- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
Ah yes, Marxist revolutionary larpers preaching for violence on Lemmy. Come back when you don’t freak out over funko pop collections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right? Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
I’m not familiar with the bottom three so I can’t speak to those without research, but the top three very much involved violence, as I’m sure you know because it’s brought up here in every other thread. I mean you do know Nelson Mandela was on US terrorist watch lists until 2008 right?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
It’s almost like a bank robber with the BLA may not be a great authority on how change is achieved.
Hell, even successful nonviolent resistance campaigns are much more coercive than anything American liberals have in mind.
Okay? What does that have to do with the blatantly false assertion that no one has ever achieved their freedom by persuading their oppressors on moral grounds?
Yet all of them achieved their successes primarily by the persuasion of their oppressors, generally in strong moral terms.
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign, and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers. I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination. And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Mahatma Gandhi was also helped by the fact that India had been waging INCREDIBLY violent resistance since the late 1800s. Like, there were ambushes that wiped out whole companies of soldiers in the mountains. His campaign of non-cooperation was just the last straw for a war-weary empire that saw little use and even littler public will to dump more soldiers into India.
Also something about colonies being too expensive to maintain and focusing on the economy back home post world wars
No. Like, just no. Mahatma “British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and has survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refuse to co-operate, British rule will collapse” Gandhi was not running a moral persuasion campaign,
Okay, so we’re going to ignore literally every quote of his about convincing the British and that the point of his nonviolent campaigns was to highlight the moral aspect of the conflict. Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
and neither was MLK with his boycotts and army of lawyers.
Jesus fucking Christ. What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I will also note that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed after and due to riots after MLK’s assassination.
…
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1968 was a minor addendum.
I’m really not fucking sure you should be telling me to ‘learn more about this stuff’.
And that’s not getting into how the Civil Rights Movement was immensely aided by the existence of violent black power groups. You should really learn more about this stuff if you think moral persuasion was the main factor in any of this.
Oh, so violence was the main factor? I’m sure, then, that opinions in the US were changing at the time because no one was persuaded, they were just scared. After all, that’s how ethnic resistance movements so consistently throughout history persuade the majority of a country, definitely not resulting in long-standing ethnic conflicts and enduring prejudices with literal centuries-long irregular warfare.
Good thing these brave revolutionaries knew that moral persuasion was worthless!
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
Okay, cool. I guess he was also campaigning against Hindu nationalists based on not morally persuading them to stop oppressing Muslim Indians.
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
What exactly do you think those boycotts and armies of lawyers were meant to achieve?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
… do… do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
Oh, so violence was the main factor?
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Liberals aren’t leftists.
Okay I’m really not interested in continuing this conversation; you’re sounding more like a liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history than someone trying to have an honest debate. I will point out the egregious errors in case anyone here cares and go about my day.
I sound like a ‘liberal clutching onto their whitewashed version of history’ because… I think that moral persuasion is one of many tools which can be used?
What the fuck?
The literally has no relation to the rest of the conversation.
Was Gandhi a proponent of the usage of moral persuasion as a means of achieving the rights of the oppressed or not?
Fuck kind of Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit is this?
I quite literally have never heard of a persuasive boycott.
Boycotts almost always seek publicity in order to morally persuade people to side with them?
Like, Jesus fucking Christ, this isn’t some high-level concept discussed only in academia. This is basic fucking stuff.
While you’re at it, would you like to answer what the fuck court cases are supposed to do without a moral component in the pleadings to the oppressor class? After all, if moral persuasion isn’t an option, there’s no reason why the oppressor class would choose to consistently apply their laws even if the arguments of the oppressed are airtight. Almost like an argument is being put forward either for the adjustment of the law or its application on moral grounds, as with numerous cases which made it to SCOTUS, or for the moral value of the consistent application rule of law even if it doesn’t benefit the oppressors.
No, I mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968.
So your argument is… what, that because a minor addendum to one of the most sweeping civil rights victories in the history of the country was achieved by violence, the original victory being achieved by persuasion of the electorate… doesn’t count?
