Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.
It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.
Historically, it has always taken violence to remove fascists from power.
Fundamentally, elections were designed to be a peaceful alternative to the peasantry revolting against the government and beheading their king. As Americans come to grip with the reality that their elections are meaningless, their politicians are bought and their only alternative to fascism is fascism-lite with a pride pin (no trans ppl allowed though) this attitude will continue to fester.
There is no historical precedent for an electoral solution to a descent into fascism.
There is no historical precedent for an electoral solution to massive wealth inequality.
You can’t argue nazis out of your government. Churchill didn’t convince Hitler to back out of Poland over a friendly cuppa.
violence is already happening, it’s just that people are too scared to fight back against it
It’s a horrific moment to see that people honestly believe that there’s no other alternative at this point than to resort to political violence.
I mean… is it? I think it’s pretty obvious in the context of the regime essentially giving itself carte blanch to perpetrate political violence on its desired scapegoats and opponents.
I’m frankly getting pretty fucking tired of people complaining about how this is a startling development and being shocked by what’s happening. They wrote a playbook back in 2019. They published it on the open internet. They said they would follow it. They are now following it. You are not allowed to be surprised by any of this.
This country is BUILT on political violence. The revolutionary war. The civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people died in those conflicts. Only more recently have non-violent protests accomplished anything and that was only possible because of the more free atmosphere those wars established in this country. That freedom is now almost entirely gone. What choice do people have left?
Don’t forget the riots and strikes between 1900 and 1920 (or 30?).
Successful application of violence today is complicated by the sophistication of surveillance and the electronic, centralized distribution of money.
It’s difficult to pull together a large enough coalition to be able to fight effectively because the process of finding those people is short circuited by early discovery.
Nonviolence is the only way until a large enough segment of the population is desperate enough to trigger action.
Before that happens, effective leaders must be found and a support network must be readied to go into action quickly to professionalize and unify it when it happens, but before that is used to manage nonviolent action…
While I agree that non-violent is the way to go, I think we need to change our definition of “violence.”
Property destruction should not be considered violent. Especially when precautions are specifically taken to ensure that no people were harmed during act of property destruction or sabotage.
On the other side of things, actions such as destroying wildlife habitat or polluting the air, water, and soil systems of the Earth should be considered “violence.” It is violence towards all of humanity, and towards life itself.
Incredibly recently. The Civil Rights movement included advocacy for political violence, and arguably one of the only reasons it worked was Malcolm X and the Black Panthers saying “hey here’s our alternative if our nonviolent fight doesn’t work, we’re all strapped and willing to hand out more guns if shit requires it”.
that was only possible because of the more free atmosphere those wars established in this country.
And a healthy dose of “or else” political violence.
But Trump (lied and) said he didn’t know anything about Project 2025.
You’re not allowed to say the part in brackets without summoning the Gestapo.
Guns do not protect you from Fox News.
I disagree with Lemmy (and the growing public sentiment), but for the opposite extreme reason: we are beyond violence changing things. This is a propaganda/reality war, and truth doesn’t really matter.
30%, 50%, 70% means nothing if no one takes action.
The French, the orcas, allegedly Luigi. We have to follow their example. Anything less is just glazing at how “comfy” sitting on the frying pan feels.
America, you have the right to bear arms for a reason.
Well if an ICE officer stops my husband based on his appearance we’ve both agreed that we should resist that arrest.
That would end in violence and probably our deaths. What else can we do? Let them take us god knows where?
And after all that training we’ve had to never let kidnappers take you to a secondary location! There really isn’t another choice.
Peaceful general strikes would be a better first option imho
We need a general strike. The country would be brought to its knees if deprived of profit and labor. That tactic was extremely effective in Chile in 2019, and had they not fallen for the trick of liberal reform, they would’ve had a successful revolution on their hands with virtually no bloodshed.
If you aren’t in a union, then please consider joining the IWW to unionize your workplace (bonus: you’ll get higher wages, better benefits, and more time off if you succeed!) to strengthen a general strike if we finally manage to enact one (the UAW is planning one for May 1st 2028, but it could happen sooner)
And for our international friends, you should join one as well, as fascism is gaining momentum globally. If your country isn’t listed below, just contact the IWW directly in the link above.
Can you afford not to get paid for 2 weeks? If so you’re in the minority. Most people can’t. Not to mention they have kids they are worried about, medical conditions that they can barely afford even with insurance. Rising housing and grocery costs. Etc…
I’m not trying to be a downer. I would love to see this happen, but we need a “realistic” way to accomplish it, to convince a majority to participate.
Unions build up strike-funds with membership dues so that members can continue to receive a salary while striking, that’s why unions are so essential for working class people to be able to flex their power non-violently.
Consider that Chile is a much less wealthy country than the US. but was able to successfully commit to a general strike for over a month.
