• solrize@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Violent aggression per se (carrying around a big club and using it to bonk anyone who put up resistance) hasn’t worked in quite a while. These days it’s more about propaganda.

    • alaphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Isn’t that arguably only because modern governments maintain a “monopoly on violence,” essentially?

      • Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Also that monopoly has been somewhat eliminated with the increasing development of technology that allows for killing without consequences. Drones, rigged explosives, remote detonation, incendiary devices, autonomous firearms, so on. (Developments of improvised firearms, explosives, and incendiary devices with common materials has also contributed to this, along with DIY drone construction).

        At this point the correcting factor is if a state is able to control the collective perception or will of a population to a point where pacification is possible (China or UK’s surveillance states, for instance). But that is not a viable long term solution due to it simply bottling the frustrations of the populace rather than extinguishing them.

        After all, in JFK’s famous words, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”. With ideas able to be spread anywhere, no ideal can be stamped out for good, on any segment of the ideological spectrum.

        Sucks for those who wish for a cooperative world, I suppose.