Violence

If you change the leaders, you change the system. Just replace the capitalist leaders with socialist leaders.

Wasn't that one of Ghandi's biggest assets, i.e. the implicit threat of violence happening if non-violent protest failed?

Go back to tumblr.

how is that "tankie"?

Well the BPP was very anticapitalist. They were in communication with Fidel and Mao. Either way the establishment violently resisted the movement for years. They only capitulated to their demands because of massive riots (Watts) and armed black nationalists.

...

It's glorifying state-sanctioned violent organizations that supported Islamic fundamentalism and ethno-nationalism.

He vigorously supported the class system and slept with children. Pretty shit dude IMO.

Gandhi was sympathetic toward the colonizers and only wanted his spooks in government while MLK was a staunch advocate of gun ownership and dabbled in general far left politics.

King was actually pretty based, but liberals neutered his public image into some pussy nonviolence garbage–even though they opposed him as being "too drastic" in his time.

Lmao is THIS what Socdems actually believe?

Yes, I'm sure the bourgeoisie will hand over the wealth and power once they see socdems getting elected! That'll work!

No. James Connolly's boys were a small part of it. Most of the IRA leaders were Irish bosses who wanted to replace English bosses with a healthy helping of super spooked Catholics

full retard

He didn't dabble, he was an avowed Socialist.

You're being very generous. LBJ called him "that God damned nigger preacher"

...

My bad. I was thinking of the Irish Citizens Army.

not an argument

Segregation was a method used by capital to break up the working class so whites and blacks would fight each other instead of fighting the bosses. It still exists but it is slightly less blatant. Blacks and whites don't take the same buses anymore because they don't live in the same areas.

Nope, in fact every major political party in Ireland traces its roots to the IRA except for the Labour Party started by that defensive wing of labor in Ireland.

Tell me more about how Ghandi got nobody killed.

Tell me more about how MLK didn't have to die in order to become a symbol.

Tell me more about how Lenin went to the Czar and said "hello. The people don't agree with the way you run things and would like you to step off." And the Czar stepped off.

Even if you don't become violent, they'll become violent towards you.

also the cold war

Allende would like a word with you

Violence is the only way to achieve anything, any kind of society is impossible without it.

...

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation"

Seizing property isn't violence as long as you aren't hurting anyone. Whether or not violence is necessary is up to the people in power.

Of course there are peaceful methods, only brutish fools think there isn't. They can be summed up in two forms democracy and infiltration. In the democratic method the focus is raising conciousness while in infiltration the focus is just getting the right people into the right government positions to do things they did not say they would do or even aren't supposed to do at all in regards to how they change laws and policy. There is a third method but it's not fully socialism and that is just free association methods of leading by example having various businesses convert to co-ops or something like it at least and creating a co-op run socialism until you get enough faith in people to go for it on a governmental level.

Absolutely Disgusting

Violence is far more civilized than dishonesty and corruption.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The argument was the second sentence. The bourgeoise will not hand over the wealth and power even when the see soc dems getting elected. That won't work.

"A single lie can cause a million deaths."

I'm not ready to toss out reformist socialism quite yet, but it's vital that we never be willing to compromise for mere social democracy. Social democracy is a failed experiment, leaving capital intact just got us to where we are today as it corrodes away at everything limiting it.

Nonviolence has never been successful. All "nonviolent" movements ultimately depend on using the violence of the state to enforce their aims. Desegregation was a violent process that required the state deploying troops or threatening people with fines or imprisonment for resisting having negroes thrust on them. MLK was nonviolent only because getting the Jewish media to show sad pictures of negroes being beaten was better for getting shitlib white sympathizers than rioting.

I don't believe that Capital will be willing to surrender without violence. I also don't believe, either tactically or morally, that we should fire the first shot.

Arm the workers for self-defense, start a general strike and a series of protests, and if they shoot us we shoot back.

If that lie is millions of deaths

Lol
youtu.be/lOGTv3_Ukjc

I thought it all fell apart after that bungled SWAT raid on their HQ.

Trespassing is serious business. It's a felony in some states, and in the states it's not it can be, based upon intent. Violating property rights, even intellectual property rights, can bring down the wrath of the state like you cannot believe. So if you think you're not doing violence when you seize property, you're wrong.

The shootout in LA and Hampton's assassination in Chicago took place in '69. The Civil Rights Act was signed in '68. Shit was fucked up for the LA and Oakland chapters for a while after that. Oakland eventually reorganized and were active in the early 70's. LA never recovered and eventually formed the Crips. The other chapters continued operating after the SWAT raid, though.

ghandi was a bourgeois nationalist and his nonviolent protests brought unnecessary harm and hardships to his supporters which would have been prevented if the supporters were militant. And his nonviolent idiocy split the Indian liberation movement. Not to mention the fact that the laws post liberation were only marginally better than British rule, a fact that would have been rectified with militant politics.

just open your eyes. there was a reason the global bourgeois was going 10/10 SO PROGRESSIVE AND TOLERANT :DDDD seeing Ghandi.

Thanks for the info, that clarifies things.

No problemo. Black Against Empire is a really good book if you're interested in the BPP.

Pacifism is consent for Violence.

"There's no Ebola here."

...

...

