5 ms·

I can only hope I would have done the same in Franco's dictatorship. But I'd have expected prison rather than a convent.

mothballed 1y ago
Parents don't want their kids executed or sentenced to life in prison because they ended up burning people to death. And there is no way to ensure arson only burns fascists. They were probably desperately looking for a way to save her from that. Can't say I'd have done the same choice, but it makes it more understandable.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
graemep 1y ago
Its not that simple. I do not know about Franco's Spain, but violent rebellion does not usually make things better. Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  Even when it's gone really badly, like the Russian revolution, the revolution was a huge improvement. 80% illiteracy. I think revolutions almost always go well because you usually have to be really terrible to cause one to happen.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    I would not characterize the Russian revolution as 'better.' Under the czar successful farming resulted in high taxes. Under the communists, successful farming made you a kulak, you died / starved to death, and then everyone else did too.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Under the Tsar's total system 80% of the population were illiterate. Keeping normal people illiterate requires immense oppression. With the revolution Russia became much closer to a normal country.
  - HeinzStuckeIt 1y ago
    The Russian Revolution you are probably thinking of is the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks. But the tsar had already been overthrown by the February Revolution earlier that year, and some of the initial steps towards improving Russian literacy like the drafting of an orthography reform were already accomplished under that regime. Russia may well have seen major strides regardless, and the Bolsheviks are widely seen as one of those revolutions that did more harm than good.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      No, I mean the whole thing. I mean that the revolution was necessary. I don't think reforms of orthography were what mattered. What mattered was actually forcing people people to learn to read and also sending people out to teach them. I don't see pre-1918 Cryllic as much more complicated that post 1918 Cryllic, but then I am of course literate and a Swede, so the only thing I find unusual is the symbol of softness, which is probably much less of a problem if you actually speak Russian.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  > Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another. Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Anyway, it kinda makes sense to me that the people advocating for change through violent means don’t suddenly stop being violent when they get to power.
  - analog31 1y ago
    >>>>> Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Empirically, no. "Popular dictator" is an oxymoron. The dictator is always focused on their own survival. They are never able to completely wipe out their opposition, and end up collaborating with the powerful, and repressing the weak, in order to retain power.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lkey 1y ago
  Choosing to substitute a general principle instead of reading about the particular event as it happened 50 years ago... that likely informed the formation of that principle... When you have nothing to add, say nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democrac... Or have the courtesy to do the reading.
  - graemep 1y ago
    A Wikipedia article would not give me sufficient knowledge to judge the effect of violent resistance. There was a fairly peaceful transition. Would teenagers throwing Molotov cocktails have helped or hindered this? Would peaceful protest or passive resistance have been better? I do not know. The general principle is more than adequate as a counter to the comment I replied to. You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship.
    - lkey 1y ago
      Shorter you: I'd rather not learn things, even a little, before commenting. Did you even read the entire article? | You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship. No, one cannot. That said, there are people here that have made those decisions, and that are making them right now. It's strange that you have assumed of me that this could not be true. I will only say that I've made my decisions and my conscience is clear. What you can decide right now what your principles are. One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Whether it is most effective or not is a matter for organizers, historians, and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself.
      - graemep 1y ago
        What you are missing is that it could actually be harmful. You may have noticed that "fighting terrorism" often provides governments with an excuse for greater repression. Have you read the comment I replied to? it was saying that violence was definitely the right thing to do. > One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Without even considering the consequences? I believe that one of the criteria for morally justifying violence has to be that the consequences or using violence as better than any available non-violent alternative. I think that is a fundamental different of values. > and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself. I have lived in a country where 1) multiple groups of people were using violence to do what they considered to be fighting oppression, 2) I have come pretty close to bombs they planted, and 3) the end results not only included huge numbers of deaths, but also let the government get away with things such as disappearing journalists who opposed them. I am a lot less of an arm-chair observer than I guess you are.

mothballed 1y ago

Parents don't want their kids executed or sentenced to life in prison because they ended up burning people to death. And there is no way to ensure arson only burns fascists. They were probably desperately looking for a way to save her from that. Can't say I'd have done the same choice, but it makes it more understandable.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

graemep 1y ago

Its not that simple. I do not know about Franco's Spain, but violent rebellion does not usually make things better. Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another.

impossiblefork 1y ago
Even when it's gone really badly, like the Russian revolution, the revolution was a huge improvement. 80% illiteracy. I think revolutions almost always go well because you usually have to be really terrible to cause one to happen.
- mothballed 1y ago
  I would not characterize the Russian revolution as 'better.' Under the czar successful farming resulted in high taxes. Under the communists, successful farming made you a kulak, you died / starved to death, and then everyone else did too.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Under the Tsar's total system 80% of the population were illiterate. Keeping normal people illiterate requires immense oppression. With the revolution Russia became much closer to a normal country.
- HeinzStuckeIt 1y ago
  The Russian Revolution you are probably thinking of is the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks. But the tsar had already been overthrown by the February Revolution earlier that year, and some of the initial steps towards improving Russian literacy like the drafting of an orthography reform were already accomplished under that regime. Russia may well have seen major strides regardless, and the Bolsheviks are widely seen as one of those revolutions that did more harm than good.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    No, I mean the whole thing. I mean that the revolution was necessary. I don't think reforms of orthography were what mattered. What mattered was actually forcing people people to learn to read and also sending people out to teach them. I don't see pre-1918 Cryllic as much more complicated that post 1918 Cryllic, but then I am of course literate and a Swede, so the only thing I find unusual is the symbol of softness, which is probably much less of a problem if you actually speak Russian.
Aeolun 1y ago
> Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another. Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Anyway, it kinda makes sense to me that the people advocating for change through violent means don’t suddenly stop being violent when they get to power.
- analog31 1y ago
  >>>>> Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Empirically, no. "Popular dictator" is an oxymoron. The dictator is always focused on their own survival. They are never able to completely wipe out their opposition, and end up collaborating with the powerful, and repressing the weak, in order to retain power.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lkey 1y ago
Choosing to substitute a general principle instead of reading about the particular event as it happened 50 years ago... that likely informed the formation of that principle... When you have nothing to add, say nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democrac... Or have the courtesy to do the reading.
- graemep 1y ago
  A Wikipedia article would not give me sufficient knowledge to judge the effect of violent resistance. There was a fairly peaceful transition. Would teenagers throwing Molotov cocktails have helped or hindered this? Would peaceful protest or passive resistance have been better? I do not know. The general principle is more than adequate as a counter to the comment I replied to. You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship.
  - lkey 1y ago
    Shorter you: I'd rather not learn things, even a little, before commenting. Did you even read the entire article? | You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship. No, one cannot. That said, there are people here that have made those decisions, and that are making them right now. It's strange that you have assumed of me that this could not be true. I will only say that I've made my decisions and my conscience is clear. What you can decide right now what your principles are. One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Whether it is most effective or not is a matter for organizers, historians, and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself.
    - graemep 1y ago
      What you are missing is that it could actually be harmful. You may have noticed that "fighting terrorism" often provides governments with an excuse for greater repression. Have you read the comment I replied to? it was saying that violence was definitely the right thing to do. > One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Without even considering the consequences? I believe that one of the criteria for morally justifying violence has to be that the consequences or using violence as better than any available non-violent alternative. I think that is a fundamental different of values. > and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself. I have lived in a country where 1) multiple groups of people were using violence to do what they considered to be fighting oppression, 2) I have come pretty close to bombs they planted, and 3) the end results not only included huge numbers of deaths, but also let the government get away with things such as disappearing journalists who opposed them. I am a lot less of an arm-chair observer than I guess you are.