The civil rights movement did not succeed because of Martin Luther King Jr’s peaceful speech, it succeeded because the Black Panthers bought a firearms en masse and took their rights.
We didn’t win the revolutionary war because we asked nicely and protested peacefully, we won because we ignored the standards of chivalry in war at the time and fought like guerillas.
Anyone who says violence isn’t the answer has never studied history.
Violence is the only thing that’s ever worked.
This is probably a bit too reductive. Violence is sometimes necessary, but isn’t always the best strategy.
In general, the left should take an approach of nonviolent, disruptive agitation, combined with a willingness to use violence in self-defense. Arm up, protect each other, but don’t try to instigate a shooting war.
MLK succeeded because the powers that be realized that Malcom X was the fallback plan. Malcom X did not have a problem with violence. And that’s not a dig at Malcom X.
No. The left should use violence as the tool it is that has always gotten results. Every right and freedom has come from the blood of those who fought.
Leave the peaceful donothings to the lib/centrists, because they won’t do shit anyway.
If you’re going to use violence, be very smart about your targets who, where, how. You want those in power to fear, not the average gun toting American who is just trying to pay rent and buy food. If you make that population fear for their lives they won’t hesitate to kill you and in most of this country they could do so legally.
Anarchists have a significant history of using “Propaganda of the Deed” and accomplishing fuck all with it. No shortage of examples among the history of the broader left, too. So yeah, I’m gonna have to call BS on this.
Violence is a tool, and there’s a time and place for it. Don’t be an idiot adventurist about it though.
Violence is the threat backing up the demands of the peaceful. A group of people asking nicely are easily suppressed by violent opposition, unless a threat of escalation exists. If those demands fail, escalation is the necessary response. Otherwise, the threat will have been a bluff and future threats won’t be taken as seriously.
On the other hand, violent change still needs popular support to have lasting effects, and it needs to feed back into a nonviolent result. Many tyrants have claimed power by force, only to have their dynasty crumble within a few generations.
Thus, violence in the name of progress always needs to be preceded, accompanied and succeeded by peaceful efforts to get people on board with that progress and help them actually feel the results.
We need a diversity of tactics. The literature describes a “radical flank effect” where the radical and moderate wings of social movements mutually benefit.
The civil rights movement did not succeed because of Martin Luther King Jr’s peaceful speech, it succeeded because the Black Panthers bought a firearms en masse and took their rights.
We didn’t win the revolutionary war because we asked nicely and protested peacefully, we won because we ignored the standards of chivalry in war at the time and fought like guerillas.
Anyone who says violence isn’t the answer has never studied history.
Violence is the only thing that’s ever worked.
This is probably a bit too reductive. Violence is sometimes necessary, but isn’t always the best strategy.
In general, the left should take an approach of nonviolent, disruptive agitation, combined with a willingness to use violence in self-defense. Arm up, protect each other, but don’t try to instigate a shooting war.
Moderates only ever succeed with and because of a radical flank demonstrating the alternative.
MLK succeeded because the powers that be realized that Malcom X was the fallback plan. Malcom X did not have a problem with violence. And that’s not a dig at Malcom X.
No. The left should use violence as the tool it is that has always gotten results. Every right and freedom has come from the blood of those who fought.
Leave the peaceful donothings to the lib/centrists, because they won’t do shit anyway.
If you’re going to use violence, be very smart about your targets who, where, how. You want those in power to fear, not the average gun toting American who is just trying to pay rent and buy food. If you make that population fear for their lives they won’t hesitate to kill you and in most of this country they could do so legally.
It smells like Fed in here. ಠ_ಠ
Anarchists have a significant history of using “Propaganda of the Deed” and accomplishing fuck all with it. No shortage of examples among the history of the broader left, too. So yeah, I’m gonna have to call BS on this.
Violence is a tool, and there’s a time and place for it. Don’t be an idiot adventurist about it though.
Violence is the threat backing up the demands of the peaceful. A group of people asking nicely are easily suppressed by violent opposition, unless a threat of escalation exists. If those demands fail, escalation is the necessary response. Otherwise, the threat will have been a bluff and future threats won’t be taken as seriously.
On the other hand, violent change still needs popular support to have lasting effects, and it needs to feed back into a nonviolent result. Many tyrants have claimed power by force, only to have their dynasty crumble within a few generations.
Thus, violence in the name of progress always needs to be preceded, accompanied and succeeded by peaceful efforts to get people on board with that progress and help them actually feel the results.
It was both, fellow worker.
We need a diversity of tactics. The literature describes a “radical flank effect” where the radical and moderate wings of social movements mutually benefit.