Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.
It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.
We need a general strike. The country would be brought to its knees if deprived of profit and labor. That tactic was extremely effective in Chile in 2019, and had they not fallen for the trick of liberal reform, they would’ve had a successful revolution on their hands with virtually no bloodshed.
If you aren’t in a union, then please consider joining the IWW to strengthen a general strike if we finally manage to enact one.
And for our international friends, you should join one as well, as fascism is gaining momentum globally.
Can you afford not to get paid for 2 weeks? If so you’re in the minority. Most people can’t. Not to mention they have kids they are worried about, medical conditions that they can barely afford even with insurance. Rising housing and grocery costs. Etc…
I’m not trying to be a downer. I would love to see this happen, but we need a “realistic” way to accomplish it, to convince a majority to participate.
Unions build up strike-funds with membership dues so that members can continue to receive a salary while striking, that’s why unions are so essential for working class people to be able to flex their power non-violently.
Consider that Chile is a much less wealthy country than the US. but was able to successfully commit to a general strike for over a month.
Honest question, how much of the US population do you think is unionized? Without looking it up
I’m familiar with the depressing statistic already, a little under 10%.
However, bear in mind that the majority of the most critical infrastructure for making profit, such as ports, trains, trucking, and medical care have the highest rates of unionization, and would still be incredibly effective for a general strike (Generally only 3.5% of the population would need to participate to have a meaningful effect). Even with our abyssal rate of unionization, we still hold incredible leverage if we choose to use it.
The UAW has a general strike planned for May 1st 2028, which has real odds of working. Unfortunately it’s still 2 years out, and by that time may be too late. I’m hoping it’s moved up at some point.
1-2%
Realistic way is people just drop out of consumer economy to the fullest degree possible for them. Cancel all unnecessary subscriptions, shop local for only necessities. Look how quickly Disney blinked just because of a wave of cancellations, now do that everywhere.
People are going to cite the Kimmel cancellations until we legally aren’t allowed to. I… am skeptical.
A common talking point was that the real danger isn’t people who cancel out of solidarity: it is people who realize they have a disney plus subscription they haven’t used since Mandalorian Season 2. Because those are the bread and butter for these services and once people look at their bill and realize how much they have been spending over the years, they tend to not come back. And this all lined up with Disney (allegedly?) wanting to do a cost increase and enough “mainstream media” pointing out that Kimmel didn’t actually say anything even slightly controversial.
Contrast that with stuff like Sucker Punch firing the dev who made a Mario and Luigi joke and tripling down on it… and nobody giving a shit because Ghost of Yotei is coming out! Or all the attempts at encouraging people to support BDS boycotts. I mean, Palestine was the single biggest issue and the sole reason the Democrats lost, right? Then… why is everyone leaping at new gamepass deals and so forth?
Time and time again it is shown that people just don’t boycott luxury goods. If you can afford a luxury good you “earned it” and will find every possible excuse to keep buying it. What DOES tend to work is contacting the advertisers. Much like chuds contacted credit card companies to get gay games off Steam et al. Because, much like contacting your elected official, they understand that people actually caring enough to pick up the phone means a lot of people are REALLY angry.
Perhaps this is why trump just declared war on nonprofits. They could potentially pull together resources to keep people fed during a coordinated nationwide strike.
They in general exist to tackle goals directly opposed to fascist regimes, so it males sense to target them.
Education, social justice, feeding the hungry, and protecting nature are all examples of goals Trump’s regime are staunchly against.
That’s why mutual aid organizations are essential. They operate outside of the legal system, so can’t be directly targeted as easily. If you or anyone else reading this have the time, please consider joining your local mutual aid group. That could be Food Not Bombs, a different group local to your city or town, or even your local church if you’re in a rural area.
If you don’t have one in your area, start one! Here’s a little guide on how and where to find likeminded folk to start one with: https://infosec.exchange/@tinker/113589807117870451
To add on to this:
Look what happens when people protest or go on strike. Everyone SAYS they are in full solidarity with the workers at Starbucks. But they also gotta get to work and that picket line is really holding up traffic… and now they also need to drive three blocks away to a different Starbucks. Look, something something no ethical consumption under capitalism so fuck you I earned this coffee milkshake and maybe if you worked harder you could buy one too.
