We need to grow our numbers! The only way we can do that is with continued non-violent organized protest. Violence will only reduce our numbers and suppress our resistance.
Erica Chenoweth has a very well researched presentation on the success of non-violent resistance overthrowing dictatorships with only 3.5% of the population. I highly recommend it.
Come out today for the Free America protest! We also have the Good Trouble Lives On protest on July 17th.
Sign up for notifications from 50501 to stay informed.
The only way we can do that is with continued non-violent organized protest. Violence will only reduce our numbers and suppress our resistance.
I emphatically reject these claims. Both nonviolent and violent resistance is necessary, and in fact they need to collaborate. The following quote from the Black Catalyst Revolt Guide is relevant:
If we are to learn from the successful movements of the past, we can see that all successful pressure has been the collusion of the peaceful and non-peaceful aspects of the movement, such that the peaceful party can lobby the state to concede, saying to them “now see? Wouldn’t you rather deal with me than them? Sit down and make some concessions to those suffering people.” Meanwhile, the non-peaceful protesters escalate the aggression of their actions such as to put a clock on the state. Direct action should therefore not be seen as a chaotic byproduct to be avoided. It should instead be seen as a necessity as to extract outcomes for the movement. Ultimately, if the demands of the protests are not met, revolution should be the threat. In this way, we are to transform the government to our whims, not vise versa.
Yeah I’ll get around to it, although I’ve heard that claim before and I don’t disagree with the need for mass mobilization, some of which is going to be nonviolent. But IMO the nonviolent parts of the revolt need to collaborate with the violent parts of the revolt!
This honestly smells like the white washed “civil rights era” mentality that pretends nonviolence is the only strategy for positive change. MLK Jr. was inspired by Gandhi’s nonviolent movement, but he was well aware of the violent side of that story. After Gandhi was ignored and imprisoned, his mass movement turned violent, accomplishing the actual change.
Dr. King’s strategy was to be a “reasonable black person” with the unspoken promise that white lawmakers would have to deal with “unreasonable” black people should they ignore him. It’s why anti rioting legislation was passed hand in hand with civil rights legislation. They capitulated, but also looked to set up barriers to violence in the future.
The militarization of the police over the past half century can be seen as an extension of those anti rioting measures. Liberals want us to believe that nonviolence is our only tool, because that allows them to ignore our nonviolent efforts without fear of reprisal. The people we should direct our ire to aren’t just the fascists, but the pro-police politicians in general.
Okay, I watched their Ted talk. The red flag for me is the clean separation of revolts into either strictly violent or strictly nonviolent. It is my view that a more careful study of the history of all the revolts labeled successful and partially successful would reveal that many if not all of those revolts succeeded because of the complementary (if not collaborative) efforts of both nonviolent and violent protests. History glorifies the nonviolent protesters because they’re easy to lionize, without any of the ethical complexities that violent protests invite.
IMO it seems like they went in looking for a hypothesis and managed to spin the statistics to justify it. I’ll look into their research as I’m sure it goes into more detail, but I’m so far not convinced.
Heard of them, read their stuff years ago, really unimpressed.
Digging up and cherry picking evidence for things you already believe is not a scientific approach, it just feels slimy. Chenoweth is a red flag imo, and not kind that says ‘im probably okay in bed, and masturbate to how I’ll murder you once we’re done killing the fascists’
Violent resistance is a great way to get arrested or killed, scare people away from resistance for fear of their safety, and embolden fascism by turning a constitutionally protected peaceful resistance into a domestic threat.
How many people with guns do you estimate it takes to overthrow the largest military in the world by force?
Violent resistance is a great way to get arrested or killed, scare people away from resistance for fear of their safety
Same with nonviolent resistance! Worse for nonviolent resistance! Did you see what the pigs did to those protesters in LA? All over the country during the No Kings protests?!?
and embolden fascism by turning a constitutionally protected peaceful resistance into a domestic threat.
Fascists don’t need to be emboldened. They are already fully monsters. No matter how peacefully you protest, the fascists will treat you as if you revolted.
How many people with guns do you estimate it takes to overthrow the largest military in the world by force?
