Orginized violence has always been the most effective protest tool against a state that enforces its laws through a monopoly on violence.

It’s people saying “we are done behaving for this sick society” in the most blunt way possible.

The idea that we even question if violence is acceptable is a result of fascist propaganda.

We would be burning down police stations by now if we were a country not as effectively scared and bullied into subservience.

you’re long past the “when they came for the…” phase. you figure out on your own if you’re gonna start shit.

I am honestly bewildered, how come nobody’s shooting at those bearded fat fucks? ain’t this the place with most guns per capita? “legal” and otherwise? and I don’t mean to enact change. or diminish their numbers. or accomplish some lofty goal.

just indiscriminate, random, asymmetric warfare that says: from now on, this is one of the options on the table. your stupid face in a tweetdunk isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you no more. from now on, when you put on your pretty man costume with the patches, you may be doing it for the last time.

fatass does this for a paycheck. guerilla does it for free, outta fervor and hate. wanna lay some odds?

I’m a history grad, I’ve been thinking about what will be the tipping point that will set everything off. Historically, it is often something innocuous and unpredictable that sets it off, making it nearly impossible to spot it in advance. You just have to be ready for that moment.

I have said that if ANYTHING happens to certain family members, then it’s on. Without them, at my age, in a post Democratic/ dictatorship America with HitlerPig in permanent power, I would have nothing to lose, and would become very dangerous indeed. If I’m going down, I’m going down swinging, and taking as many with me as possible.

I have reconciled myself with the idea that my life might have a twist ending that I didn’t grow up expecting.

When you can win.

This is the lesson taught in the art of war, and it’s results are scattered through history.

How do you know when you can win? When you understand the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy, the strengths and weaknesses of yourself, and can objectively see a safe path to victory.

You don’t fight the enemy on their terms, you choose the time and place of battle.

There must be discipline, order and numbers among your forces, OR you must see a clear path to rallying these in short order.

When even the dumbest possible centrist can’t possibly deny they started it.

So when it’s too late and the possible organizers of a functional resistance are dead.

Whenever it is warranted. Like when ICE are kidnapping people.

Despite decades of propaganda the state does not have a monopoly on violence. It’s using violence now. Shooting people. Shooting reporters. Beating and gassing people. Kidnapping people at churches and immigration courts and home-fucking-depot. These aren’t criminals. They aren’t drug dealers and killers. They’re people working and paying taxes. Following the letter of the law. Going to church. Going to their kids graduations.

Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality? To judge by thousands of years of history, the answer is yes.

“The Great Leveler” by Walter Scheidel

When enough Democrats become armed than they will backoff, right now they are only targeting blue areas because of the reason, that you can guarantee that a large amount of people aren’t armed

Here’s what I was taught: the line when aggressive action happens is once “class consciousness” is achieved. Basically, class consciousness is this theoretical moment where a critical mass is achieved where enough citizens realize the bonds that the current ruling class puts on them are harmful and are only effective because the ruled class accepts those bonds.

After that, the ruled decide collectively not to be complicit in their own enslavement anymore (usually via collective non-violent action) and this usually causes the ruling class to commit violence in retaliation against the ruled. This creates martyrs and sympathy towards the ruled class’ cause and then… revolution (usually via coup). Then the cycle starts again with a new ruling class (that temporarily has the favor of the people).

I actually thought this process was beginning in the US with the United Healthcare CEO slaying. If they hadn’t caught Luigi, I believe there would have eventually been other attacks on the Bourgeoisie.

So how does it de-escalate? Well, a ton can happen and humans are very odd. It could be the case that some folk hero from the ruled class gains enough popularity that they are able to enact some kind of reform to benefit the ruled class and lower the “temperature” of the conflict between the classes. I truly believe that people desperately don’t prefer to fight, so I think everyone will gladly welcome any sign of hope for peace.

If you want an oversimplified concept, it’s a fairly simple concept

Effectiveness probability vs risk probability vs success probability.

If you can succeed, will it do something useful, and what will it cost.

Understand though, we’re all armchair strategizing here. Anyone that’s going to actually do anything isn’t sitting around bullshitting on lemmy. So it’s really moot, a circle jerk. That being said, apply the metrics.

Example: shooting Trump. Low probability of success for the average citizen. High cost for everyone in the country. Won’t achieve much by itself. Violence is not a smart choice.

Another example: using decentralized attacks against ice agents, with the goal of both reducing their numbers and pulling their focus away from current targets. Good chances of success; they’re easy targets with an organized local team backed by larger numbers giving cover and distraction. Effectiveness is high if successful, any decrease in gICEtapo is a net positive. Risks are high; very high. Local teams are likely to take casualties, but of more import, it changes the fight irrevocably towards civil war. Ergo, it would need to be a last ditch option from the perspective of your typical democrat that wants to preserve the system but change implementation.

Everything comes at a price when you’re waging this kind of fight. Look at just the previous century, at the various revolutions before that. Any time the people are in a situation where their own nation is the enemy, blood is shed. And by enemy I mean actively acting with violence against the populace, or where the populace intends to take or retake governance of their own nation.

