this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
1 points (51.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43782 readers
952 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Actually it's not. Most important changes happen slowly and gradually, though we often hear more of the violent and drastic changes.
I recommend this podcast for an explanation.
https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/how-to-change-the-world/
You only hear about them because that's when change actually happens. Incrementalism is optimistic at best.
I think it's naive to sit around and hope for drastic changes. Revolutions and protests are only symptoms of the actual change.
I've seen it happen several times regarding workers rights. F.i. Strikes always makes the news, but quite often the strikes are shut down quickly with little to no change. The idea for the demands existed in a smaller group before the strike and that idea doesn't disappear when the strike ends. The actual changes usually does happen at the next ordinary collective bargaining. That's how working time has been lowered throughout the years. People strike, achieve nothing, but then it's still lowered, because the idea can't be shut down. The strike serves to distribute the idea, but it rarely makes the change by itself. For a lot of other good ideas it never even makes it to a strike, and sometimes a drastic protest might even hurt the idea.
Ideas change the world, not violence.
There are plenty of examples of this. Listen to the podcast. The research behind it is solid.
I don't know why you're talking about "sitting and hoping". That doesn't sound like what i was talking about.
Also, you have it backwards. Yes, violent protest and peaceful demonstrations work together. But it's the violent part that gets shit done. Without the real people's revolt, you have hippies in a circle getting pepper sprayed, because the movement has no force behind it.
The nonviolent protesters are there to spread ideas. The revolters are there to show that we mean business.
Also keep in mind that many "non violent demonstrations" have been subject to massive whitewashing. We remember MLK as a peaceful protester, but certainly wasn't seen as one at the time. Another thing to note is that the strongest advocates of peaceful protest (such as conservatives who have turned around to use MLK to admonish BLM) are coincidentally those with privilege and, thus, most to lose from revolution.
I disagree. Listen to the podcast or read the source papers. The scientist behind it literally tried to prove your point but was herself surprised to find that the point I have expressed here to be true. It's quite interesting.