Message from @Deleted User

Discord ID: 321140940817563648


2017-06-05 04:12:50 UTC  

Do you believe that these armies are the instruments of the ruling class?

2017-06-05 04:13:02 UTC  

Which explains the war on ideas.

2017-06-05 04:13:07 UTC  

Yes

2017-06-05 04:13:22 UTC  

A state is the tool of the oppression of one class

2017-06-05 04:13:34 UTC  

@Deleted User Do you agree with this?

2017-06-05 04:13:35 UTC  

Be it proles or bourgeois

2017-06-05 04:13:43 UTC  

not necessarily

2017-06-05 04:13:58 UTC  

what i would agree with is that they belong to powerful individuals

2017-06-05 04:14:05 UTC  

not simply an entire class of people

2017-06-05 04:14:31 UTC  

Well even with the individuals they tend to cater to a certain class

2017-06-05 04:15:42 UTC  

I think that the definition of a private army means that those with the most private goods stand to benefit the most from an environment that uses martial force.

2017-06-05 04:16:13 UTC  

yes, however, that does not always have to be the (ruling) class

2017-06-05 04:16:34 UTC  

which is why i didn't give a decisive answer

2017-06-05 04:16:47 UTC  

It generally varies based on state

2017-06-05 04:17:01 UTC  

You can't draw a solid conclusion that covers all states

2017-06-05 04:17:07 UTC  

Hey.

2017-06-05 04:17:13 UTC  
2017-06-05 04:17:40 UTC  

yes, that's certainly true

2017-06-05 04:18:58 UTC  

however you also cannot always state from the get-go that a martial response is enacted on behalf of whichever ruling class governs

2017-06-05 04:19:08 UTC  

@Deleted User Is it possible to have dominant individuals with the most private goods, but who are not also the ruling class? It seems like a contradiction.

2017-06-05 04:19:26 UTC  

oh definitely

2017-06-05 04:19:54 UTC  

it doesn't have to be abstract or physical

2017-06-05 04:20:08 UTC  

just like the autumn harvest revolution

2017-06-05 04:20:15 UTC  

they certainly weren't the ruling class

2017-06-05 04:20:25 UTC  

but they were definitely dominant

2017-06-05 04:21:29 UTC  

the strong laborer who makes a fiery speech to his fellow serfs can be dominant in the same way that others could be

2017-06-05 04:22:43 UTC  

That's a very good point. Ideas can be more powerful than status if the conditions are ripe enough.

2017-06-05 04:23:10 UTC  

i think it is wrong to automatically assume any ruling class is responsible

2017-06-05 04:23:29 UTC  

this could potentially do your own movement harm, or discredit a genuine movement, simply by making the assumption

2017-06-05 04:25:12 UTC  

Can a rich man start a revolution for the poor, and a poor man start a revolution for the rich?

2017-06-05 04:25:57 UTC  

Well Zhou enlai came from the rich in Manchuria and helped Mao

2017-06-05 04:26:05 UTC  

that depends

2017-06-05 04:26:13 UTC  

or well, it doesn't depend

2017-06-05 04:26:16 UTC  

but you should clarify

2017-06-05 04:26:38 UTC  

is this "revolution" intended, or is it a byproduct of something else?

2017-06-05 04:26:49 UTC  

is a rich man specifically doing it to better the lives of the poor, and vice versa?

2017-06-05 04:28:29 UTC  

Yes, I am talking about potentiality. Is it ever possible for someone to make a speech to inspire against his personal, material interests, regardless of intent?

2017-06-05 04:29:09 UTC  

yes, but the motive could just as easily be unrelated

2017-06-05 04:30:38 UTC  

To tie this up then, often the ruling class or dominant individuals will be responcible for using armies in their own interests, but it is not always the case. It is also possible they can do the opposite.

2017-06-05 04:31:32 UTC  

mhm

2017-06-05 04:32:06 UTC  

If this is truly tied up I would like to bring up unifying global languages and my design plan for how we could try to do it