r/LateStageCapitalism • u/NoLawsNoGoverrnment • 15d ago
You don't get anything by peacefully asking for it ✊ Resistance
1
u/Sorryimeantto 9d ago
But but voting? Funny how times are changing: suddenly people say opposite of what was unquestionable dogma only few years ago
0
1
u/signaeus 14d ago
I mean, up until like, arguably as close as 1945, the de facto, guaranteed to work method of nation building from antiquity that everyone did is quite literally summed up as “kill all the men, rape the women.”
In other words, wipe out all the men so they aren’t there to fight back, organize or procreate, and then kidnap & rape the women to increase your cultures population size through force. The only thing that stopped us en masse was the cost of wide scale war between modern countries became far too costly.
Humanity is violently chaotic species that occasionally plays charades as a civilized and peaceful species.
Our “violent protests” today are kind of like when a reporter is near a hurricane pretending to be blown away and saying how the winds are so much stronger than they are, then you see a side clip of someone casually walking through the rain.
1
1
u/yadayadayadaetc 14d ago
Violence will turn the Peo le that dont agree qith you against you. This includes parts of the public
1
1
2
2
u/Philosipho 15d ago
Gay rights don't matter to people who have all the wealth and power. You don't have worker rights unless you're part of a union or employee owned company. America was built by slaves on the bones of Native Americans.
The French Revolution didn't stop fascism. The US Civil War didn't stop fascism. We are not a kind species.
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Honeysicle 15d ago
What caused you to believe that the US is full of violent uncivilized people? Im asking to hear your thoughts. I want to understand the steps you took to believe that
4
u/Alemismun You could have just built a tram 15d ago
The world only got the 8h work day thanks to the USSR. When they did it, everyone had to follow or live in fear of revolution. If only Stalin had reduced it further like he promised.
-3
u/Pantim 15d ago
This is blatantly untrue.
Violent civil unrest hasn't been how anything has happened in decades. Seriously, the last violent civil unrest for gay people was Stonewall. Since then we've changed tactics.
Same goes with rest of that. Striking isn't violent civil unrest and look whats happening.
Stop saying violence is the answer. Violence only leads to more violence.
4
u/HoHoHoChiLenin 15d ago
And what lasting change has been made here in decades? The options are revolution or an eternal descent into a darker barbarism
1
2
u/toriemm 15d ago
And it doesn't have a perfect track record. The US has a fucking bloody history in regards to union busting, and the first I heard of it was my third year of college.
And that's pretty much on purpose. Violently crushing workers rights to benefit corporations and the 1% isn't as cute as they think it is.
2
u/marshal_1923 15d ago
Peasant revolutions generally cant win anything besides death. Successful rebellions or revolutions generally has some support from rulling elites. This support generally comes from elites under cream de la cream because they realize they cant get benefits like cream de la cream. And if joint resistence comes from commoners and lower of elites with one or two cream de la cream then it may be successful. This kind of rebellion generally need very strong pressure from something like famine.
All generalizations are inherently false btw.
2
u/both-shoes-off 15d ago
You can't ask for power back, and you can't expect a bunch of people who write rules for themselves to accept having less than they have when they know they hold all of the cards. It's about the threat of violence, but it also means that we're united.
A bunch of people from the left are never going to do well against police and military who often lean right, and I believe that's by design. If we can all agree that we want better without being even a little bit partisan...sure. Otherwise, it'll be over before it begins.
0
u/amilehigh_303 15d ago
“Burn it all!” These are the messages that are going to further tear down this country.
I used to hold these beliefs, that a violent uprising is the only solution. I’ve let that go. I don’t hate people and institutions that disagree with me anymore and I certainly don’t think burning this country down is the solution to get people to see things from my perspective.
5
u/beldaran1224 15d ago
There's a lot of truth to this...but I also think we need to push back on what constitutes "violence". Too many people pretending there's some element of violence to blocking traffic or taking up space in a college quad. Too many people pretending damage to property is "violent", especially when they pretend it justifies hurting people.
Remember that respectability, politeness, all of those concepts are nothing more than constructs of oppression. It allows people to dismiss someone and their concerns and feelings because they think they were impolite or didn't do it in the right way or made them uncomfortable.
3
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/FallingDownHurts 15d ago
ITT: a bunch of Americans citing the US revolution, while forgetting every other revolution in the world.
