If we are to succeed in peaceful revolution, we need to STAY in DC and all major cities until the job is done. It may be hard, but the potential outcome could be worth it.
Originally Posted By u/serious_bullet5 At 2025-04-10 07:00:28 PM | Source
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
140 points (96.7% liked)
/r/50501 Mirror
860 readers
1193 users here now
Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry, I don't buy that.
It's a bit wishy-washy to expect that some organic process will magically produce angelic leaders better than the ones we have now. There are no shadow leaders hiding in the bushes waiting for the revolution.
No leaders in history were perfect. Not MLK, JFK, FDR, Mandela or Lenin.
You gotta be realistic and get things done with the leaders you have.
JFK and FDR didn't lead movements, and the other three did organically evolve from the movements they later led. Hell, MLK was a church pastor.
-Wikipedia
MLK is exactly the sort of leader I'm talking about here. He was someone involved in the movement from its inception who rose to the occasion, took a leadership role and grew the movement to what it ultimately became.
The leaders you have now are simply not fit for the job. Even if they accept the role (which I sincerely doubt), they won't escalate when the establishment rejects their demands, leading to the failure of the whole movement. I mean, do you see Bernie calling for a march on Congress or a general strike? The people you listed are ultimately moderates, and moderates can't take radical action.
No you don't and I don't know where you even got that from. Leaders are the most replaceable part of a movement; there's always someone fit to lead somewhere. Not necessarily perfect, but someone who'll actually do something.
I see no difference between Cori Bush and MLK.
Also, American churches have been neutered by prosperity gospel and commercialized megachurches.
As much as it pains me to say, but it's unlikely that American churches will ever produce pastors like MLK again.
I don't know enough about either of these two to dispute that statement, but either way okay and? The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't choose your leaders from a limited pool of politicians beforehand, but rather organize and wait for leadership (or, more accurately, structure) to organically emerge from the movement itself. If one of those leaders turn out to be a politician then that's fine, but a leader shouldn't be chosen just on account of them being a popular progressive politician. Again, being moderates immediately disqualifies them.
Dude, are you living in a basement and only organizing in your head?
People like Cori Bush organized before they held office and still organize today.
She started out as a pastor and a BLM activist 10 years before she held office. I have no idea what else you want.
The only difference between MLK and her is that she temporarily held elected office. But she didn't sell out to corporations and got primaried by AIPAC.
Eh, close. I'm living on the other side of the world and only organizing in my head.
Nothing. I didn't deny the possibility of her as a leader; if she steps up for a leadership role and gets recognition then great, but she might just... not. What I'm trying to argue against here is the idea of waiting for this or that person to step up and lead the resistance to ultimate victory, not that a certain class of people shouldn't be allowed to take up leadership.
Ok, then you're arguing against something I never said.
But thanks for being polite.