• pdxfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Standard take by the young and impatient. If you take the path, the system gets to respond with force immediately and justify it. India’s independence and the US civil rights movement were largely successfully thanks to the public and repeated showing of who the bad guys were by letting them abuse and perpetuate violence against rationally speaking unarmed opponents.

    Also, if such a movement of violence is successful against the oppressive power, you then have those who are more than capable of violence in power trying to say “ok no more violence” and suddenly de-escalating to get to the desired peace. History has shown it’s not often successful and that a faction of purists within the revolutionaries often continue in violent extremism even after the “battle is won”. Peaceful revolution is much slower but much, much more likely to be sustainable.

    • DancingBear
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      They only responded to king and ghandi because of the movements and threats of other groups threatened to use.

      • m_f@discuss.onlineOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah, it would be interesting to take an alternate history view of how successful MLK Jr. would’ve been without Malcolm X providing a real threat. There was a related Lemmy post with some good conversation:

        https://slrpnk.net/post/19001797

        • DancingBear
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          I’ve heard this argument before which is why I mentioned it it’s not some original idea I have had