A General Strike requires a fairly overwhelming majority of support to begin with. And, if we had that… we wouldn’t be inching ever closer to a civil war.
This is the only path other than violence and just as likely not to happen.
The country went off-track when Reconstruction was defeated by white terrorism and the old slaveocracy retook their wealth and power. We’ve been struggling with the aftermath since then.
Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track,
Did the survey question specify what “the right track” is?
Because MAGA has a very different definition than progressives do.
It’s a horrific moment to see that people honestly believe that there’s no other alternative at this point than to resort to political violence.
I mean… is it? I think it’s pretty obvious in the context of the regime essentially giving itself carte blanch to perpetrate political violence on its desired scapegoats and opponents.
I’m frankly getting pretty fucking tired of people complaining about how this is a startling development and being shocked by what’s happening. They wrote a playbook back in 2019. They published it on the open internet. They said they would follow it. They are now following it. You are not allowed to be surprised by any of this.
This country is BUILT on political violence. The revolutionary war. The civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people died in those conflicts. Only more recently have non-violent protests accomplished anything and that was only possible because of the more free atmosphere those wars established in this country. That freedom is now almost entirely gone. What choice do people have left?
Don’t forget the riots and strikes between 1900 and 1920 (or 30?).
Successful application of violence today is complicated by the sophistication of surveillance and the electronic, centralized distribution of money.
It’s difficult to pull together a large enough coalition to be able to fight effectively because the process of finding those people is short circuited by early discovery.
Nonviolence is the only way until a large enough segment of the population is desperate enough to trigger action.
Before that happens, effective leaders must be found and a support network must be readied to go into action quickly to professionalize and unify it when it happens, but before that is used to manage nonviolent action…
This is just people waking up to reality. Trump has the White House, the senate, the House of Representatives, and the courts. He controls the military and has already begun deployment to “democratic” cities. His buddy in Texas is redistricting to help him consolidate power, and I am sure Abbot is not the only one. Every move Trump makes is designed to cripple opposition to his regime. Republican states are purging voter rolls and enacting bullshit laws designed to disenfranchise people of colour.
Milquetoast democrats have made only the most pathetic gestures of opposition to Trump. The first genuine thing Trump ever said was when he expressed surprise yesterday at how little resistance he has faced from the left. Republicans were right about one thing: the American left is a bunch of pussies.
If more Americans think political violence is the only way out of the mess Americans made, it’s probably because they are starting to develop a vague but accurate understanding of what is happening in their country.
Perhaps the Democratic Socialists (DS) can become the unifying source of resistance. They are the ones fighting, but there are too few to have political impact.
It’s up to the citizens to back them, and the DS must drum up the leaders and present them so citizens can choose them.
I think the DS values are the closest to the new deal approach that made America a wildly successful nation and beacon for just treatment of humans.
Heck, Europe and Japan took their governing cues from America during the Marshall plan. They are examples of following the ideals our leaders used to value. This is the real “make america great again”.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
- Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, c. 1787
Not that I think political violence (or violence of any sort, for that matter) should be our first, second, or even thirty-fifth resort, but at a certain point I think one must come to grips with the fact that - whether it fits in with their delicate sensibilities or not - when confronted with an existential peril it does sometimes become necessary to defend oneself. (Fun fact: This is why self-defense can be presented as a valid defense against murder charges!)
Sure, we should absolutely make any and all attempts to be inclusive (Republicans HATE this!) and tolerant (GOP: hiss IT BURNS!) and attempt to reach solutions through education, research, negotiation, compromise and all that lovely (woke?) stuff, but… For some reason, it seems like there’s consistently only one side that ever shows up to the table willing to actually do any of that. And that’s just how it’s been for fucking DECADES now. There’s probably a lot of you (just generally speaking, not necessarily meaning Lemmy’s demographic per se) who aren’t even old enough to remember a time before the GOP began using “government shutdowns” and “debt ceilings” and “literal fucking coup attempts” as part of their standard, day-to-day politicking. Believe it or not (and I know this will probably be the hardest one to buy, but I swear it to be true) there was a time when the Republicans would - even if they WERE NOT in power at the time - STILL SHOW UP AND DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS. I know, what a concept, eh? Imagine going to work every day and just… doing your job, like a fucking idiot, instead of throwing absolute meltdown tantrums over your lack of control over other people’s genitals.
