You're viewing a single thread.
Nor are we required to cheer. Peaceful progress is orders of magnitude better than the option of violence. If we’re truly at the option of last resort, I’m going to mourn the loss of transformation as a path forward. I don’t yearn for destruction.
Peaceful progress would be great, and is always the preferred option, but peacefully sliding into a dystopian capitalist oligarchy where corporations can legally profit off the death of their "customers" doesn't sound like progress to me tbh.
Yes, (peaceful or violent) regression is even lower on my list of desires.
That still doesn’t require me to happily choose violence. I can do it mournfully and regretfully.
I don’t care if it’s justified. That doesn’t necessitate giving up my compassion. If I do, I feel that’s yet one more way the puppet masters are pulling my strings. It’s no win.
In my opinion this is written beautifully. There's a big difference between choosing violence mournfully and not choosing violence at all. I can see the killing of a human being - even if it is a murderer - as wrong and sad and mourn the loss of a person, while simultaneously acknowledging the immense (in a way positive) effect this had on the people, its grotesque sparking of hope, and the cruelty of the victim's actions before their murder. Both things can be true at the same time.
There's also a difference between being found guilty and being sentenced. I personally would not have a problem with the murderer being found guilty. I might be awkwardly relieved if his sentence was nullified - one day less of life in prison for every person's death the CEO has (more or less indirectly) caused. He would not have to serve one day after the verdict. Probably, though, there will be harsh sentencing, I doubt that the murderer didn't expect this. I think he very well understood that his actions would have personal consequences, but that there is a big chance that his actions would also spark something incredible for society and he must have been willing to pay the price.
Peaceful progress has never happened without the credible threat of a violent alternative backing it up. A radical fringe is required in order to make the moderates look moderate; otherwise, the Overton window shifts away from their cause.
India's independence was more reliant on Gandhi's radical cousins who were ready to bring down machine guns on the British than his non-violence. Especially after ww2.
Similarly, the Powers That Be only capitulated to MLK et al. because of the threat of folks like Malcolm X and Huey Newton as the alternative.
Well radical progress has never happened like that.
I would argue that there have been peaceful societies which have been progressive.
But right now, it seems radical progress is needed.
I'm curious which ones you're thinking of, because the progressive societies I'm aware of did not arrive there peacefully or have at the very least needed violence to defend their progress.
No they didn't arrive three peacefully, but to say they made no progress would also be wrong.
The may not cave progressed aa much as the could have, but I'm pretty sure people have — on occasion — managed peaceful progress, rare as it is.
Small changes that don't move the overall society have certainly been achieved without an implicit threat of violence, but if we want things to get better within our grandchildren's lifetimes violence, or the threat thereof, will be necessary. The working class needs to understand this because the rich certainly do and practice it daily.
I’m going to mourn the loss of transformation as a path forward.
As am I. But during and since the election I've come to the conclusion that we have no choice but to cheer.
I still do believe in incremental change but I no longer feel that we have the time. And I realized that asking a generation or two to be patient enough to let that play out is just too big of an ask.
At this point, asking a generation or two to be patient is too big of a RISK. There are too many bad actors with overwhelming money and power working against us.
At this point, asking a generation or two to be patient is too big of a RISK.
1000% agree. But I wouldn't even call it a "risk" because that implies there's a chance it won't suck. I think it's a forgone conclusion where this administration is going and a forgone conclusion that the damage will take a generation or two to undo. And worse, I watched in abject horror as MAGA populism dragged the Democrats far to the right along with them. Fucking hell.
This is not a "fair" fight any more. We don't get anything we want by being polite.
We didn’t need to be patient. We didn’t effectively use the nonviolent tools are our disposal. They were too boring.
Killing is exciting though, so lots of us are cheering and thinking this tool will quickly make our lives better. If it was an effective tool, America would already be a utopia. We have guns and killings already, but no one is choosing the “good” targets.
I can’t tell if those cheering are trying to sabotage the left, so the right can continue to paint the left as violent. Or are they psychopaths? Or do they just have fantasies of LARPing as the Hollywood movie’s underdog hero? What I don’t see if them putting their money where their mouth is.
And they trash any sentiments that question if this enthusiasm is a good idea. I’m not even saying they shouldn’t be enthusiastic. I’m just (again) in the position of justifying not sharing that sentiment.
That’s one tall horse, sir!
If non-violence is always the better answer, then why is it universally accepted that violence is the best answer when the government has a boogie man to catch?
Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam…you’d think that with all the money and alliances that governments have at their disposal, they could have helped the countries that harbored these people and ensured they were brought to justice and judged by a jury of their countrymen. But that isn’t what happened. They used violence because violence is effective in creating drastic change quickly.
Non-violence hopes for change slowly, but often is just a tool that gets manipulated to preserve the status quo—just look at the “approved protest areas” that happened with Occupy Wallstreet. They were more than happy to tell those people exactly how to be nonviolent so the impact was meaningless.
Meanwhile, Luigi’s bullet had plenty of impact and plenty of meaning, as evidenced by the outcry of support from common people of both parties. This may be one of the only issues that the far left and the far right actually agree on.
Meanwhile, Luigi’s bullet had plenty of impact and plenty of meaning, as evidenced by the outcry of support from common people of both parties. This may be one of the only issues that the far left and the far right actually agree on.
Two things:
-
The constituents of populist wings of both left (such as it exists in the US) and right have generally the same concerns but radically different views on what to do about them and how to do it. So executing a health insurance CEO from a company known specifically for denying care at a much higher rate than other insurance gets approval all around even if one side wants to solve the problem by nationalizing healthcare and assuming the government will fix it and the other by deregulating it and assuming the market will fix it.
