"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

But taxes!!!!!

Said anyone who doesn't know that minus $600/month that only covers the basics plus $300? in taxes that covers a lot more is a net savings.

The answer is neither peaceful organizing nor individual aggression, but mass, millitant organizing!

This is true, but also extremely difficult, especially in an era of mass media induced paranoia and alienation. Mass militant organizing requires a large cohesive social class that has a center of gravity - a church house or a social club or a workhouse floor - that increasingly no longer exists.

Social media was supposed to be the new venue for mass mobilization, and we saw the beginnings of it in the early '00s. But media consolidation, saturation from automated marketing accounts, and counter-programming have largely washed it out.

Read theory and get organized.

One is significantly easier than the other.

That said... go look for local unions in your town or neighborhood. Look for chapters of the DSA or the PSL or other labor-friendly organizing groups. Go to your local PTA meetings and city council meetings when you can, and get to know the people who show up there regularly. Get out of the house and meet people where they are.

That's all good advice. But its also hard, exhausting work. And its done in the face of enormous headwinds. Don't mistake the failure of leftism as a simple failure of "human nature" or whatever. We're in an entrenched system and attempting a Herculean feat to change it.

Well, and as I'm trying to make clear, being non-violent doesn't make you not a target. The US government was busy trying to target the most non-violent group that exists in the US as terrorists. Violence is so antithetical to their religion they cannot be drafted into the US military, due to freedom of religion. The real name of their religion isn't Quakers it's "The Religious Society of Friends."

The more non-violent you are, the more likely these freaks are willing to view you as easy to take down and remove from the conversation.

It's just like... the first Gay Pride demonstration was literally a riot.

Like I said in another thread too, every state (as in nation, not US states), uses violence as an answer all the time. Police violence against criminals or protesters, military violence against other states, death penalties against those deemed too dangerous to live, prisons in general. So what is it about state sanctioned violence that is considered moral by most people who would also decry individual violence as immoral? Even Brian Thompson oversaw an increase in claim denials from ~10% to ~30%. How many people did that kill, or torture, or cause suffering? Obviously a lot of people have already talked about social murder, but again, why is social murder more justified? Just because it's legal and allowed by the state?

Laws aren't some inherent measure of morality, and states don't have some inherent sense of justice that is superior to that of their people. Just look at slavery, it was fully legal and rescuing slaves was a crime. That didn't make it moral, or the abolitionists who ran the underground railroad immoral. Or look at prohibition, or the current version we have with the war on drugs. What makes someone indulging in a vice like weed, or mushrooms, or honestly even something more addictive like cocaine be guilty of a crime, when someone indulging in alcohol, or cigarettes, or caffeine, or sugar isn't? And what makes someone doing that on their own, assuming they don't harm others because of it, worse in the eyes of the law than someone who gambles?

In order to see the imbalance of power and violence, you only need to look at the recourse each party has for violence by the other. Look at what happened when an individual committed violence against UHC by killing the CEO. There was a national manhunt, tens of thousands of dollars offered in rewards for finding them, and once a suspect was arrested they were humiliated by the police, put in jail to be held until trial, and are likely facing life in prison if they are convicted. None of that would happen to any of those responsible for a wrongful death due to an illegally denied claim. In that case, in order to get recourse, the family would need to sue the company, which takes a crazy amount of time, money, and effort. And if by the end of it they win, what punishment would UHC face? The CEO wouldn't be given jail time for murder or manslaughter. The company wouldn't be broken up or shut down. At most you'd get some money, and they'd maybe have to pay a fine to the government. During the lawsuit the CEO and board would be free to continue business as normal, killing or hurting who knows how many people while doing so.

So obviously the government, corporations, politicians, and billionaires will denounce this as a "tragedy", a "horrible act of violence". Those celebrating in it are "advocating violence" or simply the minority, existing in "dark corners of the internet". Because admitting that violence is an acceptable strategy means they'd accept it turned upon them, instead of being the sole group allowed to use it as they see fit.

