Natasha Lennard argues that it’s harmful to acquiesce to the state’s determinations of violence, while David Cortright writes that violent acts prevent mass resistance movements.
There’s escalating violence being done against the people by the oligarchs and politicians everyday. Poverty is violence, homelessness is violence, dismantling the education system is violence, making education prohibitively expensive is violence, making healthcare dependent on employment is violence, banning women’s reproductive health care access is violence, unaffordable housing is violence, denying healthcare is violence, cost of living extortion for shareholders profit is violence, our system is all violence against the working class. What are we supposed to do say please stop? Our politicians are bought and paid for and They’re not listening. … “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” JFK
Yes, unfortunately. Not only is it morally acceptable, but pretty much unavoidable if meaningful change is sought to be enacted. To put it this way, if political violence was inherently “wrong”, then the entire United States of America should not exist. The British did not leave our shores because we’ve asked nicely or protested a lot. We’ve tried both of these things and the response was military intervention. Nazi Germany was not defeated by strongly worded letters either (that was also tried!).
However I strongly believe violence must be proportional to the offense and follow a plan. Random riots achieve nothing. Let’s not dance around the issue. The question here is if violence against the Trump administration is permissible (yet). And right now the answer is no. Because a) elections have not been abolished yet or interference has made free elections impossible or farcical, and b) Trump and his unelected sycophants are still broadly moving within the confines of “the law” as applied during a time when the US actually cared about strong checks and balances.
Grandpa certainly doesn’t have a strong mandate, but he has “a” mandate to enact his political will for 4 years. That however will change dramatically if he moved against basic constitutional rights, such as now as he is trying to ban all media critical of him. The proportional and correct violent response then would be to destroy media outlets shilling for the president.
When laws are not followed by those in power, and peaceful protests get shut down with force and arrests, why should the people follow the law anymore? It means nothing if those in power also break the law.
Political violence is the only other option left.
If it didn’t work the cops wouldn’t do it literally all the time
Well obviously fucking yes. Pick a random successful political movement and there’s a 99% chance it had a violent wing. I know that Americans are only taught the sanitized versions of many of this stuff, but come on.
That’s really the issue. Americans have been brainwashed to think civil disobedience is what won their civil rights. The violence, often initiated by the state against the people, is whitewashed as small skirmishes rather than being prevalent in most protests and the resistance to it needs to be prepared.
The second amendment is literally the people’s legal check on tyranny and corruption.
If political violence is out of the question, Americans would be British.
Funny how it only focuses on political violence from the left. I mean, yeah the government is completely owned by the right at the moment, but it seems odd to completely ignore the other side
I think it’s meant to be an internal debate about the left’s tactics. It’s not meant to ignore or minimize very real right-wing violence.
I mean, open up a history book.
The Revolutionary War.
The Battle of Blair Mountain.
Even MLK’s mostly peaceful actions only had teeth because Malcom X was showing people what a non-peaceful protest would look like.
Sadly, violence usually has to be the answer.
As we saw from the peaceful protests in Hong Kong, playing nice gets you absolutely nothing. And as those protests and the Cabin Creek/Paint Creek protests showed, even those who try to be peaceful will find violence inflicted upon them.
Furthermore, left to fester, the racists trying to run the show will start inflicting violence if not put down quickly; see the Tulsa Race Massacre as an example.
Even MLK’s mostly peaceful actions only had teeth because Malcom X was showing people what a non-peaceful protest would look like.
MLK even says something similar in A Letter From A Birmingham Jail. Essentially he responds to criticism of his methods by saying (among a whole lot of other things) “this? This is the nice option. If these protests were violent the South would turn into a sea of blood”.
John Brown
Acceptable? No. Necessary? Well that gets a lot more grey.
Nah, violence works. I know if the Americans try to take over Canada there’s gonna be some good ol’ fashioned fun and we’re gonna burn that white house down again.
Well unless you lads get to it first 🤪
Yes.
