Those non-violent protests shook them so bad they wanted to charge non-violent Quaker protestors with terrorism.
And thats why they tell you its not the answer. Now to be clear, it isn’t always the answer, but we’ve been calling on deaf ears for as long as I can remember, and as I’ve heard from the Older Guard, its been twice as long as that at least.
Well, and as I’m trying to make clear, being non-violent doesn’t make you not a target. The US government was busy trying to target the most non-violent group that exists in the US as terrorists. Violence is so antithetical to their religion they cannot be drafted into the US military, due to freedom of religion. The real name of their religion isn’t Quakers it’s “The Religious Society of Friends.”
The more non-violent you are, the more likely these freaks are willing to view you as easy to take down and remove from the conversation.
It’s just like… the first Gay Pride demonstration was literally a riot.
Like I said in another thread too, every state (as in nation, not US states), uses violence as an answer all the time. Police violence against criminals or protesters, military violence against other states, death penalties against those deemed too dangerous to live, prisons in general. So what is it about state sanctioned violence that is considered moral by most people who would also decry individual violence as immoral? Even Brian Thompson oversaw an increase in claim denials from ~10% to ~30%. How many people did that kill, or torture, or cause suffering? Obviously a lot of people have already talked about social murder, but again, why is social murder more justified? Just because it’s legal and allowed by the state?
Laws aren’t some inherent measure of morality, and states don’t have some inherent sense of justice that is superior to that of their people. Just look at slavery, it was fully legal and rescuing slaves was a crime. That didn’t make it moral, or the abolitionists who ran the underground railroad immoral. Or look at prohibition, or the current version we have with the war on drugs. What makes someone indulging in a vice like weed, or mushrooms, or honestly even something more addictive like cocaine be guilty of a crime, when someone indulging in alcohol, or cigarettes, or caffeine, or sugar isn’t? And what makes someone doing that on their own, assuming they don’t harm others because of it, worse in the eyes of the law than someone who gambles?
In order to see the imbalance of power and violence, you only need to look at the recourse each party has for violence by the other. Look at what happened when an individual committed violence against UHC by killing the CEO. There was a national manhunt, tens of thousands of dollars offered in rewards for finding them, and once a suspect was arrested they were humiliated by the police, put in jail to be held until trial, and are likely facing life in prison if they are convicted. None of that would happen to any of those responsible for a wrongful death due to an illegally denied claim. In that case, in order to get recourse, the family would need to sue the company, which takes a crazy amount of time, money, and effort. And if by the end of it they win, what punishment would UHC face? The CEO wouldn’t be given jail time for murder or manslaughter. The company wouldn’t be broken up or shut down. At most you’d get some money, and they’d maybe have to pay a fine to the government. During the lawsuit the CEO and board would be free to continue business as normal, killing or hurting who knows how many people while doing so.
So obviously the government, corporations, politicians, and billionaires will denounce this as a “tragedy”, a “horrible act of violence”. Those celebrating in it are “advocating violence” or simply the minority, existing in “dark corners of the internet”. Because admitting that violence is an acceptable strategy means they’d accept it turned upon them, instead of being the sole group allowed to use it as they see fit.
This isn’t necessarily me advocating for violence either, as I think in general neither one should be accepted, no matter if it’s done by an individual or a state. But the legality of that violence is also not what should determine its morality, and there are exceptions to every rule. Personally I consider myself a pacifist. I’m vegan, I would go to jail before being drafted because I would never want to serve in a war, and obviously like most people I would always prefer a non violent answer to a conflict if possible. But things don’t always work out that way, and it’s nonsensical that anyone would consider Brian Thompson, or any other CEO of a major company, better or more morally acceptable than the one who killed him. State approved violence, legal violence, is not and should not be seen as any more acceptable or moral.
The Daniel Penny verdict couldn’t have come at a better time to show all this to be true.
Kill a CEO? You’re a horrific monster!
Kill a homeless person broken by the system we live in? You’re just protecting yourself!
Yeah. And how is it that corporations, or big businesses in general, have elevated themselves to an almost holy status? Why is it murder when Blackrock kills 17 civilians in Iraq (Nisour Square), but not when an insurance company denies an operation that a doctor who’s at the top of their field says could save your life? And the hospital helpfully tells you it will cost over a million dollars. For all the non-Americans, that’s not an exaggeration.
