Kinda trying to piece some ideas together here. If there's theory on this, please send it.
For example, the George Floyd protests were very violent by U.S. standards but we never got to the point of, say, a massacre on the White House lawn. Instead, it was mostly tear gas, police brutality, and the media apparatus quickly countering with propaganda.
If a movement can't be taken down with propaganda (i.e.; :vote: and it will all go away), then the state will need to use more brutal force to maintain itself, correct?
yeah this is a foucauldian idea: power isn't very powerful, and any agent of power that has to enforce their authority must do so because they are losing power
Let's also not forget that there are percent digits of people in the US already in the incarceration system, which means more people are locked up than most uprisings and revolutionary movements in the world had. With many on parole who could easily be locked up for anything (like going to a protest, not being home before curfew, not being nice to the police)
Yes. The less legitimacy a state has, the more bodies it'll pile up. Look at all the atrocities in countries that had big rev movements; and/or look at all the atrocities states do when "expanding".
Maybe this is cringe, but I really believe it may be ilustrative: There is a common theme in Sun Tzu's writing that it is always best to win first before executing the action of conflict. In the sense that by already having the absolute advantage and ability to disable your opponent, you are able to expend the fewest resources and subdue them without much bloodshed. Ok. If we apply this in the other direction, we can say that it tracks pretty closely with your hypothesis, that the gov't is able to use less force when more powerful. We can then project from this that yes, if the position of the gov't were worse, they would be forced to use more violent and desperate measures to achieve victory.
Yes, and the situation could get much worse before it gets better as the state starts to lose its monopoly on violence.
Imagine police departments, armed to the teeth as they are, deciding they don't give a damn about the mayor/governor ordering them to stand down when facing protestors.
Yes, and this is why attacking the legitimacy of a government is so effective. Don't discount the Floyd protests, they permanently discredited the US government in the eyes of a lot of people who had never considered it before. Cities burned, never forget this. There was an autonomous collective in Seattle. A lot of really good things happened that can never be undone.
It's not just the strengthbof the government, a weak government can supress revolutionary movements easily if material conditions aren't heightened.
But in times of massive crisis and good revolutionary organisation, yes, your statement holds.
The US is the global hegemon, it dominates the world militarily, economically and culturally. That's why the US State can allow a higher level of freeze peach and academic freedoms (Chomsky boner), there really is no genuine threat internally or foreign that could bring down the US State. Every big budget Hollywood hit pretty much ensures the US cultural global dominance. That's why its ridiculous when libs and anarchists bitch when a country in the cross hairs of US imperialism does not allow the level of freeze speech as they want. The playing field is so unbalanced in favor of the US State.
I think it's a good model to say that the government suppresses revolutionary movements with a combination of propaganda and violence. The better the propaganda, the less violence is needed. The stronger the movements, the more violence (or propaganda) is needed.
