• bearboiblake@pawb.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    I agree, but every non-violent movement needs an underlying threat of the willingness to escalate and ultimately become violent to succeed. We need people who are willing to use violence.

    Non-violent resistance is yin, violent resistance is yang. They need to be in balance.

    • zikzak025@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 days ago

      Exactly. There needs to be a stick to accompany the carrot. But if the carrot is refused, then the stick does its job.

    • realitista@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      I disagree . The moment violence happens, the whole movement loses its credibility and high ground and opens the road to despotic overthrow of the movement. This is why it’s so important to guard against the tactic of your enemy installing agitators to discredit your movement and open the door to violent suppression of it.

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 days ago

        Well, I’m sure they’ll bury you on your moral high ground while they install countless systems to disenfranchise you and everyone you know. But I’m sure if you just ask them kindly not to do that, it’ll all work itself out.

      • bearboiblake@pawb.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Disavow the violence all you want, and indeed doing so is very much the role of the non-violent sect of the movement, but you need the threat of violence to succeed, that’s just the reality. The Civil Rights movement never would have succeeded without the Black Panthers. The LGBTQ+ movement needed the Stonewall Riots.