How come nonviolence protects the state?

How come nonviolence protects the state?

Other urls found in this thread:

exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Think about it homie.

B-but, everyone I know thinks nonviolence is the only way to do things. I don't want to hurt their feelings.

It doesn't. Everyone stupidly includes sabotage as violence so everyone thinks so.

Block bridges rails etc. the only way to hurt porky is by undermining his ability to get surplus labor to market

...

The historical record shows that it doesn't work. Porky just keeps winning.

...

congrats, you just harmed the most vulnerable part of the population, while porky can keep on affording luxuries or at least suffer because of his savings, while completly alienating most of the working class from your movement and enraging the goverment because porky is forcing them to act agains the saboteurs

retards like you is why the movement fails

This is exactly how the CIA used to (probably still) instruct anti-leftist insurgents and it worked.

you are forgetting the part that the CIA, meaning the whole US wanted to overthrow the goverment, so the saboteurs had a steady supply of weapons, food, intelligence, political leverage and so on

we don't

If an insurrection started, some overseas governments would help, and foreign fighters would come in.

Sit ins have been succefully used to get worker consessions. You all just like to feel smart by shitting on everything

no

stop this, capitalism is global now


if you actually harm porky, let's say you stop only the shipments to his factory, or sabotage his factory, property, whatever, otherwise theyt cause massive discontent

That's wrong though. Pretty much the only time porky has granted consessions to workers is when production stopped.

True the media would blame workers for a shortage. But you have to have a counter culture to fight that narrative

If all porky cared about were luxuries they'd have stopped a long time ago. It's systemic. The system demands products on the market on time.

Even short term hiccups to the market have proven to scare porky

That doesn't mean that nations that stand to gain from US instability wouldn't want to further destabilize it by funding and supplying rebels. It's pretty standard practice in geopolitics.

who is going to do this? what nation is going to do such thing? let's pretend it happens somewhere outside the west, how do you stop it from becoming degenerated lik the arab spring?


Porky is not affected by it, as porky can always invest his money in a non-conflict area, again unless you attack porky himself, you won't achieve anything but mass discontent, and not againts porky, but againts you

You think the point of sabotage is to make porky lose some tiny bit of money? No, it's either to blackmail the system into enacting your demands, or more extremely, to push the system into a domino effect towards collapse.

But, this strategy doesn't work anymore for a long time now, because the system became way too powerful both technically (police, the whole security apparatus, decentralized network-like structure of power) and ideologically (people prefer short-term convenience and comfort over radical long-term change).

Obvious answers would be Russia and China.

We don't have to pretend. Right now the US is directly and indirectly supporting al-Nusra which is a branch of al-Qaeda in Syria to destabilize the region and effect regime change.

I can't definitively say but strong revolutionary praxis and education would be the bare minimum protections against degeneration.

Exactly! Although power can now always win on the terrain of reality, that's why riots are perfectly fine for the system - riot police is there only to entertain the rioters and give them a sense of meaningful resistance when such resistance now actually achieves nothing.
But it can lose symbolically, such as when people vote for Brexit or Trump and the whole system's pretension of being democratic and progressive finally explodes in the system's own face. It is the system itself that causes such events through its moral snobbery and arrogance, while being trapped in its own echo chamber.
In the end it's going to be the unpredictability of the silent masses that's going to make the system implode.

Nothing will implode unless people start fighting.

Based trips are correct. Here is why:
exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/

War Nerd's theory is that the reason why the IRA won as much concessions as it did was because of 3 things:

1. The IRA made the British security services look like idiots. They couldn't break them and the IRA was hurting them exactly where it hurt the most; their wallet. Lloyd's of London almost went under due to the bombings and they also rocked canary Wharf where all the tabloids had their offices. Billion and a half pounds in damage.

2. The Irish diaspora in the US prompted Bill Clinton to broker a peace agreement as Irish mobsters were also providing aid to the US and cracking down on an European independence movement would look terrible.

