I don’t disagree at all, I see that as an absolute last resort, but I also don’t think it’d be a good idea to wait until the very last moment to start preparing for the worse case scenario, which isn’t outside the realm of possibility.
If he wins, it’s possible things will only get sorta bad, but he actually does leave office in 4 years, and things go back to ‘normal’. But it’s just as possible things get even more polarized, he pulls some weird shit, and then we’re left holding the bag.
History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme, and right now things are rhyming pretty hard with the 1930’s, the world over (at least in regard to this wild shift in popularity of right-wing ideologs).
Is there a way we prevent it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy though? My concern is that armed groups are more likely to escalate things, foment conflict, scare moderates into supporting the fascists, and give them propaganda tools to justify crackdowns. The similarity to 1930’s Germany rings true but doesn’t imply any specific solution. See the Reichstag fire for resistance that played into fascist hands.
I’m open to this hedge your bets argument but for it to make sense the benefit needs to be bigger and more likely than the cost. I’m not sure I see that yet. And I have a natural skepticism of violence because many people get carried along with it even when in retrospect it was unhelpful or even harmful.
Since there’s not any centralized group, there can’t really be any uniformity in how people will react. But I think you may be over estimating how willing people from our political persuasion would be to initiate conflict just because they become familiar with the tools. There is very little glorification of violence in our spaces, and with how widely available combat footage of Ukraine is, with its sheer horror and brutality of large scale modern conflicts, I think we’re more aware than ever how terrible of a thing that path is. I suspect most, if they do act, will do so purely in self-defense.
As for the Reichstag fire playing into their hands, I’m not convinced that made any meaningful difference in the outcome. The Nazis were planning on violently taking power no matter what, and historians even debate if that wasn’t a false flag operation by them to justify their violence anyway, as they had proven they were willing to do with the Gleiwitz incident.
If their enemies didn’t justify their actions, they would create that justification.
Does that apply in all cases? Hard to say. The Argentine Dirty War resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, their right-ring spurred on by left-wing guerrillas. On analysis, the guerrillas never posed a substantive threat, but the right-wing, once in power, acted as though they did, and killed both leftists and moderates indiscriminately. Would they have been chill if the left-wing were pacifist? I’m doubtful, because at the end of the day, it usually comes back to class-warfare, and if the people in power ever feel threatened, they use violence to maintain it.
I’m open to this hedge your bets argument but for it to make sense the benefit needs to be bigger and more likely than the cost.
It’s impossible to predict what the future will necessitate. On an individual level, I think it makes sense for targeted groups to be able to defend themselves, like trans people and minorities, if only to defend themselves from the potential of right-wing hate crimes increasing, and there is historical precedent for that ability bringing positive outcomes..
On a larger scale, if we look at the Myanmar civil war happening right now, the government began to slaughter their civilians who were doing nothing but peaceful protests. Their only options, at least from what I’ve seen (I could be wrong, I’m not deeply proficient in the intricacies of that conflict), would be either to quietly accept the new dictatorship and hope for a better outcome, or to resist. Many chose to resist, and are in a very disadvantaged position due to lack of access to adequate tools.
As another example, Rojava is only able to exist thanks to having adequate means to defend themselves against those who would very much prefer them to be subjugated or killed. I suspect it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for Rojava to negotiate a peaceful coexistence with ISIS (religious/cultic extremism is unbelievably difficult to overcome), and negotiating with Turkey or the Syrian government would also likely be fruitless, as they will only really tolerate them as long as they can be subjugated, or lack real influence on their own destiny.
Ultimately, every person will have to make their own decision on what they want to be prepared for.
I don’t disagree at all, I see that as an absolute last resort, but I also don’t think it’d be a good idea to wait until the very last moment to start preparing for the worse case scenario, which isn’t outside the realm of possibility.
If he wins, it’s possible things will only get sorta bad, but he actually does leave office in 4 years, and things go back to ‘normal’. But it’s just as possible things get even more polarized, he pulls some weird shit, and then we’re left holding the bag.
History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme, and right now things are rhyming pretty hard with the 1930’s, the world over (at least in regard to this wild shift in popularity of right-wing ideologs).
Is there a way we prevent it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy though? My concern is that armed groups are more likely to escalate things, foment conflict, scare moderates into supporting the fascists, and give them propaganda tools to justify crackdowns. The similarity to 1930’s Germany rings true but doesn’t imply any specific solution. See the Reichstag fire for resistance that played into fascist hands.
I’m open to this hedge your bets argument but for it to make sense the benefit needs to be bigger and more likely than the cost. I’m not sure I see that yet. And I have a natural skepticism of violence because many people get carried along with it even when in retrospect it was unhelpful or even harmful.
Since there’s not any centralized group, there can’t really be any uniformity in how people will react. But I think you may be over estimating how willing people from our political persuasion would be to initiate conflict just because they become familiar with the tools. There is very little glorification of violence in our spaces, and with how widely available combat footage of Ukraine is, with its sheer horror and brutality of large scale modern conflicts, I think we’re more aware than ever how terrible of a thing that path is. I suspect most, if they do act, will do so purely in self-defense.
As for the Reichstag fire playing into their hands, I’m not convinced that made any meaningful difference in the outcome. The Nazis were planning on violently taking power no matter what, and historians even debate if that wasn’t a false flag operation by them to justify their violence anyway, as they had proven they were willing to do with the Gleiwitz incident.
If their enemies didn’t justify their actions, they would create that justification.
Does that apply in all cases? Hard to say. The Argentine Dirty War resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, their right-ring spurred on by left-wing guerrillas. On analysis, the guerrillas never posed a substantive threat, but the right-wing, once in power, acted as though they did, and killed both leftists and moderates indiscriminately. Would they have been chill if the left-wing were pacifist? I’m doubtful, because at the end of the day, it usually comes back to class-warfare, and if the people in power ever feel threatened, they use violence to maintain it.
It’s impossible to predict what the future will necessitate. On an individual level, I think it makes sense for targeted groups to be able to defend themselves, like trans people and minorities, if only to defend themselves from the potential of right-wing hate crimes increasing, and there is historical precedent for that ability bringing positive outcomes..
On a larger scale, if we look at the Myanmar civil war happening right now, the government began to slaughter their civilians who were doing nothing but peaceful protests. Their only options, at least from what I’ve seen (I could be wrong, I’m not deeply proficient in the intricacies of that conflict), would be either to quietly accept the new dictatorship and hope for a better outcome, or to resist. Many chose to resist, and are in a very disadvantaged position due to lack of access to adequate tools.
As another example, Rojava is only able to exist thanks to having adequate means to defend themselves against those who would very much prefer them to be subjugated or killed. I suspect it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for Rojava to negotiate a peaceful coexistence with ISIS (religious/cultic extremism is unbelievably difficult to overcome), and negotiating with Turkey or the Syrian government would also likely be fruitless, as they will only really tolerate them as long as they can be subjugated, or lack real influence on their own destiny.
Ultimately, every person will have to make their own decision on what they want to be prepared for.