Golly gee, I sure am glad MLK Jr. was murdered and there were riots. God knows nothing would’ve gotten done with him reaching out to white people to try to persuade them to join in his campaign for racial and social justice at the time. Moral persuasion, after all, has never gotten anyone their rights, certainly not in 1964, with the very same fucking person we’re talking about playing a pivotal role in it.
Completely ignoring everything I said about coercive nonviolence, I see.
‘Coercive nonviolence’
Lord.
Wow, if this is how leftwing movements split up I really can’t blame them.
Yes, I suppose it is terrible for you to have to endure being corrected by facts. Feelings are so much more fun for you to bandy about. Such a terrible crime means it would be completely justifiable for you to condemn however many millions of marginalized groups to be oppressed or murdered, so that way you wouldn’t have to deal with meanies hurting your feelings.
True left praxis. I am in awe.
Yes, but a radical flank made the proposals of non-violent activists much more appealing in some of those historical examples.
MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.
Mandela was also literally the head of a paramilitary revolutionary force
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it’s probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust
MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.
What alternative method did they present, again?
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it’s probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust
Jesus fucking Christ.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Holy moly! I never looked at it that way! Thanks!
look for India’s independence year, and gandhi’s last protest year, something seems not good
Mandela led the ANC, hardly a peaceful movement. Heard of necklacing?
The dissolution of the Soviet Union came paired with a shelling of parliament. Hardly a peaceful act. Bonus fact: they held two referanda, one for the baltic member states early in the year, and one for the remainder. The Baltic states voted to dissolve, and they left. The outcome of the second referendum was that by and large, people wanted the Soviet Union to remain intact. This was ignored, and parliament shelled.
The ousting of Pinochet involved assassination attempts on Pinochet. Maybe they were peaceful assassination attempts, so I gotta hand this one to you.
Mentioning Ghandi and pretending the uprising of 1857, which inspired and propelled forward the movement for independence (including Ghandi), never happened is deeply dishonest, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives for the cause.
MLK jr., much like Ghandi, was paired with violent methods as well. Ignoring their contributions is ahistorical.
I’m assuming you’re using “etc etc etc” (etc) to mean “I can’t think of any other examples, erroneous or otherwise”, so I’ll do the same:
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Mandela led the ANC, hardly a peaceful movement. Heard of necklacing?
I’m so glad you know nothing about Mandela’s leadership.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union came paired with a shelling of parliament.
Do you not understand what the attempted coup was for, or who it was by? Hardliners trying to keep the Soviet Union together.
Jesus Christ. Utter tankie delusion.
The ousting of Pinochet involved assassination attempts on Pinochet.
Oh, is that what led to the referendum? A head of state having what every major head of state has to deal with?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Mentioning Ghandi and pretending the uprising of 1857, which inspired and propelled forward the movement for independence (including Ghandi), never happened is deeply dishonest, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives for the cause.
…
MLK jr., much like Ghandi, was paired with violent methods as well. Ignoring their contributions is ahistorical.
And ignoring the contributions of the moral persuasion that MLK Jr. pursued, instead pretending like some edgelord fascist that only violence creates change, is ahistorical.
The difference is that I don’t deny that violence creates change. I only pointed out that moral persuasion can too.
I’m assuming you’re using “etc etc etc” (etc) to mean “I can’t think of any other examples, erroneous or otherwise”, so I’ll do the same:
I’m sorry, how many examples do you want before the principle is established?
Oh, what am I saying? It would always need to be just one more, because what you’re interested in its validating your own bizarre red fascist worldview, not reality.
Your style of arguing is really comical.
I’m so glad you know nothing about Mandela’s leadership.
What am I supposed to do with this? There’s nothing of substance here. Nothing to refute. But the funniest thing to me are the constant expletives like
Jesus Christ
and whatnot. They’re completely out of place and make you come off as overly dramatic. Very cartoonish.
