The DHS secretary also argued to the reporter that she doesn’t know of “any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign."
When are we going to learn that strongly worded letters and protests that turn us into a shooting gallery are not a winning strategy? How many good men and women need to get assassinated before we try something different, anything different?
I just don’t understand why good people are so prone to think letting the bully repeatedly punch them in the face will work. Some people won’t stop until they are stopped. Everyone knows this. There’s a lot of forms that can take, but blowing fucking whistles clearly isn’t it.
Fine, next martyr, though you knew what I meant. In any case, magical thinking (you just have to want it hard enough) has never worked. If you have suggestions for what to actually do, bring it. Anything short of actions that’ll get you killed never seem to be good enough for the complainers.
One thing that hasn’t been tried is a general strike (and by strike I don’t mean one day off, but a sustained, complete standstill of business without a set end date). That is like the only peaceful means potentially affecting the US oligarchs who finance fascism.
And it doesn’t have to be the entire US, for starters it would help if at least some states and/or large cities would take part.
Nonviolent resistance has a higher success rate when compared to violent resistance. But non violent resistance does not mean the resistance movement will be bloodless. Authoritarians will respond to both a violent and nonviolent movement with aggression.
You’re probably right, but i think the point is worth making - a surprisingly small number of people acting in concert can make topple an authoritarian regime.
The thing is, grumbling on Facebook isn’t enough. If 5% of people could boycott oligarchs indefinitely, that might undermine Trump’s support. That’s actually quite hard to achieve though.
The problem with that rule is that it says you have to be perfectly peaceful and roll over. For example, though it’s categorized as a non-violent movement, the civil rights movement in the US had a fairly large violent wing as well. Also, the non-violent wing was said to be violent by the media of the time.
Personally, I don’t think non-violence alone can accomplish the goals. I think it’s useful to show the regime how much support there is, and how much force is available if it’s actually needed. The violent wing also needs to be there though causing actual damage that they can witness. They need to see what will happen if they don’t listen. The non-violent group will begin increasingly supporting the violent group.
In order to cause real change, there needs to be a credible threat. They don’t care if you politely ask for change. They care if they’re in danger. That’s all authoritarian regimes ever care about. Not the will of the people.
Many people, likely a majority, are not in a financial or practical position to participate in a boycott or general strike. That constraint is not accidental. Considerable effort goes into structuring economic life so that such actions are difficult to sustain, and additional effort goes into convincing people they are even more powerless than they actually are.
Even within this comment thread, some seem to overlook the range of options that exist between blowing whistles on one extreme and violent confrontation with the red hats on the other.
When are we going to learn that strongly worded letters and protests that turn us into a shooting gallery are not a winning strategy? How many good men and women need to get assassinated before we try something different, anything different?
Criticism is easy. Why don’t you suggest a better strategy so we can criticize it?
Naturally, the solution is to interrogate the critique rather than the problem. That approach has an impressive record of success.
Have you read any American history? This is a pattern.
I just don’t understand why good people are so prone to think letting the bully repeatedly punch them in the face will work. Some people won’t stop until they are stopped. Everyone knows this. There’s a lot of forms that can take, but blowing fucking whistles clearly isn’t it.
Violence begets violence.
That’s a trite phase, but it’s no less true.
As soon as America meets violence with violence we’re cooked.
The line is crossed and now we wait for lawmakers to choose a side.
The rule of law OR Fascism
Support and encourage your representatives to stand up to Trump and impeach the childfucker.
You’re not wrong but you’re also not volunteering to get yourself killed as well as likely hundreds if not thousands right off the bat.
Kent State was much smaller and you still ended up with iirc like 40 deaf or injured.
Open rebellion is a last resort because it’s guaranteed to come with a body count.
I’m not as well versed on that event as I would like, but isn’t that another example of a peaceful protest that turned into a shooting gallery?
Yes most of the turning points in American history have fairly high body counts.
Open rebellion is a terrible idea.
We have extensive data on how to fight the US. We just choose not to use the correct tactics.
Asymmetric is the way. Anything else is suicide.
Can you elaborate? Do you mean guerilla warfare?
Are you volunteering to be the first martyr?
The first, second, third, and fourth martyr positions are already taken. This trolling is no longer effective.
Fine, next martyr, though you knew what I meant. In any case, magical thinking (you just have to want it hard enough) has never worked. If you have suggestions for what to actually do, bring it. Anything short of actions that’ll get you killed never seem to be good enough for the complainers.
One thing that hasn’t been tried is a general strike (and by strike I don’t mean one day off, but a sustained, complete standstill of business without a set end date). That is like the only peaceful means potentially affecting the US oligarchs who finance fascism. And it doesn’t have to be the entire US, for starters it would help if at least some states and/or large cities would take part.
We’ve had dozens of martyrs already, people are dying we don’t even know about.
Next martyr, then. You in?
Position’s already taken, I’m afraid.
The 3.5% rule.
Nonviolent resistance has a higher success rate when compared to violent resistance. But non violent resistance does not mean the resistance movement will be bloodless. Authoritarians will respond to both a violent and nonviolent movement with aggression.
Yeah, that “rule” is bullshit. It’s cherry picked at best.
Edit: for those downvoting, even the wiki page says as much right at the top.
You’re probably right, but i think the point is worth making - a surprisingly small number of people acting in concert can make topple an authoritarian regime.
The thing is, grumbling on Facebook isn’t enough. If 5% of people could boycott oligarchs indefinitely, that might undermine Trump’s support. That’s actually quite hard to achieve though.
The problem with that rule is that it says you have to be perfectly peaceful and roll over. For example, though it’s categorized as a non-violent movement, the civil rights movement in the US had a fairly large violent wing as well. Also, the non-violent wing was said to be violent by the media of the time.
Personally, I don’t think non-violence alone can accomplish the goals. I think it’s useful to show the regime how much support there is, and how much force is available if it’s actually needed. The violent wing also needs to be there though causing actual damage that they can witness. They need to see what will happen if they don’t listen. The non-violent group will begin increasingly supporting the violent group.
In order to cause real change, there needs to be a credible threat. They don’t care if you politely ask for change. They care if they’re in danger. That’s all authoritarian regimes ever care about. Not the will of the people.
If the oligarchs start losing money Trump will be finished in a week.
That said, I dont think Americans have the commitment to sustain a boycott.
There is that artificial homelessnes they implemented just so they can replace everyone in the case of a general strike.
But in truth most workers can’t be substituted for overnight, and if we also started boycotting so nobody buys stuff anyways; it would work insantly.
Many people, likely a majority, are not in a financial or practical position to participate in a boycott or general strike. That constraint is not accidental. Considerable effort goes into structuring economic life so that such actions are difficult to sustain, and additional effort goes into convincing people they are even more powerless than they actually are.
Even within this comment thread, some seem to overlook the range of options that exist between blowing whistles on one extreme and violent confrontation with the red hats on the other.
I don’t really understand if I’m honest.
You don’t need to have a general strike as in not going to work or whatever.
If you buy things from Amazon, stop doing that. If you visit facebook, stop doing that. If you use google or chatGPT, make better choices.
Apparently, as few as 5% of a population can cause a revolution.