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.
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.
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.
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.
I think our main difference seems to be my belief that non-violent action only works if it atleast has the implicit threat of violent action.