I mean embolden through legislation. Becoming a domestic threat justifies implementation of curfews, and potential suspension of assembly rights for the needs of public safety.
Vietnam was successful because we were forced to attack on unfamiliar territory. You’re suggesting bringing violence to them, right? We’re not talking about pulling a “Home Alone” on ICE.
Becoming a domestic threat justifies implementation of curfews, and potential suspension of assembly rights for the needs of public safety.
No it absolutely does not justify that stuff. Being a threat to the powerful is not the same as being a threat to the average person.
Vietnam was successful because we were forced to attack on unfamiliar territory. You’re suggesting bringing violence to them, right?
I’m suggesting that the working class defends itself against the capitalist using a diversity of tactics, including violence if necessary and possibly a revolt, and that violence is necessary. On average, these fascist fucks don’t know our homes, our neighborhoods, our cities, or our wilderness as well as we do. I think there is a chance of winning if we organize as groups willing to fight.
We’re not talking about pulling a “Home Alone” on ICE.
Also note that Trump’s probably relying on ICE because he reasons that the military might not stand behind him. That means he’s filling up an organization with loyalists, but they have neither strategic planning ability nor any actually useful skills, or they wouldn’t sell themselves out to a worthless piece of shit so easily.
Not in your mind, maybe, but legally it’s the same thing. Violence will be used as justification to enact legislation that will restrict our resistance. Just look at how the early morning vandals and looters in LA got the city to enact a curfew, and they weren’t even part of the protest.
No, legally too, they will use your protest as justification if a sufficiently rowdy one cannot be exhibited. And then when your protest ceases to exist, they’ll fabricate an incident to justify escalation.
The people in charge are already fully monsters who will wield the law as needed to get their dirty work done, regardless of how peacefully you protest, regardless of how perfect a victim you make yourself, regardless of what the law says.
It’s not a question that it’s morally justified. My point is that it’s not legal. Don’t walk into a trap set by the dumbest president in the history of the United States.
There are skin tones and sexual orientations that are effectively and soon to be formally illegal. There are genders that are illegal.
Exercising your ‘first amendment rights’ is a great way ro get the cops to shoot at you. Doing it without a mask is a great way to commit suicide by putting two in the back of your head.
You clearly haven’t been protesting. Your inflammatory and exaggerated descriptions are exactly what will happen if the resistance is labeled a domestic threat. As of now, that is not what is happening. We’ve grown our numbers from a few hundred thousand to ~10M in four months.
Until you come up with a more effective plan to engage the disengaged, why don’t you leave the planning to those who have proven successful?
Stop watching media that highlights the extreme and watch crowdsourced videos of the actual protests. They’re not the LA riots that mainstream media is portraying. I’m in NY and haven’t seen any violence first hand. There have been small altercations here and there, but millions are protesting, connecting, and influencing others to join.
There is no better way to grow our numbers. We need to take advantage of this opportunity to engage and organize. There is no benefit to accelerating into assembly restrictions with only ~2% of our nation, mostly 40+ in age, ready to take action.
I am. Your nearsighted emotional actions will impact our strategic plan to grow our numbers on the streets. There is no logic in accelerating a movement when we have yet to acquire the numbers.
You mean your 50501 fed op? Any movement that supports the idea of America will always enable the very system of oppression you seek to end.
nearsighted emotions
Once you realize that fascists don’t give a shit about if something is “legal” or not, then you’ll realize they aren’t nearsighted. Its ok I used to think like you, give it time.
What agenda are you trying to push here? Are you an accelerationist wishing for the success of fascism? You’re using inflammatory language and projection against my cited facts and logic. What is your goal?
My goal is to grow our resistance. That can happen in broad daylight through protected peaceful protests, or through an oppressed underground resistance. The latter will take far more effort and time to achieve the same result.
Peace police kept me out of movements for so many years. I know many ithers who can say the same. Juat because youre a masochistic coward, doesn’t mean anyone else is.
America is too violent. Any turn that involves racial justice or queer rights will be resisted with staggering violence. Anything that liberates children. Anything that sevures womens’ rights or reduces the power if the church.
