yeltsin had control of the military, state media and etc. Some of the most fierce fighting (which would result in well over a hundred dead) occurred for control over a TV media complex which would play a crucial role in broadcasting pro-Yeltsin propaganda throughout the ordeal and Yeltsin's forces would end up besieging barricading, seizing bridges to ensure lockdown and etc.
Whether it's a autogolpe or coup d'etat, any meaningful attempt at seizing power actually requires an meaningful attempt at seizing power.
There was though. There was deliberate actions taken by the capitol police, there was actions taken to delay response.
Considering their goal (as much as they had a goal) seems to be hostages and/or murder I think the sabotaged police response is extremely relevant and is probably the best argument for what makes this a legitimate attack vs a riot.
It was absolutely an legitimate attack. What I'm saying and explained in my post above is that the idea that this was an genuine, as in with any remotely coherent plan or chance at success, attempt to overthrow the state/American government by an force that is opposed to is a fundamental misunderstanding of American reactionaries and their role.
As much as we all shit on Amerikkka we should also acknowledge that collapse of America is likely to lead to immense amounts of suffering and death.
The continued existence of America leads to immense amounts of suffering and death, not only as a imperialist superpower responsible for upholding an hegemony that results in the preventable deaths of tens of millions every year but the inherent utter unsustainability of it's system both economically and geologically means that it's collapse and the consequences are also inevitable. There's no sense in subscribing to revolutionary communism if you reject the circumstances that would actually grant an opportunity for revolution.
Acknowledging the attack for what it was cuts both ways. You can’t insult people and call them libs and misrepresent their arguments while also refusing to actually do any real analysis of the situation. I don’t think many (any?) are doing lib shit like claiming PTSD or demanding terrorism charges for everyone involved.
Is this not 'real analysis?' https://hexbear.net/post/82941/comment/897804
If they came through the right door and found someone like Omar, Tlaib, AOC, Bernie, etc… they probably kill them. Probably in horrific fashion with the entire country watching. I don’t think it should be swept aside as lib shit, even though I think the democrats are and will handle it in awful fashion.
All these people will approve budget bills that fund drone strikes on weddings, hospitals and orphanages. None of the resulting massacred peasant tenant farmers or guest workers will receive remotely the same attention precisely because they don't have cameras and the eyes of an entire country upon them.
The continued existence of America leads to immense amounts of suffering and death, not only as a imperialist superpower responsible for upholding an hegemony that results in the preventable deaths of tens of millions every year but the inherent utter unsustainability of it’s system both economically and geologically means that it’s collapse and the consequences are also inevitable. There’s no sense in subscribing to revolutionary communism if you reject the circumstances that would actually grant an opportunity for revolution.
We don't have the systems in place to deal with a revolutionary situation, which means we can't possibly win.
The problem is that Americas collapse could have almost unimaginable negative consequences for humanity, and those odds go way up when the only people with a platform or a base are insane reactionaries.
What do you mean?
At the risk of being labelled a debate guy I'm gonna talk about a couple of things you said.
That explicitly wasn't the goal. Look at what Yeltsin did to Russia, parliament was opposed to him so he got rid of the parliament. These people weren't trying to form a new government they were trying to empower Trump.
There was though. There was deliberate actions taken by the capitol police, there was actions taken to delay response.
Considering their goal (as much as they had a goal) seems to be hostages and/or murder I think the sabotaged police response is extremely relevant and is probably the best argument for what makes this a legitimate attack vs a riot.
As much as we all shit on Amerikkka we should also acknowledge that collapse of America is likely to lead to immense amounts of suffering and death.
Acknowledging the attack for what it was cuts both ways. You can't insult people and call them libs and misrepresent their arguments while also refusing to actually do any real analysis of the situation. I don't think many (any?) are doing lib shit like claiming PTSD or demanding terrorism charges for everyone involved.
If they came through the right door and found someone like Omar, Tlaib, AOC, Bernie, etc... they probably kill them. Probably in horrific fashion with the entire country watching. I don't think it should be swept aside as lib shit, even though I think the democrats are and will handle it in awful fashion.
I hope you wouldn't be labeled a debate guy for elaborating on request, haha.
Yeltsin had control of the military, state media and etc. Some of the most fierce fighting (which would result in well over a hundred dead) occurred for control over a TV media complex which would play a crucial role in broadcasting pro-Yeltsin propaganda throughout the ordeal and Yeltsin's forces would end up besieging barricading, seizing bridges to ensure lockdown and etc.
Whether it's a autogolpe or coup d'etat, any meaningful attempt at seizing power actually requires an meaningful attempt at seizing power.
It was absolutely an legitimate attack. What I'm saying and explained in my post above is that the idea that this was an genuine, as in with any remotely coherent plan or chance at success, attempt to overthrow the state/American government by an force that is opposed to is a fundamental misunderstanding of American reactionaries and their role.
The continued existence of America leads to immense amounts of suffering and death, not only as a imperialist superpower responsible for upholding an hegemony that results in the preventable deaths of tens of millions every year but the inherent utter unsustainability of it's system both economically and geologically means that it's collapse and the consequences are also inevitable. There's no sense in subscribing to revolutionary communism if you reject the circumstances that would actually grant an opportunity for revolution.
Is this not 'real analysis?' https://hexbear.net/post/82941/comment/897804
All these people will approve budget bills that fund drone strikes on weddings, hospitals and orphanages. None of the resulting massacred peasant tenant farmers or guest workers will receive remotely the same attention precisely because they don't have cameras and the eyes of an entire country upon them.
We don't have the systems in place to deal with a revolutionary situation, which means we can't possibly win.
The problem is that Americas collapse could have almost unimaginable negative consequences for humanity, and those odds go way up when the only people with a platform or a base are insane reactionaries.