• spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    saw someone say maybe another trump win is good because it will mobilize the left a little more

    threw up in my mouth a bit through the tears

      • Jaderick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        A lot of those types of leftists fantasize about a glorious revolution, but many revolutions have happened and no utopias exist so…

        I think Contrapoints made the same argument in one of her videos.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Agreed. I would add to that – there’s actually an incredibly instructive example to draw by looking at the non-violent-revolutionary movements that did achieve big social change in the past. The US labor movement in the late 1800s, Gandhi’s independence movement, the US civil rights movement with its partial victory, things like that. There are a ton of examples of people who achieved big things to revise the systems that rule their daily lives, starting from a way less advantaged position than the left in the modern day US. It’s not easy, no, but compared to an Indian person under the British Raj it’s an absolute cakewalk.

          Strangely enough, the people who are so incredibly upset with the broken system in the US as it pertains to this election (which, yeah, I get that), are somehow totally uninterested in looking at what actions big or small might produce positive change. They’re solely focused on criticizing Biden and only Biden, or on saying that it’s so broken that we might as well let Trump come to power because what’s the difference.

          It’s like “The plane is having engine trouble and I don’t know if we’re going to make it. I’m real scared and upset about the situation we’re in. I know! Let’s shoot the pilot in the head.”

          • Twinklebreeze @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Wasn’t the us labor movement violent? I seem to remember something about troops firing on striking miners.

            • Jaderick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              4 months ago

              Mine owners utilized violence and essentially wage slavery to keep miners from unionizing and asking for more fair working conditions. Pinkertons got their reputation as being violent corporate mercenaries in this period, and they continue to be. The violence caused miners to fight back, and when they did the US army got involved usually in the interest of the mine owners. The lead up to the Battle of Blair Mountain is one of the best examples of this and maybe the most impactful.

            • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              It was nonviolent, until bosses/police starting shooting miners and their families, at which point it developed into a small-scale civil war. So yes, I shouldn’t have simply said blanket non violent I guess… I was just trying to draw a distinction between “let’s fight for justice for ourselves” versus “let’s storm the capital and do away with the leaders” as two roads (with the first being more effective, and the second often leading to catastrophe instead of the progress that was hoped for.)

              • return2ozma@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Labor rights and the labor movement throughout history in the US have been incredibly violent so I don’t know what revisionist history you’re talking about.

                • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You’re right, I should amend my comment to note that it wasn’t non violent and basically a small-scale civil war

                  Oh, hang on

                  (Actually, I do think I should have said it was nonviolent until they started shooting railroad workers, since that one came first. I’m a little fuzzy on the exact chronology but I think that would have been more accurate yes. The person I was responding to just said miners so I said miners.)

            • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              They would engage in retaliatory violence but the first shot was never fired by the labor organizers

            • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Direct action on Gaza sounds great.

              Are you under the impression that MLK was saying, don’t vote for Boutwell in his election against Bull Connor, because Boutwell isn’t good enough to deserve our support?

              • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                He’s not making a comment on voting or not voting at all, in fact this is written after Boutwell was elected.

                He’s addressing criticisms that directing protests at Boutwell before he has a chance to govern is misplaced and ill-timed, and he’s pointing out that while Boutwell may be gentler, he’s still a segregationist and is still in need of pressure. It doesn’t matter if one is gentler than the other, the goal remains the same, and no freedom is ever given by the oppressor without being demanded.

                Biden is gentler, but he’s still a Zionist, and so he is still in need of pressure.

                In case you’re unfamiliar with the rest of his letter, he’s also saying that the purpose of all direct action is to place pressure on moderates so that they may come to the negotiation table, even -and especially- direct action that causes material (in MLK’s case, non-violent) harm to those same moderates.

                We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation

                And I haven’t even gotten to the Malcom X quotes.

                • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  They also seem to leave out the reality that without the threat of Malcom MLK would have been a lot less effective.

                • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I know what he’s saying, yes. Like I say, pressure on Biden over Gaza sounds great, and it actually seems like it’s having an impact, although it’s still pretty fuckin mild compared with what the US should be doing.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Later in his life Malcolm X realized much of his youthful positions on things was stupid and he retracted them.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Well said.

            I believe a fraction of them are actual authoritarian sympathizers, and are just hoping “their brand” will align with a future hypothetical autocrat.

            They don’t want actual justice, they just want to reroll the dice and hopefully come out on top.

            To the other fraction, I think those folks are exactly the folks who completed those movements you mentioned. They worked hard to push the existing system towards their goal, often starting from a very weak position.

            That pushing largely isn’t done, and it is less glamorous and obvious compared to flipping the table, killing the current leaders (and a bunch of other