Agreed. I would add to that – there’s actually an incredibly instructive example to draw by looking at the non-violent-revolutionary movements that did achieve big social change in the past. The US labor movement in the late 1800s, Gandhi’s independence movement, the US civil rights movement with its partial victory, things like that. There are a ton of examples of people who achieved big things to revise the systems that rule their daily lives, starting from a way less advantaged position than the left in the modern day US. It’s not easy, no, but compared to an Indian person under the British Raj it’s an absolute cakewalk.
Strangely enough, the people who are so incredibly upset with the broken system in the US as it pertains to this election (which, yeah, I get that), are somehow totally uninterested in looking at what actions big or small might produce positive change. They’re solely focused on criticizing Biden and only Biden, or on saying that it’s so broken that we might as well let Trump come to power because what’s the difference.
It’s like “The plane is having engine trouble and I don’t know if we’re going to make it. I’m real scared and upset about the situation we’re in. I know! Let’s shoot the pilot in the head.”
Mine owners utilized violence and essentially wage slavery to keep miners from unionizing and asking for more fair working conditions. Pinkertons got their reputation as being violent corporate mercenaries in this period, and they continue to be. The violence caused miners to fight back, and when they did the US army got involved usually in the interest of the mine owners. The lead up to the Battle of Blair Mountain is one of the best examples of this and maybe the most impactful.
It was nonviolent, until bosses/police starting shooting miners and their families, at which point it developed into a small-scale civil war. So yes, I shouldn’t have simply said blanket non violent I guess… I was just trying to draw a distinction between “let’s fight for justice for ourselves” versus “let’s storm the capital and do away with the leaders” as two roads (with the first being more effective, and the second often leading to catastrophe instead of the progress that was hoped for.)
Labor rights and the labor movement throughout history in the US have been incredibly violent so I don’t know what revisionist history you’re talking about.
You’re right, I should amend my comment to note that it wasn’t non violent and basically a small-scale civil war
Oh, hang on
(Actually, I do think I should have said it was nonviolent until they started shooting railroad workers, since that one came first. I’m a little fuzzy on the exact chronology but I think that would have been more accurate yes. The person I was responding to just said miners so I said miners.)
I love how centrists will confidently cite the civil rights movement without a hint of irony, and then completely ignore what those civil rights leaders had to say about the objections of moderates over direct action. They’ll silently downvote a direct quote from MLK without engaging with how it somehow doesn’t apply to them.
Are you under the impression that MLK was saying, don’t vote for Boutwell in his election against Bull Connor, because Boutwell isn’t good enough to deserve our support?
He’s not making a comment on voting or not voting at all, in fact this is written after Boutwell was elected.
He’s addressing criticisms that directing protests at Boutwell before he has a chance to govern is misplaced and ill-timed, and he’s pointing out that while Boutwell may be gentler, he’s still a segregationist and is still in need of pressure. It doesn’t matter if one is gentler than the other, the goal remains the same, and no freedom is ever given by the oppressor without being demanded.
Biden is gentler, but he’s still a Zionist, and so he is still in need of pressure.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the rest of his letter, he’s also saying that the purpose of all direct action is to place pressure on moderates so that they may come to the negotiation table, even -and especially- direct action that causes material (in MLK’s case, non-violent) harm to those same moderates.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation
I know what he’s saying, yes. Like I say, pressure on Biden over Gaza sounds great, and it actually seems like it’s having an impact, although it’s still pretty fuckin mild compared with what the US should be doing.
It’s less than it should be, but it’s more than anyone has done before.
I’ve been super impressed with most of the conversations here and how they’ve evolved. Early on, there was a lot of friction between the uncommitted movement and the center-left, and I saw some accounts really grabbing ahold of that divide and trying to expand it… but the community turned it around. We saw a few weeks of posts explaining the difference between primaries and the general in a surprisingly nonabusive way for social media and now those troll accounts can just keep throwing out “genocide Joe” and it becomes less plausible and more ridiculous everyday he takes another step away from Israel.
Man, do I want more, but we’ve gotta claw for every inch, and it’s easier to do together.
Great summary. This has been my experience as well. You know what that means tho, right? WE MUST PUSH HARDER STILL!
