On the other hand the suffragettes actively used letter bombs while maintaining a policy of no human harm (only property destruction) which seemed to work out extremely well for them.
That's besides the point. There are countless examples of a violent movement that uses such tactics existing alongside another more peaceful one where both feed into one another in a way that helps successfully reach the goals.
The anarchists in Spain assassinated the prime minister of the country just 20 years before their revolution. It did jack shit to stop the movement. It heightened the state response and certainly tore asunder public opinion but it didn't hurt them.
Let's look at this from a different angle. Instead of coming at this from the pre-assumption that attacks cause movements to fail why not examine history? What examples of historic movements do we have where violent attacks that occurred resulted in the existing rumble of a movement collapsed?
If such things were really going to do considerable harm to the movement don't you think the state itself would just fake their occurrence?
Why view this as a failure and not instead as part of a series of events that eventually led to the revolution? Did their membership not go on to form the Socialist Revolutionary Party with over a million combatants? I feel like if that's the best example of a failed one then it's an extremely weak argument against it? One factor in these events isn't necessarily to build support but to force exposure of an issue. I mentioned the Spanish anarchists in particular because they were incredibly violent for many decades and I feel like that violence, bombings, and so on was a significant amplifying force in actually making people learn what their bloody ideology was. Today everyone thinks "haha anarchy = chaos" and that's the entire extent of their understanding of the ideology. That will never change without some factors involved that force wider public to understand what anarchists actually are and I keep coming back around to the notion that the only means anarchists have to do that are through forced exposure events.
To begin with, the movement already has low general approval from the populace. Fox News spent years and years priming their base for this–uppity blacks and academics lashing out because they hate ‘freedom’ or what have you. A good part of the populace can watch people get killed by cops, again and again and again, and say “well they had it coming” or “being a cop is hard, so they should be forgiven.” Liberals just wring their hands and say “can’t we all just get along” and do little else. The movement, anyway, is disorganized, without leadership or logistics or long-term planning, and wouldn’t be able to fill any kind of power vacuum.
I'm really not just talking about America. I'm not American. It bothers me a bit that everyone in Chapo is so America-centric. I feel the same in just about any country. Is this just a larp for people? Buy guns but don't ever use them? What are you getting ready for? When? Everyone here loves maoists like the PLA in Phillipines but then is totally anti-violent activity within their own country? It strikes me as the remaining existence of liberal anti-violence brainworms.
If a dude yelled “black lives matter” as he ran into the RNC and detonated a suicide vest, BLM would become public enemy #1.
Good job I said nothing about doing that then? What even is this example? Communists should never advocate suicide. This feels like a massive strawman and I'd like to ask you to actually respond to the things people say instead of making up their positions. I didn't suggest that at all.
it’ll just take Trump or some other politicians giving the word and the hunt will be on.
I think you're waaaaaay overly pessimistic about the response. You could say exactly the same thing of any state in history ever. Little is different in terms of response. The effect of similar events throughout history has been to propel movements, not to deflate them. They don't win anything by themselves, but their lack of existence in any movement is a strong sign that there is a long long way to go for that movement. Until these begin I would not place any potential real historic possibilities within even 20-30 years of now. When they begin I will start looking at situations in a country as heading towards real outcomes.
The American left has no logistics, no infrastructure, no leaders, and no forward-looking mission. You have scattered groups from all across the spectrum (monitored, of course), all with different ideas. At this point, leftists are arming themselves defensively, and for little else (as much as they may dream otherwise). The military and police are notedly right-wing, and thus the militias that recruit from them have a direct pipeline of ex-soldiers trained in tactics, comms, fortification, and combat, as well as having contacts in law. The left has no such pipeline here.
I think you're grossly understating the left's infrastructure and grossly overstating the right. The right have zero ability to mobilise, they are trying to mobilise right now and mustering nearly fuck all people. Meanwhile the left is actively mobilising people every single day. They're barely even getting handfuls of militia to come harrass leftist protesters and they're only achieving random assaults on isolated protesters far away from/after the protests. Yes the police are large but they're the state, no surprises there, combining the police into what the right can actually mobilise is very false. The best mobilisation they ever had was charlottesville and they've never come close since. They have no ability to mobilise in the short-term and can only mobilise a few thousand via months and months of organising. They're legitimately quite pathetic
I don't think it's right to overplay what the right's abilities are and I don't think you should underplay what the left's are. The left has a real habit of mistakenly mixing the state, the fascists and the liberals together to make the enemy seem much larger than it is. The right don't leave their homes, they are cowards, the left does.
