• 0 Posts
  • 3 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2025

help-circle

  • Looking more closely it appears that their argument is that when you defeat fascism with violence you’re at risk of becoming / become a fascist / authoritarian yourself. History attests to their point of view. I think theres validity to the idea that the US has retained some fascist / authoritarian elements. Its just that the rest of the world has had to bear the brunt of that post WW2 (as opposed to American citizens, so they may be noseblind to it).

    There’s sophistication to their viewpoint no doubt. I think arriving at the conclusion that pacifism is the only acceptable solution is misguided but I don’t believe that aspiring to a nonviolent worldview equates to fascist apologism.


  • You’re both right. Every ideological movement benefits from having violent and nonviolent factions. You can have violence alone but, if victorious, that often trends towards a different brand of authoritarianism. Nonviolence alone doesn’t have enough bite I’m afraid. For every MLK Jr there needs to be a Malcolm X. Bhaghat Singh and Subhas Bose for Gandhi. Mandela was initially nonviolent but, due to that lack of bite, he changed his tune over time.

    But I will qualify this with the fact that all of these men stood for oppressed groups (whether minority or majority). Whether violence alone can work depends on where your alignment lies with the state. Violence alone will accomplish your goals if you are aligned with the state.

    What often gets ignored in American revolutionary history is that it started with nonviolent resistance. This can actually be enough if you outnumber your oppressor vastly. Violence, of course, is a necessary last resort when injustice and inhumanity persist.