This isn't necessarily me advocating for violence either, as I think in general neither one should be accepted, no matter if it's done by an individual or a state. But the legality of that violence is also not what should determine its morality, and there are exceptions to every rule. Personally I consider myself a pacifist. I'm vegan, I would go to jail before being drafted because I would never want to serve in a war, and obviously like most people I would always prefer a non violent answer to a conflict if possible. But things don't always work out that way, and it's nonsensical that anyone would consider Brian Thompson, or any other CEO of a major company, better or more morally acceptable than the one who killed him. State approved violence, legal violence, is not and should not be seen as any more acceptable or moral.

Then why do peaceful protestors get arrested and brutalised by cops all the time?

Gandhi disagrees

(Unless he's playing Civ)

Even if you want a peaceful protest, the state security apparatus will turn into a riot when they need to discredit the protester, ie Floyd Protests is recent example.

Then older people start pearl clutching over "black youth" "looting" a corporate location! The horror!

Liberals will bring some generic race arguments etc

Now we got a proper circle jerk and discussion about police brutality is third order of operation.

its afraid.jpeg because we have not seen such class unity in modern history.

Good.

This last election made me into an anarchist for now. I do not believe there is any way to salvage this system we have in any meaningful way. I'm not a violent person so I can't see myself doing anything like Luigi, but Democrats aren't going to save anyone and are just one part of the problem.

I think Donald could be the death blow to our country as more and more of our social contract is upended, especially with talks of killing the ACA and other popular programs.

I wish they had come armed. I wish Jan 6 happened to Bush. So many children's lives could have been spared across the years and borders.

They knew there weren't WMDs and used the fear of 9/11 attacks to push the war. They had OpEd pieces published to further push the idea of WMDs.

It was also preceded by a violent act of terrorism

Its so easy for people to forget the decades of violent acts committed in and around the Saudi Peninsula, and fixate instead on a handful of retaliatory strikes against US interests. The Battle of Mogadeshu, which involved Black Hawk helicopters obliterating Somali mosques with hellfire missiles. The brutal occupation of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, from 1992 to 2001 as a US-backed narco-state. The entire Iran-Iraq War, sponsored by US arms dealers and double-dealing diplomats, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arab and Persian young people. The occupation of Saudi Arabia by a western-backed military dictatorship going back nearly a century. The violent overthrow of democracies from Indonesia to Egypt in pursuit of neoliberal international trade policy.

9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum any more than the Brian Thompson assassination or the aborted coup in South Korea. These have long historical tails that trace back to a geopolitical policy that's racked up a staggering death toll.

To quote Mark Twain:

There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

honestly if you can 3d print something you can make something almost as strong out of wood, it just takes more effort

one could also easily make a disposable mold for a low-melting-point metal alloy, those are much stronger than 3d prints and many can be melted on a normal stove

I think the problem is more that information on how to make guns is now easily available, rather than the specific usefulness of 3d printing as a manufacturing technique

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests

Specific news articles about that day:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040904214302/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54365

From Guinness World Records:

On February 15, 2003, anti-war rallies took place across the globe – the largest occurring in Rome, Italy, where a crowd of 3 million gathered to protest against the USA’s threat to invade Iraq. Police figures report that millions more demonstrated in nearly 600 cities worldwide: on the same day, 1.3 million rallied in Barcelona, Spain, 1 million participated in a peace march through the streets of London, UK, and 500,00 people in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, joined the biggest marches since the Vietnam War peace protests.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100326221254/http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=6067

The French political scientist Dominique Reynié has estimated that, between 3 January and 12 April 2003, some 36 million people took part in nearly 3,000 protests around the world against the Iraq war.

(It's worth noting here that I have been unable to find Dominique Reynié's paper that estimates this. I have searched and searched for a PDF with no luck. Lots of references to this work, but can't seem to find the actual document.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20190921125652/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm

Between six and 10 million people are thought to have marched in up to 60 countries over the weekend - the largest demonstrations of their kind since the Vietnam War.

A key aspect of what made it so big was because it was happening worldwide, simultaneously, in multiple cities all over the world.