• sandbox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable“ - John F. Kennedy

    I want a peaceful revolution more than anything, but it’s clear that it’s impossible. Join the IWW today.

    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know what the laws are like in the UK concerning firearm ownership, but I can’t imagine they’re on the side of arming the peasantry.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can obtain guns, but there are limits and requirements to try to make sure they’re being stored properly and only bought in reasonable numbers for legitimate purpose.

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I assume if you write in “I want to provide security for protestors” on your application, they wouldn’t be too inclined to consider it a legitimate purpose.

          • Turun@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            By and large guns don’t provide security.

            There are a lot more creative ways to protest violently though!

            • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s not about protesting with the intent to commit violence. I think the police would be less inclined to escalate things if people were carrying long guns at the perimeter of the protest. It’s easy to commit violence against a group of people if you’re reasonably sure they’re all unarmed.

              • Turun@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                I think we kinda misunderstand what the other person is saying/what they imagine the outcome to be. There’s a crass culture difference here.

                In the UK (and presumably most other European countries) the police would 100% escalate things if they see someone with a gun near a large aggregation of people. Carrying guns like that is simply illegal and the only reasonable deduction is that you carry a gun because you want to use it - i.e. you are about to commit murder.

                Police violence against protesters is usually limited to water cannons and tear gas, maybe rubber bullets. Protester violence is rare, sometimes throwing rocks, maybe Molotov cocktails and burning cars.

                • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Police violence against protesters is usually limited to water cannons and tear gas, maybe rubber bullets. Protester violence is rare, sometimes throwing rocks, maybe Molotov cocktails and burning cars.

                  It’s the same in the US. The question is “How do you organize your protest such that the police won’t attempt to disperse/subdue you and give you a 5 year prison sentence?” The power the police (and the state in general) has is derived from their ability to commit violence without reprisal. That’s how it works in every country on Earth. The only meaningful way to deter them is to be organized in a way that says “We have protection. Fuck around and find out.”

                  I would assume the police would have the tools to fend off people using “mechanical weapons,” like bows, maces, spears, etc. They also have gas masks and the like to deal with chemical agents, like pepper spray. I’m not an advocate for using fire or explosives as a weapon, as they tend to cause too much collateral damage. So what else is there to be done than having a number of people carry around firearms, possibly loaded with less-than-lethal rounds (if they’re even legal), and hope that they won’t have to use them?

                  The reality of the situation, as far as I’m aware, is that the state has grown tired of people protesting. They’re sending out their goons to subdue people with violence (or the threat of violence) and ruin their lives with indefensibly-long prison sentences. Marching around completely defenseless while under this type of rule is pure folly.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m doing a lot, I’m a trained union representative in the IWW and I’ve been active for a few years there. Lots of grass roots organising and direct action. But this isn’t about me, it’s about systemic issues and those in power aren’t going to be willing to give up that power without a fight. We have to be ready for that fight or we will lose and have to deal with the consequences. Do you think violence was justified against fascism in the 20th century? If so, why not in the 21st?

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Please stop using that phrase. It’s now used by everyone and their grandmother to promote their little evil extremist shtick.

      We want gays and LGBT imprisoned or executed! If you don’t make my peaceful revolution possible you make a violent revolution inevitable!

      Edit: the paragraph above is an paraphrased example of how right wing extremists talk. I’ve hung around in conservative areas on reddit, and people quite literally talk like that.

      • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Let’s say we stop using that phrase. Everyone and their grandmother with evil extremist shticks keep using it.

        … how is that better?

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You do know that Stonewall was a riot right? LGBT rights were not achieved by hanging some rainbow flags from a truck and drinking champagne in a topless outfit

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        i don’t understand your second paragraph at all. sounds like you don’t know what peaceful means.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          My second paragraph was an example of how tight wing extremists use that very same phease.

          Its always "you have to adopt MY extremist and violent policies which I think are really peaceful, or I’ll threaten with a violent revolution

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            but what do I give a shit if that’s not how I say it… like ok, so right wing cunts lie. not news… I’m telling the truth.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s in the nature of the far-right to co-opt the language and aesthetics of others, especially the left. That’s why the nazi party called themselves national socialists.

        But ultimately, they’re right - if we remain placid in the face of the erasure of the rights of minorities, they will have their way. The media and electoral politics have been fully captured by the ruling elite, who would rather have an authoritarian theocratic dictatorship than an equitable world. Our only option is a revolution at this point - as peaceful as we can make it, by withholding the working class’s labour from the elite while supporting one-another - but it is almost entirely impossible that they would allow our revolution to remain peaceful. Therefore, those of us who can must be ready and willing to fight on the behalf of those who can not.

        I am going to continue to use the phrase because it contains a powerful truth, my hope is that people who see it and hear it will move even slightly more towards accepting the reality of the situation that we’re all in, and start working on building solidarity, mutual aid, and getting involved in activism outside the realm of electoral politics.