• noodles@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

    • mozingo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • monogram@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Every single attempt at that form of protest has been met with ridicule and harsh condemnation. Think just stop oil, XR. They literally tried to stop people from buying petrol or using it. Could you imagine what the economic impact would be if half a city stopped buying fuel.