Im not necessarily a full anarchist, but I felt like by posting it here, it might reach eyes with similar beliefs. Now when I usually tell people this, they react like I just beat down a helpless animal, but after I explain it to them they usually understand my point of view. They may not agree with me but they will understand my point of view. That is the point of my article now.
When we are growing up we are always given examples of how taking the higher road and participating in peaceful protests is how to get things done. We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day and learn how to power of peaceful protest was able to defeat segregation and discriminatory regulation within the US. However in reality politics didn’t end up working like that and the reason peaceful protesting worked was because they feared that the protest would turn violent and America would have a race war on its hands. Let me explain. Many people at the time were split between two groups, Martin Luther King Jr.’s peaceful protest group and the radical Black Panther party which advocated action and sometimes violence to get their point across. At the height of the two groups rivaling each other, many believed that Martin Luther King Jr.’s inaction would cause them to be crushed by the government. On top of that within Hoover’s FBI, King was seen as an enemy of the state and there is proof he was actively blackmailing him.
Eventually when the entire civil rights movement got past the point of no return, politicians realized that change was either going to come or things would turn violent. Rather than supporting the Black Panther Party, politicians supported King’s peaceful movement and endorsed him which essentially killed the Black Panther Party. Many who were on the fence moved to King’s movement and from there history was made.
Beyond the civil rights story, there are many others, but what most of them have in common is that the government feared that if they didn’t make peace there would soon be in a violent struggle. I believe there needs to be some fear for compromises to be made. If the government is feeling pressured they are either going to lash out or they are going to back down. If they chose the first option they end up looking , like a backwards country in the eyes of the world and lose international face. A good example of this was the crackdown on the protests at Tiananmen Square in China. Nearly a million peaceful Chinese staged a protest in Tiananmen Square and ended up getting mowed down for it.China decided that the protest was becoming too big so they cracked down and the world shamed them for it. I think had those 1 million used violence instead of peace they might have been able to topple the leadership in China.
All throughout history the amount of successful violent protests and Coup’s have outnumbered peaceful protest 100 to 1. I believe that if we want real change there needs to be some threat of violence to a government body. By violence im also talking about ways that aren’t exactly violent but don’t play by the rules, such as hacking whistle-blowing and revealing documents that can potentially get people hurt, for the greater good. I don’t want violent protests to happen, but I think that they are just a way of how things get done effectively. Solutions to problems just tend to get solved more quickly when people are in the streets throwing Molotov Cocktails.
If you agree with me or don’t agree with me leave a comment, im interested to see what the reactions will be.
-Calaber24p
I think passive non-compliance works better than violence. The problem is that people have a difficult time uniting themselves on a large scale for a common goal.
If you haven't seen the movie Cartel Land [2015], you should see it right away. It really explains how there is no real winners ..
My favorite "joke" is when people think that signing a petition is the way to keep problems in check. If that was the case, then there would be no war on earth. Nations would just produce signed petitions to one another. lol.
I agree.You are hereby upvoted and followed.You have made good comments before.Although I forgot what they were..
"By violence im also talking about ways that aren’t exactly violent but don’t play by the rules, such as hacking whistle-blowing and revealing documents that can potentially get people hurt, for the greater good. "
I believe this is a good thing to put pressure on our modern tyrants. Wiki leaks, snowden, things like this are crucial.
Please keep in mind I am not the type to take to the street and hurt a fellow citizen because I'm angry that he/she is a representative of the law, who tries upholds the peace. (law enforcement)
We can shake things up without mass violence!
The revolution will be powered by mass non-compliance. We will not convert law enforcement by violence, but by discussion. Everyone can see the truth in non-aggression. Once they open their eyes because of the censorship free parts of the internet, they will also see the government for what it truly is, a violent entity, and will join us in non-compliance.