My favorite was when they dropped dud mortars onto Heathrow's runways. Any EOD team worth its salt treats every incendiary device like it was a dirty bomb. The mortars were filled with concrete. Airplanes had to divert, causing massive delays.

Quote

This is why "peaceful" tactics such as traffic strikes (blocking highways) and other forms of economic blackmail are extremely important for a modern militant left.

I mean, imagine if some radicals went to all the rich neighborhoods and did shit like:
I mean the possibilities are endless. You can do all this stuff covertly and not get caught.

that's how you sound, porky scab.

that's how you sound, porky scab

and that's how I know you're a fascist.

Dude half the people in the US are poor. How is porky maintaining social cohesion. If you think having half the US hanging on by their fingernails is social cohesion then either you're petite porky or some liberal porky bootlicker.

Attacking porky factories and roads is just a means to an end. If porky concedes either the means of production or at least some concessions they'd stop.

We're only talking about sabotaging rich neighborhoods or non-essential factories anyway.

Look at the protests against Trump. They go over there to talk, then the enemy comes there to fight.

The enemy wears protections. Where are your protections?

In order to post their stupid faces on social media they don't cover their eyes, noses, mouths, so they get a better taste of pepper spray. And they dress like whores so their exposed ribs, clavicles and skulls will be exposed to the full force of the baton.

The enemy brings weapons. Where are your weapons?

Oh but you want gun control, as in, weapons being only in the hands of people meant to suppress your protest. Because clearly you find nothing strange about fascists having the monopoly over weaponry and violence instead of, say, the Revolution having it.

And of course your protest is unauthorized by the State, because you need the State to tell you when, how and where are you allowed to protest the State, and again see no contradiction, so they will be beating you up real good because of your horrible unlawful deeds.

They obey to an ideology that is meant to make them powerless against the State, and it is quite effective: be nonviolent so I can suppress you violently.

Enjoy your democratically-elected president.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Hitler encourage gun ownership for all Germans. He only took away guns from people he thought hated him Communists or that he hated Jews

I get why Marx was for gun ownership, but you guys need to see that the US let's people have guns because only right wing reactionaries want them.

The first couple dozen porkies that get shot you can bet they're going to grab every gun. I don't care what the fuck you dumbass macho posers say, it'll happen.

Because Hitler has a better understanding of what to do with weapons compared to libs: arm the people, don't arm the enemy.

Ideology goes that way, but legally a certain amendment is for everybody.

That's why you arm yourself first, instead of doing the job for Porky in advance.

A few years ago a small cache of hidden WW2-era weapons was accidentally found inside a wall in my professor's house. The Partisans didn't want them to be found by the Germans, I guess the latter didn't manage to take them away before the fighting was over.

Boy, you worthless cunts are programmed to be oh so obedient! No wonder nothing that happens in the US ever works: Americans may love a winner, defeat and hopelessness is ingrained their cultural DNA.

thats how I know ur a fashy


then it doesn't make sense to hurt half of the population of the US when they simply want to have enough money to buy bread


that sounds better

Poverty is violence. Porky is perpetuating violence. Porky stuck first.
Also where is all your concern for all the kids killed by porky imperialism.

You're so goddamn concerned about people not having food for short periods of time, even though that can be avoided, how come you don't care about the blood porky already has on his hands

If you read my other posts, you would see that I am calling for a direct action againts porky, not againts roads or railroads or a mall but againts porky himself

look if I were to set the bluerpints of a sabotaging movement I would do the following

there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why I should go out there and spend 2 weeks on a tent just to get kickced out by the bourgy police while the system doesn't changes, no reason whatsoever, the goverment is in the position of power because they decided to, no forced Trump or Merkel or Trudeau and so on to control the country, each community, society syndicate and so on should make a manifest that, if the goverment does not force the companies or whatever other entity to stop perpetuating violence, individuals will attack them

forget about the creation of a militia and so on, its 2016, warfare is not like this anymore, however what can work is a system where a single attack has a deeper psychological effect on the people behind it, let me give you an example

google "Ayotzinapa students", now I don't know if you've heard about it but it was a terrible situatuion that happened here in Mexico and it has basically stayed the same since

I always ask myself something, almost to the point to question myself if the whole thing was completly fabricated, If the bourgy were to kill my son, in such a brutal way as they did there, I would without a doubt kill the son of the president or the governer, hell even both, yet not one single member of any family of the students have done it

why?

they protested and demand to the goverment, closed streets and highways yet the issue has not been resolved at all

what the fuck is going on?

