I’m of the opinion both violent and nonviolent means are probably necessary and there’s plenty of nonviolent means of engagement. no war has been fought without support from somewhere, whether that’s a national war machine or the supporting element of an insurgency. there’s always logistics, resources, and well organization that has to occur.
I’m in no condition to fight myself, but over the coming decades I’m gonna have to be thinking about how much violence I’m comfortable being around and how much we can support people in the thick of it. violence is definitely present already in day to day life, but it’s more of an orphan-crushing-machine kind of violence that feels more normal.
This is a silly ad hominem argument though, an indication that what he’s arguing against is too valid to refute on its own merits.
Violence solves things. But by the powerless? No, historically speaking that just leads to military action, often followed by mass executions. Fighting fascism with violence is like fighting fire with gasoline. They feed off that shit. Maybe you can argue it worked in Haiti, albeit with a lot of help from yellow fever. But have you been to Haiti?
He’s right that peaceful protests never solve anything. But organizing and acting as a bloc solves a lot. General strikes, civil disobedience, boycotts, even voting as a group has a strong track record of changing things.
The countries that violently shut down Hitler were anything but powerless. But they were far from the first to try violence, and those attempts became part of Nazi justifications for their own violence. The whole “Seizure of Control” section of this wikipedia article is pretty good reading on that, but I’ll quote specifically:
In his position of Reichstag president, Göring asked that decisive measures be taken by the government over the spate of murders of Nazi Party members. On 9 August, amendments were made to the Reichstrafgesetzbuch statute on “acts of political violence”, increasing the penalty to “lifetime imprisonment, 20 years hard labour[,] or death”. Special courts were announced to try such offences. When in power less than half a year later, Hitler would use this legislation against his opponents with devastating effect.
It’s also worth noting that the Nazi party anthem, “Horst Wessel Lied” praises a Nazi who was assassinated by Communists. And of course the Reichstag Fire became a key part of Hitler’s final seizure of power. Fascists are all about violence and using it to their political advantage, so if you’re gonna use violence against them, you’d better have all the advantages and a really good plan.
How recent is recent? Tunisia, Egypt (well until the population turned out to be too dumb for democracy anyway) are examples.
It hasn’t worked in the US because it’s been too half-assed and the existence of democratic options lowers incentives. Contrast the successful civil disobedience during the civil rights era, where the right to participate in elections was one of the things being denied. But with the increasing signs that democracy is being controlled by a few billionaires, it may see a comeback.
and the existence of democratic options lowers incentives.
Those don’t exist anymore. Not in any real capacity, at least. More like utterly useless window dressing and decorative veneer, much like how North Korea is “democratic” simply because they put that word into the country’s name.
Corporations own nearly all the politicians short of ones like Bernie Sanders and OAC. Corporations write the laws and tell the politicians what to vote for. Corporations own and control EVERYTHING, and you have weapons-grade child-like naïvité if you think the working class has any real political power left in America.
The unionized working class has plenty of power. Both parties catered to unions during the campaigns. Why? Because every politician is afraid of a bunch of people who could go either way deciding to vote as one. If there were one overarching union representing everyone in the working class, regardless of race, location, or position, the minimum wage would be $100k/year.
While I am too old to advocate for violence, this line hit me pretty hard:
"Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators."I’m of the opinion both violent and nonviolent means are probably necessary and there’s plenty of nonviolent means of engagement. no war has been fought without support from somewhere, whether that’s a national war machine or the supporting element of an insurgency. there’s always logistics, resources, and well organization that has to occur.
I’m in no condition to fight myself, but over the coming decades I’m gonna have to be thinking about how much violence I’m comfortable being around and how much we can support people in the thick of it. violence is definitely present already in day to day life, but it’s more of an orphan-crushing-machine kind of violence that feels more normal.
This is a silly ad hominem argument though, an indication that what he’s arguing against is too valid to refute on its own merits.
Violence solves things. But by the powerless? No, historically speaking that just leads to military action, often followed by mass executions. Fighting fascism with violence is like fighting fire with gasoline. They feed off that shit. Maybe you can argue it worked in Haiti, albeit with a lot of help from yellow fever. But have you been to Haiti?
He’s right that peaceful protests never solve anything. But organizing and acting as a bloc solves a lot. General strikes, civil disobedience, boycotts, even voting as a group has a strong track record of changing things.
Remind me again how Hitler’s Germany remained Fascist and in control of all of continental Europe over the last 75 years…
Well that’s what I mean by
The countries that violently shut down Hitler were anything but powerless. But they were far from the first to try violence, and those attempts became part of Nazi justifications for their own violence. The whole “Seizure of Control” section of this wikipedia article is pretty good reading on that, but I’ll quote specifically:
It’s also worth noting that the Nazi party anthem, “Horst Wessel Lied” praises a Nazi who was assassinated by Communists. And of course the Reichstag Fire became a key part of Hitler’s final seizure of power. Fascists are all about violence and using it to their political advantage, so if you’re gonna use violence against them, you’d better have all the advantages and a really good plan.
I want to believe that peaceful organization like civil disobedience leads to change, but I can’t recall seeing that work in recent history…
How recent is recent? Tunisia, Egypt (well until the population turned out to be too dumb for democracy anyway) are examples.
It hasn’t worked in the US because it’s been too half-assed and the existence of democratic options lowers incentives. Contrast the successful civil disobedience during the civil rights era, where the right to participate in elections was one of the things being denied. But with the increasing signs that democracy is being controlled by a few billionaires, it may see a comeback.
Those don’t exist anymore. Not in any real capacity, at least. More like utterly useless window dressing and decorative veneer, much like how North Korea is “democratic” simply because they put that word into the country’s name.
Corporations own nearly all the politicians short of ones like Bernie Sanders and OAC. Corporations write the laws and tell the politicians what to vote for. Corporations own and control EVERYTHING, and you have weapons-grade child-like naïvité if you think the working class has any real political power left in America.
The unionized working class has plenty of power. Both parties catered to unions during the campaigns. Why? Because every politician is afraid of a bunch of people who could go either way deciding to vote as one. If there were one overarching union representing everyone in the working class, regardless of race, location, or position, the minimum wage would be $100k/year.
Liberals when