Honest question, how much of the US population do you think is unionized? Without looking it up
I’m familiar with the depressing statistic already, a little under 10%.
However, bear in mind that the majority of the most critical infrastructure for making profit, such as ports, trains, trucking, and medical care have the highest rates of unionized jobs, and would still be incredibly effective for a general strike (Generally only 3.5% of the population would need to participate to have a meaningful effect). Even with our abyssal rate of unionization, we still hold incredible leverage if we choose to use it.
The UAW has a general strike planned for May 1st 2028, which has real odds of working. Unfortunately it’s still 2 years out, and by that time may be too late. I’m hoping it’s moved up at some point.
1-2%
Wrong way of thinking, buddy boy.
If you can’t afford to go without pay for 2 weeks now, then where do you think you’ll be in 2 years time?
Act now while you’re breathing, for the sake of being able to breathe.
People worried about making it the next two weeks won’t be thinking about two years from now.
Realistic way is people just drop out of consumer economy to the fullest degree possible for them. Cancel all unnecessary subscriptions, shop local for only necessities. Look how quickly Disney blinked just because of a wave of cancellations, now do that everywhere.
People are going to cite the Kimmel cancellations until we legally aren’t allowed to. I… am skeptical.
A common talking point was that the real danger isn’t people who cancel out of solidarity: it is people who realize they have a disney plus subscription they haven’t used since Mandalorian Season 2. Because those are the bread and butter for these services and once people look at their bill and realize how much they have been spending over the years, they tend to not come back. And this all lined up with Disney (allegedly?) wanting to do a cost increase and enough “mainstream media” pointing out that Kimmel didn’t actually say anything even slightly controversial.
Contrast that with stuff like Sucker Punch firing the dev who made a Mario and Luigi joke and tripling down on it… and nobody giving a shit because Ghost of Yotei is coming out! Or all the attempts at encouraging people to support BDS boycotts. I mean, Palestine was the single biggest issue and the sole reason the Democrats lost, right? Then… why is everyone leaping at new gamepass deals and so forth?
Time and time again it is shown that people just don’t boycott luxury goods. If you can afford a luxury good you “earned it” and will find every possible excuse to keep buying it. What DOES tend to work is contacting the advertisers. Much like chuds contacted credit card companies to get gay games off Steam et al. Because, much like contacting your elected official, they understand that people actually caring enough to pick up the phone means a lot of people are REALLY angry.
Palestine was not the sole reason Democrats lost or the single biggest issue for voters according to the polling data. There was a small percentage for whom it was their sole or primary motivation in voting.
Can you afford not to get paid for 2 weeks? If so you’re in the minority. Most people can’t.
The general strike is being planned for almost 3 years out. We would have to save less than 2% of our paycheck to more than cover 2 weeks without being paid. We need to normalize preparing for a general strike, and be willing to help each other if needed when the time comes
Can they afford to live under a fascist dictatorship that crushes dissenters and disappears citizens at will? It seems that by “realistic” resistance you mean “without inconvenience” but we’re never going to get to that point. That seems to be what people are hoping for and it just doesn’t work that way. The longer we wait the more sacrifice will be required.
No I mean “realistic” as in getting enough people to participate that it would actually have an impact.
Will those people attempt to make an impact if the cost is more than inconvenience?
What? What are you talking about? If enough people don’t participate then it won’t make a difference. And you’re asking if they would still participate if it costs too much?? I’m sure many people would love to join but feel due to their current circumstances that they can’t. That demo of people is being overlooked and shit on for some stupid reason.
Perhaps this is why trump just declared war on nonprofits. They could potentially pull together resources to keep people fed during a coordinated nationwide strike.
They in general exist to tackle goals directly opposed to fascist regimes, so it males sense to target them.
Education, social justice, feeding the hungry, and protecting nature are all examples of goals Trump’s regime are staunchly against.
That’s why mutual aid organizations are essential. They operate outside of the legal system, so can’t be directly targeted as easily. If you or anyone else reading this have the time, please consider joining your local mutual aid group. That could be Food Not Bombs, a different group local to your city or town, or even your local church if you’re in a rural area.
If you don’t have one in your area, start one! Here’s a little guide on how and where to find likeminded folk to start one with: https://infosec.exchange/@tinker/113589807117870451
Thanks for the link.Trump is going after those next - nonprofits.
deleted by creator
Can you afford not to get paid for 2 weeks? If so you’re in the minority. Most people can’t.
Let’s be honest most people living in first world countries can indeed do that but they don’t like to renounce to all the commodities they have.
To add on to this:
Look what happens when people protest or go on strike. Everyone SAYS they are in full solidarity with the workers at Starbucks. But they also gotta get to work and that picket line is really holding up traffic… and now they also need to drive three blocks away to a different Starbucks. Look, something something no ethical consumption under capitalism so fuck you I earned this coffee milkshake and maybe if you worked harder you could buy one too.