Anyway, I saw your discussion with the other poster, and it seems pretty pointless to engage with you. Maybe take a community college class on critical thinking or rhetoric or something.
This one was only made possible after war was fought 100 years prior
This one came about as the final straw in the British Empire’s back that was started off by the American Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
This one was was caused by the USSR suffering multiple setbacks after its war in Afghanistan, multiple proxy wars (e.g., Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War; the Angolan Civil War; Somalia and Etheopia; Nigerian Civil War; etc.), putting down attempts at reform in the eastern bloc (Praque Spring the Polish Crisis), the massive unrest that had plain-clothes secret-police beating protesters just before the Berlin Wall fell, a violent revolution in Romania, and the August Coup failed.
That doesn’t really refute the point, at all?
I thought you were making the point that they were peaceful , and I was refuting that stuff was peaceful.
“There were violent acts previously” does not refute “These groups achieved success with moral persuasion”
Fuck’s sake, you’re connecting Gandhi’s success with the American Revolution, MLK Jr. with the Civil War, and the fall of the Soviet Union with every major war it was involved in throughout the Cold War.
gandhi succeded at nothing, his last movement was at 1942, and India got it’s independence at 1947. Delayed effect ig
deleted by creator
Source?
Jesus
Except the part where he started flipping tables and whipping money lenders
He literally was tortured and executed
some literally downvoted you for stating this fact. lol
🤷♂️😅
And then he got his freedom!
And, how did it turn out in the USA? What is done under his name? Asking for a friend…
I’m just waiting for the moment that shots are fired by one side or the other, because once that line is crossed we can finally get real change.
if we are not prepared to run things differently, they won’t. Destruction is not enough
There are some amongst us who already have plans for how to run things once the revolution is over.
If you think you plan will work without the social organization to make it work (and amend it), then you try to think for others. That kind of misunderstanding end very badly during revolution
A revolution of the people will need many minds, with many ideals and inspirations. No one person has all the knowledge to fix everything, we must be a collective and work together for the destruction of the oppressors.
https://anarchistnews.org/content/hostages-gun-militancy-and-militarism
Also @Mubelotix@jlai.lu
Look at what Chile achieved without firearms in 2019:
https://itsgoingdown.org/submedia-presents-interrebellium-the-estallido-social/
God, I can hear these guys having this conversation in that lilting Kiwi accent. This is exactly the sort of absurdity they used to lampoon.
Dont we all wish magic was real?
But it would really be amazing if the fighting WOULD stop. Even for a little while. We’ve all been at the breaking point for a long time (liberal, republican, and everyone in between). We are all paranoid about so many different things and suspicious of our own government.
While the meme is just a silly joke, magic would be nice.
No to violence. I would prefer the union break apart peacefully, like the Czechs and Slovaks. The Blue States should be annexed by Canada and the Red Run Turd Holes can figure out their shit on their own.
Guys please, whatever you do, do NOT throw water balloons filled with liquid ass at ICE, that would be a REALLY bad idea…
deleted by creator
Yeah, cause she’d be deporting people too just like Biden did (4 million iirc) but nobody would be protesting because it’s fine when Democrats do it.
But she’d still be shutting down pro gaza protests, don’t worry!
People tried the electoral option in 2020. It didn’t work.
There’s slowly more evidence coming out to suggest the elections may have been rigged in some states.
So maybe we did vote for kamala. Either way, we need to dig ourselves out of this hole.
I am a proud liberal, I am supportive and willing of violence against ICE if the prospects of winning are good.
However, there are those among us who want violence against state and federal congress and town halls. Who want to dismantle every police station. Thats not gonna happen.
Here we go again,
The Peaceful LA Protests of June, 2025 worked. We’re all talking about it now. If the LA protests weren’t peaceful, we would have different talking points for this weekend’s protests and protesters would have been killed. This administration wants this.