The astroturfers will only get more numerous and hateful as we inch closer to november.
Stay strong comrade. Solidarity with workers, solidarity with the voters of which we should be a part, solidarity with those establishing systems of mutual aid, solidarity with those that take to the streets. Everyone must do a little of sonething, some will do more of everything.
But not before we all benefitted from his activism.
To go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 's point, MLK and Malcom ended up playing off each other in a way that resulted in the civil rights act, and for that we should certainly be grateful
Doesn’t mean he was right. It was luck that his anger coincided with a variety of other factors, especially MLK, that brought about civil rights legislation. I’m not saying he was useless, I’m saying he was a pawn. He was just the latest in a long line of angry, ineffective young Black people until MLK provided the right foil to his anger. He didn’t consciously do anything to advance the status of Black people, that I’m aware of.
I believe a fraction of them are actual authoritarian sympathizers, and are just hoping “their brand” will align with a future hypothetical autocrat.
They don’t want actual justice, they just want to reroll the dice and hopefully come out on top.
To the other fraction, I think those folks are exactly the folks who completed those movements you mentioned. They worked hard to push the existing system towards their goal, often starting from a very weak position.
That pushing largely isn’t done, and it is less glamorous and obvious compared to flipping the table, killing the current leaders (and a bunch of other demonized but innocent groups oopsie daisy) and trying again. That’s how you get a Khmer rouge and then a pol pot.
I agree, we really need some leftists who have the backbone of MLK.
Now let me say a word for those of you who are on strike. You’ve been out now for a number of days. But don’t despair. Nothing worthwhile is gained without sacrifice. The thing for you to do is stay together. Say to everybody in this community that you’re going to stick it out to the end until every demand is met.And that you’re going to say, “We ain’t going to let nobody turn us around.” Let it be known everywhere that along with wages and all of the other securities that you are struggling for, you’re also struggling for the right to organize and be recognized…
We can all get more together than we can apart. This is the way to gain power. Power is the ability to achieve purpose. Power is the ability to effect change. We need power…
Now the other thing is that nothing is gained without pressure. Don’t let anybody tell you to go back on your job and paternalistically say, now, “You’re my man, and I’m going to do the right thing for you if you’ll just come back on the job.” Don’t go back on the job until the demands are met. Never forget that freedom is not something that must be demanded by the oppressor. It is something that must be demanded by the oppressed. Freedom is not some lavish dish that the power structure and the white forces imparted with making positions will voluntarily hand down on a silver platter while the Negro merely furnishes the appetite.
If we are going to get equality, if we are going to get adequate wages, we are going to have to struggle for it. Now, you know what, you may have to escalate the struggle a bit. If they keep refusing, and they will not recognize the union, and will not decree further check-off for the collection of dues, I’m telling you what you ought to do, and you’re together here enough to do it. In a few days you ought to get together and just have a general work stoppage in the city of Memphis.
Lol wut? He’s saying that power comes from solidarity, and with solidarity you make demands, and when you have power you do not relent until those demands are met. He’s also saying that the harm caused by direct action in pursuit of liberty is justified, even when that harm is to everyone (as in the case of a general work stoppage in an entire city). That you don’t want to see the relevance isn’t something I can help.
The point isn’t to cause the harm, it’s to use the threat to gain concessions.
Say to everybody in this community that you’re going to stick it out to the end until every demand is met. And that you’re going to say, “We ain’t going to let nobody turn us around.
We can all get more together than we can apart. This is the way to gain power. Power is the ability to achieve purpose. Power is the ability to effect change. We need power…
If we are going to get equality, if we are going to get adequate wages, we are going to have to struggle for it. Now, you know what, you may have to escalate the struggle a bit. If they keep refusing, and they will not recognize the union, and will not decree further check-off for the collection of dues, I’m telling you what you ought to do, and you’re together here enough to do it. In a few days you ought to get together and just have a general work stoppage in the city of Memphis.
You are not in active negotiations. You are in the end game. You have very few possible choices, and holding out (not voting) does not empower a track of choices, or opportunity. It only silos you into a particular choice.
“Sticking it out” does not better your scenario, and especially does not better the scenario of the most at risk.
