ICE Is Expanding Across the US at Breakneck Speed. Here’s Where It’s Going Next

silence7@slrpnk.net · edit-2 3 days ago

ICE Is Expanding Across the US at Breakneck Speed. Here’s Where It’s Going Next

Matty Roses@lemmy.today · 1 day ago

you need to read US labor history if you think it’s been unarmed. See Blair Mountain.

ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · edit-2 1 day ago

I’m very familiar with it. Matewan (which takes place before the battle for Blair Mountain) is one of my favorite movies.

The difference is in the period where the US labor movement employed violent resistance; The government was not literal Nazis, the US had not yet become the most advanced military on the planet, and the police and strike-breaker thugs weren’t as well equipped as the military itself, nor had state funded billion dollar budgets to boot. Hell, the workers at Blair Mountain could’ve done a lot of damage, maybe even inspire a popular revolt across the US, had they not been persuaded to stop.

We, and the US labor movement, is at this moment facing a problem much closer to the consolidation of power ofNazi Germany, where unions were destroyed by an overwhelming state violence.

I’m not saying that it’d be a bad idea to be prepared if non-violent resistance fails, I’ve made posts in that area as well. But at the same time, it’s quite clear that the regime is looking for an excuse to call martial law, cancel the elections, and unleash the military upon all who oppose it.

I’m personally not super confident that the US military will refuse orders, or that a large enough faction within it would split off and join the resistance if ordered to round up and kill US citizens. Without that, being the initiator in a violent resistance would light off a powder keg that is not to our advantage, as it would then reduce our resistance force to only the most militant. And again, if the military blindly follows orders, it would be open-slaughter in a straight up fight. At best, the resistance could manage a Troubles like reaction.

There’s a point where we may be forced into that position regardless, but we’re currently dominating in winning public sentiment, and lowering the popularity of the regime, which also doesn’t seem competent enough realize that they’re speedrunning the violent suppression part (Hitler and Mussolini built it up patiently over a decade), and aren’t providing the economic gains to their base to compensate for the violent shock.

It would seem prudent to let the regime continue to hang itself as we further ferment non-violent resistance and educate workers of how much power they can wield with a general strike, and to organize for one before it’s too late. And at least in my opinion, it’d be damned foolish not to even try the non-violent path considering how effective its been demonstrated to be, especially when the alternative is a tremendous amount of death, and possibly a new civil war.

Matty Roses@lemmy.today · edit-2 1 day ago

where unions were destroyed by an overwhelming state violence.

Hitler talked about exactly this - waiting just makes it worse, and your choices are fighting or full submission.

“Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.”

it’s quite clear that the regime is looking for an excuse to call martial law, cancel the elections, and unleash the military upon all who oppose it.

They’re not going to wait for an excuse, or they’ll make one. You’re dealing with a false choice here.

, it’d be damned foolish not to even try the non-violent path considering how effective its been demonstrated to be

It hasn’t been. I would highly recommend a book called This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, which is about exactly the use of non-violence in the US Civil Rights movement - the reality as opposed to the myth that has been forced down since. The tl;dr; is this - the movement was all nonviolent, it was a tactic that also recognized it had violence in riots to offer as another path, and most importantly, the US cared about public opinion internationally due to competition with the USSR. None of that is applicable here.

ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · edit-2 24 hours ago

waiting just makes it worse, and your choices are fighting or full submission.

I don’t believe it’s a simple binary. During Nazi Germany’s rise, Hitler was extremely popular with the average citizen. I will agree that in that period, a militant option might’ve been their only real move, as the Unions, despite being far stronger than they are in the US today, didn’t seem to take the threat seriously enough to call for a general strike (or at least, I can’t easily find an example of them doing so) before he took power, or after Hitler began attacking the unions.

In contrast, the US unions (besides the teamsters) seem to be aware of the threat, and are actively making inroads to a general strike.

They’re not going to wait for an excuse, or they’ll make one. You’re dealing with a false choice here.

I agree that they will eventually pull a Reichstag fire, but it’s not clear to me that accelerating a confrontation is wise. If you haven’t read it yet, I highly recommend checking out the article I linked in my previous response.

which is about exactly the use of non-violence in the US Civil Rights movement

I’m not sure that’s applicable, or perhaps we’re using the word violence differently. I’m not at all against property destruction or riots, but you didn’t see Black Panthers actively going on the offensive and gunning down cops. Had they done so, it would’ve brought the whole military down on them and they’d likely be wiped out without mercy, which the government was itching to justify as evidenced by the Desire group being shot at with 30 thousand rounds without provocation.

I think the Civil rights movement used property destruction and the very real threat of violence quite effectively, but I’m unsure how things would’ve gone had Malcolm X openly called for the movement to open fire, as he almost did after the murders of Nation of Islam members. Maybe that would’ve kicked off a successful revolution, another civil war, or the quick extinguishing of those radical members by the military. It’s hard to say.

As to the quote in the photo you left: I agree that a peaceful protest will change nothing without a credible threat to back it up. A general strike is one threat, and a very effective one if enacted (as evidenced by how the government of Chile reacted to one). Property damage is another, as are riots. The last option is the cartridge box, it should not be the first option unless you know you can win, and have a pretty good idea that it will save more lives than not using it.

Matty Roses@lemmy.today · 19 hours ago

In addition to This Nonviolent Stuff, please go read The Death of Democracy, about exactly how the Nazis took power.

Contrary to Cold War revisionism (which had to paint the commies as villians), the tactic of the SPD to avoid violent confrontation with the right (which is why they unleashed the Freikorps on the left) was never going to work. The conservatives, and crucially Hindenberg, saw any democratic or socialist government as unacceptable. Compromises and attempting to keep the peace actually just let the Nazis gather strength and normalize their own violence.

The lesson here is clear - deciding to unilaterally reject violence against a violent opponent just means you give them the luxury of deciding when to strike, and that is usually fatal. Ask the dead in MN if the US administration is non-violent.

ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · edit-2 13 hours ago

Hm, I get the district feeling you’re talking past me at this point since none of that seems to engage with or acknowledge my previous message.