YSK - That there is a lot of trolling and brigading starting to happen around the LA peaceful protests to start violence. Here is a roadmap from 2015 on how they do it.: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39873361
Also, this:
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/protest-trump-resistance-power
This administration already called in the national guard for a peaceful protest. Do you think that it will stop here and the they will not continue to commit more and more violence against peaceful protestors until we reach a breaking point and have to start defending ourselves?
Or are we supposed to allow ourselves to become martyrs and die before we fight back against those that would see us dead.
It stayed peaceful. What do you think will happen if you open carry? Are you trying to get people killed?
False. The protestors stayed peaceful the police shot at the crowed with weapons that are called “less lethal” but have still killed people before and permanently disable people often.
Again
What do you think will happen if you open carry? Are you trying to get people killed?
People are already being killed by police/ice/this administration. If we open carry then the oppressors will die too, and each time one of them dies, they’ll think a bit harder before taking action against the population.
Especially with palintir spreading misinformation through reddit
You and I have different metrics for “success”
How did they work? ICE is still in my neighborhood snatching people up
So because there isn’t immediate visible change, they aren’t effective?
The need for immediate gratification works to the favor of the authoritarian.
deleted by creator
The need for immediate gratification works to the favor of the authoritarian.
It’s also the same urge which draws people to authoritarianism.
Yes. The entire point of direct action is to have an immediate and noticeable effect.
A protest is meant to disrupt the status quo in such a way that the establishment is forced to meet demands or else we continue to bring things to a standstill.
If your protest is not disruptive of the status quo, it is being ignored.
Hmmmm, I wonder why…
Most GOP lawmakers plan to skip Trump’s big parade
Could it be from booing in their town halls and a huge nationwide protest?
I don’t entirely disapprove your position, but i feel like this is a really bad argument. First, because it’s only a boycott of one parade, when people get abducted and deported. Second because they only ‘plan’ or ‘say they’ll’ do it.
This does not feel like a victory at all, this feels like satisfying yourself on crumbs
Edit : making it gender neutral
They’re fucking brainwashed. They equate just protesting with some victory in their heads. No matter how small, every protest is some achievement
In the lib’s mind, protesting is not a tool, it’s the goal on itself. Just show up, wave a little flag and the bad guys will magically change their mind like it’s a fucking movie.
It’s all performative actions.
In the lib’s mind,
Are you libertarian?
That’s not working. Just talking about it isn’t an accomplishment. Fuck
This administration wants this.
This administration wants people not to resist them. Failing that people resisting them verbally but in no practical manner will do just fine.
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts
This is misleading. Nonviolent resistance is obviously going to be more likely to succeed because armed conflict only happens when the government digs in its heels after the nonviolent resistance. What? Did you want Syrians to nonviolently resist Assad’s Sarin gas?
Non Violence only protects the state and state approved protest means nothing. The most violent people are police at protests. Dr. King’s character is always stripped down to the peaceful Black leader, and look how that went for him. He was still assassinated.
To be fair, so was Malcolm X
…after he turned away from violence
Perhaps, but I’d guess the risk of assassination rises with influence as opposed to their own views on violence
If you see an oppressed people protesting against their opression, and your first instinct is to lecture them on the optics of their protest, you’re not really an ally. You’re just using “optics” as an excuse to not do anything to help out but still think of yourself as a good person. I don’t think anyone falls for it.
No one gives sympathy to protestors who fire the first killing shot on the authorities. Syrian peaceful demonstrators turned rebels have sympathy from the world because they were fired at first by Assad. Many people soured on the French Revolution at the time when The Terror occurred after the people started executing just about anyone deemed enemies of the revolution.
No one is against violence if it has to come to it, but on Lemmy it is the usual suspects (I probably don’t need to mention what political ideology they tend to be) who want to pull the trigger first on the army and police without ever thinking of consequences (they wilfully ignore the existence of Insurrection act). They are like the 2nd amendment right wingers, looking for any opportunities to fire their guns and live their fantasies, but on the opposite extreme end of the political aisle.
Or, it could be anti-Western actors stoking violence on Americans to maximise political divisions because it will tremendously help if US is thrown further into chaos.