Nope, MLK acknowledges that protest is meant to bring them to negotiation, it’s not just when you’re “in negotiation”
This is exactly the type of direct action MLK is talking about. You just find it personally threatening, and far be it from me to suggest that’s the point.
You may well ask, “Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are exactly right
in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and
establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks
so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the
nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have
earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for
growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage
of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having
nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism
to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed
that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our
beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue
No, but he would probably say to vote for the candidate that mentions they’re open up integration vs the candidate who wants to make slavery a thing again.
Lol what a fruitful day of reading: since you mentioned Gandhi…
Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French.
A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.
Fear has its use but cowardice has none.
Man lives freely only by his readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him.
It is any day better to stand erect with a broken and bandaged head then to crawl on one’s belly, in order to be able to save one’s head.
Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.
If co-operation is a duty, I hold that non-co-operation also under certain conditions is equally a duty.
Honestly, of all the civil rights figures you could have cited, Gandhi is the one who would tell you that non-cooperation with evil is more important than self-preservation. How on earth could you look at Gandhi and say; ‘he would want me to vote for the lesser evil’?
I thought we had worked this out earlier, talking about Bull Connor. I was all on board when I thought you were saying, let’s give Biden a hard time over Gaza. Now I’m a lot less sure what you’re saying.
Do you think working as a collaborator of the Raj, is more or less the same as voting for the clearly less-genocide-supporting of two arguably-genocide-supporting candidates?
Would this apply also to refusing to vote for Boutwell over Connor, or refusing to vote for the SDP (with all its colonial adventures in Africa and etc) over the NSDAP in prewar Germany?
I think u accidentally replied to the wrong comment, but im starting to really love seeing ur name come up. Very well informed on a period in time most of us only know so much.
No, he’s saying sticking with your principles is more important than even preventing your own harm. He pushed for change by being willing to sacrifice himself. He wasn’t just blindly non-violemt, he risked self injury to advance change
You keep fast-forwarding to voting day, but confidently standing your ground now is what moves the needle, not beating the drums of cooperation for Biden.
I keep asking you to clarify what you’re saying, and you treat it like it’s some sort of trick, and react with tactics instead of clarity. That’s a hallmark of propaganda. Just say what you mean, if you feel confident enough to stand your ground in it.
Stand up for your principles and don’t cooperate with genocide. Be willing to put yourself in harms way (trump) and demand justice in exchange for your vote.
It’s not a trick or propaganda, it’s pretty straightforward. I’m so confused because you do seem genuine but for some reason no matter how close I walk you to the conclusion you still somehow miss the point.
Stop committing yourself to supporting Biden when he’s actively supporting genocide. Push him to see reason. In 7 months you can make the hard choice you keep harping about, but until then what’s the fucking point of running cover for him when you could be pushing him to see reason
Stop committing yourself to supporting Biden when he’s actively supporting genocide. Push him to see reason. In 7 months you can make the hard choice you keep harping about, but until then what’s the fucking point of running cover for him when you could be pushing him to see reason
I noticed this comment outside of the conversation we were already having, and I had to say that I actually completely agree. We should be pushing him, especially since there’s evidence it’s working. And you don’t have to refuse to vote for him – you still have 7 months until you have to make the hard decision.
People are treating protests of Biden as if it’s the same as wanting Trump to win. People are so committed to the electoral team sports that they’re completely allergic to exercising their power against their own party.
There’s a reason why civil rights movements existed almost entirely outside of electoral politics; liberty and justice were never on the ballet to vote for to begin with.
If MLK resigned himself to what Democrats were willing to provide without protest, we’d still have segregation. If Douglass avoided speaking truth to power and rallying against Lincoln, we might not have abolished slavery and reconstruction might have been even worse (though admittedly reconstruction was shit anyway, but at least that wasn’t Lincoln’s fault).
Yeah, protest is a very powerful and necessary tool. Protesting to push Biden doesn’t mean you have to abstain from the election. You can choose to vote for Biden but still make it clear you’re not pleased with him. Protest votes in the primary are perfectly acceptable for this reason.
If anything, I think it’s better that we protest now rather than later. It’s a win win situation to resolve this conflict before the election.
