Anywho, I notice a lot of parallels between the two movements and Occupy(wherever), and I figured it might be good to get some discussion about the tactics of protest. It's starting to get obvious that police can act with impunity in suppressing demonstrations nowadays, as even though social media does put the truth about what happens, the mass media is completely dominated by people very connected to those in power, so they always promote the protesters as violent anarchists, instead of peaceful people and women and families against destroying a public park or raising the costs of transit. However, this narrative falls apart on it's face because if thousands of people were actively fighting the police, even with the huge disparity in arms, the police would probably lose.
But the peaceful thing doesn't seem to be something that works anymore. The politicization of media, I believe by the cold war, means that most media in a country is supportive of the actions of its government, and the ones that aren't are ignored by the large part of the population. So is peaceful protest completely useless nowadays as a result of government control of media? I mean, occupy did create the 99% versus 1% talking point, but it didn't really create any change even though it was pretty popular and widespread. But the police seem capable of putting down protests violently, and it encourages a great deal of people to stay home, even it's something they believe in.
Just a bit of reading about the French Revolution, it seems that a relatively small group of committed protesters had an inordinate amount of strength in deciding politics for a large country. Which seems kind of leninist to me. So basically the question is, is the mass peaceful protesting going to continue to fail as a method of forcing political change, and what's the appropriate response for people that value political change in the current geopolitical climate?
but i think, as steg seems to be saying, it's more about the ideology and whats driving the protest at that point. Because if you're going to make it violent and have the cops attacking you, then you're gonna want the crowd committed to something greater than paying $.10 more on transit. The cause must truly be powerful and unifying. But with the suppression of revolutionary thought, it seems unlikely that such an opinion could spread to the masses. But on the other hand, once amassed in such a crowd, emerging group-think and loss of individual concern would likely downplay the relevance of grounding ideology.
American liberals have totally bought into this idea to the great relief of entrenched powers, and the police. Like already said, the media is a tool of Capital, will totally ignore non-violent protest, and will demonize the protestors if a cop stubs his toe while beating hippies.
Everyones bought into the narrative of MLK and Ghandi. I laugh when OWS crackdown videos have everyone else screaming DONT BE VIOLENT DONT RESIST to the kid being beaten by like fifteen cops.
Pacifism is bullshit and thats one of the many reasons american liberalism (and a lot, but fewer leftists) are totally powerless to enact change.
In western countries, a huge percentage of the population doesn't vote, encouraged by conservatives, usually among young people. I believe it's because a great deal of them doesn't seem to think that anything can change, but really, shouldn't a government, elected by the people, be able to make huge changes to their lives? The government has the possibility to make changes, but of course, everyone involved is deeply involved in capitalism, so there's no impetus for change.
Another thing I've noticed from reading history is that successful revolutions often follow many unsuccessful ones, but there has to be a history of them. I can't find any examples of a revolution emerging from a population that has no history of rebelling at all.
-Bender from Futurama
If they had said anything other than "this is a peaceful protest" they would have been carted off on Day 1. Tens of thousands of people turned up on their biggest days, but NYPD has a standing army of 35,000 people. Nobody who was there was dumb enough to think that suddenly the Victory of the People's War was at hand, if only some dork would fling a snapple bottle.
roseweird posted:Joe_the_Plumber posted:Capital has spent a lot of time and money the last forty years spinning the narrative that violence is always bad, never works, and if everyone just thinks about what they want and hold hands enough, the government will collapse, like some kind of political The Secret.
it isn't that violence never works, but that violence works only to limited ends, and its gains are always threatened by the rebounding of violence, so that empires or unions made by violence always fall apart in violence. there is a genuine moral superiority to nonviolence, and this is important in the long term. thinking and holding hands won't make the government collapse, but it is probably more effective than violence to build alternative productive and distributive structures that free people from both global capital and the federal government while enfolding them actively in their local communities.
the greater error in that post is thinking "capital" did anything at all. smash this woolly thinking. plus there has been no non-violent movement ever sorry lol
roseweird posted:well yeah but i'm saying it on this internet forum, i probably wouldn't say that to a haitian slave. but part of the tragedy of violence is the effect carrying out violence will have on the slave, compounding the trauma of the bondage from which violence brings freedom. even the most justified and understandable violence is tragic and traumatic. it isn't hard to imagine justified violence, but it is hard to imagine a truly good society emerging from violence
uh...i'll let you read some history books before i get back to you
roseweird posted:elemennop posted:uh...i'll let you read some history books before i get back to you
am i going to find a good society, founded by violence or otherwise, at any point in history
well considering i'm not a utopian, i can say that you'll certainly find immeasurably better societies born through violence
roseweird posted:discipline posted:what is this hippie ish. how do you intend to uproot the bourgeoise? you gonna ask em nicely?
how are you going to overwhelm their incredibly superior resources in any kind of violent conflict?
once again, maybe you should read some books or even wikipedia articles
discipline posted:non violence only works next to violent or rather, militant protests
This is what I mean with MLK. He woulda been pointless without Malcolm X and the Black Panthers etc.
And obviously I don't mean that literally Capital does anything, but that the entrenched bourgeois powers, who control media frame the conversation and culture in a specific way, to lionize feel good but ineffectual liberalism, and belittle actual threats to themselves, ie revolutionary violence.
I dont think you should jump to violence and smashing windows for every little slight, just that without the threat and possibility of employing violence you're a paper tiger.
roseweird posted:sabotage is good in a lot of scenarios, i think direct violence to other humans undermines the moral force and rightness of a movement however... any intelligent leader has to be prepared to contend with inevitable violence but i don't think anyone should ever forget that complete nonviolence is ideal
the history of the indian state since independence has been a continuous example of why satyagraha is terrifically limited, particularly under formal democracy. with formal democratic processes, the state has an equal moral force to the moral force of non-violence.
jools posted:that's one of your weaker trolls getfiscal. i don't think anyone here opposes non-violence anyway
i wasn't trolling i was just being silly for fun.
"long live the victory of the people's war." - leon trotsky