Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Yes, unconscionable opponents will always resort to violence, but people seriously underestimate the power of strikes. If an entire society comes to a halt because people refuse to keep it going, the power of authoritarians dwindles away. No dictatorship can control a complicated, modern society of millions of people through violence alone. That's why they have always been worried by an organized workers' movement and unions.
Thank you!
This is a good quote, but I think the person in the picture (who?) was refering to a specific type of non-violent protest/opposition.
Also, it's all in the numbers. You can carry away 100 protesters, but can you carry away 10 000?
So yeah, the sane people of the US cannot "appeal" to something that isn't there - they need to do the math, find the point of leverage, and apply pressure.
Stokely Carmichael
Thanks. Stokely is an amazing first name.
You're assuming wide popular opposition. Kwame Ture was advocating for minority rights in an era where popular movements were often lynch mobs.
Wildcat strikes are de wei.
Ah, but you underestimate the power of having union ringleaders tortured to death.
That's a valid point, but people demonstrating still helps. Looks like it motivate some politicians to also act, and motivates more people.
people need to know they're not alone before they can act
Non violent action is still more effective than no action at all
It's not necessarily your opponent who has to have a conscience. Sometimes it can be people they depend on.
Like, with Gandhi, the British Empire didn't really have a conscience. But, there were reporters present, and they reported on what happened. The story got out to regular people in Britain, to regular people in India, and to people worldwide. The British empire knew that if they let Gandhi die, India would erupt, other countries would boycott them, etc.
In order for nonviolence to work, you or your allies have to implicitly threaten violence
I don't know, non-violent work strikes can be effective.
I've heard traffic blockades for climate protests classified as violent, i am sure any work strikes could be classified in a similar manner.
Hunger strikes are hard to deal with. They force fed suffragettes, or kicked them out right before they were about to die.
yet here you are with your signs and your pageants and your slogans. true america.
You just wait until I wear my pink shirt and wave my auction paddle!
ssssssssssssssssssssold for one dollar!
Who is this? I feel like I know the face but I can't put my finger on who it is
Stokely Carmichael aka Kwame Ture. Big pan-Africanist activist.