|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Mister Facetious posted:I'm not talking about a rebellion against government, but a rebellion against corporations. There's no difference between the government and corporations when the former is virtually guaranteed to support the latter the minute workers even hint at the intent to take up arms.
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
You're right; better to do nothing and go with the status quo like the DNC.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:You're right; better to do nothing and go with the status quo like the DNC. I don't think those are the only two options. One can have a disruptive resistance against corporations, or even government, that isn't violent. It has to be genuinely disruptive to work, but it can be done.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think those are the only two options. One can have a disruptive resistance against corporations, or even government, that isn't violent. It has to be genuinely disruptive to work, but it can be done. One worker with a deer rifle for every CEO would be very disruptive.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:You're right; better to do nothing and go with the status quo like the DNC. The best thing is nonviolent disruption; for example blocking access to corporate property or something. That way it's more difficult to justify government involvement (which isn't to say the government won't intervene, but if it does it will face greater public backlash). The best sort of resistance is probably something that actually inconveniences corporations in some way (i.e. not just protests) but also doesn't justify violence government retribution in the eyes of most of the public.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:One worker with a deer rifle for every CEO would be very disruptive. It would be, but as Ytlaya points out, the workers don't need the government to take up arms against them in defense of the CEOs. Strikes, boycotts, mass protests that shut down commerce, etc - those are the way to isolate capital, and force it to bend.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The best thing is nonviolent disruption; for example blocking access to corporate property or something. That way it's more difficult to justify government involvement (which isn't to say the government won't intervene, but if it does it will face greater public backlash). The best sort of resistance is probably something that actually inconveniences corporations in some way (i.e. not just protests) but also doesn't justify violence government retribution in the eyes of most of the public. The problem with that is that the moneyed interests you're protesting against are in complete control of the media. The moment you challenge their power with more than just words, they're going to paint you as dangerous radicals even if you're not violent, and the public will by and large believe them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:The problem with that is that the moneyed interests you're protesting against are in complete control of the media. The moment you challenge their power with more than just words, they're going to paint you as dangerous radicals even if you're not violent, and the public will by and large believe them. Exactly this. How long did it take for the media to portray the DAPL protests as radical and deserving of a harsh response (even when protesters were losing limbs)? How about Black Lives Matter? The media practically cheered when the authorities started clamping down on Occupy, sometimes in a downright brutal manner, and that's about as harmless a style of protest as I can think of. It barely even qualified as being an inconvenience.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:The problem with that is that the moneyed interests you're protesting against are in complete control of the media. The moment you challenge their power with more than just words, they're going to paint you as dangerous radicals even if you're not violent, and the public will by and large believe them. So why give them the optics they need of violent, armed mobs? No, the reality is, while moneyed interests do control the media, their control is not so absolute that they can create violent protests out of whole cloth that convincingly. If they were able to, Black Lives Matter wouldn't just be controversial - it would be universally despised.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
I wouldn't say BLM is far from being "despised" given the media coverage on them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I wouldn't say BLM is far from being "despised" given the media coverage on them. I would. The media has covered them negatively, but there is more support for them nationwide than there is opposition.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The best thing is nonviolent disruption; for example blocking access to corporate property or something. That way it's more difficult to justify government involvement (which isn't to say the government won't intervene, but if it does it will face greater public backlash). The best sort of resistance is probably something that actually inconveniences corporations in some way (i.e. not just protests) but also doesn't justify violence government retribution in the eyes of most of the public. Putting the capitalists to siege is a losing proposition. They have amassed so much wealth and resources that they could go decades without refreshment and still be fine; unless you could somehow convince every person on the planet to refuse them sale. Every laborer would starve or be imprisoned by government sycophants before the corporate lords run out of good champagne. Majorian posted:It would be, but as Ytlaya points out, the workers don't need the government to take up arms against them in defense of the CEOs. Strikes, boycotts, mass protests that shut down commerce, etc - those are the way to isolate capital, and force it to bend. They will be insufficient, and the government won't need violent protest to institute force, as has been demonstrated time and time again from Ludlow to Dakota. Falstaff posted:Exactly this. How long did it take for the media to portray the DAPL protests as radical and deserving of a harsh response (even when protesters were losing limbs)? How about Black Lives Matter? Personally, I feel that if you're going to be portrayed as bloodthirsty lunatics baying for the blood of the rich you may as well storm their boardrooms with torches and pitchforks.