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.

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.

I think it comes from a lack of organization. People are rightly angry so they want to act but they have no idea what is helpful so they just turn to whatever feels right. Usually something seeded in their mind from TV or movies.

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.

It’s amazing that so many people on Lemmy think so much about politics yet have such a poor understanding of how it actually works. I blame the education system. And memes like this one.

People say this all the time but what is the implication here? They 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.

This moldy apple core I found in the trash would’ve made a comparatively great president, in hindsight.

Fuck me…

I guess we’ll see what happens, certainly I’ve seen some prominent voices on the right pushing back here so it’s not clear he’ll go through with it, but openly saying these things is not good.

Haha sure I meant across the country though, not in one place.

Yeah that’s true.

Also, 3.5% was based on ongoing civil resistance campaigns with clear goals… so I don’t know that participation in a singular rally applies.

Get 11 million people to participate in actively disrupting ICE activities or striking then you are cooking. But it’s a start.

Soviets as originally created were actually pretty based. Unfortunately the Bolsheviks crushed them about 5 minutes into their reign the moment they stopped being useful.

Well, that was an ongoing process already. I think in the hypothetical where the protests never happened, we’d probably be even further along in that way.

No way it was only thousands. My city was easily thousands alone. Maybe tens of thousands but it was too many for me to estimate clearly.

Doubtful. It’s a lot for a protest but not for an election.

I agree they’re putting out feelers but I don’t think they’ll get traction. I didn’t find anyone calling for direct US intervention, mainly just indirect support for Israel. Who was saying that?

I also found some leaders explicitly saying the US should not get involved. I guess it feels a lot different from the post-9/11 years when it felt like only political radicals were opposed to war, and basically every mainstream voice was cheering it on. So that’s why I’m a bit more optimistic.

Are they? What are they saying regarding Iran?

So what is it time for then, Tim? The people want to know.

I’m aware and yeah it should be abolished but I still wouldn’t say we have the draft currently. It could be brought back though.

Thankfully the sentiment in the US recently has been fairly anti-war so I am not sure they could get away with it barring some kind of extreme events.

Contextually I thought you were just calling all Israelis settlers. All Israelis (and all Iranians) will be threatened by a war between their countries. But OK, if that’s not what you meant then what I said doesn’t apply. Just a weird thing to focus on since it’s unlikely Iran would specifically target settlers.