In Colorado you're allowed to shoot to kill anyone trespassing.

BS

Violence has never been successful. It seems like it works but that violence just leads to more and more violence until it is destroyed.

tell that to a sikh and he will literally stab you, you are completely wrong, gandhi was a british lapdog and a cunt, the indians didnt even care that much about him later, a lot of the riots attributed to him being imprisoned were actually about bhagat singh, who was a gandhi supporter until gandhi showed his true colors as basically a british plant

interesting article:

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-Markandey-Katju-Gandhi-a-British-agent/articleshow/46517634.cms

this is really the biggest problem with revolutions of all…colors

Agentry, in all its various forms. its a topic that needs to be analyzed more, it has risen again to the consciousness of people but its not understood enough

If there isn't a revoulution in the next few decades, there won't be one, period. Many workers will soon become economically non-viable, and violence will be met with autonomous robots. The (relatively small) fraction of people who will benefit from these technological developments won't have any real interest in starting a revolution. I think something like UBI with a reduction in working hours is more likely to happen.

I forgot how good this article is, it fucking prolapses gandhis treacherous angus, shameless self-bump, read it ya fegs, this man was a real piece of shit you need to be wary of this kind of backwards garbage especially in multi-ethnic multi-religious countries, its classic DandC

Imo sustained pressure on bourgeois politicians will cause them to make concessions, which not only add up into major changes, but will erode the ability of the upper classes to maintain their stranglehold on the reigns of power. With each concession you make it becomes both progressively harder for the bourgeois to push back and harder for them to maintain what they have. Peaceful action is also more effective in gaining the support of the population, since it appears to have near unassailable moral superiority.

In addition violent revolution is random, chaotic, it leaves too much room for sociopaths and power hungry dictators to take control over the country and implement a police state.

That's not to say that violence doesn't have a place, but I would argue that it should be relegated to defending what we have already won rather than trying to make additional gains. When implementing a totally new economic/political system, it helps to take it step by step to find out what works best and how it can be implemented. When you try to do it violently the change is often far too fast, and when something doesn't work like it's supposed to opposition and pushback is often suppressed rather brutally. But in the case of defending already entrenched freedoms people already know how these things are supposed to work, so that after the threat is eliminated people already know exactly how to re-implement these ideas.

But how do you avoid the complacency that lets capital back into the reins of power, as people are insufficiently motivated to actually get around to abolishing capitalism, as we've seen in the failure in europe of the great social-democratic experiment?

They just have to keep the pressure up, but like anything else there's no guarantee of success.

you dont understand warfare and you are hopelessly overestimating "AI"

robots wont even be able to play no limit hold-em in a few decades, you think they can defeat hoomans at the one thing we are truly good at?

think again, war is always by deception, the robot wont make any difference, if anything it will make it easier to cheeki breeki because it will give the people that are controlling the killbots a false sense of security+another layer in between them and what is actually going on

you think predators are effective? they arent, unless your goal is to turn random hajis into terrorists by gooifying their toddlers.

the only reason they are used is because burgers know that actual casualties are politically volatile, the americans dont have the stomach for it anymore(good)

robots will play a big role in the future of us slaughtering each other, but thinking they are some kind of end all be all is hilariously false

Agree.

Strikes and self defense are violent to capital though, and at some point the violence tips one way or the other.

what kind of materialist are you? If things are good enough people won't keep the pressure up because the material circumstances provide no pressure to.

Not to mention that this is literally happening in the US and much of the Western world. Any gains made by labor movements in the first half of the 20th century are being further dismantled into the present day.

Leftism that seeks concessions from capitalism will have to enter negotiations that it is not advantaged in. And we've seen that anything won from these negotiations will eventually be undone. To use an analogy, if your grandparents made a contract with the capitalist class to not fuck them in the ass, or to at the very least use lube, then why would you, in the present, want to continue to deal with those same capitalists that are ripping up that contract bit by bit when they think you arent looking.

Well if that's the case then it's just tough shit for us, we can't force people to demand change they just aren't interested in. It's our job to convince people of our point of view.

But that's a situation in which I would condone the use of violence, one in which we hold on to our past victories rather than make additional gains. It's a fact that concessions have been won over the years, and if they try to take them away from us then it's time to get out our nuggets and man the barricades.

Violence or the threat of violence is one of the main components in the mass discipline that is required to sustain a hierarchy. If we want to overthrow that hierarchy or, at worst, re-arrange it according to fairer principles, we'd probably meet violence and should be ready to respond imo.

That's all. We don't fetishize it.

...

I think you're mostly right. Successful non-violent movement either have the threat of violence or only succeed following a period of violence that made it difficult to manage the system in place (British decolonization followed WW2 and a serious downfall in Britain's economy, for example, that made it very difficult for them to sustain the colonies)

But it also can be argued, that in both cases, there was no longer a material basis to sustain colonization or white supremacy. So the sort of tactic they used are not really the same tactics that we should use fighting a political hierarchy that is the reflection of current material reality. They could, even in theory, succeed without having to take that "extra step".

Don't hate, Mill and Hegel turned me into a socialist from a smelly socdem. Socialism is just the logical conclusion of liberal political thought. Imo liberals/libertarians are just socialists who stopped halfway through their reasoning process.