There are many actions we need to do. Some of them are non violent. The main issue of concern, in my opinion, is getting all of the working class in solidarity. Without it, I doubt much can change.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
226 points (89.8% liked)
Political Memes
9722 readers
2672 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Some of them are non violent.
Yes, but not all. Liberals like to blanket condemn anyone more militant than them, which given that they also tend to be "goes to a parade every six weeks" levels of militant means they condemn anyone doing anything useful.
I think this is a strawman not connected with reality.
I myself promote non violent protests, since they allow everyone to show their dissatisfaction, that includes seniors, parents, disabled, veterans etc. who would normally not attend them if it was about burning shit up.
I don't criticize anyone who take action like the ICE protests, and I know those people put their neck on the line and I respect that.
Actually from videos that I see even those protests are peaceful and likely agitators are placed to stir shit up, sometimes they don't even bother with that and police just attacks them for no reason.
I think this is a strawman not connected with reality.
I wish, but I've repeatedly seen people on r/50501 say things like "but we can't give them an excuse to respond violently" get upvoted. It's a depressingly popular sentiment on what should be a somewhat radical space.
Because that doesn't contradict your previous statement, and also very true. If you, as you seem to be, promote violence as the first and only effective action, you will achieve nothing except you will get a lot of people killed. Violence should be measured, smart, not the first response.
If you permit me some bluntness, Americans, for all the talk they like to talk, are political virgins. They don't understand the reason for protesting, and what differentiates a walk in the part from a political action. They don't understand the nature of community and how it regards to politics. They don't understand how the politicians are made and how elections work, they don't have even semblance of a coherent idea of the better future. They only know guns, but like, in theory, they believe that if guns start shooting, something good will happen, despite constant evidence to the contrary, but there is no more thought behind that.
You're not ready for violence, you don't know how, when, and why to use it. Try to have a political movement that at least half of the country ever heard of, and which didn't succumb to the infighting in the first week, then you can start thinking about how to use it.
Right now you have nothing, and no amount of fantasising about urban war will change it.
is getting all of the working class in solidarity.
The right has successfully leveraged the desires of the left into tools to radicalize the right. Instead of butting heads with immovable dunces about people they simply don't care about, we have to make a larger and more concerted effort to leverage this back to a class war.
I say this and people immediately assume I'm saying "capitulate on rights for marginalized groups" because ya'll didn't learn how to read in school and it's keeping you from understanding nuance.
No, I mean that you can GET all of us protected and restore our freedoms and social respect if we make sure the dumbest segment of the country is focused first and foremost on the idea that their tax money isn't being used to help them. Simple Bernie-Book tactics that have proven successful because it's unifying. Every other social issues branches off from that, so lets cut to the heart of our shared problem.
What we have to learn to handle better is when agitators climb into the discussion and say "But the leeeeffft also wants your tax money going into sex changes for immigrants in prison and litter boxes in schools!" and we have to learn to stop getting outraged by those kinds of claims and just shrug. Say "So?" and move the fuck back to why eggs are $14 a carton. I believe our problem isn't that we're trying to get basic human rights broadly, but that too many progressives are actually uncomfortable with what that entails and the defensiveness makes it seem like a shameful thing to want. Bullies sense it, they capitalize on it, they want you riled up and hateful.
Project 2025 states pretty clearly that their strat is to provoke violence from the left and capitalize on it to turn public opinion. And nonviolent movements succeed more often. I want the bastards dead as much as the next guy, but it's probably not the winning move.
Nonviolence won't save the American liberals, the fascist right is violent right now and blame is still thrown on the liberals and the left.
Oh no, if we fight them, then they're gonna keep doing whatever they want, but even harder than when we were just letting them do whatever they want.
Let's be real, if fascists got shot the moment they tried pulling their bullshit there wouldn't be fascist movements.
Just sucks the ear shooter didn't put more time in at the range, we could have avoided all of this. -_-
There is an enormous amount of actions between getting into shootouts with police tanks and doing nothing. Maybe you should explore some
Oh, so you do understand after a certain point violence is inevitable.
Good
No, no it's not. In fact, more often than not everything is ended way before it starts. It might happen if you fail at everything else.
It's just you don't care about changing the material conditions of your fellow countrymen, but only about the violence
Why do liberals have to do everything for leftists? Oh, it’s because there are so few leftists that they can’t win elections.
