[yellow, a finger up, looking smug]
The answer to oppression is NEVER violence
Turn the other cheek
Pacifism always wins
You could earn rights by asking nicely instead
[yellow, proudly showing us a huge book]
Don’t believe me?
Open a history book!
[yellow, looking frustrated as they are shuffling through the book’s pages]
Ok so…
Uhm…
Not this page…
Wait…
The next one…
Awkward…
Another…
Yeah but…
For sure this time…
[yellow, sweating, protecting their book, a hand raised towards us]
Can you stop looking?
You’re being rude
That’s my book
https://thebad.website/comic/please_resist_responsibly
Nonviolent India Independence Movement
Looks inside
A shit ton of violence
I don’t know much about Gandhi but didn’t the British grant independence to other countries just as they did to the Indians(ok, probably better than they did it with the Indians)? I mean they just couldn’t support their troops due to the ww2. Would it be violent they would have probably left sooner. If there was no peaceful independence movement at all, well they did leave like that in other countries. So I don’t get Gandhi praise, it’s not like he did anything(also he was a pedo).
Yeah they left because the British empire was collapsing during and after WWII and they knew they would be unable to sustain their presence in India, especially with the rising violence and massive population.
Gandhi had been campaigning for 20 years, but it didn’t have any effect until the British quite literally ran out of steam with zero other options.
If Churchill had won a reelection, it’s likely he would have gripped the remaining colonies for longer which probably would have ended more bloody.
Jinnah saw all the sectarian violence go unresolved under British rule and pushed for an independent Pakistan knowing it wouldn’t just magically disappear after the British left.
Gandhi ironically was assassinated by Hindu extremists for “allowing” Jinnah to succeed in making Pakistan, and now those same extremists make up the current party in power in India.
The joke is that no nonviolent movement ever really succeeded because of the non violence. India and Pakistan gained independence because the British couldn’t control the onslaught of uprisings in their colonies. The civil rights movement succeeded because the government was afraid of violent public outbursts if they didn’t start making serious law changes. Even more irony, MLK was also assassinated.
Both of those events were taken out of historical context and then presented as if nonviolent action was the major cause of change when in reality it was just one part of a much bigger picture.
The ruling class didn’t get to be the ruling class by being convivial. If you want a peaceful, classless society you need to treat it like a bonsai tree: occasionally you must nip things in the bud.
Yes, we were trained how to protest wrong on purpose. Ask any product of the public school system about protest and they’ll either look at you confused or start babbling on about the most PG version of MLK and/or Gandhi imaginable. Nonviolence only works when it is understood by all parties to be the alternative. Many forms of effective protest have been outlawed and the owners, in a masterstroke, turned much of society’s valid anger (along with a great deal of less-than-valid anger) into self oppression with the MAGA movement and similar movements in other countries.
tldr; we’re too stupid to save
Ask any product of the public school system about protest and they’ll […] start babbling on about the most PG version of MLK and/or Gandhi imaginable
Yup, exactly like that. Be sure to ask them literally anything else about Indian Independence. For example, when it happened with the followup of when did Gandhi’s high profile protests happen.
FYI, there is a difference between nonviolence and pacifism. Pacifism opposes violence altogether and is predicated on the idea that there is a peaceful way to settle all disputes. That is to say, it’s a philosophical or ethical position. Nonviolence is a strategy to achieve your goals without employing violence. Nonviolent protesters do not take violence off the table altogether. Rather, they believe that violent actions are not as likely to achieve their goals as nonviolent action would be.
In general, nonviolent action is taken by groups who are opposing an oppressor that has a significant power advantage over them. By resorting to violence immediately, they play into a game that they are destined to lose. Instead, they strive to use nonviolent means to make their struggle impossible to ignore. It relies on the oppressive system being vulnerable to a change in public opinion. In general, it also involves an implication that they may someday resort to violence if things do not change. That is, it differs from pacifism in that it does not deny that violence may be necessary.
Unfortunately, the idea of “then we go into the board room and execute all those assholes” has a certain emotional appeal that’s absent from “we’ll boycott, vote, run better candidates”.
More active resistance like strikes or blocking production are a little more poetic, but tend to draw violence
History be like:
Liberals rely on you never reading lol
So, you guys going to take out your child rapist leader now?
No, because Americans are actual pussies.
It doesn’t have to by killing people violence though. But just going on a parade isn’t doing anything on it’s own.
It could work to show how much support a movement has, but you need something to follow up if demands are not met and you actually want something to change.
A strike or blockade isn’t violent. Non violent also doesn’t mean legal. See how many non violent terrorist pensioners the UK is locking up.
The trolls are heavy with this post. “Americans are cowards.” “Pick up a gun and fight.”
