I would disagree with that. Unless you are willing to kill and die yourself, you aren’t much into revolution. But rather just paying lip service to an ideal while doing nothing.
I disagree, look around you. The Middle East is in constant turmoil. And parts of Africa also. And to a lesser extent, parts of Central America at times. Revolution is alive and well in the 21rst century.
If the status quo remains, then you have lost. Your causes you support are all worthless and failed ideology.
Gandhi gets all the credit because he was an easy sell for historical purposes. But the Indian people had a long history of violence and armed rebellion against the British. And during Gandhi’s time, the constant threat of from armed rebellion from the INA, before, during, and after WW2, scared the British more than Gandhi did. The INA, much like the Malcolm X and Black Panthers did for Dr. Martin Luther King, made those in charge more fearful and far more willing to deal with the “more reasonable peaceful side”.
But make no mistake, it was violence and the threat of it that brought the oppressive side to the table to concede rights and equality.
No, but he became the figurehead whether he wanted to or not. It’s why he is remembered by everyone on the planet to this day. And the INA not so much.
Lemmy is with revolution
I would disagree with that. Unless you are willing to kill and die yourself, you aren’t much into revolution. But rather just paying lip service to an ideal while doing nothing.
And the status quo remains intact.
Well, 20th-century-style revolutions are very unlikely to happen in 21st.
Better than actively support status Pu.
I disagree, look around you. The Middle East is in constant turmoil. And parts of Africa also. And to a lesser extent, parts of Central America at times. Revolution is alive and well in the 21rst century.
If the status quo remains, then you have lost. Your causes you support are all worthless and failed ideology.
Like that worthless Mahatma Gandhi.
Gandhi gets all the credit because he was an easy sell for historical purposes. But the Indian people had a long history of violence and armed rebellion against the British. And during Gandhi’s time, the constant threat of from armed rebellion from the INA, before, during, and after WW2, scared the British more than Gandhi did. The INA, much like the Malcolm X and Black Panthers did for Dr. Martin Luther King, made those in charge more fearful and far more willing to deal with the “more reasonable peaceful side”.
But make no mistake, it was violence and the threat of it that brought the oppressive side to the table to concede rights and equality.
Buuut Gandhi still wasn’t that much into revolution himself.
No, but he became the figurehead whether he wanted to or not. It’s why he is remembered by everyone on the planet to this day. And the INA not so much.