And even with Blackwater, it was only the individual employees who got convicted. The company just kept going under a different name. And the employees got pardoned later.
Is true.
That is why so soooo many headlines everywhere are preaching how this should have been done through voting & protests or whatever.
Iirc majority of Murikans want public healthcare for at least two decades now, yet nothing has changed (except living generations).
Peaceful protest, electoralism, those are spooks. If you want to stop something, try physical destruction.
Not opposing your comment at all, more of a rare occurrence fun fact: Even an actual (ie financially or personality effective) show of power is enough sometimes.
Eg unions in USA haven’t killed any tycoons for the longest time. But they do get a loaf of bread per week more in wages when they stop working for a few days.
Not all revolutions need to be as complete as the French or Russian (tho that works, but also costs a few years of instability & political power struggles), 10% of the elite de-elited (eg losing their wealth bcs of direct demos actions) would send a big message in USAs case.
What’s that old JFK quote? Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable?
The state draws its legitimacy from the social contract. When people no longer feel like the social contract is beneficial to them or to society - ie as one might feel with a healthcare system that is 100+ years out of date and has received one (1) bandaid for normal folk in the past 50 years - the state can no longer expect individuals to uphold their end of the social contract (adherence to laws, norms, and peaceable conduct).
This doesn’t mean “the overthrow of the government is coming tomorrow”, but rather means that the social contract is beginning to fray, and a failure of those in power to recognize and accede to that fact (by making major concessions) will result in this sort of incident continually intensifying until… well, until the social contract is gone to a large swathe of people, and then at that point, the overthrow of the government will be imminent, for better or worse.
All interactions between state and citizen are implicitly negotiated. Negotiations require leverage. Violence has always been a form of leverage. But assassinations are far more powerful leverage than riots.
Even if you want a peaceful protest, the state security apparatus will turn into a riot when they need to discredit the protester, ie Floyd Protests is recent example.
Then older people start pearl clutching over “black youth” “looting” a corporate location! The horror!
Liberals will bring some generic race arguments etc
Now we got a proper circle jerk and discussion about police brutality is third order of operation.
its afraid.jpeg because we have not seen such class unity in modern history.
Good.
This last election made me into an anarchist for now. I do not believe there is any way to salvage this system we have in any meaningful way. I’m not a violent person so I can’t see myself doing anything like Luigi, but Democrats aren’t going to save anyone and are just one part of the problem.
I think Donald could be the death blow to our country as more and more of our social contract is upended, especially with talks of killing the ACA and other popular programs.
“we can shoot them?”
“yeah apparently you can just shoot them”
This is why peaceful protest is legal, it accomplishes nothing.
Then why do peaceful protestors get arrested and brutalised by cops all the time?
Target practice. Did you see the video where they shot the teenager standing still on a hill doing nothing? The shot him in the head with a rubber bullet, causing concussion and permanent damage. The officer high fives another officer right after.
The kid was literally just standing there doing nothing. A fucking child was used as target practice by adult civil servants.
There isnt a secret group of evil lizard people planning out society. The evil in our society comes from the ways our oppressive systems shape people.
Our culture and systems believe(or at least act like) it is perfectly fine for a police officer/rich person to do murder/social murder.
So many people base their morals on what is legal/what the state penalizes, meaning if a police officer’s or ceo’s actions result in the death of innocent people, it is perfectly okay because they never get in any real trouble. This normalization of violent/oppressive acts done by the state and the rich means that more police (and more rich people) are going to feel okay doing shitty things.
One of the funniest programing bugs ever. Gandhi’s code was meant to be the least aggressive AI in the game, but if something made Ghandi become even less aggressive it could overflow backwards and set his aggressiveness to max. This creating a Gandhi that wanted to always be at war.
This is a myth, no such bug ever existed. There’s a whole Wikipedia page about it:
FYI, the supposed “Nuclear Gandhi” bug is not a real thing:
Thats not true. As much as I see the need for violent protest sometimes, peaceful protest can change things. See the fall of the berlin wall.
Yes, but also no. The GDR and the Soviet Union who supported it and supplied it were both almost bankrupt and economically broken. Infrastructure was falling apart because the state couldn’t afford to fix it.
The potests sure helped, but the government of the GDR was also in a state where it would accept the demands as a way out. The protests probably did accelerate the downfall a bit, but it would have happened either way.
Similar protests years before were leading nowhere.