Does any of this strike you as the behavior of (an) entity(ies) engaging in anything even remotely resembling something that could be construed as “good-faith negotiation” - let alone even approaching something as audacious as “compromise?” This isn’t a willing, eager party to an arbitration, quite, is it? No… Something more akin to an assailant with a knife at our throat(s) demanding to inspect our genitals to make sure we’re where they think we should be at the moment certainly sounds more apt to me…
I don’t want there to be violence. Any. At all, really. But at what point does the moral imperative toward nonviolence get outweighed by the moral obligation to the people being kidnapped by masked (supposed) government agents and disappeared to very real, literal concentration camps? How many genocides at once do we need to hit the tipping point where it’s finally acceptable to stand up and say, “That’s enough. This far. No farther.” But actually back that up, for a change.
If that means by force, then unfortunately, so be it. Might doesn’t make right, but that certainly doesn’t preclude it from enforcing it, does it?
The Handmaid’s Tale is really happening.
I mean kicking Trump to the crib isn’t that difficult…… let’s do that and the rest of us 300+ million people can move on and have a drink.
Gee, almost as if Russian propaganda is working.
Before the Civil War one politician opined that if a war started you’d be able to mop up all the blood spilled with one handkerchief.
Anyone who thinks a new fight will be any easier has probably never been in a real fight.
I don’t think people realize that if a new US civil war kicked off the lines wouldn’t be as clear as north vs south. this would be state vs state, city vs city, neighbor vs neighbor. you could draw lines in your god damn sub division/street.
And if it were alliances between states it would be a god damn logistical nightmare. Imagine California being allied with New York for example. or Hell Minnesota being allied with like Arizona or whatever. how do you move supplies, troops, and what have you between allied states when you got a shit ton of hostiles between the two.
Add to the fact that unlike the first civil war you now have US military bases all over the world. what happens when you got folks within the SAME base in the middle of Germany that suddenly don’t “agree” with each other?
Cluster fuck is an understatement.
There’d also be a shit-ton of drone warfare. Thousands will die without ever seeing their killers face. It’s also entirely possible AI will be bombing people and you’ll basically be killed by an algorithm.
Lets also not forget cyberwarfare, ranging from external to internal sources, ranging from doxxing people to invented news events with AI gen/manipulated images/audio/video, all the way up to knocking out public infrastructure, locking down hardware of local gov / businesses / banks with ransomware, etc.
Random, unofficial people are capable of either most or all of that.
Oh and of course if shit really kicks off, other countries will probably do the CIA’s signature move of funding arming and training various groups of people.
It’s also why we need to avoid violence and make the regime stumble into itself.
Which is why Chinese and Russia propaganda is attempting to stoke the fire (remember, they eliminated their opposition, so they don’t have the same experience inciting violence and they think they do).
I saw one dream map where Canada drops two tentacles; one reaches down through the West all the way to San Diego, and the Eastern one reaches just north of Washington.
Humor aside, I agree with your take. A war of assassins and terrorists on both sides.
I’ll add one more note. Back in the day, the Irish Republican Army was the most feared underground in the world. They only had a handful of soldiers, but a superb organization. If a shooter was supposed to kill someone in Geneva, he’d have three or four cars waiting when he got to the airport, and each driver would know five places the shooter could stay. He’d have a choice of getaway drivers and extra safe houses and docotrs on tap.
How do you still manage that in the current (and worsening) surveillance state? I mean Luigi showed its possible for a lone wolf but I have to question being able to organize without being known. If you are caught organizing an antifa org then you’re also uber boned.
My point was that the next war won’t look anything like the last one.
Anyone who thinks that some molotov cocktails they made is going to bring down the system has another think coming.
In my view the only way organization would work is with the assistance of an enemy nation with the ability to circumvent the surveillance state (to ship in weapons, avoid communication eavesdropping, etc). And unfortunately those nations are mostly very, very far away.
Its going to be more like the people vs the federal gov.
If you think this, you should talk to your average republican voter. They will suck that orange cock until every bit of their wealth and ability to afford food is gone, and blame whoever fox news points a finger at that day.
or Hell Minnesota being allied with like Arizona or whatever.