But what about national security? Is there anything you'd be against releasing based on national security grounds? The guy who released the pentagon papers didn't run away to Russia. I think Snoden erred because he revealed some of our terrorist hunting methods + some of our foreign spy operations. from what I read he stole so much material he couldn't vet all of it, he just passed tons of shit to Greenwald. I'm not the most anti-snoden guy you'll ever come across, but I would like to see him tried by a jury of his peers on treason charges. Also there are many places where street protests are shut down with bullets, sometimes I think people protesting America's problems lack global context.
The problem with peaceful protests are the people they are protesting against aren't usually peaceful.
In a Utopian world full of compassionate and empathetic people, peaceful protects would be great. But not in our world, not yet anyway. The good news is people at large are indeed getting less violent over time.
Well that's the problem with the government then, most of the time they won't listen as long as they can have what they want. That's why politics were referred as the devil's playground.
The problem with peaceful protests is that they have an "exploit". 2 of the photos you used are from Greece / 2011. Now the protests were working very well for a while because they were peaceful. Half a million people were outside the parliament, nearly on a daily basis, and this image was delegitimizing the parliament which was voting things against the public will. The politicians were cracking and they had to find something to do about it.
The "exploit" is that the establishment "plants" some "violent" protesters among the peaceful ones and then says "oh these protestors are just violent hooligans". They then proceed to break the protest with violence. They did just that in late june 2011 in our case (Athens).
So, violence, in unarmed populaces, doesn't work for "resisting" because the people are outgunned. It could be different in countries with an armed populace.
I think this is a huge problem with almost all peaceful protests. You always get a minority of extremists who ruin the view and the government uses that for an excuse to turn on you, like what happened during occupy Wall Street.
They are "planted" by the establishment:
They throw the firebomb on the ground (not the cops), then when the riot police tries to counter-attack, they are like "hey hey, not us man, we are undercover"... one even unmasks, and after the unmasking the riot police retreats ;) All theatrics.
(check it in full screen)
I think this is a very good point. Every action that is effective is so because of leverage. Without leverage, you have no position of power to demand action of another.
Boycotts, therefore, can only be effective if there is a significant number of people who will commit to be faithful to the boycott and ensure and adverse effect on whom they are protesting.
Likewise, protests without some sort of leverage will not be effective. Leverage can be gained in the form of media coverage that then reflects poorly on the protested and could effect a change. But, without some sort of leverage...like threat of violence...protests are a waste of time.
I believe there is a more effective way: Change the economical system(capitalism) by collaborative ownership of the means of production,these means being increasingly localised digital manufacturing ,sustainable energy ,and food production(automated as much as possible).
Then at the political level;fight for more local democracy,also using blockchain techology for online voting. There are initatives like flux in Australia, https://voteflux.org/ ,which has a a more radical form of direct democracy,where they pledge to only represent the voters direcly,and this is working through a blockchain app.
These are some transtional steps.on our way to an abundant and non hierarchical and post capitalist society.
What do you mean when you say "capitalism"? I see capitalism as free market capitalism - which barely exists yet, because it was introduced into an imbalanced and biased system... it may take another few decades for things to find a better equilibrium and people to realize that most short term gain translates into long term pain, even for themselves.
You are correct @calaber24p - non-violence was once beneficial when attempting to raise awareness, and perhaps has great propaganda-benefit when the boots wade-in and brutalize. However, when 'EVERYONE KNOWS' what the problems are and that we have moved on from education to demanding change, then allowing the state to place protesters in holding-areas, and make selective arrests of leadership etc. is totally f'n useless.
The state responds only when there is a 'real threat', first they respond with violence, but if the threat is sustained, it will respond with reform. If the objective is massive change to societal power-structures, then this threat must be sustained 'and' widespread. Of course when I say threat, I do not mean only violence .. aggresive non-cooperation as in refusing to acknowledge the demands of the state on every level, slowly causing failure over time in-aggregate ...
Standing in a group, ignored by the mass-media, waiting silently to get pepper-sprayed and stomped into the ground no longer has any value .. last time it did was the Battle for Seattle in 2007 .. when people still watched television, and was of such a scale, never seen in the United States that mass media could not ignore it.
It's never "the state" that responds, but just a small party within the state, who has power over its machinery. We should rather ask ourselves: Do we want to build such minority-controllable apparatus?
