> Translation: referendums, local governments, and single party rule

That is NOT what that means holy shit bro what is u on😭

> if you’re end goal is replacing it with a similar or identical system anyway? Why not just remove the elements of corruption instead?

Appartently you've discovered something everyone else has missed if you think Leninist Democratic Centralism = liberal democracy (Somehow???)

> Debate is and will always be needed.

Sometimes. Just not with if you should have rights or not and not with the oppressed and the oppressor.

> Ok… One of these is not like the others.

All of them included violence.

> It’s troubling the you keep lumping together violent with non-violent resistance.

In Peru, these protests were often pretty violent (and that is a good thing).

> So in this amoral world view, nothing is inherently or fundamentally wrong.

I don't think you know what amoral means.

> It’s only wrong if its results are bad for the largest number of people.

And/or if it fails to minimise suffering for the most amount of people and maximise happiness for the most.

> So 1) minority rights will not exist

Yes they will. Because eliminating the rights of the minority does not actually maximise happiness.

Funnily enough you are saying this in this context, given that the current constitution and congress is very much against the rights of natives in Peru.

> justice will be determined by the subjective and arbitrary whims of whoever is in power.

idk wtf just happened in ur head that made u come to that conclusion but ok.

> Out of curiosity, what would you replace it with? S

That's up to the people of Peru, but if you ask me; Direct Democracy, Council Democracy and/or Democratic Centralism (if the latter, or maybe even the formers, under the leadership of a revolutionary mass-based party. Kinda like some of the parties in Peru rn).

> You also said yourself that the problem is people in Peru are bad at deliberative democracy.

"No I didn't"

> But what I’m saying to you is that this is not caused by the government or its institutions.

Yes it is. The history of every single government in existence has been the history of a certain class that wants to keep its power.

In the times of post-agriculture that was centred around the pacification of slaves or people that were not the chosen patriarch or whatever. Without the state/government, the contradicting interests between the slave and the slave owner would easily result in societal collapse until someone made a state that could enforce its will and pacify one of the other classes.

Under feudalism this expanded to be the king over the peasentry (and some parts of the nobility, gentry and merchants).

Under Capitalism it was to ensure the dominance of the Capitalist class as opposed to any other. Be that a feudal class in the times of the French Revolution or the working class now. In other words, the Peruvian state was and is orientated around the suppression of native rights and worker rights. especially when it uses the same structure made by the fascist Fujimori. Advocating for "respect" for institutions and trying to get rights in this context is naive at best and chauvinistic at worst.

This is just an overly simplistic view of history and government. Reducing the issues to just "individuals" and "a few bad apples" instead of looking at the systems does nothing to make sure this doesn't happen again.

> I don’t know how to put this politely but you’re very confident for someone who is so misinformed.

Could you be any more insufferable >_>

> Positive for who?

The greatest number of people.

> Who gets to decide what is a good or bad outcome?

It's kinda obvious. Why do you feel the need to be so iffy about this? Imagine being a freed slave after some violent overthrow of the slavers and saying "but who's to say this is better." No one would ever listen to you.

> Who gets to say what is a “common good?

If it maximises happiness and minimises suffering, you've got a pretty clear cut case.

> How would you facilitate such a debate and make such a decision about value and direction?

No debate needed. You really think old conservatives, plutocrats and millionaries are just gonna think "OOOOH, Well when you put it like that, it all makes sense. Better just get rid of everything that is responsible for my wealth then!!"

> Local, regional, state, and national representative and deliberative bodies were designed to deal with this exact dilemma

And in cases like Peru, they are very bad at doing that, take way too long and most importantly have an entrenched neo-liberal and fascist class that will make sure change is impossible. So I ask again, why bother keeping it if it only benefits some White millionaire in Lima as opposed to the rest of the country?

> Because you have no better alternative to replace it with

Shockingly, Liberal Democracy is not the only form of Democracy.

> This exact logic is what is used to justify bending rules and corrupting government.

That is only bad in so far as the results of doing that and (just as importantly) who is doing that. For example, some oil billionaires like the Koch brothers bending the rules to get tax cuts and whatever, that's bad.

However, something like the various journee's of the French Revolution, where masses of working class people surrounded the Legislative Assembly to force through much needed economic reform and change? That's good.

I don't think I would need to explain why one of these is bad and one of these is good.

Or take Jan 6. The problem with Jan 6 was not what was done, rather who did it. It was an attempt at a far-right coup over the USA. So it's bad.

> (a handful of well-connected individuals claiming to speak for everyone and being sole arbiter of good and bad)

I don't think the people striking, protesting, launching insurgencies and being shot and killed are a "handful of well-connected individuals claiming to speak for everyone and being sole arbiter of good and bad." I think you're just disconnected from reality.

> Creating a new constitution requires in effect destroying the previous.

Sounds good.

> If there was a popular mandate to do this

(there is, current support for Congress is something like 11%).

And, if there wasn't why would the protests be at this scale? Secondly, why should we care for the will of the industrialists and businessmen in Lima? They only have an interest in the oppression of the natives, many are foaming at the mouth racists.

Paraphrasing Malcom X, "You and I have rights, and I'm not going to wait for some white man to decide that that is the case."

> that would be borne out by the electoral results, meaning you would be able to do with the votes necessary to do it. If you don’t have the votes then you don’t have the mandate.