Isn’t Hell in Michigan?
So which hashtag would you use to end slavery?
Let’s turn it around.
I say violence won’t work.
Please explain in detail how you see the conflict going. I mean, I’m certain that the same people who couldn’t get past the DNC to get Bernie nominated will have no problem facing off against “military contractors” hired by the billionaire class.
Details, please.
Violence works, otherwise there wouldn’t be any. We’ve put up a whole system of laws and police and investigators and courts and prisons in order to provide an alternative to violence. And even then, that system is itself backed up with a real threat of violence as well as its occasional localized deployment.
Yesterday’s “pep rally” where none of the military leaders dragged in had anything good to say about it suggests that there is not the overwhelming military support that Trump wants there to be. There are plenty of examples of far less powerful local forces successfully standing up to superpowers. Afghanistan is one. Wallachia is another.
When the entire federal government and many state governments have wholly abandoned the systems put together to avoid violence, and are in fact using the husks of those systems to apply violence to their opponents, we’ve already crossed the Rubicon.
Violence fails 50% of the time, if not more. Every fight has a losing side.
Yup, and the side that loses is the side that wasn’t violent enough.
Your point is valid.
It probably looks like a dystopian novel surveillance state, with drones watching you every time you leave your house (or not). All internet and phone communication would be monitored. And anyone caught saying things the government doesn’t like would suffer consequences.
With individual events prompting it and happening occasionally regardless of the surveillance state.
It’d look a lot more like the Irish than the Civil War. It’d be a country of everyone living in fear.
Sadly, the best defense we have is the fact that Trump is an idiot surrounded by dolts.
A competent leader would have locked everything down years ago.
I can’t remember… Historically how has fascism been defeated? It’s right there, but for the life of me I can’t recall. Can you help?
I don’t remember, how many countries in Europe installed Fascist governments after Lenin came in?
I can cherry pick historical facts too.
Cherry picked? A world war is a cherry picked fact? Well now we know your delusions aren’t limited to present issues.
If you feel name calling is a viable tactic, I guess I’ll have to cede to your vast intelligence and withdraw. I may be deluded but I know when a conversation is a waste of time.
I mean, I dread whatever violence is upcoming. But the reality is liberation has never happened with solely nonviolent means. Even King and Ghandi were buttressed by groups that used a variety of tactics, including violence, to force the state to come to the table with them.
This isn’t to advocate indiscriminate or senseless violence, but if your resistance group is nonviolent, and condemn any violence by other resistance groups, they have severely limited the range of tactics acceptable for use, and cede the power of justified violence to those in power only.
There’s a good book called “How Nonviolence Protects the State” that goes into depth on this, you should check it out.
Give up and let them kill us, got it.
Still not seeing an actual plan.
Hi, my name is ICE, off to a death camp for you, according to me and my paramilitary goon squad who broke into your house/apartment at 3 am.
Don’t bother arguing, that’s what the gag and spit hood are for.
Violence is already here.
Thoughts and prayers are not an effective defense.
I would suggest either hiding, very, very well, which is probably impossible for most social media addicts who’ve publicized half of their existence, and for morons who think that their VPN isn’t keeping logs that can all be subpoenaed by the government…
Or maybe some kind of actual local community organizing, involving you know, actually speaking with your neighbors in meatspace, getting to know them, forming at bare minimum a plan for how to deal with say, food shortage, brown out/black out, etc.
And what’s the plan?
Going to start shooting Federal officers in the street?
Here’s what happens; Federal government shuts down the power to the whole city. Mobilizes the National Guard. Brings in overseas ‘military contractors’ like after Katrina.
Meanwhile, the 0.001% is at its beach house on Bali.
That all happens if you do nothing as well.
Infact it literally already is happening, half of what you describe as a potential reaction.
I am not going to give you the plan on an unsecured, publically accessible communication platform, you are a moron for asking for that.
I, personally, am crippled, and plan to do nothing and remain as close to an unthreatening digital ghost as possible.
That might, might actually work for me, because I am white, and have never registered as any kind of party affiliated voter, have never given my biometric data to any company or device for any reason, haven’t been on an air flight in 20 years, don’t have any social presence beyond this here psuedonomyous account.
