6 ms·

What do you propose? The only way to change is either voting, money, or violence. I'm generally lost as what to do.

by bmitc 2y ago

lazide 2y ago
Voting - already happened. Money - the folks doing this already have a ton of money, and used it in large part to get to this point. Violence - necessary for change, but against who exactly? anyone trying to be violent against the folks running this will be disavowed by 90% of the rest of the population, and galvanize an outsized violent crackdown against anyone and everyone who even somewhat looks like them. It’s going to have to get a lot worse before there is appetite to do the things that will actually make it better. people aren’t bleeding enough yet.
- bmitc 2y ago
  That's kind of my point. We're heading directly into Nazi, USSR, and CCP territory and gotta ride this out until another election (if we even have one), someone with money cares (they don't), or we're all ready for violence (it's all the idiots who have guns).
  - lazide 2y ago
    The issue here is all the ‘opposition’ will do anything but actually fight - or allow anyone else to fight - or allow anyone else to violate the law. So anyone actually trying to fight back will be destroyed by their own side. Where the folks doing this, won’t be.
  - ebcode 2y ago
    would you participate in a general strike?
- rexpop 2y ago
  Uh, what ever happened to Civil Disobedience? Direct Action? Nonviolent Action? There are at least as many ways to respond to repression as there are avenues of repression: https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/ https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Whatever happened to it!? We are past that at this point. Nonviolent has been normalized for the last, idk, 80 years, very conveniently for the ones in power. It works if we have a functional government and an educated and engaged populace. We don't have any of that. Hold all the signs you want, vote with your dollar, walkout of work and get fired. If it doesn't scare people in power, you're not doing anything meaningful.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Meeting fascism with nonviolence is a good way to sacrifice your life in a way that's guaranteed to be ineffectual.
    - rexpop 2y ago
      What's presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but because it's important I'll deign to enlighten you with some counter-examples: - In Nazi-occupied Europe, during World War II, various groups wielded nonviolent resistance (such as hiding Jews) against the Nazi regime and managed to hamper the regime's efforts, and in some cases saved lives. Not ineffectual. - In Germany, in 1923, the German population wielded nonviolent non-cooperation and strikes (the Ruhrkampf) against the French and Belgian occupation and managed to gain international sympathy and hinder the occupiers. Not ineffectual. - In Nazi-occupied countries--Denmark (Engaging in public protest and social boycotting, along with acts of noncooperation and striking), Holland (Developing an underground press network, social boycotting, noncooperation, striking, and hiding and facilitating escapes), Norway (Sending letters of protest, maintaining social boycotts, engaging in cultural resistance, noncooperation and creating alternative institutions such as unofficial sports leagues), France (Stalling and obstruction the forced relocation of Jews, noncooperating, developing clandestine media, and demonstrating open defiance, eg wearing the yellow star in solidarity), and Belgium (Hiding and facilitating escapes, noncooperating, and obstructing authorities protected the lives of Jews, made it harder for the Nazis to enforce their policies, and weakened their ability to maintain order)--during World War II, various populations wielded nonviolent resistance against the German occupiers and managed to present a unique challenge to the Nazi regime, which was more equipped for violent conflict. Not ineffectual. - In East Germany, in 1953, workers and other citizens wielded strikes and demonstrations against the Communist regime, revealing the extent of public dissatisfaction with the working conditions, inspiring groups such as the Volkseigener Betrieb Industriebau's Block 40 section and the Zeiss factory at Jena to make bolder collective demands such as the release of a fellow worker who had been arbitrarily arrested and even inspiring sympathy from Russian/Polish soviet soldiers. Not ineffectual. - In Russia, in February 1917, striking workers and other citizens wielded massive strikes and peaceful demonstrations against the Tsarist regime and managed to lead to its disintegration. When troops did fire on demonstrators, as occurred in Znamensky and Kazansky Squares, it backfired. The soldiers who obeyed these orders later felt remorse and questioned why they had shot at the crowds. This resulted in mutinies, such as that of the Volynsky Regiment. These troops then went into the streets to proclaim their support for the people. Not ineffectual. - In the United States, during the mid-20th century, civil rights activists wielded sit-ins, marches, and boycotts against segregationist authorities and systems and managed to dismantle racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, and discriminatory employment practices. Not ineffectual. - In India, during the early to mid-20th century, Gandhi and his followers wielded civil disobedience, boycotts, and strikes against British colonial rule and managed to challenge that rule, demonstrating the power of non-cooperation and willingness to suffer for a cause. They won independence. Not ineffectual. So, now the burden lies on you, really, to demonstrate that our opponent in this moment is somehow more fascist, more cruel, and also more independent of the consent of the governed than any other fascist administration in history against whom nonviolence prevailed or, at least, mitigated. But in order for me to even read your response, you would have to open by convincing me that you will do something other than sit on your ass and pull in a SE salary until the next election. Because even if nonviolence were ineffectual--and, again, it's not--you could, at the very least, opt out of participation in the socioeconomic systems from which the fascists draw power. Because "nothing but violence will work," is a total cop-out from someone who also isn't already training with their local Antifa regiment.
tbrownaw 2y ago
You left out rhetoric.