You see direct attack againts the president by just a single individual has a much deeper political and social effect, its basically chaos theory, if the family of the killed students would have said something along the lines of "Mr President you have 6 montsh to find the culprit or you would have serious consecuences" then there is no need to close any road, highway, or anything, there is no need to manifest, people can continue with their usual lives, not that I consider the usual appie live something worth of living but at least you don't create problems that end up causing bigger ones, like stopping the economy which in turn increases unemployment which in turn motivates more people to join the drug cartels which in turn might cause another mass murder like the one ine Ayotzinapa and so on

after 6 months you can give the presdient a 24 ultimatum, and if he doesn't respond, then you shot his kid, or try to shot him, or kill someone in his gabinet, think about the effect such thing would cause, Imagine that political repression gets worse and another mass murder happens because of it and the same action takes place

There is no real enemy here, as the idea of the goverment labeling a group as radicals or something is impossible, since no group exist, and labeling the father of the dead person as a terrorist or anything is political suciide, as it would only enrage the masses even more

Think about how many people have died in the drug war here in mexico, imagine if just half of the families said something similar, forcing the goverment to act not by protests, but by pure violence, and violence againts porky himself, againts the people behind the curtain, not some petty bourgy that will ony exploit other workers even more

If there is something to learn from the right, specially from the Islamist right, is this desire to completly engage in radical violence againts porky himself

we are not liberals, protests, roadblocks and so on is for the people at tumblr

The problem is systemic. Killing all porkys would just change the names, it wouldn't change the material conditions that made them porkies in the first place.

Don't take that to mean it wouldn't have any effect but it would be fleeting.

You have a pic of a fighter jet. Those fighter jets aren't going to stay out of the sky just cause you killed a few pilots.

You hit the very long and vulnerable supply chains of said jets you may be able to keep them all out of the sky

I am not arguing against the notion that the problem is systemc, I am precisely making an argument in favour of changing the system by fording it to change

Also the drug market in Mexico is as big as the US now. Protesters are getting closer to legalizing marijuana

If that happens you will see a dramatic drop in cartel power. They're already hurting because of leagalization in the US. They tried to extort lime farmers because they were so strapped for cash

I agree but remember they're pussy ass democrats, not anarchists or socialists. They don't know that they could have broken in pretty damn easily inside Trump's Tower in NYC yesterday but they didn't took that chance. They could have made Trump's property their own soooo easily that night to do whatever they please with it.

They had a crowd of easily cover the half of the entire block with human taken space but they're all cowards. They also had big as trucks to break his glass doors to enter in.

They didn't got anything across other than giving Trump (& other porkies) time to prepare their defenses if something like that shows up again.

They speak of revolution but they don't have balls to act for their own interest.


Dumb. That only halts more working class.

The best part is that Americans have much easier access to weapons compared to other countries, they even have a constitutional right to do so.

Meanwhile other disarmed peoples would depend on some foreign power to arm them, and said foreign power won't be doing that out of disinterested love.

"B-but Gandhi won independence with a nonviolent movement.", says the pansy lib.

First, nonviolence is all Gandhi could hope to get from his guys. Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals is right: he did it out of necessity.

Second, Gandhi and his revolutionaries were in a country whose official religious caste preached ahimsa, nonviolence, for millennia.

Americans, instead, live in a culture that glorifies violence, war, bloodsports. No wonder your fellow Americans laugh when a pick-up truck runs over one of your nonviolent protesters.

Because it doesn't harm the state in any meaningful way.

