this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
880 points (96.4% liked)
memes
15293 readers
4591 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
I get what you're going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I'll drop a nuclear bomb, and let's see which was more destructive.
It's a direct quote from Gandhi.
And Ghandi was a fucking idiot.
Well that sure is an opinion I haven't heard before
-Mahatma Ghandi, 1946
Ghandi's militant non-violence was blind to how actual historical justice movements succeed. It turns out that you actually need both violent and nonviolent resistance for any resistance to succeed. Sure, there was the Ghandi wing throwing the British out of India, but there was also a radical militant Hindu movement trying to throw the British out at gunpoint. The existence of this radical and violent side of the movement gave space for a nonviolent 'moderate' like Ghandi to come in and play the role of peacemaker. Without the violent resistance, the nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists, and the state can come in and arrest/kill them all. It's only the existence of an actual violent wing that prevents the peaceful moderates from being labeled as violent extremists.
Or look at MLK. He was peaceful and nonviolent, and they still called him a terrorist. But his message resonated with middle America as it contrasted to the explicitly violent movements like the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc. And the powers that be still killed him for it, regardless of his nonviolence.
Sorry, I just take a really dim view to the nonviolence of Ghandi.
You have the causality backwards.
You're right that successful movements often have both violent and nonviolent wings - but the nonviolent components don't succeed because of the violent ones. They succeed despite them. The research is pretty clear on this: nonviolent campaigns are actually more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones, and they're more likely to lead to stable democratic outcomes.
Your claim that "without violent resistance, nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists" is historically backwards. Nonviolent movements get labeled as extremist precisely when they're associated with violence, not when they're separate from it. The Civil Rights Movement's greatest victories came when they maintained strict nonviolent discipline - Birmingham, Selma, the March on Washington. Every time violence entered the picture, it gave opponents ammunition to dismiss the entire movement.
And about Gandhi needing violent militants to succeed - this ignores how the independence movement actually worked. The violent revolutionary groups you're thinking of (like the Hindustan Republican Association) were largely marginalized by the time of Gandhi's major campaigns. His mass mobilization strategies worked because they were genuinely nonviolent and drew broad participation precisely because people knew they wouldn't be asked to commit violence.
The "good cop/bad cop" theory sounds intuitive but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. What actually makes nonviolent resistance effective is mass participation, strategic planning, and moral leverage - not the threat of violence lurking in the background.
Gandhi was a very flawed man.