A General Strike requires a fairly overwhelming majority of support to begin with. And, if we had that… we wouldn’t be inching ever closer to a civil war.
Just because something is hard doesn’t mean we shouldn’t with for it.
It isn’t about being “hard”. It is about being “effective” and understanding the circumstances and impact.
But also… yeah, “this is going to be really hard” IS a consideration when it comes to social action. Because you have very few chances at that before people get bored or get demoralized. One of the most cliche examples are all the college kids who inevitably get super behind a candidate who doesn’t win and then they start insisting that voting doesn’t matter.
But the inverse of this is a very real consideration amongst the people who organize protests and resistance. There is a shocking amount of effort “behind the scenes” to downplay stupid fucking bullshit like “make your profile picture black”. Because people do it and say “I helped” and start ignoring you. And while there is a LOT of discussion and argument regarding the utility of the parade protests… at least those get people outside.
And the start of any form of action is to understand what the impact of said action is and whether it is even feasible to begin with.
This is the only path other than violence and just as likely not to happen.
I agree that a general strike is the absolute least that should be done. But a general strike would have to hit the ground with the EXPECTATION that it will get violent.
It’s inevitable that Cheeto will try to use his jackbooted thugs to crack down hard, and taking it meekly and then hoping to sue over it later won’t be an option.
When the MAGA S.A. come to put you down, they aren’t going to stop. I’m not saying that the strikers should start violence. But go in eyes open with the understanding that a a certain point, you all are going to have to make the fuckers bleed because they won’t think twice about doing it to you.
At this point I’m tired of people trying to give a prescription for the ‘right way to do things’
“A man who procrastinates in his choosing will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.” Hunter S. Thompson
The problem is there absolutely is many, many wrong paths to take, and we have to learn from past attempts to avoid their mistakes. Notice how the arab spring movement, while initially promising, ultimately failed to prevent a new authoritarian regime from taking hold in most of those countries.
There are going to be different prescriptions from all political ideologies, but most of them can be dismissed to narrow down the possibilities.
- Right-Libertarians will advise we privatize everything and remove regulations - Doesn’t work. Creates the conditions for Neo-fuedalism and capital dominating every aspect of life.
- Moderates/Social Democrats will suggest we can reform our way out of this by voting for the right people - Didn’t work in Nazi Germany, didn’t work in Franco’s Spain. Due to corporate capture, they ultimately cannot resolve the issues that cause people to foolishly shift toward fascism in hopes to escape those issues.
- Marxist-Leninists will say we just need a revolution with a Vanguard party - Doesn’t work. Results in extremely unfree authoritarian states like the USSR, North Korea, and China’s CCP. Basically state capitalism under the guise of socialism in name only.
That leaves the Libertarian-left/Anarchists. We have evidence that their methods result in pretty sweet outcomes, they just have never survived very long due to the whole world usually being against them.
Okay, so what do we do to in our case? First off, avoiding a civil war or extreme violence is vastly preferable, as the alternative has some big downsides. The best non-violent method we have at our disposal is a General Strike, which directly targets the machinery that fascist states rely on. Combined with mutual aid networks and civil disobedience, it has a rather good chance of preventing a fascist takeover with a minimum of violence.
The alternative is straight up revolution, which requires the participating population to be educated on a shared vision, methods to organize, and how to avoid centralizing power structures or cult of personalities which lend themselves to co-option by the above mentioned groups.
I 100% agree with the overall point that there are very bad outcomes to getting this wrong, but my point is that we are out of time. Even if we manage to pull off a general strike with mural aid and civil disobedience we could eventually all have to come together on a direction or course of action going forward and I dont see that happening and even in the best of circumstances I think the country balkanizes/otherwise dissolves after a series of geographically and ideologically independent insurgencies rise up from the chaos that’s about to happen.
I’m not trying to be a doomer, but I think the time to steer into the skid has passed
Even if you are in a union, join the IWW as well. Most modern unions are insufficiently radical for what’s coming, and all the best organizers I know are IWW dual-carders
Agree 100%! For others reading, here’s a good article on the merits of dual-carding.
I’m in favor of both options at once
Gotta overturn the Taft Hartley Act to even make that legal.
If the law would lead us to fascism, then the law must not be followed. They will come for us regardless of if we follow the law or not.
Well, just WHO THE FUCK is responsible for pushing it off-track, hmmmmm? It didn’t push itself off-track. It was only a year ago when we had an economy that was the envy of the world, and was called Goldilocks, etc. What happened since?
I wish just for once that the fucking Republicans, most especially all the dumbass voters, took responsibility for all the trouble they have caused.
I only glanced the article but a question we need to answer first is what exactly is violence?
It seems straightforward but in multiple countries now i have read politicians making claims about violent mobs while in effect it was destruction of property.
Aggression isn’t violence so i am curious how many people say one thing while meaning the other.
define back on track
