The eastern bloc was mostly dismantled by peaceful protests. So you don’t really seem to know that much about peaceful protests, it can be very effective. Of applied correctly and consistently and not only once in a blue moon. Here are some things for reading for you
Are you saying the Eastern Bloc was more democratic and responsive to public pressure than the liberal democracies of the West?
You can interpret it how you want, that wasn’t your statement I refuted. Matter of fact remains, that those were peaceful protests and they reached their goal.
In the sense that they gave up and became liberal democracies, yes.
Read about Serbia. There are very effective peaceful protest going on for months.
Edit: Vučić‘s men are trying to use violence against the protesters, but the mostly just disperse immediately and meet up somewhere else to do more protesting. Protest have to be disruptive, but not violent.
Tell me when anything actually changes in Serbia
At which point the state will make them violent.
And whst is really the point of not being violent when things are this fucked? Like, how are you refucing toral violence? Like wearing a baseball cap in a monsoon.
I’m not going to bother looking it up, so I’ll ask you instead since you seem to care about it. What have they accomplished through those months of protesting?
Funny how Luigi and Crooks are the only ones who actually attempted meaningful change and both are conservative.
Nice
Also in this image: Russian propagandists trying to get us to kick off a civil war
Yep you got it, everyone who can see reality is a Russian now. You got us skippy.
Exactly. Everyone also forgets what a civil war looks like these days. It wouldn’t be North vs South, it would be in every direction, everywhere. Nobody wants this.
For comparison, here’s Myanmar. This started back in 2021: https://myanmar.iiss.org/introduction
We’ve been making meaningful changes this way for centuries. Everyone in that timeframe who tried violence ended up in an authoritarian hellscape.
for centuries. Everyone in that timeframe who tried violence ended up in an authoritarian hellscape.
ooooooooommmmmmmmmfffffffffffffffffffffgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
french july revolution
greek war 1820s
all the various revolutions of the 1840s in europe
japan’s restoration 1860s
cuban war late 1800s
chinese revolution 1910 (might be 1915. but fuck you btw)
just shut the fuck up you racist fucking moron
idk why you come here when you’re obviously a lib and leftist content makes you uncomfortable.
Trump’s salivating at an excuse to sic the national guard on radicals with no public support. It’s probably the only thing that gets him hard.
Don’t pretend to be left when you support a return to the old ways.
well since you’re not a radical you don’t need to worry about us. just do as you normally do: sitting at home pretending to give a shit about minorities, like the good little white liberal you are.
You must have missed the part where I explained these actions you promote will empower and embolden the fascists. Instead of trying to die martyrs to fringe groups you should be spreading influence of progressive activists and gain public support.
you think fascists need something to be emboldened and empowered? They are doing as they please right now, dismantling system after system. currently they simply take away your chance of a blue congress by gerrymandering (and even imprisoning texas dems because they don’t want to sign stuff). Peaceful protest only works when democracy is still working. You are beating a dead horse.
yes, meaningful changes towards fascism…
Progressive change has always had to face violent reactions. From abolition to the 40-hour workday, to child labour, to civil rights, to LGBT rights
I’m real glad we got those 40-hour workdays, 8 hours just wasn’t enough! 😄
lol, I meant to say workweeks :D
Abolition actually started with legislation which caused a violent uprising from the fucking Confederacy. Thats who you align yourself with?
Abolition actually started with legislation which caused a violent uprising from the fucking Confederacy
Wrong. You are not just wrong, but you are violently racist.
Abolition started with slaves freeing themselves. Nat Turner. Harriet Tubman. Without people like that, the Civil War would have never happened, slavery would have never ended.
John Brown was inspired by Nat Turner, and he literally worked hand-in-hand with Harriet Tubman, who seriously considered joining him in his violent raid on Harper’s Ferry. John Brown went on illegal (and violent) raids into the south to free slaves and then illegally transport them to Canada. John Brown murdered pro-slavery men in retaliation for their murders of abolitionists in Kansas. Do you think what John Brown did was wrong? Do you think arresting and executing John Brown was a good thing? Do you think Sherman’s march to the sea and the violence he committed against southerners is a bad thing?
I don’t expect you to have the correct response, because you are a violently racist, anti-black person. You honestly believe that rich white dudes sitting in a room writing some words on a piece of paper had a bigger effect on ending slavery than black people who actually put their lives and bodies on the line to free themselves (displaying your internalized white supremacy).
Please educate yourself. Start by reading The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America by the fantastic author Gerald Horne. Or maybe you’re too afraid to read this book, because it’s not written by a “safe” old dead liberal white man.
since you can’t see Hexbear replies, here’s one from @kurtvonnegut@hexbear.net.
Are you asking me to respond? If a guy who promotes countries that practice ethnic cleansing today is frothing at the mouth calling me a racist then I must be a real monster for
*checks notes
Accurately recounting that the Confederates started the war over slavery.
No, I just want you to be able to see how stupid everyone thinks you are.
I think they might have mumblemouthed it but you bastards have decided among yourselves that their mispoken statement cannot merely represent an ignorant and misinformed read of history but an intentionally violently racist viewpoint. The screenshotted user was I warrant correct in their historical analysis and absolutely fucking wrong to put words in the thread-OPs mouth, as if earnestly trying to alienate instead of persuade or fact check a damn thing.