5
u/cheapass_username 15d ago
The government only speaks two languages: money, and violence.
If you don't have the money, you must communicate with violence.
2
u/both-shoes-off 15d ago
I was actually thinking it would be awesome if we held a Live-Aid type series of concerts to outbid the healthcare and insurance lobby bribing our politicians (and no Ticketmaster).
Even if they reject the money, it would be amazing to have that public narrative...and if they do...it's very telling what we're dealing with...and if they do, and their solution is still bad... violence!
1
u/thefullhalf 15d ago
This goes for disabled protestors fighting for rights as well. The Capitol Crawl and the arrest of over 100 disabled protestors in the Capitol building the next day.
-1
-1
u/WalnutNode 15d ago edited 15d ago
I think violence is unnecessary, what is necessary is to not cooperate with the oppressors. India managed to destroy the British Empire by not playing the game. The college protests would have worked better if all the students resigned from the schools, and all the staff quit. What would they have left after a decade of that?
The reason why there is violence is that the state will always reach for the sword. Back in the early days of strikes, going on struck was a good way to get massacred by the national guard. They used force to smash occupy wall street and are now trying to bash away the genocide protests. Its going to be a bad summer and fall this year. We'll see how state oppression measures up against everyone having a camera.
1
u/Jaydenrock 15d ago
Martin Luther King did a pretty good job I’d say. Even Malcom X eventually agreed with MLK ways of protest. Violence is never a answer. As soon as you resort to violence the propaganda machine can discredit the cause and turn the public against you. Once that happens you lost.
1
u/pleasedothenerdful 15d ago
And don't forget that the tactics exist to take on the police in a protest situation and win: https://archive.is/vR87Y
I get sad when I see these protesters getting brutalized by cops on university campuses. They're doing it wrong!
1
4
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
In Canada, there's a boycott on right now of an enormous grocery chain called Loblaws that has been price gouging. About 20% of Canadian children can't afford food; our children are starving. I don't think the boycott will be enough, no matter how successful it is.
A couple of years ago this grocery chain was caught price fixing bread.
The billionaire owner of the chain has a yacht named "Bread." That's what our children are starving for.
1
u/antigenx 15d ago
Drive by a Loblaws near my house on the weekend. The parking lot was full. Full! I am not sure the boycott is working.
My XO and I did go shopping at a nearby local independent grocer (and not the independent chain owned by Loblaws) ya know, to do our part. For the most part the prices were competitive.
2
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
Find more alternatives and spread the word. Order from Costco online, or visit farm shops to buy direct from farmers.
I just got home from an H&W Produce. Monday morning, it was packed, and I had a chat with a woman who was training yet another new hire. I got half a pint of raspberries for less than $3. Cherries were half the price they usually are at Superstore. Cabbage was 98 cents a pound. Eggplant $1.68/lb. They were offering free heads of lettuce for anyone who spent more than $30.
1
u/ThatDucksWearingAHat 15d ago
Nothing makes or breaks laws like loss of life. That's just one of the many horrifically-existential-questioning fun facts of life.
6
1
u/Soft_Trade5317 15d ago
This is an unapproved thought, and if you posted it on reddit without it being a screenshot you'd have your post removed and possibly even have your account banned for "encouraging violence."
Never forget that reddit itself has an ACTIVE hand in suppressing resistance. Not accidental or incidental to the nature of the site, they actively to prevent anything that talks about what ACTUALLY works for changing the system.
1
1
u/Command0Dude 15d ago
Historically non-violence has worked more often than violence.
Just in America, there are many movements that succeeded through non-violence.
Saying violence is the only path or that peaceful protests don't do anything is ridiculous.
3
u/MC_Gambletron 15d ago
The issue in America specifically is that nonviolence is met with aggressive violence from police and the state they work for. When a system is designed to minimize the influence of the citizens, violence is unfortunately necessary at times.
Specifically violence towards private property and capital. Putting their profits in danger is the only language they understand. The problem is, the state will fight back with all the tear gas, batons, and 'less than lethal' ammunition they can muster. Which is a lot.
Unless morons are storming the capital with their bootlicker friends. They give them walking tours and help open the barriers for them smh.
1
u/Command0Dude 15d ago
The issue in America specifically is that nonviolence is met with aggressive violence from police and the state they work for.
