• Jordan_U@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    ITT:

    Everyone thinking that the only two options are being quiet or being violent.

    Strikes are currently making those in power very uncomfortable, and are resulting in genuine progress for workers.

    In my area, people camping out in thousand year old trees has protected them time and again from being illegally logged.

    Black Lives Matter protests were loud and made the powerful uncomfortable, and despite media narratives it wasn’t “violent protesters” that made the powerful uncomfortable.

    It is true that any form of protest that is loud and inconveniencing enough to actually be productive will be met with state violence.

    It’s also true that some working for progress do use violence. But make no mistake, it’s not guns that made those in power uncomfortable when it came to Malcom X and the Black Panthers.

    The most radical and intimidating (to those in power) things the Black Panthers did were to give free food to schoolchildren, and free healthcare at their People’s Free Medical Clinics.

    Building community and mutual aid is subversive.

    Building community and mutual aid makes those in power uncomfortable.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Look at the US, they begged England for representation. Even after they gave an ultimatum they begged to stay but it didn’t work and they had a war that France won

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The entirety of history also shows that a whole lot of people need to be ready to die for the cause for social change to happen.

    So, still feeling up for it?

    • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is the question:

      live in an unjust and amoral society

      or die trying to make a righteous one.

      The stoics, at least Seneca, opted for the former.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        He really wasn’t given much of a choice. He just chose his stance on the one option he had.

        • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Seneca was one of the wealthiest Romans of his time.

          He more than 99% of the Empire had a choice. He happened to be rich and choose status quo. Who ever would have guessed that ?

      • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        or die trying to make a righteous one.

        . . . and realize that your new, righteous society will quickly collapse into corruption and amorality because a society is filled with people.

    • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      a whole lot of people need to be ready to die for the cause for social change to happen.

      For the change to not happen, a whole lot of people need to be ready to keep dying from the status quo. It’s incredible that some people still think a war isn’t being waged when we don’t resist the oppression and exploitation. Here you are implying those who are ready to fight for themselves—and for you!—are your enemies, when your real enemies know the lesson you refuse to learn:

      There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.

      —Warren Buffett

      So, still feeling like leaving us all to continue being slowly murdered as you sit and do nothing?

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope. That’s really not the question, in fact. What a shitty, boring, “utilitarian” view of the struggle for liberation. Why are you even in this community, liberal?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, it’s exactly the question that needs to be asked in relation to my original argument. If people feel that more will die from a revolution than from the status quo then good luck convincing people to increase their chance to die.

            Heck, the fact that we’re here and able to discuss this in the first place shows how spoiled we are even if things aren’t as good as they could be. People that are really poor don’t have a computer or a cellphone to communicate on a niche website.

            People in first world countries are walking with a pebble in their shoe and some are complaining that we need to stop and remove it, the majority doesn’t care when they see people from third world countries walking with a broken foot.

    • Blinky_katt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you live inside the heart of the West, your life is still good enough—yes, even those struggling and clinging on the edges of poverty—and the bread and circuses still mostly work as distractions. But the world isn’t only the West. There are plenty in the other 6/7 of humanity who are willing to die for the hope of change. Life was hard before, but having endured impacts of a global pandemic, wars, and starvation, people are getting pushed to their limit. We are seeing many sparks of revolution starting to light on the dark prairie.

      How many of them are fighting for the “right” reasons? How many of them will end up in a better place? Nobody knows. But if even one or two turn into full-on fires, things will certainly get shaken up. And thereafter, unlike the Arab Spring days, there are Global South countries arising that are strong and wealthy enough to lend a hand, whose national interests lie toward helping regions to transition toward stability after any social blowups.

      At some point, change will come upon us, and we won’t have any say in how peaceful or violent it will be.

  • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It depends on the kind of change you are attempting to make. Revolutionary changes aren’t going to be accomplished without someone getting hurt, but if you are trying to change the name of your town from Lincolnville to Frankville that likely won’t require injury.

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Eating breakfast won’t force change

      Brushing your teeth won’t, either

      Nor will telling your mother you love her

      Being an anarchist doesn’t mean every action you do has to be praxis

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did I say they were? I’m just saying you know literally one thing about them. You have zero evidence to prove anything else other than they made a comment here.