(As an aside, I just realised now I meant NPA not PLA, I just need to correct that.)
Stochastic terrorism is a great way to turn public opinion against your cause for at least a generation. The 20th century is littered with examples.
On the other hand the suffragettes actively used letter bombs while maintaining a policy of no human harm (only property destruction) which seemed to work out extremely well for them.
deleted by creator
That's besides the point. There are countless examples of a violent movement that uses such tactics existing alongside another more peaceful one where both feed into one another in a way that helps successfully reach the goals.
The anarchists in Spain assassinated the prime minister of the country just 20 years before their revolution. It did jack shit to stop the movement. It heightened the state response and certainly tore asunder public opinion but it didn't hurt them.
Let's look at this from a different angle. Instead of coming at this from the pre-assumption that attacks cause movements to fail why not examine history? What examples of historic movements do we have where violent attacks that occurred resulted in the existing rumble of a movement collapsed?
If such things were really going to do considerable harm to the movement don't you think the state itself would just fake their occurrence?
deleted by creator
Why view this as a failure and not instead as part of a series of events that eventually led to the revolution? Did their membership not go on to form the Socialist Revolutionary Party with over a million combatants? I feel like if that's the best example of a failed one then it's an extremely weak argument against it? One factor in these events isn't necessarily to build support but to force exposure of an issue. I mentioned the Spanish anarchists in particular because they were incredibly violent for many decades and I feel like that violence, bombings, and so on was a significant amplifying force in actually making people learn what their bloody ideology was. Today everyone thinks "haha anarchy = chaos" and that's the entire extent of their understanding of the ideology. That will never change without some factors involved that force wider public to understand what anarchists actually are and I keep coming back around to the notion that the only means anarchists have to do that are through forced exposure events.
I'm really not just talking about America. I'm not American. It bothers me a bit that everyone in Chapo is so America-centric. I feel the same in just about any country. Is this just a larp for people? Buy guns but don't ever use them? What are you getting ready for? When? Everyone here loves maoists like the PLA in Phillipines but then is totally anti-violent activity within their own country? It strikes me as the remaining existence of liberal anti-violence brainworms.
Good job I said nothing about doing that then? What even is this example? Communists should never advocate suicide. This feels like a massive strawman and I'd like to ask you to actually respond to the things people say instead of making up their positions. I didn't suggest that at all.
deleted by creator
I think you're waaaaaay overly pessimistic about the response. You could say exactly the same thing of any state in history ever. Little is different in terms of response. The effect of similar events throughout history has been to propel movements, not to deflate them. They don't win anything by themselves, but their lack of existence in any movement is a strong sign that there is a long long way to go for that movement. Until these begin I would not place any potential real historic possibilities within even 20-30 years of now. When they begin I will start looking at situations in a country as heading towards real outcomes.
I think you're grossly understating the left's infrastructure and grossly overstating the right. The right have zero ability to mobilise, they are trying to mobilise right now and mustering nearly fuck all people. Meanwhile the left is actively mobilising people every single day. They're barely even getting handfuls of militia to come harrass leftist protesters and they're only achieving random assaults on isolated protesters far away from/after the protests. Yes the police are large but they're the state, no surprises there, combining the police into what the right can actually mobilise is very false. The best mobilisation they ever had was charlottesville and they've never come close since. They have no ability to mobilise in the short-term and can only mobilise a few thousand via months and months of organising. They're legitimately quite pathetic
I don't think it's right to overplay what the right's abilities are and I don't think you should underplay what the left's are. The left has a real habit of mistakenly mixing the state, the fascists and the liberals together to make the enemy seem much larger than it is. The right don't leave their homes, they are cowards, the left does.
(As an aside, I just realised now I meant NPA not PLA, I just need to correct that.)
deleted by creator