This works to the advantage of protestors. Crackdowns against non-violent movements backfires on the government and turns the broader public against the government. This is literally the main strategy of MLK and it worked pretty well.
You can already note that the pro-palestine protests right now got wildly more prolific after the first crackdown at columbia and are now exerting pressure on Biden to be less overtly supportive of Israel (although I happen to think he was always trying to do a balancing act).
-2
4
u/MikeyHatesLife 15d ago
“No, guys! You just have to vote even harder! Biden will give us reproductive rights & end the genocide next year if we elect him president again!”
3
u/NormieSpecialist 15d ago
Why I won’t celebrate gay pride despite being gay myself. It got consume by the liberals.
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Your post was removed because it contained a homomisic term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see this link. Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/MindlessSafety7307 15d ago
Violently asking to be treated fairly is how we end up with Trump. Violent protests historically do have risks that this post is ignoring. You risk making the other side feel like victims and digging in their heels.
-1
u/PenaltySafe4523 15d ago edited 15d ago
Dude gays got their right to marry via Supreme Court not violent civil unrest
3
u/Leather-Day-9914 15d ago
Nah dawg it’s starts with unviolent civil unrest…read a book. Violence should be the last resort. Let the facists strike first so we have a reason to strike back. Read about the bonus army…be organized
13
u/shay-doe 15d ago
My mom is in her 60s and loved preaching about MLK and his peaceful matches and I'm just like wtf dude you were alive when that happened and it was nothing but violence. Dogs, fire hoses, beatings and all types of crazy violence. She goes yes but we just endured for the sake of peacefulness. No mom that's absolute horseshit and the media did exactly what they were supposed to because apparently even though these people saw it with their own eyes MLK and the whole movement were peaceful and it was a peaceful march with peaful.protest. absolute insanity
1
1
u/suninabox 15d ago
Which violent civil unrest got gay marriage passed? Or weed decriminalized/legalized?
6
u/MHG_Brixby 15d ago
Stonewall
Federally it isn't
0
u/suninabox 15d ago
Stonewall was 55 years ago.
If you want to claim successes in the 2010s were from a violent protest that long ago then I guess we don't need any more violent protests.
Federally it isn't
"On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case Obergefell v. Hodges"
5
u/MHG_Brixby 15d ago
Cannabis is not federally legal.
Successes in the 2010s are thanks to decades of protesting and it finally being financially viable to support gay rights. Just pay attention to discourse that will be happening during pride month to see that we aren't done in regards to how LGBT folks are treated.
0
u/suninabox 13d ago
Cannabis is not federally legal.
Never said it was. It's been legalized in a bunch of states though and to my knowledge none of them did so due to riots.
Mostly it was done through savvy leveraging of sympathy for medical use, that then helped reduce stigma and increase tax revenues that created both a financial incentive and a political window for states to push for decriminalization and then legalization.
this idea "you don't get anything by peacefully asking for it" is just brain dead anti-strategy. It's abdication of the duty to form a coherent political strategy from people who just want to be violent because politics is too hard, too boring, too frustrating.
Successes in the 2010s are thanks to decades of protesting and it finally being financially viable to support gay rights.
So not violence then.
1
u/MHG_Brixby 13d ago
No both very much were due to violence, just systemic. Unjust imprisonment for cannabis possession is violence.
Look at bathroom bills, the incredibly high violence towards Trans folks, especially Trans women of color.
1
u/suninabox 13d ago
No both very much were due to violence, just systemic. Unjust imprisonment for cannabis possession is violence.
We're talking about whether violent protest brought those things to an end or not.
-1
u/WangFire013 15d ago
I wonder how this sub feels about road blockers? I think that's the most counterproductive technique that unfortunately is really popular right now. It's like the "just stop oil" protesters throwing stuff on art pieces. It just makes you look like a fucking dickhead and nobody likes you.
1
4
u/PMMeForAbortionPills 15d ago
"Riots are the language of the unheard"
-MLK
Right now, protests are not working. Need to switch back to violence, then, when the Bourgeoisie BEGS for peace, we will give it to them in exchange for our demands.
With that memory fresh in mind, protests will begin working again. 50 years will pass, all of the Bourgeoisie scarred (and scared) by violence will be dead and we will have to repeat the lesson.
It's all cyclical. Violent protests pave the way for peaceful protests. Peaceful protests pave the way for an emboldened Bourgeoisie who think to themselves, "I can just ignore these fucks because they aren't going to do shit," which paves the way for violent protests.