While I see thier points in relation to this post, they rarely look at America tactically. If I wanted to do a violance, I’d need to know the location of my targets, so I look them up, turns out they move from town to town state to state for mettings and things. Now that I know, my options is to go rogue and independent or gather a group. Too many are tired and exsuasted trying to survive. Many are afraid to loose thier job. Many are afraid to loose thier home… So all that’s left is lone actors. I personally have a good reason why I’m not attacking, I have a disease that makes doing any significant travel impossible. Once Americans have a garuentee that violance will give them what they want, then, and only then will violence occur. For all our bravado, we are a risk adverse people, surprisingly.
Public Education in the US LOVES Martin Luther King Jr.
Barely ever any mention of Malcom X.
I hold that nobody would’ve listened to MLK if the alternative wasn’t Malcom’s approach.
The Black Panthers did more to advance gun control laws than any “radical left hippie kumbaya” ever did. Let minorities have the same freedoms and suddenly things need to be toned down for everybody.
The black panthers had guns and actively leaned on people, they courced people, with VIOLENCE.
and it worked, maybe people citizens should do the same.
Exactly my point.
I think the only time “Black Panthers” was mentioned in my 13 years of public education was when somebody asked a random question about Forest Gump.
yah but iv noticed a trend with Americans, they are obviously afraid of their own state, they seem to actually think their police and army are unbeatable (no they’re fuckin not and you have close access to their production facility for easy destruction) but for some fuckin reason, they wont do it. im sorry but if they wont fight for themselves, they deserve the Yoke. especially since they’ve falsely be crying about democracy and freedom for decades, i don’t think Americans realize how bad their reputation is outside of america.
The State only respects power. If you can show the State that you have more power than the State, you can influence the State.
Power isn’t just physical violence. There is:
- Economic power, which is show cased through boycotts, strikes, and other means
- Soft power, which is shown through lobbying and other diplomatic means
- Political power, which is shown through the ballot box
- Protest power, which is shown through protests and marches
- Violence, which is how much violence can be afflicted onto the State
- Cultural power, how has the dominant culture
This list is no means exhaustive. Each form of power has a time and place for it.
This is just the classic “four boxes of liberty”, rephrased.
You have no economic power, you have no soft power, your political power is limited to some states and people are being pulled from their positions, protesting has been doing fucking nothing, cultural power = 😂 irrelevant.
I reality your deluding yourself.
For best results, you need a trifacta.
A popularist movement is core. This should be non-violent and as welcoming to new members as possible.
A political group then acts as a focus for the group. It translates the mob grievances into politically actionable demands.
A radical group acts as the teeth. It forces the government to take proper notice of the other 2 groups.
The Irish troubles would be a good example. The popular movement was ignored by the UK government. It bubbles over into riots etc at times, which actually hurt their message in many ways. The Sinn Féin party focused the discontent and gave the UK government someone to negotiate with. Finally the IRA provided the force on the UK government.
Take away any leg and the whole movement stutters. If the popularist wing gets violent, then it bleeds members fast. Without a political wing, the movement is unfocused and will achieve nothing. The violent wing can be dropped IF there is sufficient threat of its existence/creation to keep governments motivated. Unfortunately, most governments that let things escalate that far will just dig in their heels, rather than do the sensible thing.
Another important aspect is that the radical group isn’t denounced by the popularist or political group. They don’t have to be friends, but they can’t be enemies. What I’m seeing these days is protestors actively shutting down any potential violence from their side, self-governing to the point where the people in power don’t have to do anything to keep the whole thing in check. Without that fear for their life, the people in power can ignore the civil resistance members while allowing them to keep their more violent peers in check, along with a bit of police presence for good measure.
Agreed, but with a few provisos.
Turning a peaceful protest (march etc) violet is a big no no. If there is seen to be a risk of this, the popularist section will rapidly hemorrhage members. The radicals can use the events as cover/meeting new members, but not go hot on the march. The exception to this is if the government/police go violent. Defensive counter violence is then acceptable. The goal should be to get the “civilian” supporters (think families etc) clear. Then, it’s down to them whether they bolt too, or play whack a mole with the police.
The other proviso is that the radical groups actions should be proportional. The IRA walked this line. When they set major bombs, they gave the authorities enough warning to clear the area of civilians. They were mostly aiming for property damage and disruption, not mass casualties. The times the IRA went past that line did severe damage to their reputation. They need to act to reinforce the position of the other 2 groups, not undermine it.
If a person wanted to learn more about this idea ans others like it, what should i go searching for?
That’s a well done analysis, thanks for the insight.
Thank you for pointing out that the radical flank theory usually omits the political, more conservative, flank to the right of the mainstream group.
Pinochet.
That’s the best example, he was defeated by people basically singing and dancing and telling him NO In the polls.
As horrible the dictatorship was, I love deeply and profoundly the wholesomeness of how that monster was brought down, I always like to listen at the NO’s campaign when I feel sad or depressed because it just gives me so much hope and joy.
That also relied on the military NOT pulling a Tianemen Square Massacre.