Why should the natives of Peru wait years and years when they could do it now?

> I never said riots. That would be destructive.

Grow up please.

> The other example you gave are called activism, accomplished with the freedom to assemble and organize people to peacefully achieve a shared goal. This is an internationally recognized human right.

Doesn't change what I said at all.

> Civil disobedience is not revolution.

I don't recall saying anything about civil disobedience.

> It is NOT destructive in its end goal

Maybe it should be. I mean, I remember learning about the start of civil disobedience movements in History a few months ago primarily in England in the 1600s.

It didn't accomplish anything. The monarchy was only overthrown through violent revolution and civil war. The Levellers were only able to get as much influence as they did because of their influence in the NMA (Cromwell and the Army Grandees didn't want to be victims of a coup/revolution from the NMA), as well as the popular support they had in the urban centres.

> It is organized targeted action to obtain a specific desired change using the boundaries and mechanism of existing laws to achieve those ends.

When the law and government exists to ensure your oppression and your suffering this is an immensely naive and harmful way of doing practice.

> These things cannot be achieved without government

They can though. Just make a new one or force the people who withold wages from you to give you them. Simple 'as.

As I said earlier, these institutions are only worth keeping so long as they are able to provide any actual benefit to us. It isn't God, as you treat it. It isn't sacred. The liberal attitude towards "institutions" is just a modern day form of the divine right of kings. If they stop being good to the masses, the masses should destroy them.

> That would literally expose the most vulnerable and defenseless people to the dangers of anarchy.

"No it wouldn't"

> Laws. Not bureaucracy. Laws.

And what, exactly, is the difference.

> Disingenuous argument:

In what way?

> minimize the rule of law so you can justify breaking it.

So what? Institutions, laws, all those things, are only useful and worthy of respect so long as they produce positive and good outcomes. If they stop doing that, why should anyone shirk away from destroying them?

Though it's worth noting that that is not what Castillo was attempting to do, not that he'd be bad for doing it. The goal was to create a new constitution and a new congress. That's "destroying" anything at all. Especially when it has popular mandate.

Also, how is what you're describing any different from "destruction"? We have a word for people demanding and creating political change by strikes, boycotts, protests and riots. It's called revolution, and it tends to destroy much of the "rule of law" that came before.

> I’ve seen you post this “analogy” all over this thread.

(twice)

> It’s beyond disingenuous.

I'm not sure how the idea that fundamentally good goals and policies should not be constrained by bureaucracy and old conservatives is "disingenuous".

> Are you suggesting the current party you support is the equivalent of abolitionists?

In a way. Just with wage slavery, neo-colonialism, and corporate despots.

> If that’s the case, why couldn’t they win/maintain power

me when I have an immensely naive view of politics^

Anyways, people hold certain political positions because those positions benefit them and/or their interests. The largely neo-liberal and fascist-minded congress which had support from the White Metropoles of Peru who held significant economic power did not want to let PL enact any amount of meaningful change despite them having majority support. Someone decided "Well this sucks, we can't keep going like this." And made a bad descion (the decision was only bad because Castillo did not have support from the police or the military). As it turns out, most people wanted a new constitution and hated the congress (only like, 13% support the congress?) and the successor government has been responsible for two massacres.

In the face of all this, I think it is exceedingly obvious who is in the right.

> Is the concept of rule of law that hard to grasp?

The Anti-Slave Party when they finally win an election after several electoral setbacks, but they fail to secure a 2/3rd majority in favour of banning slavery (they will have to reach across the aisle so they can fail again).

How is that a strawman? The point isn't about your view on slavery, it's about how dogmatically clinging to state institutions can be harmful.

How is this any different than someone under feudalism saying "if you want change, you have to respect our institutions the divine right of kings.

> Change takes time.

The anti-slavery party when they lose another election, meaning they must wait four more years before the issue of banning slavery is brought back on the table.

> Lasting political change in a democracy is slow by design.

In liberal democracy yes. Maybe that's a bad thing though. Certain social, economic issues should absolutely not take decades to pass through.

The goal of the dissolution of Congress was not actually for Castillo to become the celestial emperor of Tawantinsuyu and proclaim "I am the state" tbh. It was to make a new congress and a new constitution. Both of which are things that the people of Peru could not and should not wait for.

Would he have stayed in power afterwards? Probably, at least until the next election. But I don't see the issue as long as it breaks the neo-liberal despotism of the Fujimoritie Congress.

I care less about institutions and more about what their effects on the people are. If the choice is between continued slavery and oppression until some old conservative millionaire decides it is time for you to have rights, or to take those rights and power yourself, there is no question which one it is right to take.

"No they aren't"

> By the way, if Castillo had done nothing and allowed Congress to hold their third impeachment vote without disruption, he likely would have remained in office. Instead he panicked and tried to commit a self-coup like Fujimori did in 1992, except Castillo was thankfully too incompetent to pull it off.

Worth keeping in mind that any and all attempts at significant change would have been blocked by the neo-liberal congress (which currently has very, very low support). This is the reason Castillo had to elect more moderate members of government. To try and compromise.

I don't really get why you think it is a good thing he failed. When Castillo has the support of native farmers and the workers, as opposed to the businessmen of Lima who, let's face it, wish the natives death, I know who I personally would support.

"Russian propaganda is when you say that migrants are often treated badly in Europe"

What's your thought process here, what has this got to do with Russia