Nonviolent action has accomplished many things, it is just that nowdays the ruling class is mostly desensitized to protest. If you want to change society through nonviolent action, your action needs to convince others to support you. You need to convice the ruling class and all who help them to give in to your demands.
Modern day peaceful protests do nothing because they dont have any credibility. The rich rightfully believe that they can ignore you and nothing else will happen. Nonviolent protests are just one way to send a message, and I think the most important thing that this ceo killing has done for us is that it sent a message.
So you’re saying that Gandhi accomplished nothing but leading the most significant and largest non-violent struggle in all of history? To each their own I suppose.
He just didn’t sit with placards, he refused to co-operate with the British establishment, and when millions followed him, they couldn’t just arrest them all. He got India independence through a non-violent struggle, the basis of which lied in subjugating the British trade and administration.
They could arrest Gandhi and Congress leaders all they wanted to, but the movement they inspired couldn’t be stopped.
This might just be the American train of thought, but you’re wrong here. When millions follow you, and refuse to cooperate, the ruling class will suffer, because they’re dependent on you for power. Checkmate.
I think it’s not really fair to compare 1940s India with current American politics.
It feels somewhat like saying “the Mongolian army took over half of Eurasia with mounted archers, Ukraine should just use those against Russia!”
It’s just not comparable, different cultures, different opponents, and wildly different technology. And this isn’t just the US, it is a worldwide class war. Organized resistance on that scale, especially when the ruling elite can monitor nearly 100% of all communication, just isn’t something that’s going to happen, even with a charismatic figurehead.
Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
~ M. Gandhi
Something often missed about Gandhi’s efforts was that it was still more about what he did do than what he didn’t (violence). He still used resistance and force, including illegal actions that he believed were just, and massively hurt Great Britain’s bottom line and sense of control.
The trick is to locate efforts that aim to accomplish that in modern US politics.
A protest has to have teeth. If the teeth are economic, then that’s ok. If the teeth is violence, then that can be ok. Martin Luther King was successful in part because the threat of violence of Malcom X.
Protests do nothing if they can be ignored. If they can be ignored, they WILL be ignored.
Not American. Ghandi’s mission was to give “untouchables” caste some human equality. Technically, women’s/lgbtq movements were peaceful. Unlike US/Israel first oligarchy, there is complete/absolute media loyalty for it, in a way that the British Empire is harder to defend as benevolent to Indians. The support for oligarchy’s wars and supremacy is unconditional. If we don’t give them everything we have then China, Russia and Iran will win, and you all nod along.
So you’re saying that Gandhi accomplished nothing
Gandhi achieved a socio-economic mass mobilization. Boycotts, work stoppages, supply chain failures caused by mass mobilization. It wasn’t just people parading through the streets. They inflicted real economic damage on the British Imperial State.
when millions followed him, they couldn’t just arrest them all
Thousands were killed by British-aligned police. Millions more were impoverished in retaliatory trade sanctions, embargoes, and other economic retaliations. The Indian state was set back decades by the English response to independence - not unlike how Cuba and Haiti have been deliberately impoverished in retaliation for bucking the American and French former overlords.
They could arrest Gandhi and Congress leaders all they wanted to, but the movement they inspired couldn’t be stopped.
The current Modi government is a stark reversal of policy from the Gandhian Indian socialist state. They’ve embraced a very western-oriented capitalist-friendly militant hierarchy that has fully rebutted the movement Gandhi lead. That is, in large part, through continuously aggravating tensions between caste cohorts and between Hindu and Muslim regional populations.
When millions follow you, and refuse to cooperate, the ruling class will suffer
Mobilizing and orienting millions of people requires a large, cohesive popular media campaign. Gandhi was able to tap into a huge underground of anti-British opposition. But even that wasn’t able to overcome the base anti-Muslim sentiment that the Brits had fostered for centuries. Gandhi himself was the victim of this unfettered hatred, when he was assassinated at age 78 by an anti-Muslim fanatic during an interfaith prayer meeting in 1948.
Assassination of leading civil rights activists and organizers by hyper-partisan radicals has consistently worked dismantle national movements. From the slaying of US civil rights leaders in the 1960s to the bombings and assassinations of Latin American, African, and Pacific Island socialist organizers in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we’ve seen the ruling class triumph through a persistent campaign of organized violence and stochastic terrorism.
