• DoYouNot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I mean sure, if we include violent reactions to non-violence and place the goalposts just so, then yes, absolutely everything includes violence…

    But as far as “any big moves or changes” you mention, Gandhi’s movement for non-violent resistance is the posterchild for doing exactly that without violence. It exposes violent state power as ultimately impotent when faced with massive, collective and coordinated non-violent resistance.

    And Gandhi was not “nice” just because he advocated for non-violence… He and his followers used coordinated, active efforts to cripple the mechanisms upholding British rule. The British hated him for it.

    I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      I feel like you didn’t listen to anything I said. Let me summarize it for you. Ghandi was one piece of the puzzle to making the brits leave. The other piece was violence, and without the violence part, it wasn’t going to work.