The constant glorification of violence on the left is one thing I vehemently dislike. Openly gloating about executions, gulags, purges, killing whites etc.

It seems like too many people in the world have a bloodlust. It's depressing.

And pissing off the regular workers trying to get to work to make money for their family.

Congrats dipshit! I'd run you faggots over with my construction truck.

Purges aren't necessarily violent. It's just kicking people out of your party.

yeah well tell that to tankies who think stalin dindu nuffin

To quote a great man: Lifeā€¦ is strength. That is not to be contested; it seems logical enough. You live; you affect your world.

Kicking them out of the party allows them to continue to affect our world. Purges means killing enemies of the revolution.

what do you expect the porkies to do if we mull around holding up signs and shit?
they'll just quietly snub us out, friend.

A general strike across the whole world would bring down capitalism.

But that would never happen and youknow that.

I-is that a boy or a girl?

Maybe. But I would rather see that than the orgy of violence and bloodshed some want.

REEEEEEEEEEEEE LIBERALS >>>/out/

...

Except it's always the constant glorification of pacifism.There are no left wing insurrections in the west last time I checked you stupid motherfucker.

It's pacifists and their narcissistic circlejerks that have put shackles on revolution for the past half century.

keep fantasising about the impending revolution. i don't want you mentally deranged fucks anywhere near power.


false dichotomy


ha, i'll remember that after the next imperialist war. the shackles are on revolution because of the suppression of the left and abundance of consumerism and lies in the press

It isn't. There's no such thing as non-violent revolution.

The left doesn't do anything of value to suppress, and the media doesn't need to lie when it actually just ignores us.

Keep selfishly circle jerking over pacifism though.

Carnation Revolution? The 1986 Philippine Revolution?


I'd argue starting a desperate revolution that will end in bloodshed to satisfy your dreams is far more selfish.

the current order/system is imposed and enforced through massive violence and coercion. why do you get so indignant about idea of using violence to destroy that system?

There's always bloodshed. Pacifism just ensures the violence only flows one way down. You just don't want the oppressed to fight back to satisfy your puritan fetish. It's all about you.

India was actually a very violent place to live in during the run up to independence, liberals like to gloss over this inconvenient fact.

India is still a country where it's still common for someone to kill you for sleeping with their daughter or sister.

I do get indignant about the current system, violence is a plague, perpetuated by capitalism. That doesn't mean violence should be the only response to it. You can try using violence to destroy it but it's a short step from there to the gulag and civil war. When the new system is established why shouldn't individuals and groups practice violence?


An incredibly cynical view that leads to endless atrocities and justifying violence on arbitrary ground.

capitalism is violence. it is enforced through the state. the state is violence. refusing to defend oneself from that violence is literal suicide (i.e. gandhism)
no one has said that. the point is that violence should not be "off the table," but one of many tools and tactics at our disposal
has it ever occurred to you that "civil war" might result in a positive/better outcome? gulag might also be beneficial; and, really, wouldn't you support gulag over extermination? given that it's less violent and all
they should. if a better system is established, and some decide to attack that system out of spite, that just lets us know who the enemy is. no one ever said that there wouldn't be resistance to revolutionary efforts. the elites, owners and rulers aren't just going to let their dominion be taken or destroyed without a fight
as opposed to the atrocities and justifications for violence happening right now?

Violence precedes capitalism. The state can be subverted and dissolved through parallel efforts. Literally withdrawing from it.

So when should it be used? Where are the limits? Why can't capitalism be dismantled through sabotage, strikes, education, agitation and resistance?

Sounds like lesser evilism to me. Workers ended up the gulag just for being gay. How long till that "better outcome" leads to another conflict down the line? Violence just breeds violence.

I do not mean the former elites and rulers. I just mean an ordinary person. If violence is used to establish a society then it rightfully follows that it is going to become the guiding method of that society. Capitalism was birthed in bloodshed and it still is to this day. War is a racket.

I didn't deny capitalism is violent. The atrocities are awful and the justification baseless. Doesn't mean I believe in violence to end it.