Hell, anything that tries to cut police funding or end slavery would be stepped on so hard. It will not be nonviolent, though many non violent things are also necessary to get a good outcome. I wish the choice of whether things get violent or not were ours, but it simply isn’t.
Getting slaughtered serenely is not peaceful or nonviolent. Its masochistic.
such a disgusting rhetoric to peddle non-violence while promoting 50501, a white supremacist organization that hires veterans in “peacekeeping” roles to shoot antifascists and anyone who’s not white.
playing peace police is inherently a violent act because taking a stand against all the oppressed people who respond back in the only language that the state understands reinforces white supremacist systems.
instead of supporting libs that cooperate with state repression and enable fascism, donate to Gamboa’s legal fund, join anti-authoritarian grassroots orgs and support your local antifascists.
What that peacekeeper did was abhorrent, and is under investigation. Are all Republicans good because Rand Paul voted against the budget reconciliation bill? Your inflammatory takes out you as an accelerationist.
You do understand that we’ve grown our protests from a few hundred thousand to ~10M in four months with this method, right? Yet you’re encouraging small factions of violence which have repeatedly proven throughout history to have failed against dictatorships?
Your agenda is clear. Keep your accelerationist takes out of my nation, comrade.
this is exactly why y’all get called blue MAGA. when your orgs lynch a Pacific Islander and barely miss their shot on a leftist Venezuelan, it’s a “good-will effort” to “prevent outside agitators”. literal KKK propaganda adapted for liberal sensibilities:
The southern white defensive refrain of “outside-agitators” in the early Cold War years,
as used by segregationists, merged traditional themes together with the politics of anti-
Communism, thus taking the South’s regional ideology of xenophobia and connecting it with
more mainstream American nationalistic impulses. Just as Lewis (2004) sees Cold War anti-Communism as a revitalizing force in the older tradition of states’ rights argumentation, he
similarly describes the re-emergence of the white southern notion of “outside agitators” as
becoming almost completely synonymous with the perceived foreign influence of Communist
subversion.
Most white Southerners were traditionally wary of “outsiders,” a term that they
employed somewhat idiosyncratically to denote anyone unsympathetic to the
regions racial practices. As outsiders, so it was argued, not only did agitators
have no right to comment on the South’s racial situation, but they could also not
hope to grasp its subtleties. Communists fitted the southern perception of
“outsiders” perfectly and were depicted as intent on bringing racial tumult to the
region to rival that wrought by Reconstruction. One of the most popular ways of
attempting to retard such an upheaval, therefore, was to suggest that it was
communist-inspired.
I’m not defending that single person’s actions. I’m saying the other ~10M of us were not there to support white supremacy, but to stand in opposition against it.
You’re not going to use inflammatory language and extremist opinions to convince me of a different agenda, while we actively stand, arms linked, in-between ICE and immigrants.
We need to grow our numbers! The only way we can do that is with continued non-violent organized protest. Violence will only reduce our numbers and suppress our resistance.
Erica Chenoweth has a very well researched presentation on the success of non-violent resistance overthrowing dictatorships with only 3.5% of the population. I highly recommend it.
Come out today for the Free America protest! We also have the Good Trouble Lives On protest on July 17th.
Sign up for notifications from 50501 to stay informed.
Also remember that economics is a hella important consideration. Most conflicts are decided by who can stay solvent longer.
I emphatically reject these claims. Both nonviolent and violent resistance is necessary, and in fact they need to collaborate. The following quote from the Black Catalyst Revolt Guide is relevant:
You should watch the Eric’s Chenowith video that was linked in the above comment
Yeah I’ll get around to it, although I’ve heard that claim before and I don’t disagree with the need for mass mobilization, some of which is going to be nonviolent. But IMO the nonviolent parts of the revolt need to collaborate with the violent parts of the revolt!
Her research shows why that’s likely wrong. Definitely check it out!
This honestly smells like the white washed “civil rights era” mentality that pretends nonviolence is the only strategy for positive change. MLK Jr. was inspired by Gandhi’s nonviolent movement, but he was well aware of the violent side of that story. After Gandhi was ignored and imprisoned, his mass movement turned violent, accomplishing the actual change.