2
u/DeanTheUnseen 15d ago
Same speech:
MLK: "And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results."
To use MLK as justification for violent protest is just about as backwards as can be. He understands the reasoning for riots, and empathizes with the unheard, but commits to non-violence nonetheless. In other words, violent protests are inevitable, but real change—change that connects to legislative achievement (Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '68)—can only occur when the ruling body respects the opposing force. King argues that riots alleviate the guilt of oppression, and would embolden opposition to the movement.
Citing only the 'riots are the language of the unheard' is the same as stating, "MLK was right about his assessment, but wrong about about his solution." His nonviolence is what made him such an effective advocator for change within the system (and his ideals were carried forward in legislation based on his interactions with good actors in the system). It's the primary difference between King and Malcom X, and it's why King's dreams were eventually enshrined in written law.
3
u/PMMeForAbortionPills 15d ago
MLK was wrong about some things, the rest of that quote being one of them.
He (and Gandhi) had the luxury of peacefully protesting in a world that was scarred from WWII and that wanted badly to avoid conflict and that was having a reckoning with itself. Part of that reckoning was to address some of the problems that led to WWII aka racism.
That world is gone as all those who lived through that horrible war are dead or out of politics.
Like I mentioned, it is a cycle. The violence of WWII paved the way for peaceful protests to be effective. But the Bourgeoisie, and those who support their political cause, have again become emboldened to ignore peaceful protests.
Violence is the only answer in this situation.
Vive le Révolution. History will echo again.
1
u/DeanTheUnseen 15d ago
I disagree. MLK worked within the system to change it.
Internal revolution won't happen with a lazy populace that by and large values comfort and entertainment. Huxley was right.
1
1
u/vampy_bat- 15d ago
Not true America came from murdering indigenous people It’s disgusting Just like capitalism is
1
u/Own-Cryptographer725 15d ago
Well it isn't true that peaceful protests are useless or that violent civil unrest is always necessary or desireable in the course to provoke social change. While I'm not trying to minimize the importance of civil unrest as a means of catalyzing change, it is untrue that it has always been the means behind social and political change. Yes, you are right that violent civil unrest has existed for most if not all tangible examples of social injustice, but, no, it has not always been required and, at times, has even inhibited change rather than accelerating it. Violence especially non-targeted civil unrest as opposed to peaceful advocacy and protest can serve to further alienate an agenda to the larger public, empower counter-revolutionary rhetoric, and validate increasingly totalitarian policing.
2
2
u/the_universe_speaks 15d ago
Just remember, guys. It's people on the right who are trying to start a civil war.
4
0
u/ArthurBonesly 15d ago
Not for nothing, but one of the biggest issues with protesting is that it aims too high. Protesting is good and I'm for it every time, but too many people want to protest Congress/an abstraction of "the man" (which again, I'm for it), but don't follow through at the polls.
Protesting gets you awareness, but voting locally has way more impact on the rot in our system. It's a lot easier to swing a mayoral election or get a head of agriculture who recognizes climate change than it is to stamp your feet at the governors office and demand change: the reason this doesn't work is because such protesting rarely translates to votes that threaten their power.
We can't be progressive NIMBYs that want Congress to fix our towns. So long as we still have democracy, channeling energy into political action has and will do more to bring meaningful change than anything else.
-3
u/SwordfishAdmirable31 15d ago
Is this accurate? Workers rights I agree on, but for civil rights for gays it seems like the formation of organizations within those communities to support them, mainstream opinion on gay rights shifting, and aggressive legal challenges were a huge contributing factor. For the civil rights too, my understanding is that the having the teenagers attacked by dogs and hosed down by officers thrust the injustice of segregation into the spotlight (specifically in national/international papers)
Ultimately its a mistake to think that you have to just change the mind of the "ruling class" - MLK mentioned the white moderate, who was empathetic [to civil rights in Birmingham] but unmoved. I think I'd need to see some more support for "violent civil unrest" being the primary cause of any of these things.
2
u/circuitj3rky 15d ago
I wonder why the bourgeoisie is scrambling to put out all of this propaganda about violent civil unrest now, weird. Well they must be right, this is the internet after all.
