Submitted by [deleted]
on June 11, 2019 at 8:00 PM in AnarchoPacifism
Viewing a single comment thread.
View all comments
Then we are not going to agree on much...
I don't see any change happening without widespread violence. I see a bunch of liberals and their enablers, the pacifists, content to march with signs and call for politicians and the rich to have mercy on them. There will be no general strike. There will be no mass peaceful leftist movement that can defeat capitalism and the boot-lickers. The "means become the ends" is the words the cowards say to justify not taking action.
Can you explain to me why and how you think a series of non-violent revolutions will happen?
You seem to be arguing a bunch of different things depending on what I question you on. You started off saying it was a moral reasoning to be a pacifist, now you seem to be shifting to a short-term strategic decision. Which is it? Are there ever moral justifications for violent revolutionary acts? Or do you sit on the sidelines because you don't think your side can win?
I'm here to tell you that your military assessment is incorrect, and your moral theory is incorrect. I stand firmly by that assessment.
I don't think the military will support a revolution, I think the vast majority of them would fight to the last man to defend their mythos of empire. I don't need them to switch sides to win.
I absolutely think the military and police would fire on non-violent revolutionary actions that were actually accomplishing something - look at the history of effective strikes in this country and you will see a long history of police, national guard, and private mercenaries firing on non-violent protestors with very little backlash. This type of behavior has a long history, including recent history. If it's effective, it will meet with the violence of the state and capital.
The facts are that there has never been a successful peaceful revolution. There has never been a non-violent movement for change on any level that has been even moderately successful without a violent/militant wing. If you want your movement to be successful, you will need to embrace a wide diversity of tactics, including the threat of violence, and the effective self-defense of those people within the movement. Pacifism is the ineffective solution. It's the one being sold to you by your masters so that your revolutionary energy goes into something completely ineffectual and the system is never effectively threatened.
This entire response is just wrong on every level. I don't think I have the time or patience to teach you all of this stuff.....
Good luck in your liberal solutions. It's sad to know I have one less real comrade.
At least do some research before continuing to be ignorant.
Read Blessed is the Flame, then read about some people who were actually in real struggles like Franz Fanon, Dhouruba Bin Wahad, Assata Shakur, Kuwasi Balagoon, Georges Sorel, Russell Maroon Shoatz, Bonano, Robert Williams.
More advanced reading: Mary Nardini Gang, CCF, Baeden, Le Retif,
Did the viet cong need "military grade" equipment to beat the US military? No, they needed basic weapons. We have access to many more weapons as civilians than the VC did, or than the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan ever had.
Not being droned? By being an actual insurgency and melting into the general population. Which will increase the militancy of the police against the general public, which combined with increasing rhetoric of the left, will convert far more people to the need to defend themselves, and to eventually be willing to do whatever it took to take down the current system. Suppression doesn't work if the insurgency is sufficiently organized and isolated in independent cells.
Again, you seem to have no idea of what I'm talking about. An insurgency holds no territory. There is nowhere to send SWAT teams, bomb or drone.
I don't feel this is an effective use of time as you don't seem to be able to understand what I"m saying. Have fun on the sidelines, liberal.
Fuck the """general public."""