Like yeah, abolition wouldn’t have happened without black people, from freedmen writers to rebelling chattel slaves, advocated for themselves. All the well meaning white people (on average rarer then anyway) wouldn’t have meant much without black people wanting to be free and making it known.
Why would you go out of your way to read a person’s response in the worst possible way? Maybe I’m just a fukken airhead but I didn’t see any dogwhistle that justified how you lot are speaking to them. You simply decided to tar and feather the fucker for being kind of wrong about labor history. Then you springboarded into a merciless bed of assumptions.
oh, cry me a fucking river. people in multiple threads have tried to educate him, and he’s more interested in being a racist piece of shit liberal. if you don’t like that then you and he can stop coming to leftist comms to try and dictate how we speak to people who are ideologically opposed to our existence. the fucking audacity of this caucasity .
“The White liberal is the worst enemy to America and the worst enemy to the Black man.” — Malcolm X
Banjo deserves to be mocked as they have had years to learn better. But instead they double down on support of the Diet Fascism party.
He’s a racist piece of shit who thinks brown people deserve to be mistreated when they break any law, no matter how stupid or purposely racist they are.
The more Tankies I upset the better.
You’re not upsetting anyone, we’re all having a lot of fun.
You’re less of a troll and more of a clown we keep for amusement.
Genuine question, what makes you think dbzer0/this community is tankie? We’re anarchists, not Marxists and we get into tons of fighting with Hexbear/ml too.
I saw that in another comment of yours in this thread but nevertheless.
if you want to upset tankies you are wrong here, those are on the other side of town in authoritarian direction.
You’re so close to getting it…
Now guess who starts the violence in all other instances of progressive radical change. Hint: It’s not the ones making the change.
Then why are you promoting starting the viokence!?
Everything meaningful we will do will be labeled as “violence”. The point is that the things that will not be labeled as “violence” will be meaningless.
“Violence is when I can’t get on with my life and ignore everything bad that has been happening quietly”
Like, Euromaidan here was definitely what most would label as “violence”. It’s also how the place I live in is still not a part of the imperialist shithole that is russia.
Euromaidan was peaceful until the anti-protest measures were used by law enforcement, the Berkut deployed to violently disperse them, at the request of the then failing government. It started with 1,500 and after the crackdown grew to hundreds of thousands. After multiple weeks news of riots began to spread, but much of it can be attributed to Russian propoganda trying to lable the movement as xenophobic and hateful.
Please provide a real-world example of polite peaceful protest convincing the ruling class to do something it didn’t want to do.
You don’t change their minds by appealing to their conscience or humanity, you do it by making it less attractive for them to give you what you want than for them not to give it to you. Every single scrap of progress has been won by threatening disruption, economic damage or physical violence.
We didn’t get weekends and eight hour workdays because capitalists thought it was the morally right thing to do, we did it because denying these demands came with a realistic risk of angry workers going to their mansions and beating them to death.
Bonus question: Can you define authoritarianism?
Piefed.world - hexbear.net federation is only one-way, but it would be hilarious to see finitebanjo get dunked on by Hexbear users lmao
He can’t handle world people dunking on him. Would be an utter bloodbath
Lmao you’re right, i’d still pay money to see it though 😂
gestures broadly to America today
And this was the fault of the black panthers, I’m assuming?
I haven’t seen anything good come from the Black Panthers aside from Gun Regulation. The civil rights movement was filled with peaceful protestors like King and gained bipartisan support.
you heard it here, ladies and gents. the only good thing to come out of the panthers was the racist reaction to keep black people from being able to resist white oppression.
way to out yourself as a racist piece of shit.
People resisted white oppression in ways that mattered, just not the Black Panthers.
Okay cracker, glad to see you bought into all the historical revision that the rich made up to scare white people.
Lol.
Lmao even.
Thank you for summarizing how pointless it would be to engage further so succinctly.
Skill Issue
Thanks, village idiot, I needed a laugh today.
American revolutionists would like to have a word… And even though after the French revolution times were bad you can ask yourself whether they would have been any better off if the revolution hadn’t occurred. Even if the French themselves weren’t better off, fear of revolution triggered other authoritarian monarchs, like the Dutch king to agree to massive reforms. It’s not always a simple A-leads-to-B connection.
That’s fair.
civil rights activists would like to have a word. women’s suffrage would like a word.
Thanks for the counterexamples to violent change.
I highly recommend you read this excerpt.