Before any individual or group decides that it’s time to accept that fact, they have to be prepared to pay the cost. That cost is not static. The cost in lives alone can shift over days, much less weeks or months. Up or down. Look at d-day at the big end of things. The decision to launch the attack had to weigh losses vs gains in lives, as well as gains in territory and gains in progress vs the enemy. If they launched in the wrong weather, the balance shifts. At the wrong time of day, balance shifts

But, most relevant to here and now is the opportunity to seriously dampen fascists before they consolidate power entirely. Could that be achieved in other ways at all? People like to argue over whether or not killing hitler before he came to power would have prevented the war entirely, whether it would have changed the timing and nature of the war. There’s no real answer to that. The only thing we can know for a fact is that the kind of people that engage in fascism do not stop on their own.

Ugly truth. A revolution here in the US would not be against the people in charge. It will be against police first, then national guard, then standing military. It will also be against anyone and everyone that supports the current regime and anyone scared of the chaos civil war brings.

Frankly, I don’t think the majority of just democrats have the will to do it. I think the left the actual left doesn’t have the will to do it. So it’s an uphill battle from the start.

High chances of accelerating towards civil war as soon as the first deaths start dropping cops. High chances that it will be the excuse fascists are looking for to initiate a planned coup that eliminates the facade of democracy they hide behind currently. Even higher chances that people not directly involved will pay part of the price, no matter what happens after it starts.

That’s a shit ton of risk, and a very high price to pay. So it would need to be a very good plan backed up with a support resistance network.

Nobody wants that first shot fired. Nobody wants the death and misery it will bring.

But will any lesser form of violence work? The fight is already asymmetric. The usual protest against armed cops methods are purely defensive so as to not escalate. How would you mount an offensive against a police force without bypassing their defenses? You can’t. Their defenses are good enough to handle the very less lethal tools they use. So even if you were on a level playing field with rubber bullets and tear gas and water cannons, they’ve spent your tax dollars on body armor, shields, armored vehicles, etc. So the playing field won’t be level at all, unless you use superior weaponry.

There’s nothing better than what you’d be facing that isn’t lethal because the places you can do enough damage to take a riot cop down and out of the fight is more likely to be lethal or permanently disabling. Head shots, using explosives, shooting under shields at legs. If you want to take them down in numbers, there is zero chance that deaths will not occur.

Maybe, maybe with enough numbers you could stampede and overwhelm, disarm and contain. But the closer you get, the more of your own get dropped, and the more the less lethal munitions creep into lethal territory.

So, would it be better to strike when they aren’t massed? Well, yeah. If they’re off duty, you could conceivably just kneecap a bunch of them into inactivity. But you still face the escalation. But you’ve at least cleared some of the numbers. So you get similar risks, with similar outcomes. But you also need to have more skilled attackers. You can face roll a line of shields. But if you’re tracking down and taking out individuals, you run into access issues. Getting to them where they are, in a coordinated way. That takes more training than I have for damn sure. And I’m a nutter that’s fairly well trained.

Plus, you gonna shoot the cop in front of their kid? Even non lethal, just injuring them with some close proximity beanbag rounds, can you pump a handful of those into someone’s chest while their mom watches? That reduces how many people will join in. It’s a much higher barrier of entry. And it takes more organization and planning, despite the seeming ease of getting the job done. I’m not capping anyone in front of their kid unless I have no other choice at all, or even just taking a bat to their knees (not that my crippled ass could pull it off to begin with, I’m talking about the barrier to entry here)

So, when is it time to do that? Now. But nobody is ready. The radical left that’s armed isn’t organized. The democrats that might be organized, aren’t organized with that in mind, so it doesn’t count.

But it’s not an impossible task. You get even a small core group in each city organizing decentralized attacks screened behind other events, you could do it. You could cripple police forces, seize their weaponry, and be ready for the inevitable. If you do it fast enough, you can maybe seize national guard depots after, if you know where they are and can get moving before they spool up.

That slows response times if there aren’t already standing military forces in place and ready. There’s plans in place for that kind of attack though. The guard is aware that have a chance of being targeted as a resource, so it isn’t exactly a cake walk. Their armories aren’t easy to get into, but you could deny access to them via destructive means. Unless you have people inside, which changes things a lot. Good luck finding anyone on the inside if you don’t already have contacts though.

So, that oversimplified equation of risk, effectiveness, success is only really useful for parsing the decision to take action.

Given your user handle, I’d say somewhere early in November

Violence is the answer to the question “What is power?”

Whenever you feel hopelessly disenfranchised. If you want to be truly effective. Say absolutely nothing. Do your research. Act alone. One committed person is far more powerful than any protest short of a coup. Don’t go after the dogs when the owner will just buy another. The real US senate convenes in secret and is called by the Koch bothers. The red and blue call-girl fundraiser whores in DC with their reality TV mascot are totally irrelevant in the big picture.

Is there any chance violence will be successful? Is it a higher chance than a general strike happening? Is it more likely to succeed than a general strike?

We need to know these answers first to be able to say if/when violence is the answer?

Everyone should watch this before answering. The whole series is very informative, but this video specifically is very relevant now.