Agreed. I would add to that – there’s actually an incredibly instructive example to draw by looking at the non-violent-revolutionary movements that did achieve big social change in the past. The US labor movement in the late 1800s, Gandhi’s independence movement, the US civil rights movement with its partial victory, things like that. There are a ton of examples of people who achieved big things to revise the systems that rule their daily lives, starting from a way less advantaged position than the left in the modern day US. It’s not easy, no, but compared to an Indian person under the British Raj it’s an absolute cakewalk.
Strangely enough, the people who are so incredibly upset with the broken system in the US as it pertains to this election (which, yeah, I get that), are somehow totally uninterested in looking at what actions big or small might produce positive change. They’re solely focused on criticizing Biden and only Biden, or on saying that it’s so broken that we might as well let Trump come to power because what’s the difference.
It’s like “The plane is having engine trouble and I don’t know if we’re going to make it. I’m real scared and upset about the situation we’re in. I know! Let’s shoot the pilot in the head.”
Wasn’t the us labor movement violent? I seem to remember something about troops firing on striking miners.
Mine owners utilized violence and essentially wage slavery to keep miners from unionizing and asking for more fair working conditions. Pinkertons got their reputation as being violent corporate mercenaries in this period, and they continue to be. The violence caused miners to fight back, and when they did the US army got involved usually in the interest of the mine owners. The lead up to the Battle of Blair Mountain is one of the best examples of this and maybe the most impactful.
It was nonviolent, until bosses/police starting shooting miners and their families, at which point it developed into a small-scale civil war. So yes, I shouldn’t have simply said blanket non violent I guess… I was just trying to draw a distinction between “let’s fight for justice for ourselves” versus “let’s storm the capital and do away with the leaders” as two roads (with the first being more effective, and the second often leading to catastrophe instead of the progress that was hoped for.)
Labor rights and the labor movement throughout history in the US have been incredibly violent so I don’t know what revisionist history you’re talking about.
I love how centrists will confidently cite the civil rights movement without a hint of irony, and then completely ignore what those civil rights leaders had to say about the objections of moderates over direct action. They’ll silently downvote a direct quote from MLK without engaging with how it somehow doesn’t apply to them.
Direct action on Gaza sounds great.
Are you under the impression that MLK was saying, don’t vote for Boutwell in his election against Bull Connor, because Boutwell isn’t good enough to deserve our support?
He’s not making a comment on voting or not voting at all, in fact this is written after Boutwell was elected.
He’s addressing criticisms that directing protests at Boutwell before he has a chance to govern is misplaced and ill-timed, and he’s pointing out that while Boutwell may be gentler, he’s still a segregationist and is still in need of pressure. It doesn’t matter if one is gentler than the other, the goal remains the same, and no freedom is ever given by the oppressor without being demanded.
Biden is gentler, but he’s still a Zionist, and so he is still in need of pressure.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the rest of his letter, he’s also saying that the purpose of all direct action is to place pressure on moderates so that they may come to the negotiation table, even -and especially- direct action that causes material (in MLK’s case, non-violent) harm to those same moderates.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation
And I haven’t even gotten to the Malcom X quotes.
Well said.
I believe a fraction of them are actual authoritarian sympathizers, and are just hoping “their brand” will align with a future hypothetical autocrat.
They don’t want actual justice, they just want to reroll the dice and hopefully come out on top.
To the other fraction, I think those folks are exactly the folks who completed those movements you mentioned. They worked hard to push the existing system towards their goal, often starting from a very weak position.
That pushing largely isn’t done, and it is less glamorous and obvious compared to flipping the table, killing the current leaders (and a bunch of other demonized but innocent groups oopsie daisy) and trying again. That’s how you get a Khmer rouge and then a pol pot.
We need another MLK and his contemporaries.
I agree, we really need some leftists who have the backbone of MLK.
Now let me say a word for those of you who are on strike. You’ve been out now for a number of days. But don’t despair. Nothing worthwhile is gained without sacrifice. The thing for you to do is stay together. Say to everybody in this community that you’re going to stick it out to the end until every demand is met. And that you’re going to say, “We ain’t going to let nobody turn us around.” Let it be known everywhere that along with wages and all of the other securities that you are struggling for, you’re also struggling for the right to organize and be recognized…
We can all get more together than we can apart. This is the way to gain power. Power is the ability to achieve purpose. Power is the ability to effect change. We need power…
Now the other thing is that nothing is gained without pressure. Don’t let anybody tell you to go back on your job and paternalistically say, now, “You’re my man, and I’m going to do the right thing for you if you’ll just come back on the job.” Don’t go back on the job until the demands are met. Never forget that freedom is not something that must be demanded by the oppressor. It is something that must be demanded by the oppressed. Freedom is not some lavish dish that the power structure and the white forces imparted with making positions will voluntarily hand down on a silver platter while the Negro merely furnishes the appetite.
If we are going to get equality, if we are going to get adequate wages, we are going to have to struggle for it. Now, you know what, you may have to escalate the struggle a bit. If they keep refusing, and they will not recognize the union, and will not decree further check-off for the collection of dues, I’m telling you what you ought to do, and you’re together here enough to do it. In a few days you ought to get together and just have a general work stoppage in the city of Memphis.
Now that shit will fire you up. Good stuff.
Notice he was very forceful and determined, but never said stupid stuff like “hurr let’s get the guillotine!”
Lol what a fruitful day of reading: since you mentioned Gandhi…
Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French.
A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.
Fear has its use but cowardice has none.
Man lives freely only by his readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him.
It is any day better to stand erect with a broken and bandaged head then to crawl on one’s belly, in order to be able to save one’s head.
Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.
If co-operation is a duty, I hold that non-co-operation also under certain conditions is equally a duty.
Honestly, of all the civil rights figures you could have cited, Gandhi is the one who would tell you that non-cooperation with evil is more important than self-preservation. How on earth could you look at Gandhi and say; ‘he would want me to vote for the lesser evil’?
I thought we had worked this out earlier, talking about Bull Connor. I was all on board when I thought you were saying, let’s give Biden a hard time over Gaza. Now I’m a lot less sure what you’re saying.
Do you think working as a collaborator of the Raj, is more or less the same as voting for the clearly less-genocide-supporting of two arguably-genocide-supporting candidates?
Would this apply also to refusing to vote for Boutwell over Connor, or refusing to vote for the SDP (with all its colonial adventures in Africa and etc) over the NSDAP in prewar Germany?
No, he’s saying sticking with your principles is more important than even preventing your own harm. He pushed for change by being willing to sacrifice himself. He wasn’t just blindly non-violemt, he risked self injury to advance change
You keep fast-forwarding to voting day, but confidently standing your ground now is what moves the needle, not beating the drums of cooperation for Biden.
Gandhi worked with the lesser evil plenty to earn India’s independence. He negotiated with Britain on pacts and agreements that didn’t result in India’s freedom but generally gained them more autonomy and fairness. He even supported the British in WW2 and suspended independence efforts at the time.
If Gandhi said “okay hold up, let’s take care of the fascists alongside our colonizers”*, I think he would want you to vote for the lesser evil. I think we can infer from his actions that progressively achieving a goal through nonviolence is something he wholeheartedly supported.
*(Granted, he still advocated that Japan and the Nazis be defeated without significant violence)
And Douglass eventually worked with Lincoln, but not before ruthlessly criticizing him and supporting the dump-lincoln movement
Gandhi refused repeated offers from the British, he absolutely did not just accept their offer as given.