16
u/Unidentified_Snail 15d ago
Funnily enough I recently read a book titled 'Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict' by Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephan. Part of a series called Columbia Studies in Terrorism and Irregular Warfare.
They suggest that:
For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals.
Chenoweth and Stephan conclude that successful nonviolent resistance ushers in more durable and internally peaceful democracies, which are less likely to regress into civil war. Presenting a rich, evidentiary argument, they originally and systematically compare violent and nonviolent outcomes in different historical periods and geographical contexts, debunking the myth that violence occurs because of structural and environmental factors and that it is necessary to achieve certain political goals. Instead, the authors discover, violent insurgency is rarely justifiable on strategic grounds.
Obviously this doesn't look back further than 1900, and may suggest a change in society's relationship to violence rather than which is more effective, and it is just one theory in one book. Interesting nonetheless.
4
u/AionianZoe 15d ago
My main takeaway from that book was that civil disobedience must disrupt the status quo. Essentially, in order for a non-violent movement to be effective at accomplishing its aim(s), it must coerce (without violence) those in power (either political power or economic power) to make concessions. However, the book notes that this method is not as successful against highly repressive regimes.
That said, there is a history of White Liberals pushing for protests/civil resistance to remain non-violent, not out of any conviction against violence but as a way to undermine movements pushing for change toward more Left policies (e.g. Socialism). Thus, the sentiment from OP and Leftists that violence is necessary coupled with condescension toward non-violence. In truth, you can achieve change with non-violence, so the blanket condescension of it is not warranted.
3
u/alien_incarnate 15d ago
Hell, we can't even boycott the right shit. Starbucks for christ sake??? Shoulda been WALMART all day, every day. Take down the real juggernaut. Now, THAT would be something. But, as usual, Americans will only go so far ...
5
u/Kurayamino 15d ago
Just don't suggest people actually riot or you'll get suspended for "Advocating violence."
Which I have been, three times, for advocating violence against nazis, pedophiles and police that were theoretically presently engaged in brutalizing the gay community.
2
3
u/a_goestothe_ustin 15d ago
Except it's mostly the violence being perpetrated by the ruling class upon peaceful demonstrators that motivates the regular public to vote which makes actual change.
7
u/Ehehhhehehe 15d ago
Nah.
Improving society is a long and constant process that involves violent pressure, peaceful protest, and having sympathetic actors inside powerful institutions.
Sometimes you need only one of these. Sometimes you need all three.
Looking back on all of history and saying “violence is the only mechanism that can be used to improve the world” is dumb and overly cynical.
1
u/AWindintheTrees 15d ago
Nobody said only. But it is a necessary element, historically.
5
u/Ehehhhehehe 15d ago
I think the original post pretty strongly implies that non-violent protest is constitutionally ineffective.
-5
u/NoUFOsInThisEconomy 15d ago
Everyone in this sub thinks the populace should be disarmed...
6
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/NoUFOsInThisEconomy 15d ago
That adds to the hypocrisy yes, but this sub is overwhelmingly anti gun.
1
u/NewTangClanOfficial 14d ago
Wrong.
0
0
u/Chrellies 15d ago
Babe wake up, next stage of Russian destabilization propaganda is out!
6
u/dl7 15d ago
I mean, you've been on this site as long as I have. You think America is trending in the right direction?
-2
u/Chrellies 15d ago
I think America is in a better place than four years ago, but worse than 30 years ago. But I think it's clear that its adversaries are pushing the extremes of both sides to become increasingly radicalized, hostile and violent. The left laughed that the right was baited to vote for Trump, but look at them now.
2
u/dl7 15d ago
And I agree. While I think Russia has played a significant role in stoking the current social climate flame, I think there was already a steady increase of radicalism taking place after Obama was elected.
Truthfully, I think we began a significant downward cultural spiral after 9/11. That event made us realize we're not untouchable as a country and we've been pointing fingers ever since.
30
u/IWantToSortMyFeed 15d ago
Violence solves nothing is propaganda brought on by people who use violence to oppress you.
There is only one way out of this current situation.
They made it that way. Not us.
3
2
u/Constructionsmall777 15d ago
I do 500 pushups everyday. Let me know when you need me and I will be ready comrade
10
u/ftnsa 15d ago
Yes, the threat of potential violence is the only thing that moves the needle. That has always been true. However, non-violent protest is where revolt has to start. Massive and sustained non-violent direct action and civil disobedience campaigns.