What do you propose? The only way to change is either voting, money, or violence. I'm generally lost as what to do.

by bmitc 2y ago

What do you propose? The only way to change is either voting, money, or violence. I'm generally lost as what to do.

Voting - already happened. Money - the folks doing this already have a ton of money, and used it in large part to get to this point. Violence - necessary for change, but against who exactly? anyone trying to be violent against the folks running this will be disavowed by 90% of the rest of the population, and galvanize an outsized violent crackdown against anyone and everyone who even somewhat looks like them. It’s going to have to get a lot worse before there is appetite to do the things that will actually make it better. people aren’t bleeding enough yet.

bmitc 2y ago
That's kind of my point. We're heading directly into Nazi, USSR, and CCP territory and gotta ride this out until another election (if we even have one), someone with money cares (they don't), or we're all ready for violence (it's all the idiots who have guns).
- lazide 2y ago
  The issue here is all the ‘opposition’ will do anything but actually fight - or allow anyone else to fight - or allow anyone else to violate the law. So anyone actually trying to fight back will be destroyed by their own side. Where the folks doing this, won’t be.
- ebcode 2y ago
  would you participate in a general strike?
rexpop 2y ago
Uh, what ever happened to Civil Disobedience? Direct Action? Nonviolent Action? There are at least as many ways to respond to repression as there are avenues of repression: https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/ https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Whatever happened to it!? We are past that at this point. Nonviolent has been normalized for the last, idk, 80 years, very conveniently for the ones in power. It works if we have a functional government and an educated and engaged populace. We don't have any of that. Hold all the signs you want, vote with your dollar, walkout of work and get fired. If it doesn't scare people in power, you're not doing anything meaningful.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  Meeting fascism with nonviolence is a good way to sacrifice your life in a way that's guaranteed to be ineffectual.
  - rexpop 2y ago
    What's presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but because it's important I'll deign to enlighten you with some counter-examples: - In Nazi-occupied Europe, during World War II, various groups wielded nonviolent resistance (such as hiding Jews) against the Nazi regime and managed to hamper the regime's efforts, and in some cases saved lives. Not ineffectual. - In Germany, in 1923, the German population wielded nonviolent non-cooperation and strikes (the Ruhrkampf) against the French and Belgian occupation and managed to gain international sympathy and hinder the occupiers. Not ineffectual. - In Nazi-occupied countries--Denmark (Engaging in public protest and social boycotting, along with acts of noncooperation and striking), Holland (Developing an underground press network, social boycotting, noncooperation, striking, and hiding and facilitating escapes), Norway (Sending letters of protest, maintaining social boycotts, engaging in cultural resistance, noncooperation and creating alternative institutions such as unofficial sports leagues), France (Stalling and obstruction the forced relocation of Jews, noncooperating, developing clandestine media, and demonstrating open defiance, eg wearing the yellow star in solidarity), and Belgium (Hiding and facilitating escapes, noncooperating, and obstructing authorities protected the lives of Jews, made it harder for the Nazis to enforce their policies, and weakened their ability to maintain order)--during World War II, various populations wielded nonviolent resistance against the German occupiers and managed to present a unique challenge to the Nazi regime, which was more equipped for violent conflict. Not ineffectual. - In East Germany, in 1953, workers and other citizens wielded strikes and demonstrations against the Communist regime, revealing the extent of public dissatisfaction with the working conditions, inspiring groups such as the Volkseigener Betrieb Industriebau's Block 40 section and the Zeiss factory at Jena to make bolder collective demands such as the release of a fellow worker who had been arbitrarily arrested and even inspiring sympathy from Russian/Polish soviet soldiers. Not ineffectual. - In Russia, in February 1917, striking workers and other citizens wielded massive strikes and peaceful demonstrations against the Tsarist regime and managed to lead to its disintegration. When troops did fire on demonstrators, as occurred in Znamensky and Kazansky Squares, it backfired. The soldiers who obeyed these orders later felt remorse and questioned why they had shot at the crowds. This resulted in mutinies, such as that of the Volynsky Regiment. These troops then went into the streets to proclaim their support for the people. Not ineffectual. - In the United States, during the mid-20th century, civil rights activists wielded sit-ins, marches, and boycotts against segregationist authorities and systems and managed to dismantle racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, and discriminatory employment practices. Not ineffectual. - In India, during the early to mid-20th century, Gandhi and his followers wielded civil disobedience, boycotts, and strikes against British colonial rule and managed to challenge that rule, demonstrating the power of non-cooperation and willingness to suffer for a cause. They won independence. Not ineffectual. So, now the burden lies on you, really, to demonstrate that our opponent in this moment is somehow more fascist, more cruel, and also more independent of the consent of the governed than any other fascist administration in history against whom nonviolence prevailed or, at least, mitigated. But in order for me to even read your response, you would have to open by convincing me that you will do something other than sit on your ass and pull in a SE salary until the next election. Because even if nonviolence were ineffectual--and, again, it's not--you could, at the very least, opt out of participation in the socioeconomic systems from which the fascists draw power. Because "nothing but violence will work," is a total cop-out from someone who also isn't already training with their local Antifa regiment.

tbrownaw 2y ago

You left out rhetoric.