-
This is the best kind of political violence - the sort where it's clear and obvious what the issue is, what message is being sent and there's a clear line between the problem and the violence that goes right through the message. As opposed to say burning down a pawn shop with someone inside in the name of mistreatment of black people by law enforcement (Montez Terriel Lee, during the second night of BLM 2020 protests in Minneapolis).
-
We didn’t need to be patient. We didn’t effectively use the nonviolent tools are our disposal. They were too boring.
I disagree... change takes time. We've made tremendous incremental progress over the past 50-60 years. But it takes time to change laws and even longer to change cultures. Nonviolent protest and similar actions are useful and effective at building communities and cohesion, but less so at effecting change. For effective, long-lasting change we need to educate and advocate, which means engaging in the political process. I don't know what magical "nonviolent tools" are at our disposal that can turn things around now a time frame that matters to us.
In the last 10 years or so we've been steam-rolled over by neoliberal and neoconservative forces bankrolled by the wealthy. The sophistication of this effort and the mechanisms employed are incredibly hard to oppose. You need only witness the recalcitrance of the Dems to shift toward even the most basic progressive goals.
Before the recent election I was advocating hard for Harris not because I don't consider her essentially a neocon but because the alternative is going to be horrible. Pretty weak, I acknowledge. I also made similar statements as you with regard to not voting for her, even while I shared the feelings of betrayal, simply because it was so clear how much harder any progress was going to be under Trump.
We're faced with an administration that will set us back decades on every front imaginable. We have 4 years or less to do everything we can to ensure that at a minimum we get to vote them out in 2028 and that the damage is as contained as possible. This isn't the time for slow incremental change. This is the time to put politicians and the wealthy on notice and make sure they understand the consequences of engaging in even deeper fleecing of the American public.
That doesn't mean we don't do the hard, boring work of winning elections and engaging in the political process. To me it just means that isn't enough right now. It probably won't be enough for a long time to come. This is going to be a hard fight.
I’ve had this debate going on in my head since I was a kid. Non-violence vs violence. And here’s where I landed:
I’m personally nonviolent. I always want things to be peaceful. But I’ve also come to the conclusion that those of us who choose non-violence have to at some point accept that violence is being used against us. Constantly. The state uses violence to keep us in line. It uses violence to keep the system running on us. Violence is every day. And it’s top-down. But at the first sight of bottom-up violence, everyone has their pearls in hand.
We are being beaten, killed, abused by the system. But when we symbolically use violence against arbiters of death, suddenly violence is wrong again. But the constant threat and use of state violence is hand-waved away.
I choose non-violence. But the constant slide backwards is not solved with just non-violence. Because non-violence is exactly what we’ve been trying the entire time we’ve been sliding backwards. The class war has been ongoing and one sided. Just because I’m nonviolent doesn’t mean I can’t see the value in violence used against those who are killing us. Bite the hand that starves you.
Diversity of tactics FTW!
Nor are we required to cheer
Our cheering is merely a function of the cruelty they've inflicted on us and our families.
The cruelty shareholders cheer about at when their earnings reports come in, and Jim Cramer honks horns and plays wacky sound effects for every day on TV like it's cute.
Imagine believing in peaceful progress after Trump was elected again.
Yeah, that’s not what I said. Good try though.
Required? No.
Able to? Yes!
Tis the season after all!
Yes, that was the message of the OP’s meme.
Yes. Yes it was.
I would argue that with all the none violent protest things have never been as bleak as at present.
No one said ypu were required to cheer. A whole lot of people are insisting golks don't, though. You're free to stay in your lane.
In my feeds, I’ve mostly seen people attacking those who don’t cheer (look at the replies in just this thread *).
I wish that enthusiasm was used for nonviolent direct action over the years, but too few could be bothered. I wish I was optimistic the enthusiasm now would miraculously make a difference.
I wasn’t even attacking those who are cheering. I was saying I’m not into it, but the replies are people who feel threatened by this perspective.
* edit: Oh, here’s a great example. But it’s probably my fault for expressing a nuanced view.
sean@lemmy.wtfwrote:shut the fuck up stupid bitch
Ok you keep up with the thoughts and prayers.
Did you even read what I wrote?
You're getting downvoted but your point is completely valid; it's a sad reality if this is the only option left for people to make things better. Things should have never gotten this bad in the first place.
Peaceful progress is orders of magnitude better than the option of violence.
"Orders of magnitude"? Really? Also: by what metric?
I figured it was pretty obvious. If I weigh killing more people with the alternative of changing minds, then I’d much much rather make changes without the killing. Who wouldn’t?
This one is pretty easy. The system is crushing people. Healthcare CEOs have directly chosen to kill people and their loved ones.
Class war has been raging for at least the last 50 years and the working class hasn’t even realized a punch has been thrown.
We have more empty homes than homeless people in the US.
We spend far more on healthcare per person than any other country yet our life expectancy is significantly worse
Every aspect of your existence is monetized by some billionaire or another. Life is hollow and empty and that’s only about to get a lot worse.
Peaceful protest by itself has rarely led to change. Peaceful protest is ALWAYS the better approach though.
You’re explaining a third alternative: Regression and nonviolence. That’s not one of the two I mentioned.
Sure if you’re forced to choose between nonviolent regression and violent progress, some (but not all) would choose progress with its price over virtue with its price.
But that’s an entirely different discussion. You likely either didn’t read / comprehend what I wrote, or you’re being disingenuous with your comment.
Not everyone needs to cheer if we’ve been forced to choose violence. We can mourn that an even better choice was taken away.