Absolutely right, violence by itself solves nothing and only creates more problems, but a completely non-violent movement is also doomed to failure because they will be violently repressed and victimized by the establishment if they show any sign of succeeding.

A successful movement must contain elements willing to escalate and threaten violence, and also elements who disavow that same violence and seek a peaceful resolution. We’ve seen this time and time again throughout history, but a few recent examples which would be familiar to most are the LGBTQ+ liberation movements which turned the tides with the Stonewall riots, and the civil rights movement, which had a whole spectrum of activists - MLK, the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X.

I barely know anything about the Polish anti-communist efforts, but I know for a fact that it absolutely did involve violence from both sides. Again, just because one sect is dedicated to non-violence, the larger movement requires the threat of violence to succeed long term.

Also, you kinda prove the point of this post, the Solidarity movement were dedicated anti-violence, but they were brutally repressed by the regime regardless.

Okay, can you give me an example of a movement which was completely non-violent, which had no violent sects or threats of violence, which resulted in a long term change?

I think you misunderstand what I’m trying to communicate - violence by itself accomplishes less than nothing, but for a peaceful movement, there must be people who support that movement who are willing to use the threat of violence for that movement to succeed. For your own examples, in Ireland, Sein Fein as a political movement would not have liberated Ireland if it wasn’t for the threat of continued and escalating violence from the IRA.

Both violence and non-violence must remain on the table as options, or else the non-violent movement can be completely ignored and the activists supporting it will just be oppressed, suppressed and victimized.

For some more examples, the civil rights movement wouldn’t have succeeded without the Black Panthers, and the LGBTQ+ movement needed the Stonewall Riots.

The role of the non-violent sect of the movement is to disavow the violence of the violent sect, so by all means, continue to disavow the violence, that may be the role you choose to play.

Violence must always be a last resort, but you should recognize that unless others are willing to escalate, then your non-violent movement is doomed to failure.

I’d recommend checking out The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Genderloos if you’re interested in learning more.

If anyone is interested, here’s a link to read The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Genderloos at the Anarchist Library.

Do you mean that the democrats and the republicans are both owned and controlled by the ruling elite? I’d agree with that, for sure. If that’s not what you mean, what do you mean?

I’m not sure what you’re asking me here, sorry, I’m a bit confused by your comment, I don’t use Twitter.

Yes, of course, but that wide audience needs to be willing to use every tool available to effect change. Non-violent protests simply do not work if the protesters are unwilling to escalate. This is ultimately a shitpost so that nuance is intentionally excluded, but that’s the truth of it

Here’s the good shit you might not be ready for: Money should be abolished completely.

Money is basically a tool we use to allocate finite resources, but we can come up with a much better alternative.

To begin with, food, shelter, healthcare, water and education should all be provided to every single person of the world as a matter of priority. There is no practical reason for these things to be artificially scarce, we already have enough for everyone, but the profit motive gets in the way.

For things which are genuinely scarce, we could handle in a lot of different ways. We could centrally manage it, (which personally I wouldn’t really recommend, as that centralizes power) or we could have a series of industrial unions which are responsible for the management and distribution.

Money is a completely failed conceit of distributing our resources and labor to where they are most needed. It actively prevents the flow of resources to where they are needed. Capitalism is an evil system and it has to go.

Yeah I gathered that much, I mean what specifically about the comments? Which comments? Are there themes you find surprising? Or what?

Thank you, fixed!

the problem extends much further beyond trump, sadly!

Can you explain what you mean by self-sufficiency?

What is it that you’re finding surprising?

Okay, so help me to understand, I asked already and you just shared a meme, it’s kind of unfair to complain about me assuming even after I asked for clarifications :(

Yep, democratic socialism is ultimately a reformist position, which serves to extend the reign of capitalism by moderating it’s worse excesses. Capitalism cannot be reformed, any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism. The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century.

This is why the Democratic Socialists of America are accepted under the banner of the Democrats, because they ultimately pose a relatively minor threat to capital owners, and they capture the energy, enthusiasm and activist efforts of left-leaning progressives, redirecting it into getting democrats elected (and thus serving the interests of the ruling class), rather than actually agitating for real, lasting societal change.

Thanks for sharing, I really appreciate that and I understand your position. Your values align closely with mine, but my #1 top value is that no one should have power over anyone else, because most humans are predisposed towards using any power they have to benefit themselves - so if you have someone even with 1% more power than others, they will use that 1% of power to their own benefit, and to grow their own power. Over time, that 1% will grow and grow until we have a situation like we have now, where the ruling class have overwhelming power over the majority.

I totally get the drive for revenge, I’m very sympathetic – I used to feel the same. What I have come to realize though, is that negative reinforcement isn’t very effective at all. We have a whole prison industrial complex which is unbelievably cruel and punishing towards those in its grip, the ultimate tool of revenge against those who have wrong society, and it is completely ineffective in reducing or preventing any crime. Cruelty against those who have wronged us just hardens hearts against our larger goal, the liberation of all living things, because it gets both “sides” stuck in an escalation trap of using escalating levels of violence against the other.

The only way we can fix our broken society is by convincing everyone that using coercive power/violence against others leads to bad outcomes. We need to be willing to use violence (and the threat of violence) because if we do not then our enemies will indeed make us victims, but it must always be the option of last resort.

Yeah I guessed as much too, but I wanted to be sure so I could tailor my response to the individual, we need to meet people where they are and help them reach the next step on the ladder to class consciousness.

There’s also the chance that they’re already firmly on the left, but just don’t believe in electoralism for example, which is a different conversation to have

Good reply though, thanks for sharing! <3

I’m sorry you feel that way, and your feelings are totally valid. I promise I’m being completely authentic, I care deeply about trying to reduce suffering among as many living beings as possible, but I recognize that progress is impossible without some level of discomfort.

All the best!

Me too! I figured you probably didn’t genuinely hold these viewpoints, but someone reading this thread might, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak directly to those people through you.