Protests that exist within the legal confines of the government you’re protesting against, are essentially just block parties. They’re a release valve.
I mean no disrespect, but you’re perpetuating a myth.
Revolutionary action relies heavily on benign protest for cover and recruitment. Anyone who wants to see a radical overthrow of the government should be thrilled by the No Kings marches.
I have this conversation often with a very experienced, very radical anarchist frequently. He constantly laments the wastefulness and short-sightedness of radicals who shit on the people who cultivate the recruiting pool and create giant, peaceful crowds for the more extreme element to operate concealed within, because they’re too concerned with gatekeeping and value signaling to learn tactics.
Be radical. But also: understand that peaceful protest has a very important role to play.
This sounds like wishful thinking to me
I don’t think it’s wishful thinking so much as an analysis. It’s opinion, but I’m not really describing a hope for the future so much as my assessment on the present.
Your friend is an ELDERLY LIBERAL
I assure you that no one who has ever met him has made that mistake.
Also, I feel sad for you. If you’re this unable to conceive of a person who knows something you don’t know I suspect you’re losing out on every opportunity for growth that passes your way.
Buddy I lived in Seattle before I left USA, and you think I’ve never met an anarcho-liberal before. You people are so useless and stuck-up! You’re literally just democrats
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Changing around your ideology doesn’t make a damn difference man, what do you think “harm reduction” means for these people? It’s just marching to “end fascism” through reform. Saying your goal is Total Anarchy is the same as the Trotskyist orgs saying reformism leads to Permanent Global Revolution. I have traced the fundraising for every org I came across
Get a job
I read about this with relation to Malcolm X and Dr. King. Essebtially the point is that you guve the oppressor only two options: violent retaliation, or peaceful pacifyibg granting of rights. Malcolm X was a bigger threat, so the US government chose to go with the less damaging option of Dr. King, abd ultimately the civil rights movement’s goals were achieved (largely, though inperfectly)
Finally, something anarchists and communists can agree on
Anarchists refused to seize the banks during the Paris Commune.
With all the lead poisoning in the US, I’d say it works on the plebs too.
Sure, you first.
Ah yes, revolution is when individual responsibility. 🙄
Join us coward
I have every intention to once there’s an “us” to join. I just don’t have respect for cowards who expect other people to do the dangerous work for them.
Give me an organized movement big enough to accomplish its goals and I’ll be there. Without a big organized movement, violence against the state is just impotent suicide.
The organized movement can’t get big if people wait to join it until it is big. I recommend PSL
Sure, but it also can’t get big if people jump straight to lead prematurely, we’ll get picked off one by one. Lay low, organize, and then explore alternative overt actions besides voting and peaceful protest. That’s not the message OP is implying.
“Only violence works!” is stupid for exactly the same reason as “only non violence works!”
The two are synergistic and contextual, fool.
Enlightened centrist.
every time i see these centrist arguments, i feel like i should be keeping meme’s that explain the point succinctly, but then i have to keep reminding myself that all that effort will be ignored anyways.
It’s not like you can even recommend them Fanon, because these motherfuckers don’t read!
-you, having your legs eaten by a bear
Can you clarify what this actually means?
Sure thing. It’s a parable wherein you are menaced by a creature dead set on devouring you and choose to react by pretending that violent self defense is an an unreasonable response.
Okay. That’s what I thought. So can you see where my confusion is coming from? Because I didn’t dismiss the utility of violence.
Did you possibly misunderstand my comment? I described violence and non-violence as synergistic practices and ridiculed people who fail to understand that neither one can function independent of the other.
You replied to something nobody said, talking as if somebody said “hey guys let’s always do violence in every situation and nothing else”. Some real “So you hate waffles” shit.
