[loggedinmyphone]

I see, so this is the "trolling" theory of social justice. Are you saying Malcolm X and BLM act to bait the system into discrediting itself through violence? One would think if the system were violent enough, it could be be baited into overt violence through nonviolent means alone.

[anigbrowl]

It's actually John Boyd's theory of moral conflict as the most determinative level of warfare. Nonviolent tactitions very often organize to bait an oppressive system into violent over-reaction.

[loggedinmyphone]

I'm aware of this, and it goes back even further to the New Testament. I'm questioning the part about employing violent tactics Alameda Malcolm X.

[anigbrowl]

I'm not, because it is effective. Passive resistance is only effective to the degree that more powerful actors are conscientious.

[loggedinmyphone]

Violence can certainly bring about short term gains for the perpetrators. I'm personally interested in changing the cycle of violence itself, more than replacing one violent actor by another.

[DoreenMichele]

Is there a specific area of interest here? Are you working on anything in particular?

[loggedinmyphone]

I do have specifically marginalized groups of people who I try to help. But my most important project is being a decent human to those around me every day. It's not as easy as it sounds. It's second nature for all of us to pass on our past trauma and frustrations. In some ways it's easier to make a heroic and noble effort for some great cause than to put in the sustained effort every day to help the people around us. That's what I'm trying to do, certainly failing much of the time but trying to get back on my horse each time.

[maxerickson]

MLK chose places to protest where he knew the sheriff was likely to react with violence!

[loggedinmyphone]

Exactly. So employing violent tactics should not be necessary.

[empath75]

It actually depends on whether the populace at large or the government in power are willing to maintain power through force.

If you’re dealing with a democracy and a populace like the US or the UK, there happens to be a limit of how much brutality they’re willing to stomach in defense of the system. In a lot of cases it’s much more than we’d like to admit.

If you’re dealing with an authoritarian government or a theocracy, that limit is much higher or non-existent.

[loggedinmyphone]

What I am betting on is precisely that reluctance of the populace to stomach brutality. Whatever political victories are achieved through escalating violence are ultimately empty until a fundamental rejection of brutality is achieved.

[x0x0]

So basically your takeaway from the fact that most of these successful social movements had a violent component to them is that social movements shouldn't be violent?

[loggedinmyphone]

Most successful enterprises of any nature had elements of violence - "every fortune is built on a crime". I'm not questioning their success, just asking if we can do better.