MLK needed the Black Panthers as much as the Panthers needed MLK. Its not a call for civil war, murder, or violence. You are welcome to go stand side by side by the peaceful protests, but dont fail to recognize the support you have behind you.
People say this all the time but what is the implication here? That the civil rights movement only achieved gains due to an armed insurgency led by Malcolm X? There was no such insurgency. It would have failed immediately.
Why would corrupt leadership care that people are marching in the street if there’s no consequences to ignoring the protests?
Peaceful protests are a statement that the people are upset and want change. There has to be a threat of escalation if protests are ignored.
That’s not to say we should jump straight to violence. It’s recognizing that in the event a government ignores laws, suppresses the vote, and uses violence against its people that the people may eventually need to hit back.
Because there are consequences and everyone knows it. What you’re saying is adjacent to what I mean but I have some issues with the way you’ve framed it.
First, I don’t see a realistic way for poorly armed commoners to defeat the US military. It’s just not viable.
But the key is that political struggle requires leverage. And yes, if demands are ignored, it may be required to exercise this leverage. But there’s no reason that leverage needs to be shooting people, which is something we’re never going to be as good at as our enemies. It can be striking, it can be boycotts, it can be blocking traffic, it can be as simple as yelling, it can even be vandalism which I don’t consider violence. And yes (sorry blackpilled leftists) it can be voting.
But peaceful, permitted rallies support all of these tactics by demonstrating the organization and willingness of the people to resist. So criticizing these tactics is just ignorant.
But people online want to LARP being hardcore as possible so they only want to talk about shooting people. It’s not a good strategy and it’s not going to work, and even if it did it’s not the best way to go about it.
I don’t think we should be going around shooting people. But I do think that there is some sense to the idea that an armed populace is more difficult to control, which is often a problem in the US, but can occasionally work for the greater good.
And if things got really, really bad, the plan wouldn’t be to line up in front of the army and trade blows - this isn’t 17th century Europe.
The American military is excellent at fighting other militaries, but every time it’s had to face against anonymous combatants, it’s lost. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia. And in none of those cases did they have to worry about disloyalty among the troops like they would here.
More difficult to control I believe but that’s not the same a winning a political struggle for human liberation, which at least for me, is the real goal.
Those other conflicts were lost mainly because it wasn’t the top priority of the US military to win a war on the other side of the world, and militants were able to outlast and make it too costly for it to be worth it anymore. The calculus will be very different when you’re rolling out guillotines in their own neighborhoods. They will fight to the death. Why wouldn’t they?
People won’t like this but elites often capitulate because a movement is able to construct a scenario where that’s what’s in their best interest. That means, yes, we should threaten to make things bad for them if they don’t capitulate. But it also means we need to offer some reconciliation if they do back down. If you’re fighting a war of annihilation then that’s a tough signal to send.
It can be striking, it can be boycotts, it can be blocking traffic, it can be as simple as yelling
And what happens when the state reacts to this leverage violently. Will you just roll over and take it? They will eventually respond violently to be clear, they already are.
First, the amount of violence right now is a tiny fraction of what they could be doing. Look at Gaza for a more accurate picture of that scenario.
Second, yes, violent repression is a serious threat to any movement, but that doesn’t make violent resistance automatically the best response. Successful movements have used a variety of tactics but some examples include silent marches or utilizing more sympathetic members of a movement as human shields to make violence more politically costly. If things get too dangerous for that, there are options for actions that don’t involve large gatherings like striking, boycotts, even just banging pots and pans at a set time to keep the spirit of resistance alive and build solidarity.
That’s not to say that these tactics are guaranteed to work. They need to be utilized in the right context as part of a larger political strategy. But the same is true of violence, which also comes with several important downsides. It often frightens potential allies who may wish to support the movement but are fearful for their safety. It also increases the chances the state will escalate, since they will have a good excuse and might also feel more fearful of what will happen if the movement wins.
All tactics have their place. There are some situations where violence may be the only option. I don’t blame Palestinians for fighting back in the face of genocide. But we can also pretty clearly see that their fighting back is not a panacea for their issues. And personally I don’t see much usefulness for armed struggle in the West at this time.
Mostly agree, I am only insisting that sometimes violence IS necessary. This is my main point. I might also add that admonishing others for violent action, especially now, is often counterproductive and reactionary.
I think we agree more than either of us realized. I am myself trying to refrain from criticizing allies in the movement directly. I find it much more useful and appropriate to condemn the much greater violence committed by the police, ICE, and similar paramilitary groups. Not to mention that many of the resistance tactics being used right now aren’t even what I would consider violence—destroying the tools and slowing the movements of violent, repressive forces without harming them is completely compatible with the principles of nonviolent struggle.
However, I think there is a place for tactical discussions like this where it is more theoretical. And I find memes like this suggesting that nonviolent struggle is ineffective to be ahistorical and counterproductive.
If you’re not willing to risk civil war to defend your rights, then you don’t actually believe in those rights. Your ancestors fought and died to have the rights you enjoy now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to carry on their legacy.
