3 ms·

Everyone talks about MLK, but no one points out that people were willing to listen because Malcom X was a looming threat if MLK failed. Yes vote, but the threat

by iteria 4mo ago

Everyone talks about MLK, but no one points out that people were willing to listen because Malcom X was a looming threat if MLK failed. Yes vote, but the threat of violence is what makes voting a delighted option. That's why protests exist. They are reminders that peace is a choice. Violent revolution has merit when peaceful means break down. The rise of the guillotine jokes are the first time that people are losing faith in the peaceful option. We should hope that our leaders don't make most of use disillusioned with the idea of a peaceful transfer of power.

cwillu 4mo ago
[flagged]
rapidaneurism 4mo ago
France had revolution and guillotines, but the UK had a strong police force and good suppression.
- achierius 4mo ago
  The UK didn't just repress its citizens, it ultimately caved to them. The voting reforms of the 19th century gave people essentially everything they wanted, at the time, and as a consequence when the rest of europe was going thru 1848 Britain was chilling. But just a few years beforehand there was legitimate fear that the government would be toppled by rioters! You can't judge centuries of history just by looking at the end result.
ericd 4mo ago
For anyone thinking about going that way, I highly recommend listening to the Revolutions podcast series starting here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wVvwnrBP2cVQrFf06RoO9 https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wVvwnrBP2cVQrFf06RoO9 It'll probably disabuse you of the idea that its a good way to get things done.
- kombookcha 4mo ago
  It's never been a good way to get things done, but when you block off every other venue for change people will be much more willing to take a chance on a high risk option. Violent revolutions aren't usually the first thing people try. Democracies that arise by nonviolent revolution, do so in part due to the threat of what comes next if the nonviolent revolution is crushed. Because if you make sure placards and petitions don't work, it eventually won't be placards and petitions anymore. 'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable', and all that.
  - ericd 4mo ago
    Yeah, I get that it's a useful threat to back up the nonviolent options. I just don't think Americans have tried the nonviolent options wrt economics with any amount of real effort yet, and it's worrying/annoying to see people jumping to the nuclear option as soon as they personally hit a rough patch or start getting scared of one. When I've gone to local government meetings, I've generally been one of only a few without gray hair. The vast majority of working-age people seemingly can't be bothered to learn the basics about who's running in a non-presidential election, let alone go argue for the boring but extremely impactful things that would actually help people out. People need to put down the phones and put in some actual effort on fixing things before even jokingly advocating for something that would almost certainly be a mass casualty event. It's shameful.
    - kombookcha 4mo ago
      I don't disagree. Local politics and unionizing are much more impactful than people realize.
- sassbadger 4mo ago
  It is one of the most eye opening pieces of media. Especially the French and Russian Revolutions are covered in such great detail, while staying interesting. I also loved the appendix to the show where Mike talked about "patterns" in a revolution. Learned a lot about the relationship between the government and its people.
_doctor_love 4mo ago
> Violent revolution has merit when peaceful means break down. Robespierre first entered the chat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror Then Napoleon followed. Make of it what you will. [EDIT: for the downvoters - the folks who got guillotined in France were definitely bad, but the Terror was very real and very awful. It tends to be a trend with the noble overthrowers that after the initial wins they then get excited to go lop the heads off anyone else that might have ever bothered them. Be careful what you wish for.]

by iteria 4mo ago

cwillu 4mo ago

[flagged]

rapidaneurism 4mo ago

France had revolution and guillotines, but the UK had a strong police force and good suppression.

achierius 4mo ago
The UK didn't just repress its citizens, it ultimately caved to them. The voting reforms of the 19th century gave people essentially everything they wanted, at the time, and as a consequence when the rest of europe was going thru 1848 Britain was chilling. But just a few years beforehand there was legitimate fear that the government would be toppled by rioters! You can't judge centuries of history just by looking at the end result.

ericd 4mo ago

For anyone thinking about going that way, I highly recommend listening to the Revolutions podcast series starting here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wVvwnrBP2cVQrFf06RoO9 https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wVvwnrBP2cVQrFf06RoO9 It'll probably disabuse you of the idea that its a good way to get things done.

kombookcha 4mo ago
It's never been a good way to get things done, but when you block off every other venue for change people will be much more willing to take a chance on a high risk option. Violent revolutions aren't usually the first thing people try. Democracies that arise by nonviolent revolution, do so in part due to the threat of what comes next if the nonviolent revolution is crushed. Because if you make sure placards and petitions don't work, it eventually won't be placards and petitions anymore. 'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable', and all that.
- ericd 4mo ago
  Yeah, I get that it's a useful threat to back up the nonviolent options. I just don't think Americans have tried the nonviolent options wrt economics with any amount of real effort yet, and it's worrying/annoying to see people jumping to the nuclear option as soon as they personally hit a rough patch or start getting scared of one. When I've gone to local government meetings, I've generally been one of only a few without gray hair. The vast majority of working-age people seemingly can't be bothered to learn the basics about who's running in a non-presidential election, let alone go argue for the boring but extremely impactful things that would actually help people out. People need to put down the phones and put in some actual effort on fixing things before even jokingly advocating for something that would almost certainly be a mass casualty event. It's shameful.
  - kombookcha 4mo ago
    I don't disagree. Local politics and unionizing are much more impactful than people realize.
sassbadger 4mo ago
It is one of the most eye opening pieces of media. Especially the French and Russian Revolutions are covered in such great detail, while staying interesting. I also loved the appendix to the show where Mike talked about "patterns" in a revolution. Learned a lot about the relationship between the government and its people.

_doctor_love 4mo ago

> Violent revolution has merit when peaceful means break down. Robespierre first entered the chat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror Then Napoleon followed. Make of it what you will. [EDIT: for the downvoters - the folks who got guillotined in France were definitely bad, but the Terror was very real and very awful. It tends to be a trend with the noble overthrowers that after the initial wins they then get excited to go lop the heads off anyone else that might have ever bothered them. Be careful what you wish for.]