I also believe that voters tend to have more power than non voters. We’ve seen that politicians are more willing to listen to those that already vote for them.
You understand that it’s not just me in harm’s way with Trump, right?
That he’s far more pro genocide (including specifically in Palestine) than Biden is?
I’m so confused because you do seem genuine but for some reason no matter how close I walk you to the conclusion you still somehow miss the point.
Believe it or not, there is often more to a conversation than you just walking the person you’re talking to over to the point that you want to make and repeating it in different ways until they absorb your way of seeing it.
I could be right or wrong; I’m just saying how I see things. But if your whole model for this is that your viewpoint is the correct one, and you need to persuade the person you’re talking to to see things exactly as you do and anything else is just a frustrating expenditure of bytes, then I think you’re gonna get limited benefit from any amount of time you spend online.
Im not telling to vote for Trump. I’m not even telling you to not vote for Biden. I’m telling you to fucking ask for something in exchange for the vote.
There’s a separate argument about what the value democracy is if it can’t be expected not to support genocide, but I’m not even pressing that issue.
Saying you aren’t going to vote if Biden doesn’t see reason doesn’t put Trump in the white house, it puts pressure on Biden. What you actually do on election day is different, but campaigning for Biden despite his genocidal complicity is so far from activism that it’s borderline complicit in the genocide in itself.
Im not telling to vote for Trump. I’m not even telling you to not vote for Biden. I’m telling you to fucking ask for something in exchange for the vote.
There’s a separate argument about what the value democracy is if it can’t be expected not to support genocide, but I’m not even pressing that issue.
Yeah, I feel you on that. Like I keep telling you, direct action or directly giving Biden a hard time on Gaza sounds great.
Saying you aren’t going to vote if Biden doesn’t see reason doesn’t put Trump in the white house, it puts pressure on Biden. What you actually do on election day is different, but campaigning for Biden despite his genocidal complicity is so far from activism that it’s borderline complicit in the genocide in itself.
And let me ask again: Would this logic also apply to refusing to support the SDP over the NSDAP in the 1932 elections? As a lot of the left did exactly that during the infighting that preceded Hitler’s ascendance.
Gandhi worked with the lesser evil plenty to earn India’s independence. He negotiated with Britain on pacts and agreements that didn’t result in India’s freedom but generally gained them more autonomy and fairness. He even supported the British in WW2 and suspended independence efforts at the time.
If Gandhi said “okay hold up, let’s take care of the fascists alongside our colonizers”*, I think he would want you to vote for the lesser evil. I think we can infer from his actions that progressively achieving a goal through nonviolence is something he wholeheartedly supported.
*(Granted, he still advocated that Japan and the Nazis be defeated without significant violence)
True, but the offers he did accept were not immediate independence for India. He knew when to take a good compromise and when to push for more. He continued to negotiate with the British while taking imperfect, but good deals.
Agreed. I would add to that – there’s actually an incredibly instructive example to draw by looking at the non-violent-revolutionary movements that did achieve big social change in the past. The US labor movement in the late 1800s, Gandhi’s independence movement, the US civil rights movement with its partial victory, things like that. There are a ton of examples of people who achieved big things to revise the systems that rule their daily lives, starting from a way less advantaged position than the left in the modern day US. It’s not easy, no, but compared to an Indian person under the British Raj it’s an absolute cakewalk.
Strangely enough, the people who are so incredibly upset with the broken system in the US as it pertains to this election (which, yeah, I get that), are somehow totally uninterested in looking at what actions big or small might produce positive change. They’re solely focused on criticizing Biden and only Biden, or on saying that it’s so broken that we might as well let Trump come to power because what’s the difference.
It’s like “The plane is having engine trouble and I don’t know if we’re going to make it. I’m real scared and upset about the situation we’re in. I know! Let’s shoot the pilot in the head.”
Wasn’t the us labor movement violent? I seem to remember something about troops firing on striking miners.
Mine owners utilized violence and essentially wage slavery to keep miners from unionizing and asking for more fair working conditions. Pinkertons got their reputation as being violent corporate mercenaries in this period, and they continue to be. The violence caused miners to fight back, and when they did the US army got involved usually in the interest of the mine owners. The lead up to the Battle of Blair Mountain is one of the best examples of this and maybe the most impactful.