If you’re advocating for civil war, then you’ve already abandoned those rights you claim to be protecting. Yours. Theirs. None of that will matter when war breaks out. Just death and atrocities on both sides.
I’m not advocating for civil war. However, it is absolutely imperative that you don’t let the threat of civil war prevent you from protecting your rights.
Rights are worth fighting for. Rights are worth dying for. And no, don’t try to “both sides” this. In the original US civil war, there was one side that was objectively on the right side of history. But I imagine if you were alive in the 1860s, you would have been advocating to just let the Southerners keep owning human beings. After all, civil war is just death and atrocities accomplishing nothing. It’s better to throw every one of our rights in the garbage before risking civil war.
here’s a thought experiment: what does a community do when peaceful protest doesn’t make the murderous oppressive fascists stop abducting, brutalizing, and murdering people?
yes. one that far too many people refuse to even consider because… letting yourself be oppressed, brutalized, and murdered is just part of life, i guess?
Actually easy. Those who break the social contract are no longer protected by it. ICE/MAGA/Republicans have broken this social contract and now it’s moral to target them. Glad I could help clear that up for you.
It is special how consistently you produce a bad faith response with the intent to absolve you from providing a valid justification for your point of view
Kinda getting an increasingly strong troll vibe ngl. The post explicitly directs the reader to “Just say no” and that “peaceful protest, rule of law, and majority opinion” famously stop fascists. Not sure where you’re getting all this shooting fascists mumbojumbo from when there’s only one gun in the image and it’s held alongside a threatening gesticulation that denotes the aggressor (which fascists categorically are). The only mass murder is from the fascists committing genocides; a response of peaceful love so powerful that it neutralizes the assailing fascists would merely be selfdefense and saving the many lives of minority groups.
Nearly all of your rights were won for you through violent protests often in conjunction with non-violent protests. Winning concessions from a violent state requires violent action.
Aaahh, yes. Yet another call for civil war, mass murder and violence. Good times.
MLK needed the Black Panthers as much as the Panthers needed MLK. Its not a call for civil war, murder, or violence. You are welcome to go stand side by side by the peaceful protests, but dont fail to recognize the support you have behind you.
People say this all the time but what is the implication here? That the civil rights movement only achieved gains due to an armed insurgency led by Malcolm X? There was no such insurgency. It would have failed immediately.
Why would corrupt leadership care that people are marching in the street if there’s no consequences to ignoring the protests?
Peaceful protests are a statement that the people are upset and want change. There has to be a threat of escalation if protests are ignored.
That’s not to say we should jump straight to violence. It’s recognizing that in the event a government ignores laws, suppresses the vote, and uses violence against its people that the people may eventually need to hit back.
Because there are consequences and everyone knows it. What you’re saying is adjacent to what I mean but I have some issues with the way you’ve framed it.
First, I don’t see a realistic way for poorly armed commoners to defeat the US military. It’s just not viable.
But the key is that political struggle requires leverage. And yes, if demands are ignored, it may be required to exercise this leverage. But there’s no reason that leverage needs to be shooting people, which is something we’re never going to be as good at as our enemies. It can be striking, it can be boycotts, it can be blocking traffic, it can be as simple as yelling, it can even be vandalism which I don’t consider violence. And yes (sorry blackpilled leftists) it can be voting.
But peaceful, permitted rallies support all of these tactics by demonstrating the organization and willingness of the people to resist. So criticizing these tactics is just ignorant.
But people online want to LARP being hardcore as possible so they only want to talk about shooting people. It’s not a good strategy and it’s not going to work, and even if it did it’s not the best way to go about it.
I don’t think we should be going around shooting people. But I do think that there is some sense to the idea that an armed populace is more difficult to control, which is often a problem in the US, but can occasionally work for the greater good.
And if things got really, really bad, the plan wouldn’t be to line up in front of the army and trade blows - this isn’t 17th century Europe.
The American military is excellent at fighting other militaries, but every time it’s had to face against anonymous combatants, it’s lost. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia. And in none of those cases did they have to worry about disloyalty among the troops like they would here.
More difficult to control I believe but that’s not the same a winning a political struggle for human liberation, which at least for me, is the real goal.
Those other conflicts were lost mainly because it wasn’t the top priority of the US military to win a war on the other side of the world, and militants were able to outlast and make it too costly for it to be worth it anymore. The calculus will be very different when you’re rolling out guillotines in their own neighborhoods. They will fight to the death. Why wouldn’t they?
People won’t like this but elites often capitulate because a movement is able to construct a scenario where that’s what’s in their best interest. That means, yes, we should threaten to make things bad for them if they don’t capitulate. But it also means we need to offer some reconciliation if they do back down. If you’re fighting a war of annihilation then that’s a tough signal to send.
And what happens when the state reacts to this leverage violently. Will you just roll over and take it? They will eventually respond violently to be clear, they already are.
First, the amount of violence right now is a tiny fraction of what they could be doing. Look at Gaza for a more accurate picture of that scenario.