Edit: wording
I think Gene Sharp characterized it nicely in his essay, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Notably, this essay has been cited as a major influence on the Arab Spring uprisings, so it’s especially relevant to the Syrian protests.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
One additional point, he was adamant about the distinction between nonviolence and pacifism. For him, violence has to be on the table, but as a last resort. As the quote indicates, violence is where you’re at the biggest disadvantage, so why would you start there?
If violence is off the table, the state is free to apply violence.
Always has been. We literally elect them for that
Here in America the police have already been shooting and killing us - without repercussions - for years. The weapons they’re using on protesters right now are called “less lethal” for good reason.
How many killing shots do the police need to take before we can take one? Should we just wait until the first murder at each city, or at each individual protest within each city, or until we see one personally?
The only time I can think of where the army and police killed protestors was during the Vietnam war, and those incidents further delegitimised US involvement in Vietnam.
The weapons they’re using on protesters right now are called “less lethal” for good reason.
They are being used for decades now. It is not unique to the current LA protests.
The only time you’ve heard of. Over a thousand people are murdered by US police annually using the 2020 protests as an example there were multiple instances of protesters being killed by police/national guard. Some of the more egregious ones: 1 2
In that case, there is only so much the public could tolerate. The military and policing action in LA to rightful protest against grievances to the government is the culminating point.
Don’t forget the MOVE bombings where police literally bombed a residential area in Philadelphia.
deleted by creator
Yeah man not really happening. You keep projecting tho
Syrian rebels, the guys who ended up joining ISIS and Al Nusra, had your sympathy because the media told you they were angels fighting for freedom the right and proper way.
People soured on the French revolution because it turned on its base of support once the bourgeois made the progress that benefitted them, and further progress was against their interest.
You do realise there are other Syrian rebel factions?
Except the kurds, they were insignificant.
It isn’t just the Kurds.
It’s always the Kurds except when it isn’t
This liberal will be fucking armed and on target tomorrow. Do with that information what you will.
Americans kill nazis.
Laudable but illiberal means. Good on you.
Trump is baiting it to get violent. That’s why he pardoned the Jan 6rs. They are his goons.
Don’t feed the troll king.
You guys really don’t get it.
There is no scenario where they won’t blame this on everyone but themselves. It does not matter. Their end goal is violence. Full stop.
Fascists only relent when they are met with direct physical force. They will not move until they are afraid for their lives.
Hard disagree. He’s not afraid for his life. Far from it. Notice how exposed he left himself yesterday during his parade and that was all after his so called ‘assassination attempt’ where his ear magically mended within hours
He will double down where he can. The only thing that is stopping him going full swing is the federal arm right now.
Mark Esper book A Sacred Oath. He’s baiting the dems hard so he can get what he wants and that’s a free ticket to kill dems on sight. If it makes him look a victim that only makes him look lis a martyr to his MAGA crew which will only make them think it’s justified violence.
Don’t justify it.
This is a really dumb notion that still keeps popping up. There wasn’t a staged attempt, and the best reason is simply that there’s no way to fire a fake bullet or intentionally miss with a real one that wouldn’t put Donalds life in danger. And Donald cares about his own life more than anything else. It’s a stupid idea and just because it was kinda weird doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy.
Yes, he values his life more than anything. That’s the point. If he actually were a surviving victim of a targetted attack he’d never not be behind bulletproof glass. If he actually thought his life was ever in danger.
so far as he’s become president he’s put himself out there in full view for a sniper. Including driving around race track. And stand up in various places out in public.
You are making a lot of assumptions that a bullet existed at all. Or a gun.
An ear doesn’t heal in a matter of hours. Which is the biggest problem with that entire story.
the guy cannot resist making a drama no matter how poorly staged it is.
They are killing us anyway.
Die ad democratic politicians, sherrifs telling protesters “we are gonna shoot all of you” or something like that. Violence is already there, it’s just that one side uses it and the other doesn’t.
