in my opinion no. there is no non-violent way to have a revolution. you can’t vote them out of power and sitting down while they beat your ass gets you nothing but an ass beating. no pig has ever stopped midway thru a beating and thought “my god, what am i doing?”

im curious what sort of non violent resistance you think might work tho so if you’ve got good suggestions im definitely open to hearing them. nobody wants violence but these mfs are pushing people

i also want to point out, you see extreme violence every day but those in power tell us its “normal”, its normal when homeless people beg for money and when poor people die from not having healthcare. this entire system is a form of violence so it’s not as tho the violence begins at resistance to the system and most people believe in the right to defend themselves

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Any meaningful attempt that has any hope of being effective will be forced into violent conflict. They don't want non-violence, they want sublimate resistance against the bourgeois politics into support for bourgeois politics via ultranationalism. Violence is an inevitable contradiction of the "liberal democracy".

[–] ThermonuclearEgg@hexbear.net 14 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

IMHO disciplined nonviolent resistance requires organization and to be backed up with a credible threat (of violence presumably), neither of which are really present here

I'd be cool with a bloodless revolution... pretty sure the USSR was basically accomplished that way

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 13 hours ago

The way I see it, the First Imperialist War (WWI) was the heart of the Soviet revolution. The Red Army defeated the Imperialist forces in order to make it possible to establish a new social order. Famously a lot of blood.

The liberals tried to prevent the Bolsheviks from coming into power by seizing printing presses and all that. I kinda view that more as a failed soft coup.