It was nonviolent, until bosses/police starting shooting miners and their families, at which point it developed into a small-scale civil war. So yes, I shouldn’t have simply said blanket non violent I guess… I was just trying to draw a distinction between “let’s fight for justice for ourselves” versus “let’s storm the capital and do away with the leaders” as two roads (with the first being more effective, and the second often leading to catastrophe instead of the progress that was hoped for.)
Labor rights and the labor movement throughout history in the US have been incredibly violent so I don’t know what revisionist history you’re talking about.
You’re right, I should amend my comment to note that it wasn’t non violent and basically a small-scale civil war
Oh, hang on
(Actually, I do think I should have said it was nonviolent until they started shooting railroad workers, since that one came first. I’m a little fuzzy on the exact chronology but I think that would have been more accurate yes. The person I was responding to just said miners so I said miners.)
They would engage in retaliatory violence but the first shot was never fired by the labor organizers
I love how centrists will confidently cite the civil rights movement without a hint of irony, and then completely ignore what those civil rights leaders had to say about the objections of moderates over direct action. They’ll silently downvote a direct quote from MLK without engaging with how it somehow doesn’t apply to them.
Direct action on Gaza sounds great.
Are you under the impression that MLK was saying, don’t vote for Boutwell in his election against Bull Connor, because Boutwell isn’t good enough to deserve our support?
He’s not making a comment on voting or not voting at all, in fact this is written after Boutwell was elected.
He’s addressing criticisms that directing protests at Boutwell before he has a chance to govern is misplaced and ill-timed, and he’s pointing out that while Boutwell may be gentler, he’s still a segregationist and is still in need of pressure. It doesn’t matter if one is gentler than the other, the goal remains the same, and no freedom is ever given by the oppressor without being demanded.
Biden is gentler, but he’s still a Zionist, and so he is still in need of pressure.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the rest of his letter, he’s also saying that the purpose of all direct action is to place pressure on moderates so that they may come to the negotiation table, even -and especially- direct action that causes material (in MLK’s case, non-violent) harm to those same moderates.
And I haven’t even gotten to the Malcom X quotes.
They also seem to leave out the reality that without the threat of Malcom MLK would have been a lot less effective.
I know what he’s saying, yes. Like I say, pressure on Biden over Gaza sounds great, and it actually seems like it’s having an impact, although it’s still pretty fuckin mild compared with what the US should be doing.
It’s less than it should be, but it’s more than anyone has done before.
I’ve been super impressed with most of the conversations here and how they’ve evolved. Early on, there was a lot of friction between the uncommitted movement and the center-left, and I saw some accounts really grabbing ahold of that divide and trying to expand it… but the community turned it around. We saw a few weeks of posts explaining the difference between primaries and the general in a surprisingly nonabusive way for social media and now those troll accounts can just keep throwing out “genocide Joe” and it becomes less plausible and more ridiculous everyday he takes another step away from Israel.
Man, do I want more, but we’ve gotta claw for every inch, and it’s easier to do together.
Great summary. This has been my experience as well. You know what that means tho, right? WE MUST PUSH HARDER STILL!
The astroturfers will only get more numerous and hateful as we inch closer to november.
Stay strong comrade. Solidarity with workers, solidarity with the voters of which we should be a part, solidarity with those establishing systems of mutual aid, solidarity with those that take to the streets. Everyone must do a little of sonething, some will do more of everything.
Ah, well welcome to the protest then, comrade.
🫡 🚩
Later in his life Malcolm X realized much of his youthful positions on things was stupid and he retracted them.
But not before we all benefitted from his activism.
To go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 's point, MLK and Malcom ended up playing off each other in a way that resulted in the civil rights act, and for that we should certainly be grateful
Sure. But I wouldn’t hold him of all people up in an appeal to authority. Or as a paragon of wisdom. He was an angry young man.
An angry young man who contributed to one of only a handful of successful civil rights movements in the country.
Doesn’t mean he was right. It was luck that his anger coincided with a variety of other factors, especially MLK, that brought about civil rights legislation. I’m not saying he was useless, I’m saying he was a pawn. He was just the latest in a long line of angry, ineffective young Black people until MLK provided the right foil to his anger. He didn’t consciously do anything to advance the status of Black people, that I’m aware of.
