I just think the constant refrain of "don't resist the abuse or your abuser will have an excuse to abuse you" doesn't sit right and conditions meek and defeatist behavior
Resistance comes in many forms. I'm not sure as to how credible they are, so take it with the appropriate amount of salt, but there has been research suggesting that non-violent democratic resistance movements are more effective than violent ones.
There is a vast realm between "do nothing" and "take up arms and start shooting at the nearest government employee". I believe in doing everything to discredit the established order in the meantime.
I do share your annoyance that people here, in an understandable effort to avoid entrapment, opposed any sort of protest because they thought it would be another Jan 6.
Just go for a wholly disproportionate response.
To be honest, I'm not sure your second example is disproportionate.
The missing ingredient here is identifying an effective response and coordinating it.
I can tell you that while Europeans are extremely fed up with the established order, they are not going to rise up just yet. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in 20 years. Maybe never. But a failed attempt, the abusers would have yet more excuse to abuse us, and we would all be forced to condemn it - all the attention would move from ruling class abuses to the alleged abuses of one loner.
So I'm open-minded. I'm not on principle opposed to anything. A dying man will grasp at anything. But I don't see a realistic path.
Non-violent resistance only really works if the people already in power are sympathetic to your goals. Everything else is an academic smokescreen to obfuscate that reality. I'm very much in the Robert Heinlein camp that all authority is ultimately derived from a capacity and a willingness to employ violence. Dress it up all you like but that's the reality at the end of the day.
To be honest, I'm not sure your second example is disproportionate.
Non-violent resistance only really works if the people already in power are sympathetic to your goals
It's very easy when it is. But non-violent resistance can be used to put pressure on a government. USAID is actually very good at that. In 2005, they had the Ukrainian pro-EU opposition peacefully protest and put enough pressure on the government to redo an election that they claimed was stolen.
It's a very powerful weapon. This is why so many governments restrict criticism in media, demonstrations, etc - because it does work to mobilize people and put pressure on the government.
I'm very much in the Robert Heinlein camp that all authority is ultimately derived from a capacity and a willingness to employ violence.
Did he say it before Mao?
I agree. But you only get away with using the violence if the people believe that it is legitimate. I beleive it's Orwell who said that all governments rule by fraud and force, and when the fraud is gone, they have to rely solely on force. That is a helpful mask-off moment.
Sure, but if you have zero force then you will never rule/have any authority.
Absolutely. Force is a sine qua non. But it covers itself with legitimacy. The problem right now is that people do not see that what happens is raw force. Some people actually believe in the myths constructed about 'democwacy', even though they cancel elections, and we need to bust those.
I actively advocate against pacifism as I see it as defeatist and suicidal.
Pacifism is ideological. What I advocate for is strategy. If at some point it is strategic to not be peaceful, then... I just remember I live in Europe... then I will shout: "Long live the powers that be, down with PUTler and the Bad Orange Man."
Resistance comes in many forms. I'm not sure as to how credible they are, so take it with the appropriate amount of salt, but there has been research suggesting that non-violent democratic resistance movements are more effective than violent ones.
There is a vast realm between "do nothing" and "take up arms and start shooting at the nearest government employee". I believe in doing everything to discredit the established order in the meantime.
I do share your annoyance that people here, in an understandable effort to avoid entrapment, opposed any sort of protest because they thought it would be another Jan 6.
To be honest, I'm not sure your second example is disproportionate.
I can tell you that while Europeans are extremely fed up with the established order, they are not going to rise up just yet. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in 20 years. Maybe never. But a failed attempt, the abusers would have yet more excuse to abuse us, and we would all be forced to condemn it - all the attention would move from ruling class abuses to the alleged abuses of one loner.
So I'm open-minded. I'm not on principle opposed to anything. A dying man will grasp at anything. But I don't see a realistic path.
Non-violent resistance only really works if the people already in power are sympathetic to your goals. Everything else is an academic smokescreen to obfuscate that reality. I'm very much in the Robert Heinlein camp that all authority is ultimately derived from a capacity and a willingness to employ violence. Dress it up all you like but that's the reality at the end of the day.
Ha!
It's very easy when it is. But non-violent resistance can be used to put pressure on a government. USAID is actually very good at that. In 2005, they had the Ukrainian pro-EU opposition peacefully protest and put enough pressure on the government to redo an election that they claimed was stolen.
It's a very powerful weapon. This is why so many governments restrict criticism in media, demonstrations, etc - because it does work to mobilize people and put pressure on the government.
Did he say it before Mao?
I agree. But you only get away with using the violence if the people believe that it is legitimate. I beleive it's Orwell who said that all governments rule by fraud and force, and when the fraud is gone, they have to rely solely on force. That is a helpful mask-off moment.
Sure, but if you have zero force then you will never rule/have any authority.
I actively advocate against pacifism as I see it as defeatist and suicidal.
Absolutely. Force is a sine qua non. But it covers itself with legitimacy. The problem right now is that people do not see that what happens is raw force. Some people actually believe in the myths constructed about 'democwacy', even though they cancel elections, and we need to bust those.
Pacifism is ideological. What I advocate for is strategy. If at some point it is strategic to not be peaceful, then... I just remember I live in Europe... then I will shout: "Long live the powers that be, down with PUTler and the Bad Orange Man."