[quote=@Nytem4re]
[@Dinh AaronMk]

I'm not going to answer all of these counter arguments since I really should be studying for a midterm instead of being here, but I'll attempt to refute the important points in my eyes/ones worth debating. 

"Basically, like with America's second amendment the theory here would be the workers should be allowed to be armed and assemble into militias to defend themselves should a government attempt to reorganize labor and to centralize it. It's a threat of physical terror to keep the Vanguard in check."

And would there not be leaders in these militias? Again, there is still a clear power structure here, just under a different rebranding. If there is no leadership your militia is going to be ineffective because everyone would be off doing their own thing. It becomes indistinguishable from the military, except different leadership. 

It does spread out the "keys" of power, but it's still completely corruptible. 
[/quote]

While it may, but at this level it's up to however the community wants to organize it. But the entire notion of the militia are armed volunteer citizens. They're not militia-ing full time, but when needed or when they believe it to be so. These groups may be tied to the local government in something like the old New England town council and called up when the men and women there deem it necessary and lead by whoever they pick.

The notion of the militia is that these people are part of the community which they volunteer to defend, where as the standing army is sent to where-ever a government wants them to with or without the communal relationship they have with the area. They're effectively outside the communal structure. A militia as well, being civilian members raised by a civilian console have a far greater range of civilian oversight than their contemporaries in the army. While the US practiced civilian oversight in that active-duty military personnel should not serve in administrative office and are still subject to congressional scrutiny as a civilian body they can't use their military connections or position to pick up greater personal liberties and rights.

[quote=@Nytem4re]
And we've had very shitty revolutions. Not every revolution that permits violence is bad per se, but not every revolution that has permitted violence has been good.

I don't think your revolution is very good if you start killing off everyone who simply may not agree with you.
[/quote]
[img]https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/first-family/03_thomas_jefferson.jpg[/img]

I guess our nation is invalidated now, time to surrender ourselves back to the United Kingdom.

[quote=@Nytem4re]
While you may scream french revolution at me, may I point you towards Pol Pot. Nazis. I can probably go look up other countless pointless "revolutions" where they scream we're promoting greater good when really they're just taking a chance to eliminate political opponents.
I think your system is gov. is flawed when you literally have to start killing EVERYONE who doesn't agree with you. I mean sure, there will always be people you will probably need to crush, but you cannot say everyone who disagrees with you should be killed.

Violence is a tool, not a means to an end. When you start killing anyone who disagrees with you, yes, I am going to seriously question the validity of the change you're proposing to bring about. 

In your example, the labor workers used violence to show they wanted to be heard after peaceful protest failed. However, this does not mean they went around lynching everyone who said no I don't agree with you. 

There's a difference between using violence to further your goals, and using violence to suppress anyone you deem a threat to your form of gov., even if they are simply putting their opinions/views out there and not doing anything wrong other than not thinking like you.
[/quote]

I think we need to look at the preexisting government structures that exist in the nation under revolution. But first, the Nazi comment:

Nazis actually didn't seize power in a revolution. Neither did Mussolinis Fascists in Italy. In either case they took power through election or the native legal processes of parliament and government. And once in power began to utilize their position to strengthen the party's hold in power by using violence to suppress or destroy the opposition. It was the inability of the opposition to recognize them and act accordingly that saw to a rise in both parties in government. The Nazis may have tried a coup once, but that failed and later they got in through the electoral process, used violence to kill off the opposition, and repainted the nation in their colors as if there had been a revolution.

Not all revolutions need to be bloody either, and it might be then argued the very existence of the state provided the groundwork for such relatively negative forces to come to power in the first place. So we should liquidate the state entirely and we'd be better off.

Except we can't, all over the world the state is recognized in some form to be a necessary evil. And whether through revolution or election, someone seizes control of the preexisting state structure.

In the case of the American revolution the nominal notion at the heart of the revolution was for the right of local governance, and in fact and in a way a validation of the Puritanic, Anglo model of self governance in the face of an obtrusive master class across the Atlantic sea. I would argue that given this model, a communist or far-leftist revolution in the United States that took and adapts the notion of local self governance and marries it with notions of communal ownership of local resources and industries we could do a world of good in Communism's image issue, but that's personal conjecture. The point of the matter is the US of A had a stable model of local self determination and flexibility that allows the states to do whatever they want, within the limits ascribed by the later largely Hamiltonian federalist Constitution that managed to tame the dysfunction of competing states into a federal government model which is basically unheard of in Europe.

Other revolutions like the later French Revolution, the much later Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and even Pol Pot's Cambodia didn't really have a model for local self-rule as America so never adopted a notion of government derived from a mandate - at least in part - derived from its citizens at the bottom and were adopting government structures invented to rule from the very top. The Leninists seized a largely tsarists system and the Peter the Great's Colleges (or: ministries), and while after some time power and self determination was slowly leaked down to the local Soviets it still had a bloated top-down structure that allowed Stalin to re-seize all the assets in the name of defending the state from Nazi invasion and then never letting the fuck go.

Where as in America this same ploy would have had to passed down from the delegates to the states they represented who through individuals elected from local districts would need to ratify such a change and no doubt would get very angry if such an order were to be given without an expiration date. But this notion did not exist in Russia.

The same excuse could be given to Pol Pot. Since the Cambodian state already controlled so much (and the national resources were so scarce and not at all modernized in the first place) what few assets the Khmer Rouge had were easily concentrated in the state and they took over a government that could already do whatever the hell it wanted.

Mao and the Chinese Communist Party adopted a nation which historically had a bloated bureaucratic administration since the time of the Emperors, and it was used to such an effect probably no one in Mao's immediate circle knew what the hell was going on during the Great Leap Forward.

And back to France, while I meme about Robespierre and my admiration for him may be slipping out of the ironic, I will say this: the above applies to them. They were trying to build a system of self determination and republicanism without having that system nationally. They didn't get a Magna Carta like the British so there wasn't ever an evolved parliamentarian system based on a minimum of representation in their government, and the best the French had were the system of courts that ruled France regionally (and could even one-up the King at times, based on precedent). 

So, like what it would be to move one King onto a new throne, people die because these people resist. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Roman_monarchy#Attempts_to_reinstate_the_monarchy]It's certainly a topic the French neoclassicalists would have pointed to in the creation of Rome's republic.[/url] And the growing consolidation of power within the Republic boiling over into events such as the assassinations of the Brothers Gracchi and the civil war over the rise of Julius Caesar which was itself not necessarily bloodless. It's a classical underscore that transition in government isn't blood free, and on some level those who might resist need to be defeated or destroyed.

Because you don't get anything great by asking nicely.