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”.
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
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.
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”.
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
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.
deleted by creator