Dr. King’s strategy was to be a “reasonable black person” with the unspoken promise that white lawmakers would have to deal with “unreasonable” black people should they ignore him. It’s why anti rioting legislation was passed hand in hand with civil rights legislation. They capitulated, but also looked to set up barriers to violence in the future.
The militarization of the police over the past half century can be seen as an extension of those anti rioting measures. Liberals want us to believe that nonviolence is our only tool, because that allows them to ignore our nonviolent efforts without fear of reprisal. The people we should direct our ire to aren’t just the fascists, but the pro-police politicians in general.
Okay, I watched their Ted talk. The red flag for me is the clean separation of revolts into either strictly violent or strictly nonviolent. It is my view that a more careful study of the history of all the revolts labeled successful and partially successful would reveal that many if not all of those revolts succeeded because of the complementary (if not collaborative) efforts of both nonviolent and violent protests. History glorifies the nonviolent protesters because they’re easy to lionize, without any of the ethical complexities that violent protests invite.
IMO it seems like they went in looking for a hypothesis and managed to spin the statistics to justify it. I’ll look into their research as I’m sure it goes into more detail, but I’m so far not convinced.
Heard of them, read their stuff years ago, really unimpressed.
Digging up and cherry picking evidence for things you already believe is not a scientific approach, it just feels slimy. Chenoweth is a red flag imo, and not kind that says ‘im probably okay in bed, and masturbate to how I’ll murder you once we’re done killing the fascists’
Violent resistance is a great way to get arrested or killed, scare people away from resistance for fear of their safety, and embolden fascism by turning a constitutionally protected peaceful resistance into a domestic threat.
How many people with guns do you estimate it takes to overthrow the largest military in the world by force?
Same with nonviolent resistance! Worse for nonviolent resistance! Did you see what the pigs did to those protesters in LA? All over the country during the No Kings protests?!?
Fascists don’t need to be emboldened. They are already fully monsters. No matter how peacefully you protest, the fascists will treat you as if you revolted.
Not as many as you think! Remember Vietnam?
I mean embolden through legislation. Becoming a domestic threat justifies implementation of curfews, and potential suspension of assembly rights for the needs of public safety.
Vietnam was successful because we were forced to attack on unfamiliar territory. You’re suggesting bringing violence to them, right? We’re not talking about pulling a “Home Alone” on ICE.
No it absolutely does not justify that stuff. Being a threat to the powerful is not the same as being a threat to the average person.
I’m suggesting that the working class defends itself against the capitalist using a diversity of tactics, including violence if necessary and possibly a revolt, and that violence is necessary. On average, these fascist fucks don’t know our homes, our neighborhoods, our cities, or our wilderness as well as we do. I think there is a chance of winning if we organize as groups willing to fight.
I’m not against that 😈🏴
Also note that Trump’s probably relying on ICE because he reasons that the military might not stand behind him. That means he’s filling up an organization with loyalists, but they have neither strategic planning ability nor any actually useful skills, or they wouldn’t sell themselves out to a worthless piece of shit so easily.
Not in your mind, maybe, but legally it’s the same thing. Violence will be used as justification to enact legislation that will restrict our resistance. Just look at how the early morning vandals and looters in LA got the city to enact a curfew, and they weren’t even part of the protest.
No, legally too, they will use your protest as justification if a sufficiently rowdy one cannot be exhibited. And then when your protest ceases to exist, they’ll fabricate an incident to justify escalation.
The people in charge are already fully monsters who will wield the law as needed to get their dirty work done, regardless of how peacefully you protest, regardless of how perfect a victim you make yourself, regardless of what the law says.
Violent resistance can be justified against violent oppression
It’s not a question that it’s morally justified. My point is that it’s not legal. Don’t walk into a trap set by the dumbest president in the history of the United States.
There are skin tones and sexual orientations that are effectively and soon to be formally illegal. There are genders that are illegal.
Exercising your ‘first amendment rights’ is a great way ro get the cops to shoot at you. Doing it without a mask is a great way to commit suicide by putting two in the back of your head.
Fuck your privileged boot licking bullshit.
You clearly haven’t been protesting. Your inflammatory and exaggerated descriptions are exactly what will happen if the resistance is labeled a domestic threat. As of now, that is not what is happening. We’ve grown our numbers from a few hundred thousand to ~10M in four months.