I think in a democratic society, a peaceful protest should be the only acceptable norm. - The voices of the people are heard and taken into consideration. Since it's the people ruling through representatives.
In an autocratic society, an aggressive one should be the only norm. - People don't pick their leaders and leaders don't care about the people much. Change has to be made by force.
***I'm not naive. This only applies in extreme cases. A 100% democratic and uncorrupt society vs an unhuman dictatorship.
I don't believe that our government fear their citizens in the US at all. I think most people here are too complacent with their cushy lives and turn the other way when their rights are breached. I see our country slowly turning into more of a security state as time goes on, maybe not 1984 levels , but definitely to a point that is undesirable.
Same here.
This reminds me of the idea: It's easy to control prisoners, when we give them the illusion of freedom.
All we can do is educate people, make them question the government.
What would happen if a coup would take place in the US. Would the indoctrinated people stand with the new or the old?
So... what's the best solution to get rid of an autocracy which masks itself as an democracy?
Need to identify the enemy and call in "the expendables" :)
I don't know what to do.
It's not whether "our government" "fears" anything. It's about what those with the keys to the castle fear, think, and believe.
Saludos desde Venezuela, espero ganar mucho dinero con esto.
The problem with violent protests is that it is hardly ever the government or their agents that suffer.
It's private citizens, private property, private businesses that suffer.
People come to harm, property is damaged or destroyed, businesses both cannot do business and therefore lose revenue, or their shops and goods are also damaged or destroyed.
The government agents of force (police, nat'l guard) are very rarely harmed, with their riot shields to block incoming projectiles, tear gas to keep people away, sound-blasting machines to keep people away, the sheer intimidation of an MRAP with a huge gun on the top of it, etc.
Government buildings hardly ever are damaged or destroyed. For some reason, violent protestors love to smash car windows, business windows, throw molotov cocktails on the roof of a McDonalds...but never City Hall. Never the local IRS office. Never the local police department.
(A skeptic would say this is because the protestors can't immediately be rewarded from the government buildings the same way they can from, say, a big-screen tv store or a jewelry store.)
Even if you had violent protestors who were dedicated to the idea of harming only government property, those people would soon be joined by hordes of opportunists who would bring violence to the streets simply to cause panic and loot. Once that happens, any sympathy the protest may have had with the general public will be lost, and the entire thing will be viewed as simply a reason to loot.
(Again, skeptics would note that many protests have been waylaid in this fashion by people who were hired to cause trouble and loot. Agent provocateurs.)
Keep in mind, I'm not saying violence is never the answer. I'm simply wondering how you would keep it focused on the government and its agents, and keep out the bad actors.
In the short term that is certianly true. However, if the protests are successful and bring about change to bad policies then it is the citizens, property and businesses that benefit from a more just and productive society over the longer term. The premise of the OP is that violent resistance or at least peaceful resistance backed by a credible threat of violence is 100x more effective in bringing about positive social change. I don't know if history backs up that claim, but if it does then the argument is sound.
As long as man lives, violence will be a part of our society. That is the only truth in any of this.
Nice sharing @calaber24p ...
People need equality , if the right leader , anarchy does not exist
What is "equality"? If you are capable of looking after 1000 employees and making good decisions about them, and ensuring they get paid their salaries, are you "equal" to one of those employess who "just want an easy life"? Or do you mean "equal opportunities"? Don't most countries already have this?
The last true "revolution" in the USA was the revolutionary war. Fortunately, the Americans had access to the same weapons as the ruling British government. It was muskets vs. muskets or cannon vs. cannon. Today most protest groups can't readily acquire a tank or warship. When Boston experienced a terrorist bombing (very wrong!) , a full-fledged army suddenly appeared in Boston out of nowhere...militarized police (lots of them), using assault rifles, smoke grenades, armored personnel carriers, tanks -- the whole 9 yards. Today in the USA, there's a huge gap between the citizens' views of acceptable, constitutional behavior around the country and the behavior of police gangs. How do we cause change when "they" have all the weapons?
