The issue of revolution is the object of sloganeering by many groups that take up the oxygen but would betray real revolutionaries to the police. Activist protests are a vital aspect of attempted change, but it needs to be clear however depressing the realization that no amount of civil disobedience, peaceful protest, or nonviolent marching in the streets is going to produce any response or change. The capitalists and their politician lackeys will be stopped only by a more truly revolutionary approach and that will in principle be open to violent tactics. The damage done by Gandhi is great here, a holy windbag and fake yogi who misunderstood the Gita, the sources of nonviolence and who was disregarded in any case by both the British and the Indians, including Nehru, nonetheless obstructing and delaying independence, which was in any case an issue of politics and imperialist decline. The problem moves to include MLK but that case is unique and a question of the time and place of endemic racism. Fighting Jim Crow with nonviolent tactics was a brilliant strategy but such tactics won’t stop the capitalist destruction of a planet. It cannot be a general strategy of change. The capitalist know the damage they are doing and simply don’t care if they can make profits until they have to evacuate to their bunkers in New Zealand.
We have lost a whole generation to confused so-called leftists who have protested with placards ad infinitum as photo ops for stories in Commondreams and Alternet with absolutely no result.
There is still a chance of stopping the situation, although so much time has been lost that it may be too late.
But better late than never and a form of revolutionary action in the real sense should be considered. If that is too much for your Gandhian piety, stay home.
That said, the Leviathan of state control is so vast and insidious that it is small wonder activists stick to nonviolence. But those who resist can bring about a real transformation. Look at the Afghans: they stopped the American army in its tracks and the Americans simply gave up. A unique situation and people to be sure (there are a number of useful films about the war there, viz. The Hornet’s Nest, and others.
And again, consider the Irish case: for centuries the Irish suffered under the British but then in a space of four years armed with little but pistols and bicycles brought down the British Empire’s reign (but with a controversial compromise: consider the film Michael Collins). I could not endorse or recommend its tactics but the point is that revolutions require armies of rebels and no doubt guerillas. It is not true that the US is too powerful. It has lost every war it fought since WWII even with prodigious armament and lavish food flown in by airplane.
In the end the most violent are the Gandhians. The situation is going to have a very ugly endgame.
Source: The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures…//ver 4_5_22 – 1848+: The End(s) of History Let us note: cf. the next to previous post, the way in which the term ‘revolution’ is sta…
Source: Your money where your mouth is Sanders…Our revolution? revolution means taking over the government, expropriating capital, and creating a new constitution (for ecosocialism)… – 1848+: The End(s) of History