Why arent you an anarcho-pacifist?

...

Literally cuck: the ideology

Also, who says we should be painting ourselves as 'the good guys'?

go fuck yourself, you will never get the public's support by killing people. you people ruin the good name of anarchy, mark my words, when you guys start attacking cops and rich people we will stop you

Is this bait? Or are you just that historically illiterate?

In case you're actually that illiterate: The only reason why Ghandi and MLK got what they wanted, was because there was a more radical violent movement putting pressure on the relevant government to act. Meaning that MLK/Ghandi were the better alternative for the government to treat with, to make it seem like they were not "giving in to terrorist demands" while still ending the conflict.
MLK/Ghandi would never have gotten through with anything without the threat of violent revolt in their back.

As a quick follow up: I actually don't know of a single example of significant concessions made by a state power, to a pacifist movement.

Yes, I too remember how the peaceful protest at Tienanmen Square ousted Deng Xiaoping and ushered in a democratic and genuinely socialist government.

Wait…

...

make me :^)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article
Entry originally mentioned that MLK said that nonvoilence only worked if the oppressor could be shamed, now it's gone and reworded so as to disassociate itself with him wow fancy that.

Dis is bait or OP is literally high on porky propaganda.

I'm somewhat in favor of it. If it can be made to work I'd prefer it over violence. That doesn't necessarily mean just obeying the law and asking the state and capitalism to dissolve themselves. I think we need mass demonstrations, we need expropriation and general violation of private property. If demonstrators' lives are clearly under immediate threat, they should be allowed to defend themselves through violence, but otherwise I think violence should be avoided. Violent movements ultimately scare people away from the cause and often provoke a harsher response.

How, with a petition?

(I know this is a troll topic but still)

kek, these are great

This was actually true. The Jacobins actually abolished slavery in Haiti, and the whole inspiration for the slave revolt came from France.

Oh, and as soon as Napoleon took over and tried to reestablish slavery and the actually good revolutionaries in Haiti were killed off, the second in command took over and became the Haitian's god-emperor. When Napoleon left Haiti, they decided to pull the world's first actually successful genocide and kill off all the white people in Haiti, including the ones that didn't own slaves. After this atrocious deed, the god-emperor of the Haitians then proceeded to enserf all the former slaves and made the former free blacks into the new elite of Haiti.

:^) Basically, the Haitian slaves were basically too stupid to make a revolution on their own and relied on the French and free blacks to guide them around. When the former was replaced by Napoleon and the latter by literal nigger-nazis, the Haitian Revolution literally devolved into "Kill Whitey". The slaves cared little about their actual status or if they had any participation in the political process, just that their ruler now shares the same melanin count as they do.

Honestly, slave revolts tended to be pretty shitty throughout history. Usually, the best petridish for revolutions come from small property-holding farmers or artisans, due to having the most autonomy and self-sufficiency. Proletarians and peasants usually at least have some autonomy.

So yes, the Haitian Revolution basically turned into shit.

wow, look at all those sources

...

Until pacifists are able to bring a single example of pacifist methods resulting in social / societal change of any relevance, I think one is pretty justified in outright dismissing pacifist tactics for revolutionary change.

My point was that only a historically illiterate imbecile would equate pacifism with cowardice.

I'm also by the way, and I acknowledge that in certain circumstances the use of violence is necessary to prevent even greater violence and suffering.

Cops are one of the few groups against which violence is actually necessary. Killing innocent bystanders is bad, but defending yourself against cops sends a good message.

Hey, did you remember how many people involved in those movements DIED because of their refusal to fight back?

This process or method, which I have called non-violent non-co-operation, is not without considerable success in its use in India. Your representatives in India may deny my claim. If they do, I shall feel sorry for them."

- Ghandi, Open letter, "To Every Briton", New Delhi (2 July 1940); published in Harijan (6 July 1940)

What good is feeling sorry to the dead? Is this success? Pacifism should be called pussyism. If you don't wanna fight, fine, just stay out of the way, but don't you dare call yourself my comrade.

It's just a bunch of LARPing losers that want to pretend they are revolutionaries while they sit on their ass shitposting all day.

So you won't attack the ruling class, but you'll attack the people attacking the ruling class.

I think you just proved the point of the pic in

LOL
How are you gonna do that exactly? With non-violent protest?