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:They will be insufficient, It's nice that you think you can just handwave them away, but guess what, internet tough guy? Your little pea-shooter gun isn't going to do much against a tank or an F-16. There is no way in which the violent protests that you advocate will be "sufficient." quote:and the government won't need violent protest to institute force, as has been demonstrated time and time again from Ludlow to Dakota. In a time in which social media can be, and often is, employed to expose police brutality and heavy-handed government crackdowns, I do not think this is a foregone conclusion anymore. LeJackal posted:Putting the capitalists to siege is a losing proposition. They have amassed so much wealth and resources that they could go decades without refreshment and still be fine; unless you could somehow convince every person on the planet to refuse them sale. This shows such an incredible ignorance of how capital works in the 21st century. CEOs and board members are beholden to shareholders; their continued life of luxury partially depends on the goodwill of those shareholders, and that curdles pretty quickly when there are literal mass protests against a corporation or firm.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's nice that you think you can just handwave them away, but guess what, internet tough guy? Your little pea-shooter gun isn't going to do much against a tank or an F-16. There is no way in which the violent protests that you advocate will be "sufficient." I wouldn't suggest taking any civilian small arms against tanks or F-16s. A targeted campaign of assassination against capitalists is a much different proposition. This is all academic, of course, we can't even get the smallest motion of economic justice or equality to get any footing in the opposition party despite the massive social support for it. Majorian posted:In a time in which social media can be, and often is, employed to expose police brutality and heavy-handed government crackdowns, I do not think this is a foregone conclusion anymore. Do not forget who controls the machinations of that social media, and that would be billionaire capitalists. How long do you think they would let the 'fake news' about government oppression run roughshod through their algorithms? Majorian posted:This shows such an incredible ignorance of how capital works in the 21st century. CEOs and board members are beholden to shareholders; their continued life of luxury partially depends on the goodwill of those shareholders, and that curdles pretty quickly when there are literal mass protests against a corporation or firm. Who are the majority shareholders? Not the common people, they are being increasingly divorced from that system entirely. Even now middle-men like portfolio and hedge fund managers control that capital. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I wouldn't suggest taking any civilian small arms against tanks or F-16s. A targeted campaign of assassination against capitalists is a much different proposition. Oh my God, dude.  If you want the public will to swing HARD in Trump's favor, this is the number one way to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Exactly this. How long did it take for the media to portray the DAPL protests as radical and deserving of a harsh response (even when protesters were losing limbs)? How about Black Lives Matter? Yeah, there's no middle ground anymore, occupy proved that. Even passive protests are labeled as violent, so you might as well show them what violence really looks like. Nothing will get better until then Dont even need to kill people, just do lots of random property damage, drive insurance companies out of business got any sevens fucked around with this message at 00:59 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Yeah I have to agree. Non violent protests like OWS and #marchforscience have shown themselves to have done jackshit. And the fact that self labeled leftists are "disavowing" violence is kinda sad given the long history of white liberals pretending to support protest movements like the civil rights one as long as they were not "violent". After all, property rights over human rights.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
It's nice to think that you can even appeal to the self-interest of capitalists but I'm not sure that's true anymore. Our ruling class seems content to ruin the world their children are supposed to rule over, which is unique in human history as far as I know. Even the Khans knew you had to leave some cities standing to pay tribute. To think they're going to be swayed by a bad quarter is sort of silly. They're more than willing to sacrifice some profits to keep a hold on power, because as far as they're concerned any compromise is prelude to more compromise until they've lost just enough power that they can't stop the masses from murdering them in the streets anymore. And you know what? They're right.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Yeah I have to agree. Non violent protests like OWS and #marchforscience have shown themselves to have done jackshit. That's because they weren't particularly disruptive. That's what people always miss when they say, "Oh, well ____ peaceful protest didn't work, so ALL peaceful protests are doomed to fail." No, just peaceful protests that don't disrupt commerce. Kilroy posted:It's nice to think that you can even appeal to the self-interest of capitalists but I'm not sure that's true anymore. Our ruling class seems content to ruin the world their children are supposed to rule over, which is unique in human history as far as I know. Even the Khans knew you had to leave some cities standing to pay tribute. If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing Fox News scrambling to deal with the fallout of their massive sexual abuse scandal. Just saying, "they're more than willing to sacrifice some profits to keep a hold on power" is lazy; we have counterexamples that are happening as we speak.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Protest without violence carries no threat to a political order that uses violence to secure itself. Believe it or not, fear and intimidation is a real thing, and if someone can kill you, but you can't kill them, you are at the mercy of that person and effectively a slave. By committing to non violence, you're castrating yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh my God, dude.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Most capitalists consider property damage a form of violence so still not sure what you're going on about. Look at the media coverage of a random Starbucks getting its poo poo kicked in during any given protest.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
