In his mind this just makes them better. They died heroically for what they believed in. The fact that they died must be a sign that they did everything they could. (Which they probably did, but it was too late at that point.)
When it is a binary that is created its bad. Obviously you need to have power and not seldom that (military power) comes from the barrel of a gun.
It still is true, that non violent struggle can be good, however it is a strategic choice. The methods of Gene Sharp and ON STRATEGIC. NONVIOLENT CONFLICT: THINKING ABOUT. THE FUNDAMENTALS. Robert L. Helvey, make that clear.
That said, commonly those methods were used from liberal angles to reduces the power of actually existing socialist states. Within the USA for example it is much harder.
To circle back to the example of the Rosenstraße Protests your prof mentioned (and wrongly contextualized): this was indeed a non violent protest that achieved for that moment to free over 1500 people who would've been killed from the Gestapo. That doesn't mean it would've ended the Shoa, though.
One thing Helvey makes clear is that you have to look at what power dynamics and pillars of powers your structures and authoritarian government leaders have. This is still correct - even though Marxists will differ in the analysis - for us in my opinion. They suggest to create a wide web of places of power in which people meet each other, trust each other, interact with each other (Helvey suggests to even chose as mundane things as book clubs, postage stamp clubs etc.) which don't have to be overtly political (this way it is harder to crack down on them) and also organize via decentralized groups of that kind.
Furthermore they say you ought to gather information about the structure and power of the enemy, which is the army, the police, the political party, the ruler and its henchmen (who in itself are contradictory), but also the factory owners - also infrastructure e.g. power plants, television stations etc.
Then you are supposed (like the CIA manual for coups and the KGB guide to topple capitalist third world states) to make lists of all the units and what contacts you got in them, how many people are dissatisfied and might refrain from shooting you (without this information any action will be met by unpredictable police force - as BLM noticed and MOVE experienced in 1985 by being bombed) or even join the movement.
Those things can in my opinion be combined with any Marxist strategy - even party building in dual and triple structures.
deleted by creator
If we're thinking of the same people (White Rose), didn't they all die?
Yeah, most of them were publicly executed and the rest imprisoned
liberals just love losing
In his mind this just makes them better. They died heroically for what they believed in. The fact that they died must be a sign that they did everything they could. (Which they probably did, but it was too late at that point.)
yep
Should have just sent back a link to the Wikipedia article for World War 2.
Or this photo
What kind of nonviolent protest leads to your enemies shooting themselves in the head?
Asking for a comrade.
Step 1: Create a Red Army
I guess nonviolent protests do tend to be more effective when the red army is marching in the distance.
Even if you were only talking about the UK/US/AU it's complete bullshit. Battle of Cable Street and other such fights: famously non-violent
When it is a binary that is created its bad. Obviously you need to have power and not seldom that (military power) comes from the barrel of a gun.
It still is true, that non violent struggle can be good, however it is a strategic choice. The methods of Gene Sharp and ON STRATEGIC. NONVIOLENT CONFLICT: THINKING ABOUT. THE FUNDAMENTALS. Robert L. Helvey, make that clear.
That said, commonly those methods were used from liberal angles to reduces the power of actually existing socialist states. Within the USA for example it is much harder.
To circle back to the example of the Rosenstraße Protests your prof mentioned (and wrongly contextualized): this was indeed a non violent protest that achieved for that moment to free over 1500 people who would've been killed from the Gestapo. That doesn't mean it would've ended the Shoa, though.
One thing Helvey makes clear is that you have to look at what power dynamics and pillars of powers your structures and authoritarian government leaders have. This is still correct - even though Marxists will differ in the analysis - for us in my opinion. They suggest to create a wide web of places of power in which people meet each other, trust each other, interact with each other (Helvey suggests to even chose as mundane things as book clubs, postage stamp clubs etc.) which don't have to be overtly political (this way it is harder to crack down on them) and also organize via decentralized groups of that kind.
Furthermore they say you ought to gather information about the structure and power of the enemy, which is the army, the police, the political party, the ruler and its henchmen (who in itself are contradictory), but also the factory owners - also infrastructure e.g. power plants, television stations etc.
Then you are supposed (like the CIA manual for coups and the KGB guide to topple capitalist third world states) to make lists of all the units and what contacts you got in them, how many people are dissatisfied and might refrain from shooting you (without this information any action will be met by unpredictable police force - as BLM noticed and MOVE experienced in 1985 by being bombed) or even join the movement.
Those things can in my opinion be combined with any Marxist strategy - even party building in dual and triple structures.