The only reason ghandi's movement is given the credit it has is the same reason why Martin Luther King is given most of the credit for the civil rights movement and the Black Panthers are not: It's revisionist history by the elites who were in control to make the whole movement look better.

i don't know shit about the Indian independence movement but as far as the civil rights movement MLK was by far the most effective and definitely deserves the credit he gets.

This isn't true whatsoever and it's pretty laughable.

Ghandi's movement was a faction in india, there was violent insurrection all over the country especially during the world wars. The only reason ghandi's movement is given the credit it has is the same reason why Martin Luther King is given most of the credit for the civil rights movement and the Black Panthers are not: It's revisionist history by the elites who were in control to make the whole movement look better.

jesus christ

jesus christ

Yeah go ahead and not post anything relevant.

The fact of the matter is the black panthers and other antagonist black groups put more fear into the people in power than nonviolent protesters.

so truth what were you up to in the civil rights movement?

uh hello i was a twinkle in your eye 

man you're very wrong. just like people who know about the civil rights movement here know about Malcolm X and King, people in India know Gandhi and Subash Chandra Bose. Bose was a nazi btw, and is a national hero.

man you're very wrong. just like people who know about the civil rights movement here know about Malcolm X and King, people in India know Gandhi and Subash Chandra Bose. Bose was a nazi btw, and is a national hero.

That's my whole point, the narrative is pushed by the wealthy and the ones in power, it is in their best interest to push nonviolent resistance like Ghandi and King. Also it's kind of laughable to call Malcolm and Bose nonviolent resistance, especially Bose who led a military coup!

What do you think was more influential in getting the civil rights act passed, the montgomery bus boycotts or the montgomery riots?

also bose wasn't a nazi, bose supported all of the governments that were fighting great britain.

The Japanese were allied with the axis in world war two (and Bose) does that make them nazis?

Bose was opportunistic and saw a country who was fighting his enemy the english empire. Calling Bose a nazi is unfair and also a tactic used to demonize him and his method of resistance.

What do you think was more influential in getting the civil rights act passed, the montgomery bus boycotts or the montgomery riots?

they're not really comparable. the montgomery bus boycotts happened way before the riots and were a catalyst for the race riots during the 60s.

In accompanying notes, the blogger said: "The police are using neo-fascists and policemen in plain clothes, with rocks and sticks, pretending to be demonstrators who are targeting either the demonstrators or vandalizing small shops and houses, trying to divert the climate and scare off the everyday citizens.

Neo-Nazi candy hunt!

Also this sounds a lot like what the southeastern United States would be like if americans had BALLS.

i am the ghost of mikhail bakunin

Canada, and now Ireland are the only two I can name off the top of my head that was a nonviolent transfer of power. The U.S. pretty much took up arms and went to war with Britain, they also were extremely violent to the Loyalists (tar and feathers). So they wouldn't qualify as a good example.

Ireland might not be a good example either because Ireland was in a civil war which split it (loyalties to Britain is what the war was about), with now Ireland and Scotland as the result.

Unless your talking about elections...

Ireland is the worst fucking example as the troubles were the main reason for any freedoms being passed (small at a time, and only expanded due to even worse violence).

Canada i'm not aware of but the british empire was declining/there's the exception that proves every rule.

At any rate, I don't see how the more violent you are the more 'right' your cause is.

Yeah, violence is effective. French revolution. But it's definitely not the best way to enact change. There's a lot of room for corruption in whatever regimes emerge, so you never really meet the ideals you fought for. Thousands of people die, and it doesn't seem worth it. I know you see our current governments as elitist. And they are, to some extent. But peaceful concessions still have to be made with the middle and lower classes.

In this case, I really don't know. This is from the LOLAMERIKA viewpoint, and I really don't know what's up with Greece -- if people are actually being oppressed. But from my viewpoint, it seems pretty extreme.

Anyway, in answer to your question, I think democracies today are testament to a nonviolent transfer of power. I think more people died on Black Friday than in Barack Obama's election process. And, for semantics' sake, historically there was the Glorious Revolution (which threatened violence and probably doesn't count).

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but ok. You say that violence isn't the best way to enact change, then what is the best way? You really don't think that Barack Obama is anything more than incremental change do you? I'll admit I was very excited by his candidacy and was willing to overlook his foreign policy and the fact that he's a capitalist because at the time he was promising labor reform, and (at least the most other than RON PAUL...................) end to imperialism. However I was just as naieve as you are now. Obama has put centrists and zionists in places of great power in his cabinet. He wants to ramp up aggression in Afghanistan, is planning on ignoring the employee free choice act, and his vice president was a member of project for a new american century.

Marx said that between real contraries (capital and labor) there can be no common ground, no compromise (paraphrasing). The idea that you can just live and let live with the people who own the capital and whose whole means of living is exploiting those less fortunate is ridiculous. The wealthy will never give up their unequitable relationship with the working poor without a fight. Arguing that making small gains is the way to go are just completely ignoring reality. For every moment you have incremental victories a child goes hungry, a woman is discriminated at work, and the prole has even more of his earned capital, the value he produces from his work extracted from him. He is now poorer from having what is his by right of his labor taken from him. Every day this is allowed to go on is a failure on the part of every one of us. To say that it's okay because WE'RE PULLING OUT OF IRAQ IN 18 MONTHS is probably one of the dumbest arguments i've ever heard. Let's not forget that marx also was a believer in the heglian thought that progress in history is only made through conflict. I've been arguing this entire thread that true change never happens unless it is through violent conflict, other than off base examples like Canada (which I'm sure isn't even completely true), nobody has made a coherant argument that nonviolent resistance solves anything. For every Martin Luther King you have the black panthers and nation of islam, for every ghandi you have a bose.

Truth... while you wrote that a child died of AIDS. Think about it.

--

By the way, true anarchy does exist. There is a tribe called Arawete (they do not call themselves that by the way) and they just do whatever they want. Like, if someone says "Lets go to the mall" (it's an example, they do not have malls) than either everyone goes to the mall or nobody does anything.

And they think it brings bad luck to say their own names, so if you ask someone "What is your name?" someone else will answer for him/her. They're quite interesting.