Well said.
I believe a fraction of them are actual authoritarian sympathizers, and are just hoping “their brand” will align with a future hypothetical autocrat.
They don’t want actual justice, they just want to reroll the dice and hopefully come out on top.
To the other fraction, I think those folks are exactly the folks who completed those movements you mentioned. They worked hard to push the existing system towards their goal, often starting from a very weak position.
That pushing largely isn’t done, and it is less glamorous and obvious compared to flipping the table, killing the current leaders (and a bunch of other demonized but innocent groups oopsie daisy) and trying again. That’s how you get a Khmer rouge and then a pol pot.
We need another MLK and his contemporaries.
I agree, we really need some leftists who have the backbone of MLK.
Now that shit will fire you up. Good stuff.
Notice he was very forceful and determined, but never said stupid stuff like “hurr let’s get the guillotine!”
Nor did he say “hurr it’s your duty to vote for the lesser-evil!”
Well, it’s completely irrelevant to the quote
Lol wut? He’s saying that power comes from solidarity, and with solidarity you make demands, and when you have power you do not relent until those demands are met. He’s also saying that the harm caused by direct action in pursuit of liberty is justified, even when that harm is to everyone (as in the case of a general work stoppage in an entire city). That you don’t want to see the relevance isn’t something I can help.
The point isn’t to cause the harm, it’s to use the threat to gain concessions.
Yeah that’s about unions, in active negotiations.
You are not in active negotiations. You are in the end game. You have very few possible choices, and holding out (not voting) does not empower a track of choices, or opportunity. It only silos you into a particular choice.
“Sticking it out” does not better your scenario, and especially does not better the scenario of the most at risk.
Quit bolding shit, I know how to read.
Nope, MLK acknowledges that protest is meant to bring them to negotiation, it’s not just when you’re “in negotiation”
This is exactly the type of direct action MLK is talking about. You just find it personally threatening, and far be it from me to suggest that’s the point.
No, but he would probably say to vote for the candidate that mentions they’re open up integration vs the candidate who wants to make slavery a thing again.
Except one of those candidates is in the position to take action now, but chooses not to.
Doesn’t change the calculation.
It changes what effective methods of protest you have, though.
Lol what a fruitful day of reading: since you mentioned Gandhi…
Honestly, of all the civil rights figures you could have cited, Gandhi is the one who would tell you that non-cooperation with evil is more important than self-preservation. How on earth could you look at Gandhi and say; ‘he would want me to vote for the lesser evil’?
I thought we had worked this out earlier, talking about Bull Connor. I was all on board when I thought you were saying, let’s give Biden a hard time over Gaza. Now I’m a lot less sure what you’re saying.
Do you think working as a collaborator of the Raj, is more or less the same as voting for the clearly less-genocide-supporting of two arguably-genocide-supporting candidates?
Would this apply also to refusing to vote for Boutwell over Connor, or refusing to vote for the SDP (with all its colonial adventures in Africa and etc) over the NSDAP in prewar Germany?
I think u accidentally replied to the wrong comment, but im starting to really love seeing ur name come up. Very well informed on a period in time most of us only know so much.
No, he’s saying sticking with your principles is more important than even preventing your own harm. He pushed for change by being willing to sacrifice himself. He wasn’t just blindly non-violemt, he risked self injury to advance change
You keep fast-forwarding to voting day, but confidently standing your ground now is what moves the needle, not beating the drums of cooperation for Biden.
Yes, I know what Gandhi’s saying. I’m asking how you’d apply it to the present day, and you’re deflecting instead of answering.
Oh sorry I must have replied to a message under the wrong meme or something; the one on my screen is different I guess.
(Edit: Also there’s this)
I keep asking you to clarify what you’re saying, and you treat it like it’s some sort of trick, and react with tactics instead of clarity. That’s a hallmark of propaganda. Just say what you mean, if you feel confident enough to stand your ground in it.
I’m saying the same as Gandhi is:
Stand up for your principles and don’t cooperate with genocide. Be willing to put yourself in harms way (trump) and demand justice in exchange for your vote.