The airport protests were the right way to go. Extremely disruptive and entirely nonviolent.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Protest without violence carries no threat to a political order that uses violence to secure itself. Believe it or not, fear and intimidation is a real thing, and if someone can kill you, but you can't kill them, you are at the mercy of that person and effectively a slave. These are pretty words, but they're meaningless. The reality is, capital fears more than just physical violence or death. They also fear massive profit losses. If what you said were true, peaceful disruptive protests like the Dandi Salt March would not have reaped any results at all, when in fact they did. Kilroy posted:Who loving cares? The "public will" is the most easily swayed thing that exists in the known universe. Yes, "the public" will be against it, because corporate media will tell them it's really bad. but they're against a lot of things that happen anyway, and they never seem to do anything about it. And it's not as though our rulers and their police thugs are going to wait until the public is on their side before committing mass murder against a peaceful general strike. Let's kill the capitalists first, and then we can worry about what a bunch of swing voters think about it later. You really think you can kill all the capitalists before the government takes you out? Are you high?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing Fox News scrambling to deal with the fallout of their massive sexual abuse scandal. Just saying, "they're more than willing to sacrifice some profits to keep a hold on power" is lazy; we have counterexamples that are happening as we speak.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Who loving cares? The "public will" is the most easily swayed thing that exists in the known universe. Yes, "the public" will be against it, because corporate media will tell them it's really bad. but they're against a lot of things that happen anyway, and they never seem to do anything about it. And it's not as though our rulers and their police thugs are going to wait until the public is on their side before committing mass murder against a peaceful general strike. Let's kill the capitalists first, and then we can worry about what a bunch of swing voters think about it later.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Their scandals taint their image of being a legitimate news organization, which reduces their efficacy in controlling the body politic. That's why they're scrambling - the scandals make them less useful to the ruling class. They've had problems with advertisers for years and done little about it. That was because fewer threatened to drop out then than they are now. Fox News hit a tipping point.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh my God, dude.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Kilroy and rudatron come from the same school of political thought and debate that Freepers do: "advocate" for violent action, but only because they believe someone else will do it for them if they keep screeching about it enough. It's also possible they incorporate the other major thing freepers do: make up stories about how badass and edgy they were to the enemy, and then relay them to their fellow peers in whatever topic they're circlejerking in today.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm not saying this is a good idea, but if you actually were the Winter Soldier Punisher and you could like assassinate the board of Comcast, I think you might be surprised at how few people are really bothered by it. I think people in the US are terrified of domestically radicalized terrorists. Playing into the corporate media's hands is self-defeating.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:These are pretty words, but they're meaningless. The reality is, capital fears more than just physical violence or death. They also fear massive profit losses. If what you said were true, peaceful disruptive protests like the Dandi Salt March would not have reaped any results at all, when in fact they did. Majorian posted:You really think you can kill all the capitalists before the government takes you out? Are you high?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Who loving cares? The "public will" is the most easily swayed thing that exists in the known universe. Yes, "the public" will be against it, because corporate media will tell them it's really bad. but they're against a lot of things that happen anyway, and they never seem to do anything about it. And it's not as though our rulers and their police thugs are going to wait until the public is on their side before committing mass murder against a peaceful general strike. Let's kill the capitalists first, and then we can worry about what a bunch of swing voters think about it later. There is no "we," there is just "you." "You" haven't done anything lasting or significant, in politics or otherwise, and "you" aren't about to start now.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Yikes. Too bad we're barred from bringing up logical fallacies 'cause y'all are going apeshit with the things on this page.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:These are pretty words, but they're meaningless. The reality is, capital fears more than just physical violence or death. They also fear massive profit losses. If what you said were true, peaceful disruptive protests like the Dandi Salt March would not have reaped any results at all, when in fact they did. Capital is more than willing to deploy killers and murderers to get what it wants, all non-violent protests provide are defenseless cattle for the slaughter. The use of violence or non violence should be an instrumental and strategic choice, based on the context that an organization finds itself in. Ruling out violence is to simply pray and wait for death, at the hands of reactionary paramilitaries.