Until you come up with a more effective plan to engage the disengaged, why don’t you leave the planning to those who have proven successful?
If you cant use any of it in any way that gets you anything-other than shot when they declare you terrorists-you’re not actually helping,
And no, i havent been protesting; good catch. In fact I haven’t been outside since may.
Stop watching media that highlights the extreme and watch crowdsourced videos of the actual protests. They’re not the LA riots that mainstream media is portraying. I’m in NY and haven’t seen any violence first hand. There have been small altercations here and there, but millions are protesting, connecting, and influencing others to join.
There is no better way to grow our numbers. We need to take advantage of this opportunity to engage and organize. There is no benefit to accelerating into assembly restrictions with only ~2% of our nation, mostly 40+ in age, ready to take action.
I’m not concerned if its legal or not
I am. Your nearsighted emotional actions will impact our strategic plan to grow our numbers on the streets. There is no logic in accelerating a movement when we have yet to acquire the numbers.
You mean your 50501 fed op? Any movement that supports the idea of America will always enable the very system of oppression you seek to end.
Once you realize that fascists don’t give a shit about if something is “legal” or not, then you’ll realize they aren’t nearsighted. Its ok I used to think like you, give it time.
What agenda are you trying to push here? Are you an accelerationist wishing for the success of fascism? You’re using inflammatory language and projection against my cited facts and logic. What is your goal?
My goal is to grow our resistance. That can happen in broad daylight through protected peaceful protests, or through an oppressed underground resistance. The latter will take far more effort and time to achieve the same result.
Peace police kept me out of movements for so many years. I know many ithers who can say the same. Juat because youre a masochistic coward, doesn’t mean anyone else is.
Refusing to walk into a trap set by the dumbest president in the history of the United States is not cowardice. It’s strategy.
Just because you have big feelings, doesn’t mean you should follow them instead of strategic plans.
America is too violent. Any turn that involves racial justice or queer rights will be resisted with staggering violence. Anything that liberates children. Anything that sevures womens’ rights or reduces the power if the church.
Hell, anything that tries to cut police funding or end slavery would be stepped on so hard. It will not be nonviolent, though many non violent things are also necessary to get a good outcome. I wish the choice of whether things get violent or not were ours, but it simply isn’t.
Getting slaughtered serenely is not peaceful or nonviolent. Its masochistic.
such a disgusting rhetoric to peddle non-violence while promoting 50501, a white supremacist organization that hires veterans in “peacekeeping” roles to shoot antifascists and anyone who’s not white.
playing peace police is inherently a violent act because taking a stand against all the oppressed people who respond back in the only language that the state understands reinforces white supremacist systems.
instead of supporting libs that cooperate with state repression and enable fascism, donate to Gamboa’s legal fund, join anti-authoritarian grassroots orgs and support your local antifascists.
What that peacekeeper did was abhorrent, and is under investigation. Are all Republicans good because Rand Paul voted against the budget reconciliation bill? Your inflammatory takes out you as an accelerationist.
You do understand that we’ve grown our protests from a few hundred thousand to ~10M in four months with this method, right? Yet you’re encouraging small factions of violence which have repeatedly proven throughout history to have failed against dictatorships?
Your agenda is clear. Keep your accelerationist takes out of my nation, comrade.
this is exactly why y’all get called blue MAGA. when your orgs lynch a Pacific Islander and barely miss their shot on a leftist Venezuelan, it’s a “good-will effort” to “prevent outside agitators”. literal KKK propaganda adapted for liberal sensibilities:
I’m not defending that single person’s actions. I’m saying the other ~10M of us were not there to support white supremacy, but to stand in opposition against it.
You’re not going to use inflammatory language and extremist opinions to convince me of a different agenda, while we actively stand, arms linked, in-between ICE and immigrants.
https://files.catbox.moe/0zs6gv.mp4
https://files.catbox.moe/sxt6sv.mp4
Organisation overthrows regimes, not protests. Ends are an entirely different issue
Correct. Right now the largest organized movement is a protest. Violence will reduce our ability to continue to grow those numbers.
Uuuuuuh