It’s not a trick or propaganda, it’s pretty straightforward. I’m so confused because you do seem genuine but for some reason no matter how close I walk you to the conclusion you still somehow miss the point.
Stop committing yourself to supporting Biden when he’s actively supporting genocide. Push him to see reason. In 7 months you can make the hard choice you keep harping about, but until then what’s the fucking point of running cover for him when you could be pushing him to see reason
It’s not that goddamn complicated.
I noticed this comment outside of the conversation we were already having, and I had to say that I actually completely agree. We should be pushing him, especially since there’s evidence it’s working. And you don’t have to refuse to vote for him – you still have 7 months until you have to make the hard decision.
I can get behind this.
Thank you for saying that, truly.
People are treating protests of Biden as if it’s the same as wanting Trump to win. People are so committed to the electoral team sports that they’re completely allergic to exercising their power against their own party.
There’s a reason why civil rights movements existed almost entirely outside of electoral politics; liberty and justice were never on the ballet to vote for to begin with.
If MLK resigned himself to what Democrats were willing to provide without protest, we’d still have segregation. If Douglass avoided speaking truth to power and rallying against Lincoln, we might not have abolished slavery and reconstruction might have been even worse (though admittedly reconstruction was shit anyway, but at least that wasn’t Lincoln’s fault).
Yeah, protest is a very powerful and necessary tool. Protesting to push Biden doesn’t mean you have to abstain from the election. You can choose to vote for Biden but still make it clear you’re not pleased with him. Protest votes in the primary are perfectly acceptable for this reason.
If anything, I think it’s better that we protest now rather than later. It’s a win win situation to resolve this conflict before the election.
I also believe that voters tend to have more power than non voters. We’ve seen that politicians are more willing to listen to those that already vote for them.
It effectively is, in a lot of areas.
MLK would say to vote your conscience in the primaries. Not the general.
There it is
You understand that it’s not just me in harm’s way with Trump, right?
That he’s far more pro genocide (including specifically in Palestine) than Biden is?
Believe it or not, there is often more to a conversation than you just walking the person you’re talking to over to the point that you want to make and repeating it in different ways until they absorb your way of seeing it.
I could be right or wrong; I’m just saying how I see things. But if your whole model for this is that your viewpoint is the correct one, and you need to persuade the person you’re talking to to see things exactly as you do and anything else is just a frustrating expenditure of bytes, then I think you’re gonna get limited benefit from any amount of time you spend online.
Im not telling to vote for Trump. I’m not even telling you to not vote for Biden. I’m telling you to fucking ask for something in exchange for the vote.
There’s a separate argument about what the value democracy is if it can’t be expected not to support genocide, but I’m not even pressing that issue.
Saying you aren’t going to vote if Biden doesn’t see reason doesn’t put Trump in the white house, it puts pressure on Biden. What you actually do on election day is different, but campaigning for Biden despite his genocidal complicity is so far from activism that it’s borderline complicit in the genocide in itself.
Yeah, I feel you on that. Like I keep telling you, direct action or directly giving Biden a hard time on Gaza sounds great.
And let me ask again: Would this logic also apply to refusing to support the SDP over the NSDAP in the 1932 elections? As a lot of the left did exactly that during the infighting that preceded Hitler’s ascendance.
Gandhi worked with the lesser evil plenty to earn India’s independence. He negotiated with Britain on pacts and agreements that didn’t result in India’s freedom but generally gained them more autonomy and fairness. He even supported the British in WW2 and suspended independence efforts at the time.
If Gandhi said “okay hold up, let’s take care of the fascists alongside our colonizers”*, I think he would want you to vote for the lesser evil. I think we can infer from his actions that progressively achieving a goal through nonviolence is something he wholeheartedly supported.
*(Granted, he still advocated that Japan and the Nazis be defeated without significant violence)
And Douglass eventually worked with Lincoln, but not before ruthlessly criticizing him and supporting the dump-lincoln movement
Gandhi refused repeated offers from the British, he absolutely did not just accept their offer as given.
True, but the offers he did accept were not immediate independence for India. He knew when to take a good compromise and when to push for more. He continued to negotiate with the British while taking imperfect, but good deals.