Me personally, I believe protesting doesn’t work without mass violence against those in power against your protest.
You think 4 billion people sitting peacefully in a park with signs and chants affects trump at all? Fuck no.
You show up with 200,000 angry fuckers with guns on his doorstep, and NOW he’s thinking about doing some kind of change.
United Health Care was planning on ending it’s coverage for anestesia. Now you’d have to pay, and pay a LOT. The business plan was "Pay us shitloads of money that you can’t afford, or feel the knife cutting you open during surgury. Your call.
Then Brian Thompson gets shot. Literally the next day United Health Care announced they would not follow through on their previously announced ceasure of anestesia coverage. They would remain covering it. Why? Because the board of suits asked “Am I next?”
Now ask yourself. If Luigi just held a sign in a park, and Brian Thompson were still alive, would you be able to afford anastesia today?
Nonviolent protests work fine, great even, they just have to be disruptive. The Civil Rights movement was largely nonviolent and got results because they striked, took up commercial space so commerce couldn’t operate, and gummed up the works so productivity stalls. The suits won’t care about violence either if they have ways of escaping, they only care about direct impacts, be it directed violence or economic harm.
Yea, the way I see it, it’s most effective to focus on removing power, and in a capitalist society money is power. You could try enacting change through violence, but the remaining people in power will still have the money to better protect themselves from violence, which just escalates the violence. If protests focused more on economic disruption, they’d be directly affecting more of the people in power than killing any individual while simultaneously reducing what power they do have, pushing them to concede to demands.
I think you can do a peaceful protest and still have it be effective, as long as it’s disruptive. Strikes are a good example. Rich people care about a protest as long as you can threaten their bottom line
Me personally, I believe protesting doesn’t work without mass violence against those in power against your protest.
You think 4 billion people sitting peacefully in a park with signs and chants affects trump at all? Fuck no.
You show up with 200,000 angry fuckers with guns on his doorstep, and NOW he’s thinking about doing some kind of change.
United Health Care was planning on ending it’s coverage for anestesia. Now you’d have to pay, and pay a LOT. The business plan was "Pay us shitloads of money that you can’t afford, or feel the knife cutting you open during surgury. Your call.
Then Brian Thompson gets shot. Literally the next day United Health Care announced they would not follow through on their previously announced ceasure of anestesia coverage. They would remain covering it. Why? Because the board of suits asked “Am I next?”
Now ask yourself. If Luigi just held a sign in a park, and Brian Thompson were still alive, would you be able to afford anastesia today?
Nonviolent protests work fine, great even, they just have to be disruptive. The Civil Rights movement was largely nonviolent and got results because they striked, took up commercial space so commerce couldn’t operate, and gummed up the works so productivity stalls. The suits won’t care about violence either if they have ways of escaping, they only care about direct impacts, be it directed violence or economic harm.
Yea, the way I see it, it’s most effective to focus on removing power, and in a capitalist society money is power. You could try enacting change through violence, but the remaining people in power will still have the money to better protect themselves from violence, which just escalates the violence. If protests focused more on economic disruption, they’d be directly affecting more of the people in power than killing any individual while simultaneously reducing what power they do have, pushing them to concede to demands.
I think you can do a peaceful protest and still have it be effective, as long as it’s disruptive. Strikes are a good example. Rich people care about a protest as long as you can threaten their bottom line