onesixone

I am also wondering how peaceful movements that succeeded would have continued if they failed eirh their strategies. Would they have turned (imo rightfully) violent and would that have worked or not? Or the other way around for movement labelled as violent.

But I just want to debunk this idea that nonviolent resistance can’t work against a violent enemy. It’s simply not true.

I think thats a important point to bring up in discussions. I want people to be informed about as many options as possible in the hope of them being able to actively choose the ones best fitting for them.

I heard of it. Sounded really scary and awful. I do not get your point tho

Folks in Minneapolis burned down a whole police station after throwing bricks. This is of course an extreme example but it should show the possibilities of how it could go instead.

Most examples of overthrown dictatorships seem to be after they were already in place for atleast a few years to sometimes dozens of years. This is not the current situation in the so called USA where we see an rising and escalating fascist regime trying to take hold.

In general I think choosing nonviolence because it worked in the past and it seems efficient is not the way to go. Instead look if its the best for you individually and collectivly in your specific circumstances and if its in line with your ethics/morals and with you current emotions and goals. Nothing is won by denying yourself and others the way you/they want and can resist your/their best way.

First, look up Martin Luther King. He called for non-violence in a situation that was much worse, against a tougher foe.

So? I dont agree with him.

Second, who made you leader? Who decided that you had the right to instigate violence?

I am not presenting as an authority figure or as anyones boss. I am fine if you dont want to join. I think thats totally valid. But I can "instigate violence" because its covered by the instance rules, because its not looked down upon in this community and because from my anarchist perspective it seems to be one of the most effective actions you can currently take.

Because you keep ignoring my basic point, that it's not going to be the one who throws the brick who will get caught.

Its just a statement without any reasoning, proof or context. As I have shown multiple times in our discussion, I value different viewpoints especially if they get brought forward kn good faith. But valuing them doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you say.

Things I mostly found on reddit:

• anarchist library in chinese lanuage. i hope its not just translations but maybe also original texts?
• there seem to be / have been 2 chapters of food not bombs in China, based on this map here https://foodnotbombs.net/info/locations/
• copy from a 4 year old reddit comment that seemed to contain some interesting breadcrumbs that might lead you to more uptodate information:

Yes. But there's not much publicly available. Just a food not bombs and I think a social space in Guangzhou. I think there is likely a larger underground of squats that are not really easy to find out about.

The Wuhan punks had a small bookstore/gathering space that was shut down in 2016 due to non-payment of rent.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LibertariansOfAsia/comments/pry69q/libertarian_socialist_resources_in_china/

You are acting as if police brutality and police murder are the fault of those that throw the first stone. Its not. Its not like peacefulness or being passive makes you safe from police brutality, because you have very limited control how the police as a whole and how individual cops actually act.

Also, the people who were showing up to start trouble were usually police agents or locals who thought that it would be fun to throw a rock at a cop. The IWW people knew more about police violence then you ever will; they were around before Miranda Rights and body cams. If they thought having a team there was a good idea, you should learn from them.

That mght be true in the time you are talking about, but currently rioting is a thing many people do and its shown to be effective. The George Floyd uprising was as big and powerful because of the rioting and not despite it.

This does not mean disregarding past experiences, but (to me seemingly) more recent experiences show the power of riots and the ways anarchists can show solidarity, especially in the context of the so call USA.

I also think calling for peacefulness when friends, families, colleges, neighbors, comrades get disappeared is just not what is needed in these circumstances and its also not stopping any of this.

So the IWW had their own police? Not a good look

showed up at a protest looking to start trouble.

Isnt that the point? Creating trouble to stop the deportations? Of course there should be places and space for actions where people can participate that dont want to riot / be near a riot.

I dont think shaming people for using corporate social media will make them more likely to drop corporate social media. But even if it works, do we really want people to use Lemmy because we shamed them and not because the actually really good reasons to use it?

Ich finde an Sachschaden kann es bei Nazi Organisationen nie genug geben.

Stop discrediting ways of protesting you dont like by making sruff up. The outside agitator trope is a counterinsurgency tactic to sow distrust in resistance movements.

This already happened with the George Floyd protests and in the end no proof was ever shown for this being a relevant factor in any meaningful way.