[lazide]

Voting - already happened.

Money - the folks doing this already have a ton of money, and used it in large part to get to this point.

Violence - necessary for change, but against who exactly? anyone trying to be violent against the folks running this will be disavowed by 90% of the rest of the population, and galvanize an outsized violent crackdown against anyone and everyone who even somewhat looks like them.

It’s going to have to get a lot worse before there is appetite to do the things that will actually make it better. people aren’t bleeding enough yet.

[rexpop]

Uh, what ever happened to Civil Disobedience? Direct Action? Nonviolent Action?

There are at least as many ways to respond to repression as there are avenues of repression: https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/

[bongodongobob]

Whatever happened to it!? We are past that at this point. Nonviolent has been normalized for the last, idk, 80 years, very conveniently for the ones in power. It works if we have a functional government and an educated and engaged populace. We don't have any of that. Hold all the signs you want, vote with your dollar, walkout of work and get fired. If it doesn't scare people in power, you're not doing anything meaningful.

[SauciestGNU]

Meeting fascism with nonviolence is a good way to sacrifice your life in a way that's guaranteed to be ineffectual.

[rexpop]

What's presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but because it's important I'll deign to enlighten you with some counter-examples:

- In Nazi-occupied Europe, during World War II, various groups wielded nonviolent resistance (such as hiding Jews) against the Nazi regime and managed to hamper the regime's efforts, and in some cases saved lives. Not ineffectual.

- In Germany, in 1923, the German population wielded nonviolent non-cooperation and strikes (the Ruhrkampf) against the French and Belgian occupation and managed to gain international sympathy and hinder the occupiers. Not ineffectual.

- In Nazi-occupied countries--Denmark (Engaging in public protest and social boycotting, along with acts of noncooperation and striking), Holland (Developing an underground press network, social boycotting, noncooperation, striking, and hiding and facilitating escapes), Norway (Sending letters of protest, maintaining social boycotts, engaging in cultural resistance, noncooperation and creating alternative institutions such as unofficial sports leagues), France (Stalling and obstruction the forced relocation of Jews, noncooperating, developing clandestine media, and demonstrating open defiance, eg wearing the yellow star in solidarity), and Belgium (Hiding and facilitating escapes, noncooperating, and obstructing authorities protected the lives of Jews, made it harder for the Nazis to enforce their policies, and weakened their ability to maintain order)--during World War II, various populations wielded nonviolent resistance against the German occupiers and managed to present a unique challenge to the Nazi regime, which was more equipped for violent conflict. Not ineffectual.

- In East Germany, in 1953, workers and other citizens wielded strikes and demonstrations against the Communist regime, revealing the extent of public dissatisfaction with the working conditions, inspiring groups such as the Volkseigener Betrieb Industriebau's Block 40 section and the Zeiss factory at Jena to make bolder collective demands such as the release of a fellow worker who had been arbitrarily arrested and even inspiring sympathy from Russian/Polish soviet soldiers. Not ineffectual.

- In Russia, in February 1917, striking workers and other citizens wielded massive strikes and peaceful demonstrations against the Tsarist regime and managed to lead to its disintegration. When troops did fire on demonstrators, as occurred in Znamensky and Kazansky Squares, it backfired. The soldiers who obeyed these orders later felt remorse and questioned why they had shot at the crowds. This resulted in mutinies, such as that of the Volynsky Regiment. These troops then went into the streets to proclaim their support for the people. Not ineffectual.

- In the United States, during the mid-20th century, civil rights activists wielded sit-ins, marches, and boycotts against segregationist authorities and systems and managed to dismantle racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, and discriminatory employment practices. Not ineffectual.

- In India, during the early to mid-20th century, Gandhi and his followers wielded civil disobedience, boycotts, and strikes against British colonial rule and managed to challenge that rule, demonstrating the power of non-cooperation and willingness to suffer for a cause. They won independence. Not ineffectual.

So, now the burden lies on you, really, to demonstrate that our opponent in this moment is somehow more fascist, more cruel, and also more independent of the consent of the governed than any other fascist administration in history against whom nonviolence prevailed or, at least, mitigated.

But in order for me to even read your response, you would have to open by convincing me that you will do something other than sit on your ass and pull in a SE salary until the next election. Because even if nonviolence were ineffectual--and, again, it's not--you could, at the very least, opt out of participation in the socioeconomic systems from which the fascists draw power.