    • mycatiskai@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t have to have a high body count on one side, there aren’t many at the top holding the rest of the world back because they only care about stock prices and shareholder value.

    • crackajack@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is only so much that revolutions could do though. Attacking police and authorities because they attacked you for having peaceful protest? That’s reasonable, it is self-defence. But looting businesses and attacking properties? No. People love the French revolution and abolishing a corrupt regime, but not its subsequent Terror by the revolutionaries.

        • crackajack@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Edit: after further, conversation. The person I replied turned out to be a communist of whatever type to be turning a blind eye to communist atrocities.

          Edit2: The high level of sophistry, deliberate lying, the constant shifting of goal post and gaslighting indicates egomaniacal and psychopathic tendencies. Specimen nonetheless exhibit high level of intelligence, yet vapid statements, which reinforces hypothesis. The interlocutor also deliberately and selectively avoid questions being addressed and performs whataboutism to hide issues brought up. The person constantly creates non-sequitur points such as “So, if the person is trying to make the argument that communism is the reason atrocities happen, then the burden is on them to explain why they also happen under capitalism.” Premise A is the position communism causing atrocities, which does not follow Premise B which is demanding to explain why atrocities happen under capitalism, in order to explain why Premise A happens. The circular logic is standard practice among trolls and bad faith arguers. Moreover, did the person just admit that he/she is okay with the killing under communism because capitalism does it too?


          Nobody is talking about justifying random violence here.

          At least you’re not one of those leftists. The Marxist-Leninists always advocate for violent revolution simply because of slight inefficiencies. They blame everything as fault of capitalism. I remember at the height of the pandemic, there is the famous news of long line of cars queuing in the motorway in Texas for shopping. A guy (turned out to be a forum moderator) blamed it on capitalism. I pointed out it is straight up lie when it’s clear that it is the fault of the pandemic messing up the supply chain. No one could have foreseen the pandemic and its effects. The guy proceeded to ban me for pointing out the obvious lie.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Leftist know that if violence is to be used, it must be targeted at specific people not random. As for the pandemic messing up the supply chains, the only reason international supply chains exist is because someone can make more money shipping pineapples to china to exploit the workers there and then ship them back to the US to sell for a 250% markup. If providing pineapples to people were the end goal a lot of supply chains would be much shorter and more robust.

            • crackajack@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good point. But at the same time, reality dictates that only certain countries could export such and such because of climate and geography. You mentioned pineapples, they could only be produced in tropical countries because that’s where they could only grow. Of course, that will have to undergo an expansive supply chain. Oil is also only in certain parts of the world. These things will have to travel across the world.

              You’re not wrong about worker exploitation. But unfortunately, many governments of third world countries actually negotiated for Western businesses to set up shop with them to provide jobs for their own population. They offer cheap services in exchange for high capital and return on investment. However, as these countries become richer, they are also increasing their demand for higher wages and better treatment. Foreign companies then would relocate to another country to continue the cycle, until they run out of countries for cheap labour. That’s why companies would love AI and robots to develop more, so they don’t have to pay for expensive humans.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, I don’t think I would. And if you learn a bit about Marxism-Leninism you’d see that either people you talked to didn’t understand what they were talking bout, or you yourself didn’t understand what they were telling you. ML theory is pretty clear on why revolutions happen, and how to conduct revolutions properly.

                • crackajack@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, it’s not like people don’t have different interpretations of things. There is a reason why there are so many violent far left. The Red Army faction, Indian and Filipino communists and Bolsheviks comes to mind, all of whom profess to be Marxist-Leninists.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            @crackajack@reddthat.com is a troll and a liar completely misrepresenting what he is being told, which is that the same kinds of atrocities that happen under communism also happen under capitalism, and often on a far bigger scale. So, if the person is trying to make the argument that communism is the reason atrocities happen, then the burden is on them to explain why they also happen under capitalism.

            It’s almost as if bad things happen in every human society, and what we actually have to look at is what system does a better job mitigating these problems. Of course, this is an adult concept that a troll here isn’t able to comprehend.