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

ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · edit-2 1 day 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 · 1 day 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 20 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.