733
Preaching non violence protects the state
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
733 points (98.4% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3145 readers
128 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think this is an incredibly important point. That fact is that the state does hold a monopoly on the legitimized use of violence.
Non-violence is the tactically correct choice in most situations. Punching a boss in the face is justified, but unlikely to result in a better wages.
Right, or for another example, the many times oppressive states have had someone infiltrate protest movements to advocate/act violently, because they know that will get a better outcome for them.
That would allow them to justify the violence they were always planning to do, yeah. The fact is that the state is more powerful than we are. If we threaten it's control on violence it will react overwhelmingly.
There's that great book from the 60s that talks about systemic jiu-jitsu - how to use the power advantage of the state against it. That book is ideologically against pacisficism but tactically for it. "Do these ends justify these means", is the question it wants activists to ask, framing it with a quote from ghandi saying that he chose non-violence solely because it was the best tool to achieve their aims.