oligarchy is supported by the rich and powerful which is how it exists against the majority; I doubt you’re suggesting looting is a feasible option for the same reasons…
Looting may be warranted or unwarranted. But, because majority support is not relevant, we shouldn’t evaluate the propriety of looting based on this metric
ah, maybe I should clarify when I said looting wouldn’t have majority support, I was assuming a context where a populist movement (i.e. made up of the majority) was trying to find strategies to gain some economic independence such that they can afford a general strike- mutual aid might be a popular option (as well as how unions use their funds from dues to pay work on strike), but my point is only that looting is likely to be an unpopular option, and thus one that would harm the movement’s reputation and ability to remain supported by the majority on which it depends.
I did not mean that in absolute terms anything must justify its existence through majority support, as you pointed out that’s not how the world works.
looting will not be supported by the majority
Oligarchy is not supported by the majority. Yet it exists nonetheless
oligarchy is supported by the rich and powerful which is how it exists against the majority; I doubt you’re suggesting looting is a feasible option for the same reasons…
The point is that majority support is unnecessary for a thing to exist. In fact, it increasingly appears to be an irrelevant metric in general
yes, I agree entirely- but I’m not sure what further point you are making or how it is relevant
Looting may be warranted or unwarranted. But, because majority support is not relevant, we shouldn’t evaluate the propriety of looting based on this metric
ah, maybe I should clarify when I said looting wouldn’t have majority support, I was assuming a context where a populist movement (i.e. made up of the majority) was trying to find strategies to gain some economic independence such that they can afford a general strike- mutual aid might be a popular option (as well as how unions use their funds from dues to pay work on strike), but my point is only that looting is likely to be an unpopular option, and thus one that would harm the movement’s reputation and ability to remain supported by the majority on which it depends.
I did not mean that in absolute terms anything must justify its existence through majority support, as you pointed out that’s not how the world works.