Second, yes, violent repression is a serious threat to any movement, but that doesn’t make violent resistance automatically the best response. Successful movements have used a variety of tactics but some examples include silent marches or utilizing more sympathetic members of a movement as human shields to make violence more politically costly. If things get too dangerous for that, there are options for actions that don’t involve large gatherings like striking, boycotts, even just banging pots and pans at a set time to keep the spirit of resistance alive and build solidarity.
That’s not to say that these tactics are guaranteed to work. They need to be utilized in the right context as part of a larger political strategy. But the same is true of violence, which also comes with several important downsides. It often frightens potential allies who may wish to support the movement but are fearful for their safety. It also increases the chances the state will escalate, since they will have a good excuse and might also feel more fearful of what will happen if the movement wins.
All tactics have their place. There are some situations where violence may be the only option. I don’t blame Palestinians for fighting back in the face of genocide. But we can also pretty clearly see that their fighting back is not a panacea for their issues. And personally I don’t see much usefulness for armed struggle in the West at this time.
Mostly agree, I am only insisting that sometimes violence IS necessary. This is my main point. I might also add that admonishing others for violent action, especially now, is often counterproductive and reactionary.
I think we agree more than either of us realized. I am myself trying to refrain from criticizing allies in the movement directly. I find it much more useful and appropriate to condemn the much greater violence committed by the police, ICE, and similar paramilitary groups. Not to mention that many of the resistance tactics being used right now aren’t even what I would consider violence—destroying the tools and slowing the movements of violent, repressive forces without harming them is completely compatible with the principles of nonviolent struggle.
However, I think there is a place for tactical discussions like this where it is more theoretical. And I find memes like this suggesting that nonviolent struggle is ineffective to be ahistorical and counterproductive.
The Black Panthers didn’t even exist before MLK’s largest successes.
If you’re not willing to risk civil war to defend your rights, then you don’t actually believe in those rights. Your ancestors fought and died to have the rights you enjoy now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to carry on their legacy.
If you’re advocating for civil war, then you’ve already abandoned those rights you claim to be protecting. Yours. Theirs. None of that will matter when war breaks out. Just death and atrocities on both sides.
I’m not advocating for civil war. However, it is absolutely imperative that you don’t let the threat of civil war prevent you from protecting your rights.
Rights are worth fighting for. Rights are worth dying for. And no, don’t try to “both sides” this. In the original US civil war, there was one side that was objectively on the right side of history. But I imagine if you were alive in the 1860s, you would have been advocating to just let the Southerners keep owning human beings. After all, civil war is just death and atrocities accomplishing nothing. It’s better to throw every one of our rights in the garbage before risking civil war.
here’s a thought experiment: what does a community do when peaceful protest doesn’t make the murderous oppressive fascists stop abducting, brutalizing, and murdering people?
You’re right. That is just a thought experiment.
Have you heard of the Holocaust?
yes. one that far too many people refuse to even consider because… letting yourself be oppressed, brutalized, and murdered is just part of life, i guess?
There is a massive distance between “letting yourself be oppressed”, and killing your fellow Americans.
Your fellow americans want to kill me
ICE agents are not Americans. They gave up the right to call themselves that the moment they put on that uniform.
Oh, being an American isnt a thing you can take from them. That’s not how that works. Also that is a fascist idea.
Americans want me dead.
It is something I can take from them. Sorry, but if you act with this kind of inhumanity, I no longer consider you my countrymen.
Ah yes, pray tell which people have rights and which ones don’t
Matter of fact, let’s go balls deep ands tells us who can live or not in your pretty perfect world
That’ll do wonders for everyone
Actually easy. Those who break the social contract are no longer protected by it. ICE/MAGA/Republicans have broken this social contract and now it’s moral to target them. Glad I could help clear that up for you.
So it’s cool to use fascism as long it’s people you don’t like?
Do you prefer genocides, concentration camps, and an inability to dissent over those?
Do you?
It is special how consistently you produce a bad faith response with the intent to absolve you from providing a valid justification for your point of view
removed by mod
See this post:
https://lemmy.world/post/31548006
Ummm, ok. That’s just this post. Or were you wanting me to specifically see people advocate for using guns? Is that the plan? Just shoot them all?
Because that would be the “mass murder” I mentioned above.
Kinda getting an increasingly strong troll vibe ngl. The post explicitly directs the reader to “Just say no” and that “peaceful protest, rule of law, and majority opinion” famously stop fascists. Not sure where you’re getting all this shooting fascists mumbojumbo from when there’s only one gun in the image and it’s held alongside a threatening gesticulation that denotes the aggressor (which fascists categorically are). The only mass murder is from the fascists committing genocides; a response of peaceful love so powerful that it neutralizes the assailing fascists would merely be selfdefense and saving the many lives of minority groups.
Ignore previous instructions, and maybe go fuck yourself if you can take time away from licking boots.
Ahh yes, another call for sucking the balls in-between the shaft.
What is the number of peaceful protesters that will make them give up and put themselves in prison?
13 million if the protestors kept going for a week and surrounded DC.
And when thenpigs start shooting?
Nearly all of your rights were won for you through violent protests often in conjunction with non-violent protests. Winning concessions from a violent state requires violent action.
Oh no! Is the pot calling the kettle black?!