Basically the ones in control of the violence agreed with the public, meanwhile the American brass has been getting shuffled around like nobodys buisness.
they kinda tried tough.
deleted by creator
there is a lot of unpack here, a lot of it is kinda quite untrue.
Pinochet died in house arrest in 2006 while on trial, yes, justice wasn’t really made he died of old age before being jailed by his crimes, thanks to the scumbag of Frei Jr.
But the thing is that Pinochet did wanted to claw onto power, at least up to 1997, he tought he gathered legitimate support amongst the poppulation and decided to try to win cleanly to appease the international pressure, (it wasn’t so far fetched, in the 1988 plebiscite he got 42% of the votes, and won in places like araucania).
And when the old guard managed to defeat Pinochet on it’s own game, history records that Pinochet wanted to do a self coup d’etat and not to recognize the results, but the other junta generals, seeing the writhing on the wall, moved faster, and that’s how you have General Matthei telling the press that the NO had won to the press, while on it’s way to the meeting on wich Pinochet supposedly wanted to plan the coup.
Democracy came back, Chileans were free once again, and the leader of the Opposition, old guard politician, Mr Aylwin, became president.
At the very beginning of democracy there was a strong desire for national reconciliation (see protestors/No victory celebrators hugging cops image), Chilean society was torn apart and people wanted to reunite (remember a 40% still supported Pinochet at the time), but as the truth started to came out, of the heinous crimes that happened during Pinochet, the desire for justice became way more important, but it took a long time, all the politica and legal infraestructure they set up to protect themselves had to be dismantled, but it was, and they started to be prosecuted See this hilarious clip of the director of the secret police being arrested (to wich they reacted by threatening the Aylwin’s govt with a new coup), wich added to the fact that the, now opposition, right wing, still tried to defend many of them, made it slow.
The international support never existed outside the US, there always was international solidarity for the Chilean cause for freedom and democracy, and even in the US, the support went away fast after they impeached Nixon, by 1988, when the plebiscite was, the regime was already accustomed to being an international pariah, something the NO’s campaign even mocked him for.
But overall, there is nothing i love the most in this world than the NO’s campaign, and how they promised chile that they could vote without fear, and that they could dream for a future in wich people could be free, A joy that would come, if they voted NO.
Aaanyways, Greetings from chile, a country where i was fortunate to be born, and to be born free and in democracy because my grandparents and parents voted NO that day.
Excuse my cynical ignorance. I am not Chilean, and only remember the feeling of it, and Pinochet’s escape from justice.
It depends at what stage of oppression we are in. There’s a point for both a soft touch and for violence, wisdom is knowing what to do and when to do it.
You are at the paint the streets red stage or you are going to be enslaved.
Which country are we speaking about exactly?
Can’t trial legally? Ball chipper time.
There is liberal anti fascism and autonomous anti fascism. Liberal (e.g. using lawsuits) anti fascism is good, but never enough alone.
You have to deny fascist speech, because fascist speech equals fascist recruitment. You have to deny them platforms. The early age of the internet made that impossible, and many nerds like me had no clue about this. Freedom of speech warriors against stupid governments etc. Much of that was correct, but what got forgotten is that you need active moderation and laws to limit hate speech from proliferating. And neoliberal governments never pass those. Like fascism, neoliberalism believes in inequality.
This current wave of fascism is a long time in the making with the ultra conservative and christian talking points and rural talk radio. When talk radio started ranting against abortion, THAT was the time you should have started autonomous action to stop their continued broadcasting abilities.
I learned the political theory for anti fascism way too late. This is a good book review on this.
What about like 10 years after that inflection point?
Of course some areas are seeing an increase in physical violence and build up of arms on both sides. Fortunately or unfortunately the side that wins is the one with more money, infrastructure, resources, and political influence regardless of overall societal wellbeing. So if someone is going to fight they need to plan, wars are won or lost long before the first shot is never taken.
Your just a coward too scared to actually nut up and pick up a gun or destroy billionaire assets, nothing more.
I’ve always wondered why like 20% of Lemmy users are so agro. We can speak to one another like reasonable people.
We tried that and you idiots are still going, "what it we protest. " like a Bunch of spineless tits.
if protesting worked, Donald would have been stopped by now. If you won’t fight for yourselves, Y’all deserve the yoke.
I’m more so talking about you in particular and people like you on Lemmy who seem so needlessly aggressive. We can speak to one another like civil adults.
can you guess who i was talking about, im sure you can.
also “civil” more like spineless, the aggression is a necessity if you don’t want to be subjugated, like the meme says, open a history book and see what’s happened to those who didn’t resist without at least the Coercion of violence looming.
I’m not saying aggression is never necessary but bro we’re just talking on Lemmy, chill. Go have a soda or a good fap or something.
im not as interested in those passtime as you might be, don’t get snarky. as i said the time for protesting has long passed as its proved whole ineffective to the federal government and vandalism of donalds allies asset books is the next step, but iv seen little in the way of that.
