You must log in or # to comment.
No we can’t pressure this politician we say we want to push with our leverage what if that hurts their election chances. /s
And then they proceed to get pushed to right.
FTfY.
well thankfully violent resistance got Mamdani elected
edit:
Since my sarcasm may not fully convey my sentiment, here’s a bit more…
There are too many calls for violence compared to the calls for solidarity. Violently subverting the dominant paradigm won’t accomplish anything unless there’s solidarity to shape the outcome on the other side.
And for all these cries for violence, I just don’t see any news about violent resistance—and especially not about effective violent resistance.
Even the claim that violence has been the only thing to stop fascism is dubious. Fascism is still here. It was kept in check until we collectively stopped fighting it in the realm of public option, thinking the work was all done.
fuck you mandami kept the far right police ministry, has already given in, has done nothing to stop ice from brutalzing new yorkers, has restarted homeless sweeps, condems resistance to what he says is a genocide, apologized for calling the nypd racist on and on. Stop champaigning less than half measures.
Imagine believing Mamdani will achieve anything meaningful in a system built to oppress the proletariat. Fools like you would scream at Lenin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung, and Ho Chi Minh for fighting for their existence instead of voting the invaders out.
Calling for revolution is not a call for random violence, but the creation of a revolutionary organization. Violence without organization is adventurism.
Secondly, fascism has not been “kept in check.” Fascism happens when capitalism faces crisis, and blaming its rise on the working classes suddenly ceasing to fight it politically ignores why it rises to begin with.
I see very few calls for organization. This post surely doesn’t include one.
Have you spoken with people advocating revolution about how they believe it is best handled?
This isn’t a theoretical debate. We can just look at MAS in Bolivia to see what people mean by violent resistance. https://thespectaclemag.substack.com/p/the-bolivian-people-rise-up-and-say
People aren’t talking about some random acts of violence here. What they’re talking about is building a militant worker movement. And anybody who claims that worker movements stopping fascism is dubious is either deeply ignorant or a troll. Historically, this is the only way fascism has been stopped. Meanwhile, what voting gets you is Germany in 1930s where the social democrats famously aligned with the nazis against the communists.
Your post is about the violence. MAS is about the community and solidarity.
Yes, and MAS uses community and solidarity to fight state violence with violence. Are you genuinely not aware of this or you’re just trolling?
Your post puts the cart before the horse and sows division.
ok ,so trolling then, thanks for clarifying
Derision doesn’t help our cause.
then don’t sealion into threads to do it
The OOP has Cuban, Korean, and Palestinian flags, and mentions violent resistance. This implies organization.
It seems the post is comparing violent resistance to nonviolent resistance (via voting). If resistance implies organization, then both plans imply organization, and then the point of this post is just to get people on board with the violence, dismissing nonviolent means of progress as being ineffective by saying those who want that path don’t even accomplish it.
Let’s please spend more time/posts on class solidarity and less time belittling those who don’t have the same exact ideology.
The problem is that “nonviolent resistance” doesn’t work, and revolution is necessary. It isn’t about ideological purity, it’s about what is possible and what is not.
Engaging in politics? Pointless.
Obviously the solution is to constantly talk about the necessity of violent action while never actually committing any acts of violence.
or maybe look into the history of the failure of electorlism to change society or no we could do nothing like you suggest.
imagine being so intellectually impoverished to think that voting is the sole means of political engagement
It’s just too bad that people are only capable of one form of political engagement at a time. There’s no way that someone could try to organize in their community and fill out a ballot a few times a year.
And really, why would you? Things will be exactly the same no matter who is in power as long as they aren’t 100% aligned with your views.
Nah, best to mock anyone who chooses coalition building over ideological purity and stick to the plan of having a tiny fraction of the population lead a revolution… eventually.
Nice straw man, nowhere did I say anything about doing only one form of political engagement at a time. In fact, that’s precisely what I was deriding in my comment.
And I had said nothing about voting at all, let alone suggesting that people should vote and do nothing else. Maybe I confused you for the straw man because you were still covered in the stuff from fighting a straw man of your own.
My mistake for assuming you’d actually be making your comment within the context of the discussion.
The prerequisite to successful revolution is building up a revolutionary party. Doing violence with no aim is just adventurism and helps nothing.
no electorlism is never the answer
Where did I mention electoralism being viable?
