this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
526 points (97.8% liked)

News

23627 readers
2407 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 83 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

Vigilante violence doesn’t lead to enduring systematic change.

Normally I agree with most of jacobin's articles but I don't agree with this. It's pretty obvious that things have already changed, even if it's just temporary. (Speaking as a non American spectator at least tbf)

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's strange to cite what may be "just temporary" changes when you're quoting "enduring systematic change"

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah that's fair, I did actually notice what I wrote kind of argued against itself 😅. My counterpoint would be that it's clear there's more work to be done to make it not temporary

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago

We could just depose them all and find out. I mean, that’s what they do to us.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is a historically illiterate reply. The French Revolution was enacted by organized political resistance, not random assassinations. As the author points out, such acts never achieve any substantial or lasting change.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I keep telling people here that you usually cannot cure a systemic issue with violence but they refuse to believe it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Please cite all the systemic issues solved with peace

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think a CIA-backed movement qualifies.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what CIA involvement has to do with violence, but I think it's very interesting that you're denouncing the nonviolent revolution that got Putin's minions out of power.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Because of the eventual violence that occurred. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

The eventual violence being what, the war a decade later?

"Eventual violence" does not prove that non-violence can cause systemic change any more than Napoleon being crowned emperor proves all popular revolutions against monarchies fail.

And I gave you one single example. There are so many others. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some reason to say each one of them doesn't count. "One guy got his toes stomped on, so it was violent!" or "all the people involved were dead within 80 years!" That sort of thing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The only recent-ish example I can think of that actually applies is Gavrilo Princip, and the consequences were mostly accidental.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

And also wildly catastrophic

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Well I meant lasting positive change. This means building better systems—there’s just no other way to do it. Some assassinations have clearly altered the course of history but they didn’t really improve society.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Organized vigilante violence, then.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Vigilante violence can be distinguished from revolutionary violence because it is carried out without a Party. It's just random people on their own deciding to do violence i.e. adventurism. It can't bring enduring change.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

No, but it can inspire a populace to rise up and challenge their oppressors.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

It can also lull a population into complacency rather than getting organized, and it can provoke the government into counter-revolution before the masses have reached a revolutionary stage. Adventurism can strangle any potential revolution in the crib.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Has he heard of the French revolution? That was a bit of lasting change

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

looks at current French government

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Looks at Napoleon being crowned absolute monarch 15 years after the king was executed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Did you actually read that link?

The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective.

In fact:

In May 1913 another attempt had been made to pass a bill in parliament which would introduce women's suffrage, but the bill actually did worse than previous attempts when it was voted on, something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes.[116] The impact of the WSPU's violent attacks drove many members of the general public away from supporting the cause, and some members of the WSPU itself were also alienated by the escalation of violence, which led to splits in the organisation and the formation of groups such as the East London Federation of Suffragettes in 1914.

And women didn't get suffrage in the UK until 1918.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes. And I feel the amount by which the 'terrorists' made it a public issue was more important than the quoted analysts believe. It may have been so overly strong that it scared some away. But it also showed that it was a real issue to solve NOW. No more putting it off untold decades; and that is what I would hope from militant activism today. May America get Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world within 5 years now. And we will know who to thank.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

May America get Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world within 5 years now.

You forgot who Americans elected as president last month, didn't you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I know it's a long shot, but it's possible Trump could be manipulated into doing some actual good. He's at the phase of life where even he must realize he can't take his material wealth with him in death, and might want to send a final "fuck you" to all his pathetic suck-up followers when he realizes that they just want to use him.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago

I appreciate your optimism, but I think civilization getting wiped out by a giant meteor in the next four years is more likely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes

I'm sure the press of their time was pure and true reporters of fact rather than manufacturers of consent defending the status quo.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

And yet, just as now, the press drove public opinion. PR is everything and I don't know why people don't get that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So do the ends justify the means?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's an answer to the underlying questions. You think the means can justify the ends, but you aren't sure because you don't know the ends yet.