Hey i think you are absolutely right.
Polititions also fear being voted out of office. The black panthers rose to power after the civil rights act and the voting rights act were signed into law. I find it a noteworthy part of our history that we avoided a lot of socially motivated violence, Americans tend to protest and vote to get the changes they want, I'm certainly not an anarchist. Politically I'm liberal but on a deeper level I'm a conservative because its my instinct to work within the system rather than wanting to see that system burned down. I think when judging by say fifty year incriments, American society is getting better, not worse, and that satisfies me.
Violence is a tool used by the elite to pursue their agenda. Overthrowing a regime with violence rarely leads to a better outcome for everyday people. Violent protesters are doing the dirty work for their power hungry overlords. If we all decided to peacefully resist the powers that be then real change can begin.
I totally agree with you on this one for those who dont agree they may probably think that what you mean by having violent protest is the guarantee of bloodshed which isnt neccesarily true. Most peacfiul protest are almost always interrupted by "Law Enforcement " with Violent force , I believe if we had open carry protest this could and will change the whole dynamic of a protest leaving opposition with no choice but to listen and finally have some sort of understanding of what the people are demanding lets be honest there is no real way for them to arrest 50,000 armed protester i doubt they would even try and there would not even have to be One shot fired.
Many go with a peaceful mind frame. However it only takes one to fear violence. This can cause an instance of violence which spreads unfortunately. However there have also been peaceful protests at times as well. So it is possible. Lastly I think a fear of violence may also work for one to try not to be violent as well. Lots of mixed emotions that get mixed up in different ways. Good points and thank you for sharing.
Absolutely accurate, people and governments alike can easily swat away and ignore those who peacefully protest. A violent protest is simply much more difficult to burn out.
I believe that through further education and democratization of government, people will be able to make diplomatic and peaceful efforts for change.
to me the forces that created such a potencial for mass education are statist in nature. Valuing democrassy is deep in the bones of American culture. Its a feature, not a bug.
Largely agree. However, I think the problem is primarily in the qualities of the people themselves. That is, what a difference if one bad ruler is replaced by another worthless. You can choose unfit rulers, and then try to influence them by force or through peaceful demonstrations.
I think a more fundamental problem - how to raise a good leader. That's the real problem. Modern culture can not educate good leaders. Even if the leader was ready to serve the people in the beginning, he suddenly become corrupted, once he gains the power. How to train a person with good qualities, how to raise a true leader. That is, I think, the most important question.
Neither democracy nor monarchy, nor any other system does not solve the problem, yet the leaders will not be of good qualities. If the community raised a selfish, guided by animal instincts, can we expect something good from such a leader?
But there is always a leader. No society lives without a leader. The problem is not that there is a leader. The problem is that this leader is useless to society. That's why I believe that the best way is create a system that will raise good people who can be trusted with power and do not degrade.
This is only my humble opinion. I can in some way be mistaken. Thank you for this issue, @calaber24p! Following you.
I don't also understand the need of violence just to make a point heard. Is it really necessary, can we just resolve things peacefully?
IMHO.
The first things to do is to steal government's power. One of most obvious is money. Off course what I mean is the real money. Money that can't be devalue by government's hand. If people all over the world start using the real money. believe there'll be a great good changes for all of us.
Anarchy is not about violence at all this is an undesirable yet all too common understanding of the word. Google Voluntaryism for the correct understanding of the word anarchy.
Passive protest don't work when your aim is not at restructuring the system or stemming away from it. Many remember Dr. King as the heroic figure who fought for the rights of disenfranchised Color people. But they fail to delve into his other point--poverty. Did you forget, that a free population is not really free of they were still enslaved under the wage system. It was the Poor People's Campaign the real originator that formed the basis of OWS. Why do you think the government was so keen in killing him? I believe his last speech before he got assassinated was one about the sanitation workers. The speech is really about the Poor classes, whether your white or black poverty holds no racial bias. It's the idea that successfully be free we must all fight against the powers that be that hold so much of the unfettered power unchecked.
I upvote U