Late Stage Capitalism

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Having ideological predelictions for or against violence are both liabilities. You have to evaluate the material conditions to determine which tactics are more effective and make the determination based on those conditions.

Abandoning any possibility of armed fighting, just because you evaluate it to be non-viable under the current conditions, is a mistake. The current conditions will not last forever, for better or for worse.

During the years of the Weimar Republic, the conditions weren't there for the left to overthrow the government through armed fighting (the failed Spartacist Uprising demonstrates this), but one of the ways the Nazis secured power was through street-fighting, expanding their practical, physical control block-by-block, while the left failed to mount an effective resistance to them. While the Nazis controlled the streets, there was no real possibility of making a legal or political challenge to Hitler's seizure of power (it would have been unenforceable). Had the left been better organized and better equipped militarily, they might have been able to remove the Nazis' de facto control of the streets and better challenge their power. It could happen here.

History is full of examples that prove that armed fighting can be an effective tactic, and in many cases, is the only viable tactic.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[+] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

Stop living in the past.

Which I have done, and my determination is that rioting and larger-impact violence (like, say Weather Underground) tend to backfire and turn the public against the cause you’re fighting for.

Stop living in the past. Those people are dead, and so is their worldview and culture. So there's really no telling what could happen from a violent revolution today.

Or, we could not arbitrarily write off historical examples and actually study and learn from history.

If it came down to it, and say, all the MAGAs in the South and in rural areas of blue states “rose again” and tried to take the streets by force, they would soon get a wake up call, because even the vast majority of police wouldn’t join their ranks (as crazy as that may sound to those of us on the left - there are “good” cops out there who believe in the myth that we were taught growing up about what cops should be - to serve and protect the public).

Lol, if you had opened with, "We don't need to worry about defending our communities because we can always just rely on the cops to protect us" then I would've just laughed in your face.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If it came down to it, and say, all the MAGAs in the South and in rural areas of blue states “rose again” and tried to take the streets by force, they would soon get a wake up call, because even the vast majority of police wouldn’t join their ranks (as crazy as that may sound to those of us on the left - there are “good” cops out there who believe in the myth that we were taught growing up about what cops should be - to serve and protect the public).

“We don’t need to worry about defending our communities because we can always just rely on the cops to protect us”

How are these two statements meaningfully different?