The 87-year-old whose eviction sparked a domestic crisis and triggered nationwide anti-government protests has died in hospital late on Wednesday. Protesters say they will continue to demonstrate to uphold her legacy.
The 87-year-old whose eviction sparked a domestic crisis and triggered nationwide anti-government protests has died in hospital late on Wednesday. Protesters say they will continue to demonstrate to uphold her legacy.
This is why nonviolence is violence too. Nonviolent movements require their violent counterparts to put pressure on states.
And also, if a movement manages to get a reform passed, it is dependent on the state’s monopoly on violence to get it enforced. Don’t forget that the National Guard had to be deployed to actually desegregate schools in the South.
There is no such thing as a successful non-violent movement, and anyone who demands non-violence is carrying water for the oppressors.
I agree on that! But i refuse the way of thinking that the threat of violence has to be the first line of defense or offense.
Yeah sure, violence should not be the first thing you try. But it’s more effective if you are perceived as being capable of violence when you are standing up to oppressors who are doing violence to you.
It’s also effective if i am capable of unleashing a biological agent on my adversaries. Should that be the standard? Because that is very easily achieved these days with everything you can buy from a supermarket, see bacillus cereus as an easy example - cook some rice, let it stand at 27°C for a few days and distribute it to your enemies. That’s one of the nice examples that (probably) wont kill your enemies.
The threat of violence - which is fucking easy even for single individuals nowadays if they want to - should NOT be the primary reason to engage in diplomacy.
I think you’re misconstruing what I’m trying to say. This article says it much better: https://www.grassrootsthinking.com/nonviolence-is-violence-too-somebodys-gotta-die/
I have to disagree with that article on multiple things. For starters, I have to (again) put here that I always agreed with the initial premise that violence is a valid way if nonviolent ways are not working.
This is the thing i really want to put up here as an inhumane fallacy, making human lives something to be played with. This is simply not true - the first is a preparation step for the worst case, the other one is an active, violent transgression against human life. Lord Farquaad would be proud.
And the whole article disenfranchises every step humanity has made towards progress through negotiation without bashing in skulls. I can’t even…
As I said, I fully support violent uprising against conditions that are not fixable in other ways or that are causing comparable harm in the populace. But this agitation piece is fucking propaganda for violence outside of what is reasonable in a functioning democracy.
You are missing the point that violence is already being done to the oppressed. When the author says digging a grave is no more violent than filling one, he is talking about your body filling that grave, not your oppressors. “Inflicting harm is no more violent than receiving it.” When you are already being harmed, there is no moral high ground to refusing to harm the oppressor.
I am not missing that point, i am putting it in perspective. And i completely disagree with your assumption regarding who is filling that grave - it is very much being presented as filling these graves with the bodies of your political enemies.
Is raising a rent the same as causing bodily harm? In some cases, i might be tempted to agree. But if we are not wanting to go down the road of teeth for teeth, eye for eye, we have at least to give the democratic process a good chance to try to fix the issues.
Democracy isn’t perfect, and most states institutions aren’t either. I fully accept this premise. But using an ideological background that makes us dig the grave and then fill it because it is essentially the same is very much fucked up.