• merc@sh.itjust.works
    9·
    4 hours ago

    It’s not necessarily your opponent who has to have a conscience. Sometimes it can be people they depend on.

    Like, with Gandhi, the British Empire didn’t really have a conscience. But, there were reporters present, and they reported on what happened. The story got out to regular people in Britain, to regular people in India, and to people worldwide. The British empire knew that if they let Gandhi die, India would erupt, other countries would boycott them, etc.

  • squirrelEnglish
    63·
    17 hours ago

    Yes, unconscionable opponents will always resort to violence, but people seriously underestimate the power of strikes. If an entire society comes to a halt because people refuse to keep it going, the power of authoritarians dwindles away. No dictatorship can control a complicated, modern society of millions of people through violence alone. That’s why they have always been worried by an organized workers’ movement and unions.

    • Ginny [they/she]
      2·
      3 hours ago

      Ah, but you underestimate the power of having union ringleaders tortured to death.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      11·
      9 hours ago

      You’re assuming wide popular opposition. Kwame Ture was advocating for minority rights in an era where popular movements were often lynch mobs.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      16·
      15 hours ago

      Thank you!

      This is a good quote, but I think the person in the picture (who?) was refering to a specific type of non-violent protest/opposition.

      Also, it’s all in the numbers. You can carry away 100 protesters, but can you carry away 10 000?

      So yeah, the sane people of the US cannot “appeal” to something that isn’t there - they need to do the math, find the point of leverage, and apply pressure.

  • takeda@lemm.ee
    23·
    18 hours ago

    That’s a valid point, but people demonstrating still helps. Looks like it motivate some politicians to also act, and motivates more people.