Long. (click to show)
the Suffragettes are instructive. Their tactic of choice was property destruction. Decades of patient pressure on Parliament to give women the vote had yielded nothing, and so in 1903, under the slogan ‘Deeds not words’, the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded. Five years later, two WSPU members undertook the first militant action: breaking windowpanes in the prime minister’s residence. One of them told the police she would bring a bomb the next time. Fed up with their own fruitless deputations to Parliament, the suffragettes soon specialised in ‘the argument of the broken pane’, sending hundreds of well-dressed women down streets to smash every window they passed. In the most concentrated volley, in March 1912, Emmeline Pankhurst and her crews brought much of central London to a standstill by shattering the fronts of jewellers, silversmiths, Hamleys toy shop and dozens of other businesses. They also torched letterboxes around the capital. Shocked Londoners saw pillars filled with paper throwing up flames, the work of some activist having thrown in a parcel soaked in kerosene and a lit match. The civil resistance model? More like the methods envisioned in Lanchester’s paradox. Militancy was at the core of suffragette identity: ‘To be militant in some form, or other, is a moral obligation’, Pankhurst lectured. ‘It is a duty which every woman will owe her own conscience and self-respect, to women who are less fortunate than she is herself, and to all who are to come after her.’ The latest full-body portrait of the movement, Diane Atkinson’s Rise Up, Women!, gives an encyclopaedic listing of militant actions: suffragettes forcing the prime minister out of his car and dousing him with pepper, hurling a stone at the fanlight above Winston Churchill’s door, setting upon statues and paintings with hammers and axes, planting bombs on sites along the routes of royal visits, fighting policemen with staves, charging against hostile politicians with dogwhips, breaking the windows in prison cells. Such deeds went hand in hand with mass mobilisation. The suffragettes put up mammoth rallies, ran their own presses, went on hunger strikes: deploying the gamut of non-violent and militant action. After the hope of attaining the vote by constitutional means was dashed once more in early 1913, the movement switched gears. In a systematic campaign of arson, the suffragettes set fire to or blew up villas, tea pavilions, boathouses, hotels, haystacks, churches, post offices, aqueducts, theatres and a liberal range of other targets around the country. Over the course of a year and a half, the WSPU claimed responsibility for 337 such attacks. Few culprits were apprehended. Not a single life was lost; only empty buildings were set ablaze. The suffragettes took great pains to avoid injuring people. But they considered the situation urgent enough to justify incendiarism – votes for women, Pankhurst explained, were of such pressing importance that ‘we had to discredit the Government and Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to spoil English sports, hurt businesses, destroy valuable property, demoralise the world of society, shame the churches, upset the whole orderly conduct of life’. Some attacks probably went unclaimed. One historian suspects that the suffragettes were behind one of the most spectacular blazes of the period: a fire in a Tyneside coal wharf, in which the facilities for loading coal were completely gutted. They did, however, claim responsibility for the burning of motor cars and a steam yacht
This is from How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm,
that’s some real historical revisionism. it’s no different than what trump is doing to the smithsonian. you two have a lot in common.
but that’s what you liberals do. you whitewash and appropriate the work of people like MLK and Malcom X, and use their “peaceful” resistance to fund raise while ignoring their advocacy or participation in protests liberals deem “violent”.
I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity. — Martin Luther King
Whenever the Negroes keep the Democrats in power, they’re keeping the Dixiecrats in power. This is true! A vote for a Democrat is nothing but a vote for a Dixiecrat. I know you don’t like me saying that, but I’m not the kind of person who come here to say what you like. I’m going to tell you the truth, whether you like it or not. Up here in the North, you have the same thing. The Democratic Party don’t do it, they don’t do it that way. They got a thing that they call gerrymandering. They maneuver you out of power. Even though you can vote, they fix it so you’re voting for nobody. They got you going and coming. In the South, they’re outright political wolves. In the North, they’re political foxes. A fox and a wolf are both canine, both belong to the dog family. Now, you take your choice. You going to choose a Northern dog or a Southern dog? Because either dog you choose, I guarantee you, you’ll still be in the doghouse. This is why I say it’s the ballot or the bullet. It’s liberty or it’s death. It’s freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. — Malcolm X
It’s like you didn’t even read the statement from King, lmao.
you are not smart. this is why you’re getting so many downvotes any time you comment here.
The suffragettes literally threw rocks at windows and commited arson.
And because of that they were imprisoned and ridiculed by the media and didn’t gain right to vote at 21 until 14 years later after their organization had a huge schism splitting into multiple factions
However, a system of publicity, Ensor argues, had to continue to escalate to maintain its high visibility in the media. The hunger strikes and force-feeding did that, but the Pankhursts refused any advice and escalated their tactics. They turned to systematic disruption of Liberal Party meetings as well as physical violence in terms of damaging public buildings and arson. Searle says the methods of the suffragettes harmed the Liberal Party but failed to advance women’s suffrage. When the Pankhursts decided to stop their militancy at the start of the war and enthusiastically support the war effort, the movement split and their leadership role ended.
the liberals have been ridiculed by the media for the last 15 years. It’s time for them to do something to be taken seriously - if they want that to happen, anyway
idk, seems more like you can end up in an authoritarian hellscape either way, because efforts to establish it have to be defeated constantly. as soon as ppl stop paying attention, authoritarianism creeps in the back door. so i think it’s a different issue that just seems related, because after (violent) protests they will use those as an excuse for their coup, but they would just find something else otherwise, like crime rates or illegal immigrants or so.
Then we should fight it forever, the responsible way with minimal bloodshed. When our enemies are promoting bloody revolution you know it’s not in our favor.
I see you’ve read your state provided history textbook well.