Maybe you could start your plan with learning some basic opsec.
I’m pretty sure we all agree that violence is a bad solution. The problem is we’re all out of good ones. What are the alternatives at this point?
Society upholding its part of the social bargain. Making these people feel afraid to express such opinions anymore. Without that long term, even physical violence will only buy temporary change. These people will always return if given the opportunity. And for generations Americans have been taught to tolerate intolerance.
I don’t see how we would make them afraid without any implied threat of violence though. Apart from that, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Through a threat of non-physical violence. Cutting them off from society. The reason we’re now debating about actual physical violence, about actually killing people. Is because society as a whole failed utterly to do that.
The last time this happened, the Civil War. Sherman was stopped much too early. As well as reconstruction. The fact that Confederate leadership was just allowed to surrender then allowed back into society with very little reprocussion. Not even to have all their property confiscated to repay for the damage they’d done. Let alone be exiled from the United States itself completely. That open sore was allowed to fester and become celebrated.
All of which served as an inspiration and a blueprint to the first wave of fascists in the early 20th century. It was all open and tolerated by society. That’s why it returned.
So what did Occupy Wall Street accomplish? What about the March for our Lives protests? What about the BLM riots? What did Bernie Sanders winning every single county in the 2016 WV Democrat Primary accomplish?
So, no actual plan?
Those examples were the plan. But peaceful revolution have been shown to be impossible.
Wishful thinking isn’t a plan.
Using a hashtag to end slavery isn’t much of one either.
Everything is Russia’s fault, got it.
Is killing people that are openly declaring that they want to kill you even “political violence”? I would say it is not, because at that point you are not going after them because of their affiliation with any political party, but because they are trying to kill you.
*This is a topical meme and does not represent the views of me or anyone I know.
So start it?
I mean it’s just a poll, but: what kind of violence? Hopefully organised? And what does “back on track” mean anyhow? The past years have shown us that the problem is systemic. Going back means the option for the next asshole to do the same is still there.
On track to what …for fuck sakes?
Healthcare, housing, hope
That is right. “Which track” is always the needed followup question.
Edit: Oh, actually great quote from article.
The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and independents – up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.
Half the country wants to take the express route to fascism. I don’t know if we can even fix things at this point.
Reclaiming what has been stolen from the working class since Reagan.
Right? Supply side christofascism? A final coup d’etat? Splitting the country? Even the democrats are more than a little sus with their corporate allegiance, so exactly who is going to be the preferable leadership?
Ohh no, the people have an increasingly hard time to buy the propaganda that keeps them docile and compliant?
Nobody, absolutely nobody could have seen that coming. The democracy looked so healthy just a year ago. /s
Removed by mod
Check the roster of board members before CEOs. CEOs are still working class people (often, anyway…)
The real monsters are nameless, faceless ghouls pulling strings out of sight. Besides the obvious puppet ghouls you see on the news every day, of course. But if you know who they are, that’s on purpose. History’s going to write a lot about the “useful idiot”, best exemplified by Trump.
Most CEOs are also board members themselves. But that’s a valid point. There’s not a single board member of a public corporation that isn’t absurdly wealthy.
Removed by mod
Celebs have that pesky parasocial relationship with their fans, attacks on them are interpreted as attacks on the in-group. Attacking then just inspires their fans to violent revenge.
By comparison almost no one gives a shit if a CEO is murdered.
Irrelevant when both are part of the same problem.
It’s relevant because people will take up arms for their celebrity crushes. They become martyrs.
No one cares when CEOs die.
Charlie Kirk was the cofounder and CEO of Turning Point.
Sam Altman, Elon Musk, the McMahons, Mark Zuckerberg…
Point, but he’s a celebrity first.
Elon Musk might be similar in that he also cultivates his own popularity, but most CEOs are either unknown or generally hated by everyone on all sides. No one knew who Brian Thompson was before he was killed and most people either didn’t care or were happy he died, and there were Republicans that were happy he died.
There’s a lesson to learn here.
…
both are part of the problem
As far as I can tell, healthcare is not “fixed” or even “back on track”. You’d be hard-pressed to find another industry as loathed as insurance for healthcare, too.
It still wouldn’t address the issues in the linked article, which is much more widespread and specifically includes those celebrity ceo’s.
