“So we’re going to take up violent action then, right?”
“Oh, God, no, we’re just going to sit here and sneer at those who are trying to change the system without violence, or without enough violence.”
The problem with violent action is that, to have a chance to succeed, you need a critical mass of support. Not like 50% or anything, but enough that you can’t be easily quelled. The only way you build that support is by suggesting violent resistance to people who scoff at you and accuse you of being unserious until the last straw finally breaks their back and you don’t sound so ridiculous anymore.
Oh, like, idk, say… 3% of the population or something?
Crazy how fast one can start sounding just like the people they oppose, isn’t it?
That being said, those sorts of people are well organized, international, willing to commit violence, dramatically outnumber any counter-groups, and have made serious and dramatic inroads into not just political discourse but into politics itself.
In terms of violent revolutionaries, there are a lot of them, they’re well armed, they’re fairly well-connected and organized, they’ve managed to recruit across all classes, especially the working classes, and they’re definitely not leftist.
Drawing a parallel between violent revolution of oppressed people and virulently racist bigots because they also use percentages to decribe a thing is asinine. Fuck.off.
Probably shouldn’t be doing the same thing that they’re doing then huh
You cannot call them evil then do the exact same thing but YOU are just because YOU think so. They’ll tell you that exact same thing.
In order to be doing the “same thing” I would have to be suggesting violence as a means to establish a white ethnostate, dipshit.
No u
did u know republicans also drink water and breath air? makes u think doesnt it
you’re fucking clueless. this isn’t about moral high grounds. this is about solutions that prevent untold amounts of suffering because the idiotic half of the population was allowed to operate unchecked.
Seems like you’re the clueless one if you think I don’t know that, but also violence is bad and wrong and you’re bad and wrong for supporting it. You’re just as bad as the rest.
😭
Violence is a top-tier solution for lower ranked cognition, where the notion of “hit thing” is a quality solution toward the final stages of attempted problem-solving. Fortunately, people in this situation tend to share the side effect of apathy, so managing to pull together enough “hit thing” people into an organised cohort rarely occurs, or fizzles shortly after take off.
Wrong.
Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
When all else fails violence is the final answer.
What do you do when someone is violently trying to knock down your door?
You call the police and they come and they ask the person to leave nicely.
He refuses and gets more aggressive, either they restraint him and drag him away or use some other method that involves violence.
I challenge you to show a real world example of ending oppression that was achieved by asking nicely when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
What do you do when someone is violently trying to knock down your door?
Well for starters, why have I put myself.in a situation where.this.is happening?But, secondly, I think this was a bad example you pulled anyway, as it was about defence toward immediate violence, rather than instigating it on social issues. In this case the aggressor in your example is the idiot instigating,.i.e. the very behaviour you’re attempting to excuse. And it that’s your stance, well; case in point.
I challenge you to show a real world example of ending oppression that was achieved by asking nicely when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
Asking nicely? It happens. But methods without violence? In most cases, the solution to stopping such threats is to cease empowering them, and we have many methods of how this is done in the real.world, daily. Violence creates reactive violence, creates a victim opportunity,.and instills animosity. Its solutions are temporary as nothing resolved the core issue, but it did inteoduce new ones.
So, what are you doing to cease empowerimg your “oppressors”—apart from buying into their systems, wearing their actions, and remaining seated in a place you think sucks? Mm-mm. There that apathy.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
OTOH, here we are.
All As are Bs but not all Bs are As. Learned that in what, 1st grade? Kindergarten?
When “lower ranked cognition” people have established themselves as the rulers, you have to communicate in the only language they understand. They will not give up the power they’re abusing otherwise.
Liberals: The Christo-fascists are violently taking over!
Also liberals: Give up your guns!
This liberal: Uh, no? I’ll keep my arms thank you very much.
“Liberals” aren’t saying “give up your guns.” The democratic presidential nominee and vice president are literally both gun owners, and the presidential nominee said she’d shoot a home intruder to death less than a week ago. They’re saying something more like “restrict future purchases of particularly dangerous guns and get reasonable rules, regulations, and licensing in place for them like we do for cars.”
