No. But I am arguing that peaceful protest by itself has never and will never accomplish anything meaningful against tyrants, while violent opposition has and can. And the violence, also, need not be explicit and realized - potential violence, as I have said, can suffice.
And that's all America is doing. Or will do. And that's why America is beyond fixing.
From what I recall, the most effective of Gandhi's tactics was getting Indian workers and farmers to go on massive strikes. They beat the system by shutting it down, since it was so dependent on them (at least, in that area). I don't think Americans have the balls to quit their jobs to make a point, though, especially since the price of comfort is oh so high these days.
IMO force is equally ineffective against a larger predominant force as they would've just been squashed just like how the OWS people are being squashed by local authorities. Instead, they gotta internalize the attack, realize the role they play in the system and sabotage it. But I doubt that would be very successful either considering how job-hungry Americans are right now. For every person that quits there will be 10 that apply for work.
Last edited by CypressDahlia; 10-23-2011 at 02:58 PM.
See that's the thing about protest movements; they only work if most people want them to succeed.
How many Americans care about Occupy Wall Street?
Originally Posted by Fenn
A lot of people care about the movement, and would like to leave their jobs to protest, but literally can't do so. And it's not that they don't want more rights, or want things to be fair: it's that realistically they have to put food on the table. They may want the movement to work, but can't be part of it.
I agree that a movement won't work if 10 people leave the job, but are easily replaced. That's obviously true. But I don't agree that those people taking the jobs don't want the movement to work. It's kinda like blaming the Black Migrants for taking jobs and busting up the Irish strike protests (in Chicago, back in the day.) Sure, as a result, the strikes were broken, and it was because the migrants took those jobs: but look at it from their point of view--they had hungry mouths to feed, too, and had little opportunity to make any money. Did they want more rights? Sure they did. But when you're pitted against survival and the alternative, you're going to pick survival more often than not.
I guess I'm just mincing words, trying to say there are lots of Americans who do care, but can't just uproot themselves and make their situation worse for a cause they have no guarantee will succeed. They support it, but they can't be a part of it.
I personally wish the movement would become more focused and precise in what they intend to achieve. They've set some ideas here and there and an overall ideal, but I feel to be successful they need to be more succinct in what they want, and how they think it should be executed. Just sitting around disrupting sidewalks and traffic isn't going to get results. And I heard they "didn't want to get political" (please correct me if I'm wrong, this was word of mouth from someone else) which is silly cause the whole thing is tied in politics and they actually have the Unions on their side. If anyone know more, please inform me. I'm a bit out of the loop, which is shameful.
Call me cynical, but pushing for a social welfare economy is useless. Ideally, redistributing income will lower the chances of effective investment in capital (stuff you use to make goods) so a capitalist system is innately geared to make the most profits. Yes, you'll have power-hungry money grubbers who hoard all the wealth. That sucks, but getting a clumsy bureaucratic system to siphon money out of all the top corporations will mean worse profits for everyone.
If given the choice, I'd be satisfied if (a) everyone in my college got $50 and a single person got, say, $500,000 instead of a situation where (b) everyone got $5. In other words: getting equal shares of money does not always mean you'll get more money.