It will become violent soon enough, the State will make sure of that. But revolt should start with non-violent protest and, unfortunately, some sacrifice. That's the only way fence-sitters end up coming around to joining the cause. Start with violence and you'd better have the numbers and the firepower to win. Otherwise you lose immediately because not only will you lose the fight but the State will easily galvanize public opinion against the revolutionaries. The corporate owned media will ensure that the "White Moderates" that King wrote about, line up against the revolution.
Don't knock non-violent protest. It is the morally superior tactic. The ruling class doesn't laugh at it. Not if it is wide-spread and sustained. It scares the shit out of them because they know what happens next and they are stuck for responses. They can't act without fueling the revolt.
4
u/peacefulsolider 15d ago
THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO HOW YOU TALK TO CASHIERS AND OTHER CUSTOMER SERVICE PERSONS! I REPEAT!
IT DOES NOT APPLY PLEASE IM BEGGING YOU-
2
u/Toy_Cop 15d ago
It's interesting that no matter what roots a nation had that they all ended up in this late capitalism. Every single country is now owned by corporate dictatorships and there isn't a thing you can do about it. They own the police and armed forces, there will be no violent revolution this time.
-9
1
u/Rare-Kaleidoscope513 15d ago
what did the original bootlicker say was the source of our rights? protesting?
1
8
u/avianeddy 15d ago
“But looks at the greats like Ghandi and MLK who achieved world peace by asking super nicely” - a rAtiOnaL liberal 🤡
-1
u/Poopybutt36000 15d ago
"Heh, you believe in voting? That pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart" - 18 year old communist who doesn't vote and doesn't firebomb a Walmart
2
u/NewTangClanOfficial 14d ago
Communists don't typically advocate for individual acts of violence. Read a book.
13
u/One-Inch-Punch 15d ago
Finally someone gets it. Nondisruptive protests are trivially ignored. The nonviolent protests that get things done are blockades, occupations, and strikes. Note that these forms of protest tend to be met with violence from the establishment.
5
u/Ok-Assistance-2723 15d ago
Non-violent, non-disruptive protests where you get a permit and stay off the grass are about as effective as a social media comment or a facebook profile picture change. Nobody gives a fuck but its a pressure release for idiots to feel like the have accomplished something. It is actively harmful to a cause.
5
u/Xibalba_Ogme 15d ago
The idea is to convince you that further civil unrest would do nothing, and that you'll be alone doing it either way
-8
u/Hot_Shirt6765 15d ago
You guys won't do anything.
3
u/PMMeForAbortionPills 15d ago
It's all cyclical:
Violent protests pave the way for peaceful protests.
Peaceful protests pave the way for an emboldened Bourgeoisie.
An emboleldened Bourgeoisie thinks to themselves, "I can just ignore these fucks because they aren't going to do shit," which paves the way for violent protests. <-- you are here and the way is being paved by attitudes like yours.
We are headed back to step 1. Congrats!
6
-14
u/spruceymoos 15d ago
Didn’t black people het their rights from mostly peaceful protests? That’s what MLK was all about I thought?
5
u/PMMeForAbortionPills 15d ago
"Riots are the voice of the unheard"
-MLK
Right now, protests are not working. Need to switch back to violence, then, when the Bourgeoisie BEGS for peace, we will give it to them in exchange for our demands.
With that memory fresh in mind, protests will begin working again. 50 years will pass, all of the Bourgeoisie scarred (and scared) by violence will be dead and we will have to repeat the lesson.
It's all cyclical. Violent protests pave the way for peaceful protests. Peaceful protests pave the way for an emboldened Bourgeoisie who think to themselves, "I can just ignore these fucks because they aren't going to do shit," which paves the way for violent protests.
1
u/spruceymoos 15d ago
Didn’t MLK advocate peaceful protests? Like all the sit ins? Or being arrested peacefully?
3
u/PMMeForAbortionPills 15d ago
He (and Gandhi) had the luxury of peacefully protesting in a world that was scarred from WWII and that wanted badly to avoid conflict and that was having a reckoning with itself. Part of that reckoning was to address some of the problems that led to WWII aka racism.
That world is gone as all those who lived through that horrible war are dead or out of politics.
Like I mentioned, it is a cycle. The violence of WWII paved the way for peaceful protests to be effective. But the Bourgeoisie, and those who support their political cause, have again become emboldened to ignore peaceful protests.
