If the protests don't escalate naturally, he's either going to send people to escalate it, or just lie and say it escalated and do what he wants anyway.
You can't stop a fascist dictator with a peaceful protest.
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
64 points (92.1% liked)
50501
1576 readers
561 users here now
50 States, 50 Protests, 1 Movement. https://fiftyfifty.one | #fiftyfiftyone
This is a community related to the 50501 movement. Find the main communities at https://50501.chat.
Rules
- NO VIOLENCE: This is a non-violent political movement! We do not tolerate violence or calls to violence; if that's what you are interested in, you're in the wrong place. Any comments or posts discussing firearms, weapons, violence, or any form of incitement will result in an immediate and nonnegotiable ban.
- RESPECT: Be respectful. Trolling, strawmanning, abuse, etc. will not be tolerated.
- INCLUSION: This movement is for everyone. Exclusionary language will not be tolerated.
- DOXXING/HARASSMENT: Doxxing or harassment will not be tolerated. Instant ban for violations of this rule.
- NO SELF-PROMOTION
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
I'm sure some of the destruction is from stupid protestors that just get off on setting fires, but if it was plainclothes ICE agents (which basically means they took off their vest) starting shit we'd probably never know.
I've heard they're on camera vandalizing their own cars, so it's definitely happening.
You absolutely can and it’s been done before.
When?
Well it’s going to depend on your definition of fascism. If you’re going to go off of self proclaimed fascist governments there are no examples but that’s a tiny number to draw conclusions from and that definition wouldn’t include Trump anyway.
But in terms of overthrowing dictatorships, this has happened many times, and while fascists may be ideologically distinct from other authoritarian regimes, the way they rule and ways they can be defeated are fairly similar.
But for me I’d say Korea in the 80s was a good example of a fascist regime that was stopped nonviolently. Pinochet is another example.
Most examples of overthrown dictatorships seem to be after they were already in place for atleast a few years to sometimes dozens of years. This is not the current situation in the so called USA where we see an rising and escalating fascist regime trying to take hold.
In general I think choosing nonviolence because it worked in the past and it seems efficient is not the way to go. Instead look if its the best for you individually and collectivly in your specific circumstances and if its in line with your ethics/morals and with you current emotions and goals. Nothing is won by denying yourself and others the way you/they want and can resist your/their best way.
I agree with what you wrote. We cannot predict precisely from history which tactics will be most effective because each circumstance is unique.
But I just want to debunk this idea that nonviolent resistance can’t work against a violent enemy. It’s simply not true.
I am also wondering how peaceful movements that succeeded would have continued if they failed eirh their strategies. Would they have turned (imo rightfully) violent and would that have worked or not? Or the other way around for movement labelled as violent.
But I just want to debunk this idea that nonviolent resistance can’t work against a violent enemy. It’s simply not true.
I think thats a important point to bring up in discussions. I want people to be informed about as many options as possible in the hope of them being able to actively choose the ones best fitting for them.
There are certainly examples of movements that went from nonviolent to violent. The Syrian resistance is one such example. In contrast, Maoists in Nepal were able to achieve some political gains by ceasing their war and forming a conventional political party. So there are many possible tactics and I agree with you that they should all be considered and the most effective one chosen for the particular circumstances.
That said, I feel that this selection needs to be strategic and chosen through deliberation with different resistance factions. I don’t really feel there is an effective process for this right now, partly due to excessive animosity between various anti-fascist groups.
in the original suggestion they advised sitting but I read some persuasive comments that mentioned sitting down could be dangerous, instead I think leaving is the best approach.
I've heard from someone who testified to me that this is 100% effective after she saw it work multiple times. It instantly isolates the violent people in their own little targeting ring and makes it clear who's not involved (which is pretty much everyone). It worked safely in NYC in every instance she observed, and the NYPD is among the most trigger-happy of the US local agencies.
There is another benefit to this approach: Law enforcement can easily handle a 10,000 person riot, but will be overwhelmed by 10, 100-person protests. When the federal response arrives with sufficient force to drive everyone out, leave, but don't go home. Go to the next site on your list. Force them to redeploy.
God fucking damn it Americans. They're shooting and kidnapping you and you're still trying to "expose Trump's corruption and educate people and bring new people to the movement and maybe even help register people to vote". Your parades won't stop the Gestapo.
Yes of course these are all fine and well, but not when they're presented as mutually exclusive to effective resistance. Taking on a handicap in the hopes of earning sympathy points from people who haven't decided whether they're fascists or not (most of which are simply fascists in denial) is worse than shooting oneself in the foot; it's shooting your comrades in the foot and throwing the people between whom and concentration camps stands nothing but you to the wolves. Tyrants are always removed by force, whether that force is real or implied; no tyrant is removed by people insisting they're completely peaceful and will not escalate if their demands aren't met.
I agree but effective resistance still requires strategy. Breaking random shit isn’t effective resistance.
Direct action should be trageted at community defense, not random buildings or vehicles nearby.
That said, I’m unsure if ordinary people consuming biased media will understand this distinction, so there also needs to be loud messaging to counter the narrative that these are just directionless riots.
Im going full hippie. There will be dancing.
What's it going to take for you to actually fight back? I'm honestly asking.
What exactly do you have in mind? I have seen many people fighting back in a variety of ways so this comment seems quite strange.
Do you want us to 1v1 Trump in a cage match or something? That’s not how political struggles work.
I feel as you do. But i am going to one of their local protests. And wile i don’t think it will work, it’s their rodeo, and so i will abide by their rules and hope i am wrong. I am going to give it every chance to work, and prepare for the worst. We may be getting to the point of a necessary uprising, so far i see no avoiding it, but we are not there yet.
No one knows how to get out of this version of fascism, no one knows what will catch on and work if anything at all. So I don't condemn anything that people want to try. I think violence is hard to define and too many protesters try to self police each other. Also after going to protests for many years I think it's a mistake to mold your actions on media optics. The media will never fairly tell your story, if they tell it at all. It's better to try to actually make change on the ground (direct action) than to do symbolic acts hoping for media attention. Just my 2 cents. But again, even these symbolic acts are better than nothing, and I won't criticize anyone who is trying something.
I'll be prepared to be shot at and fuck them up.
America is done. Fucking pussies, "NoaW! Don't fight back! Just sing and dance and they'll be forced to stop hurting us!" Pansy ass little bitches. And that means you OP.