But I understand that doesn’t make for a good dramatic post.
I am less worried that a liberal is armed than I am at which direction the weapon is pointed.
And my legs too
And, you know, most of my body, if at all possible please!
Good looking girls on the street!!!
Depending on the street.
Sometimes you get what comes around.
Sometimes you are what comes around.
seeing how anti guns some people are,i wonder how that’s gonna happen.
pacifists are in for some hard truths and i feel like it’s coming soon.
Pacifism and militarism are both necessary in a governing organization. You need collaborative and compromise-ready bureaucrats as much as you need iron-spinned cold-blooded killers. War is, after all, always just a prelude to diplomacy.
What matters more than being pacifist or militant is that you’re standing side-by-side in pursuit of some greater goal. The militants must be ready and willing to lay down their arms. The pacifists must be willing to negotiate on behalf of their more aggressive peers. The dispute over when, where, and how to act cannot be put above the goal they are all working towards.
good statement
It’s kinda sad that we’d die side by side on the battle feild but voting side by side in the voting booth is a bridge too far.
both are effective. it doesn’t have to be an either/or discussion.
for example, you can neutralize your opponent in the polls when there are less of their supporters to show to up to vote.
It’s just a stark difference in how the would be freedom fighters want to ally with the rest of us. They want us to shed our blood but when we ask them to show up to the polls they say their principles prohibit it.
agreed. we need pragmatic problem solvers, not angsty revolutionaries. this is a problem solving mission, not your edgelord graphic novel.
voting side by side in the voting booth is a bridge too far
Electoralism - on lemmy.world, at least - is only a valid strategy if you vote straight ticket Democrat. Vote Republican, you’re anti-democratic. Vote Third Party, you’re anti-democratic. Stay home, you’re anti-democratic. Spoil your ballot, you’re anti-democratic.
What good is electoralism in a system with only one “correct” answer? That’s not an election, its an exam.
What good is the election booth as a tool for making collective choice if any deviation from a single partisan sect makes you an Enemy of the People?
What good is a revolution where the cost is human life with no guarantee of victory?
No one is arguing the voting booth is the perfect. My only argument is, if you is you want to win, you have to win on all fronts. You have to have a strategy, not just a dream. Even if the US were to escalate to violent revolution, who is it you want at the helm of the US military when the fighting breaks out?
No, it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote. It is delusional of me to discuss with you if you think a revolution comes down to the villagers simply picking up pitchforks.
What good is a revolution where the cost is human life with no guarantee of victory?
What good is pacifity where the cost is human life with no guarantee of a better life?
My only argument is, if you is you want to win, you have win on all fronts.
Sure. That doesn’t preclude a certain degree of self-defense. A union that can be busted up by mob violence or a peace march that’s mowed down by the police isn’t worth much, except as a reminder of how fragile human life is.
it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote
A vote is valuable in an institution that respects its value. Elections with only one candidate don’t mean anything.
it is wasteful for me to discuss with you if you cannot see any value in the vote
I heard in a podcast that the main difference between a communist and a socialist is only the means of getting there. The end goal is the same, but communists think it can only happen through violent revolution.
That’s not really accurate. There are revolutionary forms of Socialism like Syndicalism, and there are reformist stances among Communists like the CPUSA. Revolution may be “correct” for Communists, but that’s not the source of division between Marxist and non-Marxist Socialists.
I don’t get this meme. Is this guitar character supposed to be extremely stupid or just a fascist troll? It would be funnier if it continues:
“But what about Gandhi?”
“Witch.”Nonviolent successes are always paired with violent alternatives. Nonviolent protests by themselves can be ignored, but if you have a nonviolent movement and a parallel but seperate violent movement biting your ankles… now negotiating with the nonviolent movement seems like a really good idea.
Wikipedia has a decent chronology tab of the kind of insanity going on when the UK just went 'Yay Ghandi! Nonviolence wins! Definitely nothing to do with all the terrorist attacks!"
Before India became completely ungovernable, their response to peaceful protest was to imprison anyone threatening their rule (make sure to read the “local violence” part).