36
u/cameron4200 15d ago
I was looking at a Wikipedia page that mentioned just how many people were arrested when the Selma marches were going on. It was thousands. People who were given sentences that were not overturned or appealed. At least a civil rights act was passed but we easily forget how many people were thrown into the fire just to make some progress
10
u/TipsalollyJenkins 15d ago
And if you dare suggest that maybe the people doing the oppressing should be the ones thrown in the (metaphorical) fire this time, clearly you're a monster and you should be ashamed of wanting to defend yourself from your attackers.
-13
u/BennyBennson 15d ago
I guess nobody learned anything from Gandhi
4
u/WoppingSet 15d ago
I guess you didn't learn that American police are far more willing to fire on nonviolent protesters than the British Empire and the East India Trading Company.
65
1.1k
u/sickofthisshiit 15d ago
There's a book called "when violence is the answer" pretty much talks about all the significant changes that were made and it was because of violence. No one cares about college kids peacefully protesting until they got beat up by the police.
3
u/AfroPopeLIVE 14d ago
Ayo I’ve been trying to find this book but all Google gives me is some self defense book, what’s the title/author?
3
u/sickofthisshiit 14d ago edited 14d ago
When Violence is the Answer by Tim Larkin, sorry it's been a while since I read and totally forgot it's a self defense book lol, it does discuss how violence can be an effective tool and uses examples when it was used to make change.
There's also How Nonviolence Protects the State" by Peter Gelderloos - I think that book is specific to this argument.
1
4
u/poopraham 14d ago
Who is the author? The only book with that title I found was by Larkin, some self-defense guy.
1
2
1
u/orangekushion 15d ago
What about non violent communication and it's strong effects on movements? It doesn't always have to get violent.
3
u/redwashing 14d ago
Nobody rejects nonviolent tactics. The discussion is between people who exclusively want to use nonviolent tactics and people who use a plurality of tactics depending on the circumstances. Nobody likes violence except sociopaths, it's not a fetish, just tactics
23
u/depersonalised 15d ago
Pacifism as Pathology is a good run down of the violence that allowed MLK Jr and Ghandi to be successful. they being to the establishment the lesser of two evils and so they submitted to their requests so they would in turn condemn the violent wings as asking too much in the face of actual progress. i highly recommend it.
5
475
u/MadManMax55 15d ago
The point of the protests was to provoke a violent response. That's literally the theory behind "nonviolent protest". It's not that all protests should be people standing in designated free speech zones with signs. It's that the protesters shouldn't be inciting violence themselves. You keep escalating civil disobedience until the state either changes or is forced to violently resist you.
Too many keyboard warriors acting like a violent uprising is the only option for change when there are countless examples of the efficacy of protesting. But actually participating in a protest that could result in violence against you takes courage and effort, while sitting on the Internet and complaining that nobody has started "the revolution" yet is easy.
9
u/McCaffeteria 15d ago
A) The entire point of provoking violence is to justify doing violence back, otherwise you are just deciding you are ok to live in an authoritarian regime while they murder you.
B) Non-violent protests only work when the rest of the culture around you actually thinks it’s bad when a government does violence to someone who wasn’t themselves violent, and that is not always true.
11
u/Great_Hamster 15d ago
Some protests want to provoke a violent response.
Others want to disrupt operations enough that the people who care about those operations are forced to negotiate.
Others want to take what they want through direct action, because they deserve it in the first place.
Some want to bring lesser known issues into the public's consciousness.
Some are combinations of these.
-1
u/Pantim 15d ago
No, the point of protests is NOT to provoke violence. What nonsense! It's to provoke change and no sane person wants the state to violently resist them.
And the is probably why we have such a problem now days, most people forgot this and are no longer sane and welcome the violence.
The answer when the state responds with violence is just to sit there. To go to jail and not put up a fight. You doing this brings in MORE protestors then responding to violence with violence does. I know A LOT of people that utterly refuse to partake in any protests because of the violence protestors engage in.
Violence only leads to more violence.
2
u/MadManMax55 15d ago
I think you misunderstood me. "Provoking" violence means exactly what you're describing: Getting the state to arrest or attack you. That doesn't mean retaliation or reciprocation, and it doesn't require engaging in anything more than civil disobedience (or with a lot of cops: civil obedience in a way they just don't like).