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Strategically, in the context of the current political climate, direct assassination or violent action would represent an escalation, and would be disfavorable to the party escalating. So a non violent protest would be more successful - for now. That context won't stay the same forever however, and swearing off violence is a very dangerous thing to do, so long as people fear death (they do).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:These are pretty words, but they're meaningless. The reality is, capital fears more than just physical violence or death. They also fear massive profit losses. If what you said were true, peaceful disruptive protests like the Dandi Salt March would not have reaped any results at all, when in fact they did. Yeah, you just stepped on one of my personal bugbears. Invoking the Indian Independence Movement as though it were a simple thing where "salt march => victory!" and somehow proves that nonviolent protest is always the way to go is pretty ignorant of what was actually going on in India at the time. Gandhi's efforts took place alongside, and was complemented by, acts of violence by violent groups working toward the same goals. Spend some time in India and you'll discover there are a number of important figures of the IIM who are lionized by Indian history, some of whom were very violent indeed. Gandhi was repeatedly sent demands to disavow such violence, and he never did. If you read the things he wrote, rather than what the West wrote about him, he advocated non-violence because he felt that was the best way for him, in his particular context. He felt that non-violence was the ideal, but also admitted that some might not have the courage to fight back against the forces of imperialism non-violently... But that the important thing was to fight in whatever way you could. He was facing the powers of capital, but they were very different powers and operated in a different context than we find today. That doesn't mean that violence is the answer - frankly, I'm not sure what the answer is, and whether or not I think violence might be a necessary component depends on what side of bed I get up from in the morning - but you don't get to dismiss the idea by invoking the image of ersatz Gandhi or his legacy, any more than you get to invoke MLK while trying to erase the part Malcolm X played in the civil rights movement. (All that said, you're a really good poster, and you've been great for this thread in particular. You're not even necessarily wrong on this point, but you're going to have to make a better argument about it than "But Gandhi!")
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Dandi Salt March Gandhi was not an isolated great man and the Dandi salt march was not the be all, end all of Indian action during independence. Gandhi is, if anything, used too often as a convenient shorthand to the indian independence movement because it helps pretend that Bhagat Singh and other violent revolutionaries who put pressure on the UK didn't exist, which helps absolve the conscience of the British government since it allows them to pretend that Gandhi allowed them to find their hearts (which somehow a century of engineered famines hadn't already). The same process exists in the US with the hyperfocus on MLK and the delusions of a lot of people that his non-violence was even recognized by media back then when the opposite is true.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Every successful peaceful ptotest always had an outside force threatening more drastic measures if their demands were not met, and India was already being difficult (and unprofitable) to hold for the british by the time gandhi rolled around. All a violent protest would accomplish would be to turn the entirety of the American population against you, which is something that you need to not happen if you want a revolution to succeed. Like I said, Americans are terrified of domestically radicalized terrorists and groups, and if the media is so powerful that it can turn them against peaceful protesters, well, guess what? It's going to be a lot easier for them to do that against violent protesters as well. Agnosticnixie posted:Gandhi is, if anything, used too often as a convenient shorthand to the indian independence movement because it helps pretend that Bhagat Singh and other violent revolutionaries who put pressure on the UK didn't exist, which helps absolve the conscience of the British government. Are you under the impression that fighting against "scary" figures like Singh didn't also "help absolve the conscience of the British government"? Because certainly at the time, there weren't too many qualms with fighting against someone who was widely seen as a terrorist in the UK. It's a lot easier for a government to get people to rally around the flag when they're fighting an Osama bin Laden than a Desmond Tutu. Yes, there does need to be the possibility of violence for a peaceful protest to work. But for ANY revolutionary movement to work, the revolutionaries need to get the populace on their side. Right now, a violent left-wing movement would not get most (or indeed very many) Americans on their side. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:35 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Bhagat Singh is still celebrated as a national hero in India and was even at the time considered as such by some on the left in Britain. Also nobody really cares how willing the british were to rally around the flag because if they had the violent part of the movement wasn't intended to make them happy, it was intended to make colonial authorities bleed too hard for London to hold; for the record, terrorism in Algeria had the opposite effect and by the time De Gaulle pulled out, the french had accepted algerian independence by plebiscite and France was on the verge of civil war. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 01:38 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
I can agree with 'right now', but I can't agree to a general attachment to non violence, nor can I agree that a successful revolution can ever be completed without violence. Strikes are never met with inaction, they have historically been very brutal and bloody scenes - if you believe the sane won't happen in the future, you're being naive.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:38
|
|