If the ~~foreign actors~~ leftists on Lemmy want to get violent, no one is stopping them from following their own advice.
The actual answer is we are poor. Regardless of the whole "violence/nonviolence" nonsense, leftist people do not have a say because we do not have money. We do not have lobbyists. We barely have the ability to strike/protest without going homeless.
Not all leftists are poor.
Not all poor people are leftists.
and amazingly, I never said that all leftists are poor. I said we are poor, relative to lobbyist's and corporations. I wonder who here really is the foreign actor since we want to twist words like this 🤔
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yet it was somehow leftists fault Kamala lost. We're both so few that we can't win anything, but so numerous that without us Dems lose.
Too important to win without, too insignificant to listen to when wanting to win.
Blamed for losing, never thanked for winning. Punch left, cater to the racist right.
Both outcomes require leftists to not vote and that’s what they have a reputation for.
Not just a reputation - many many threads and comments crowing about how they weren’t going to vote, how they hope trump wins to teach the Dems a lesson.
So successful.
Links to them?
Search this comm from Aug-Oct of last year. Specifically anything about Harris
So no links, gotcha.
If you think what I'm saying isn't the case - you're dead wrong.
If you want me to put together a report for you - that is also wrong.
If you have a genuine actual interest and good faith - which you don't - it's right there.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying people who make claims are supposed to give evidence for them. If I make a claim about things, I am expected to give links.
And thank you for deciding what faith my arguging ahead of time is so you can dismiss my opinion without a second thought, sorry I wanted you to give links on the topic at hand. If I someone said .world said something stupid, you would want proof too. I expect to be upheld to such things too.
"Hey I have proof that the earth is flat."
"Links? Documents?"
"Search them, i'm not your mother or google."
Downvoting me isn't a source either. ❤️
Well, username checks out. Good on ya for that then.
Alright?
Voter suppression in left leaning areas is a largely right leaning agenda.
That voter suppression is used against all non GOP voters. But leftists still have so few voters that they have to team up with the DNC to even have a voice.
Everyone you disagree with is a foreign actor. Someone doesn't like cheese on their hamburger? They're Russian. Someone wants the toilet paper on the underside? Actually a Chinese propaganda shill.
The ones you agree with? 100% American, as natural born as Fox News and CNN.
Someone wants the toilet paper on the underside? Actually a Chinese propaganda shill.
Okay, but like, that one's real, okay? I don't want a person in my country if they're going to hang the toilet paper the wrong way. That's disgusting and dangerous, you know? Someone could get hurt.
Worse yet, they don't even try nonviolence, they are too polite to the fascists
Keep trying, Putin.
If you don't dance then you're no friend of mine.
I definitely dance for your cake day!
Let's liase with police and state government to organize a festive march with funny signs, then quietly disband in an hour or less. That'll show them. Plus the public transport system and the local retailers will enjoy the increased revenue!
Tell us who you've shot.
Fed.
Your guns are just bullshit healing crystals for insecure men. You can't demonstrate empirically that they work nor how they work, but we're supposed to believe that just owning them magically wards of fascism.
You're not even brave enough to name a person, let alone kill them. Fuck off and LARP somewhere else.
Fed
Whatever helps you self-soothe.
What is the meaning of liberals in US politics ? I thought it was mostly the Democrats but the anarchist title and the gulag_the_trots watermark make me think it's wider ? Or is this some tankie bullshit ?
Liberal can mean economic liberal, or social liberal. Social liberals are basically progressives. Economic liberals are basically anarcho-capitalists.
Combine both and you get a Neo-Liberal. I think that's what people mean, mealy mouthed supporters of establishment capitalism and good intentions that don't necessarily go anywhere and are far from changing society in a structural way.
They'll "vote their way to improvements" as long as the rich can stay rich and corporations can continue to exploit the poor!
"We just need to sit down and dialogue with the far right, I'm sure we have common ground."
Often they just create a Ratchet Effect that keeps problems going.
Okay thx a lot for this detailed answer! So bit wider than i thought but nothing to do with anars or trots.
I think in US usage it's synonymous with Democrat, but on Lemmy it's used as a slur for anyone to the right of Lenin.
So yeah, tankie bullshit.
thank you
-a leftist annoyed by the constant dividing dog whistles
Maybe if we just handed them a pepsi.
view more: next ›