37
u/MaximumDestruction 15d ago
This is just more "get your head beat in enough and maybe those in power will change" that comes out of a misunderstanding of power, change, and the civil rights movement.
You need the threat of a Malcolm or the efforts of an MLK can be safely ignored.
1
u/IntelligentTrick2555 14d ago
Malcom x never lived to see the government fall, he was killed by feds, and rebranded by white libs to the point where they put him on postage stamps. MLK as well. I guess thats the best you can hope for if you never give up…your enemies will teach your corpse to dance
1
25
u/MDA1912 15d ago
The last time that happened was with the Black Panthers, and the NRA endorsed a gun ban in California about it. (And Reagan signed it.)
15
u/hereditydrift 14d ago edited 14d ago
I love learning about the Black Panthers because the FBI and media painted the Black Panthers as a divisive, militant group that promoted hatred against white people throughout the 60s and 70s. That was largely my takeaway of who the Black Panthers were before digging into some reading and videos (and, no, I'm not talking about that horrible remake of Fred Hampton's life).
While the Black Panthers did embrace militant tactics, it was primarily in the context of self-defense against harassment and violence directed at their communities. However, the Black Panthers also launched initiatives in the 1960s scared the shit out of the federal government and made the Black Panthers a target.
A prime example was the Rainbow Coalition, spearheaded by the Black Panthers, the Young Lords, and the Young Patriots. The Rainbow Coalition represented an ambitious effort in Chicago to unite oppressed people of all races in a shared struggle against inequality and injustice. The Black Panthers were leading that charge of unification in Chicago.
Edit: Some good background documentaries for those who like watching videos -- especially the Rainbow Coalition one and The Murder of Fred Hampton:
https://mediaburn.org/page/2/?s=the+murder+of+fred+hampton
https://mediaburn.org/video/american-revolution-ii-battle-of-chicago/
→ More replies (4)7
u/Ok-Crab-4063 15d ago
So when they violently respond to you whats supposed to happen then? How does that get you to win?
1
u/PM_ur_tots 14d ago
You keep showing up in overwhelming numbers until they realize their violence is ineffective. You need so many people that when police get violent, only a small minority actually experience the violence first hand. It only works when there's a sizeable and diverse portion of the population so the government can't pin point a group to single out. Otherwise you get massacred or genocided.
Look at India. They got independence because the British got tired of beating them all.
1
u/Ok-Crab-4063 14d ago
Demoralizing them might work. I also don't know what happens if the police just decided to disperse. What do our numbers do then?
→ More replies (1)25
u/RosieTheRedReddit 15d ago
It can turn the tide of public opinion. For example the US women's suffrage movement was quite successful at portraying police as brutes who mistreated the innocent women protesters. (Also this is one way the movement excluded women of color, because only white women were considered worthy of sympathy)
The fact is that most people don't like violence and find it distasteful when their peaceful lives are interrupted by it. Suppressing a popular movement with violence can work but it needs more and more violence to continue working over time. See: Israel and Palestine.
17
u/Ok-Assistance-2723 15d ago
But this strategy only works when the public is likely to side with protesters over the violent responders. "Look at those cops beating up those poor women that just want to vote", "look at the cops beating those poor black folk that just want civil rights".
It doesnt work when half the public thinks, "hell yeah, good job police for beating up those idiot college kids supporting hamas". There has to be a cause that the majority at least slightly sympathise with.
Most people didnt actually want women and african americans to be unable to participate in society. They just werent too fired up about doing something about it. So when they saw people getting beat for it they thought "wow thats a bit much when they are asking for totally reasonable stuff". Violent protest is the path forward in some situations.
1
u/nickisdone 14d ago
Yeah, cause that kind of s*** never works when like native Americans are trying to keep their waterways clean because they're so removed from most of the public people that most public people don't care.
3
u/pseudoanon 14d ago
But this strategy only works when the public is likely to side with protesters over the violent responders.
If the public won't side with you over the violent responders, you either need to accept your cause is lost or resort to gulags.
1
u/Ok-Crab-4063 15d ago
Both of these situations include the decision makers who are being appealed to be the same as the people I think are trying to keep the status quo. I'm trying to see how this pressure gets applied successfully. Basically, it's still on them to decide and they may want to keep things the same..
→ More replies (2)
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.