Because "nothing but violence will work," is a total cop-out from someone who also isn't already training with their local Antifa regiment.

[lazide]

I’m not sure how saying ‘some people succeeded at hiding Jews, didn’t get caught, and somehow survived’ says what you think you’re saying - considering how many millions got on those trains (or were rounded up and put on them!) and got murdered. And how even attempts to just defend themselves (Warsaw Ghetto uprising, among many others) resulted in mass death.

Or all the examples from non-facist regimes, where those regimes were less murderous? Or from pre-Nazi Germany, where it was clearly ineffective at stopping the abuses or the rise of the Nazi regime.

Stalin and the USSR were a huge, murderous problem (Holodomir being just one example), but they also weren’t Nazi germany, yes? And while murderously authoritarian, they were also fundamentally different in many key ways from facists. Notably, they tended to target and destroy ‘their own’ through terrorizing different (and shifting) internal factions, rather than having a more consistent set of ‘out groups’ they were targeting. And for all the problems in the USSR, they were generally pro-labor. It was the intellectuals and property owners they tended to target.

Unlike Nazi germany, where it was more ethnic identity, and willingness to bend a knee to them ideologically. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-night-...].

I don’t think we are at that point. Yet.

But striking against Nazi Germany later in the process was clearly a bad idea. [https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/general-strike-amste...]. A common theme in concentration camps was people being forced to work, often to the death. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camp-...]

Nazi Germany was very good for business (at first), as the State actively supported and provided cheap labor to business, among many other kinds of support. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany]

A key differentiator between Nazi Germany and the USSR was essentially that Nazi Germany was pro-big-business (as long as you’re ‘one of us’), and the USSR was pro-worker (as long as you do/believe what we say).

The biggest danger in Nazi Germany was being one of the ‘others’ - if they found you. And it was often a death sentence for anyone trying to hide one of the ‘others’ too. Hiding people, while it did work for a small number of people, was completely ineffective at stopping the larger holocaust. [https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689272533/the-invisibles-reve...]

In fact, the holocaust continued up until Hitlers suicide and subsequent German surrender, after the allies had totally obliterated Germany in a war of annihilation they had been forced into, and were literally within shooting distance of his bunker.

[rexpop]

> Hiding people, while it did work for a small number of people, was completely ineffective at stopping the larger holocaust.

Ok, that's somewhat goalpost-shifting, because you said "ineffectual," and I showed effect. It satisfies me enough to extrapolate from there.

Edit: Are we to believe, then, that you are taking up arms? Or just waiting to see if it gets so bad that you must? Or, don't you think an ounce of civil disobedience might be worth a pound of civil war?

[lazide]

It was clearly ineffectual at stopping the Nazis, yes? It was also ineffectual at meaningfully impeding their efforts (near as I can tell).

I did everything I could do in the US without getting arrested. I got large portions of my life destroyed in the process. Talking to people, even people that should know better, was basically just pissing in the wind.

I found out years ago that a distant relative of mine (Jewish) left Germany in the mid ‘20’s to immigrate to the US, leaving his entire life behind. At the time, I wondered how he knew, or what could have happened for him to take such a drastic step.

Now I know. I’ve been taking similar steps for years. At least I can provide a Plan B for myself and others.

Maybe that makes me a coward. I don’t know. But I won’t help evil, and I won’t be a pointless martyr for someone else’s idiocy either.

If I had thought taking up arms at the time (or even now) would have accomplished anything except making them more powerful while getting thrown under the bus by anyone that it in theory would be helping, I would have.

But that isn’t the situation is it? Because I’d be a ‘lone wolf’ because there aren’t enough others would can or would stand with me. Yet. Maybe there never will be. Maybe I’m wrong and everything will be fine, yeah?

We’ll find out. At this point, I just want to give double middle fingers to US society and tell everyone to fuck off.

Productive? Probably not. But I’m only human.

[bmitc]

That's kind of my point. We're heading directly into Nazi, USSR, and CCP territory and gotta ride this out until another election (if we even have one), someone with money cares (they don't), or we're all ready for violence (it's all the idiots who have guns).

[lazide]

The issue here is all the ‘opposition’ will do anything but actually fight - or allow anyone else to fight - or allow anyone else to violate the law.

So anyone actually trying to fight back will be destroyed by their own side. Where the folks doing this, won’t be.

[ebcode]

would you participate in a general strike?