Well yeah, there are many nuances and it is a very interesting discussion to have. One thing where I am trying to point a distinction is that there is a difference between destroying a regime and establishing a new one and that they don’t have to be tied together necessarily.
It is n necessary to have a structure, ideology and support to implement a new regime, but it is not necessary to carry out actions that disrupt the existing one. Of course we can discuss the usefulness of breaking something without having something else in mind to replace it, but that doesn’t change the action itself.
In the case of Fidel, it was as revolutionary to feed the group as it was to be in the group itself, so supporting them was a revolutionary action, even if led by personal friendship and not deep ideological alignment.
There is no discussion of “destroying a regime” though. What we seek to build are resilient communities.
I get that you’re doing some figuring out here. But you’re actively talking online about things that are now illegal speech. Fidel is an example not of blindly destroying a regime but an example of the importance of building community. Or, organizing.
Now building resilient communities is a great action, but by itself it doesn’t lead to a system change except by evolution.
In any case, my speech is not illegal in any sense. I am not advocating for violence at all and much less in any specific case, since the discussion is purely theoretical and valid for any country or regime.
Well yeah, there are many nuances and it is a very interesting discussion to have. One thing where I am trying to point a distinction is that there is a difference between destroying a regime and establishing a new one and that they don’t have to be tied together necessarily.
It is n necessary to have a structure, ideology and support to implement a new regime, but it is not necessary to carry out actions that disrupt the existing one. Of course we can discuss the usefulness of breaking something without having something else in mind to replace it, but that doesn’t change the action itself.
In the case of Fidel, it was as revolutionary to feed the group as it was to be in the group itself, so supporting them was a revolutionary action, even if led by personal friendship and not deep ideological alignment.
There is no discussion of “destroying a regime” though. What we seek to build are resilient communities.
I get that you’re doing some figuring out here. But you’re actively talking online about things that are now illegal speech. Fidel is an example not of blindly destroying a regime but an example of the importance of building community. Or, organizing.
Now building resilient communities is a great action, but by itself it doesn’t lead to a system change except by evolution.
In any case, my speech is not illegal in any sense. I am not advocating for violence at all and much less in any specific case, since the discussion is purely theoretical and valid for any country or regime.