PugJesus

It wasn’t the moral persuasion of Mandela that ended Apartheid though.

It was the moral persuasion of Mandela that ended apartheid in South Africa as we would recognize it. It's not a fringe opinion that without Mandela's leadership, South Africa had a very good chance of descending into civil war instead of a multiparty democracy.

It was a sustained isolation and economic boycott combined with mass action, that the state would consider violent, like breaking the barrier and occupy places, which led to massacres like the Bisho massacre that subsequentlty increased pressure for negotiations, because people were absolutely not going to stay put with being massacred.

... the Bisho massacre was performed by the security troops of a Black-dominated Bantustan attempting to resist reintegration into the central government (though at the demand of the ANC), not by the white-dominated central government.

While the massacre did increase pressure for negotiations, it did so because parties wished reduce the risk of violence escalating into a civil war, with Mandela greatly reducing the ANC's demands in the massacre's wake and restarting negotiations with the government, not because the massacre improved the position of the oppressed by stoking passions.

I feel like the story of the end of Apartheid South Africa is told in a very whitewashed version to undermine the importance of direct mass action, including responding to government violence by fighting back.

Responding to government violence by fighting back is important. But it is also important to recognize that Mandela's work in prison and after his release was largely oriented around moral persuasion as an alternative to violence - not because violence was completely off the table if things went sour, but because he did consider moral persuasion as having a greater capacity to achieve the goals of the ANC. And his work after his release from prison is one of the most stunning examples of what genuine appeals to the moral sense of a population - even one as steeped in racism as white Afrikaaners under the apartheid regime - are capable of doing.

Mandela wasn’t some mythical figure that came and solved things by the mgaic of his words. It was the blood, sweat and tears of millions of people in South Africa and beyond that brought an end to Apartheid and it was not in the terms of what the state defines as “peaceful”.

Downplaying Mandela's very significant contribution and leadership are not really a good alternative. Apartheid was going to end, sure - but there was no guarantee that South Africa wouldn't end with it.

Iran, is the heart of resistance against the Evil Empire

Jesus fucking Christ.

MLK, Mandela and Gandhi got results, not because they appealed to morals, but because they were alternatives to violent uprisings.

What alternative method did they present, again?

The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a violent coup and completely destroyed the lives of millions of people, it’s probably the most destructive event in the history of humanity apart from wars and the Holocaust

Jesus fucking Christ.

Yes, this is certainly true. Like I said, violence and persuasion are BOTH tools. Sometimes you need more of one, and sometimes you need more of the other.

Article in The Economist.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/11/28/american-veterans-now-receive-absurdly-generous-benefits

I am talking about the figures on the picture and not all of them at that.

The only point that doesn't apply to the figures on the picture is 3.

The most intelligent liberal, folks.

"Violence is a tool but so is moral persuasion, both have their place and both have their victories."

Wow, what a shitlib I am for thinking that moral persuasion has ever had a role in society. A shitlib just like MLK Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. Amazing how many shitlibs there are out here.

... I would go so far as to suggest that Mandela, Gandhi, and MLK Jr. were addressing significantly more hostile audiences than protesters in the modern West.

There is a book “how to blow up a pipeline” that talks about most of these figures and how they succeeded only because the existence of more radical and violent wings of their movements. It is a good read.

I can't address the book directly, since I haven't read it, but I'd point out that:

1. There is a vast fucking difference between asserting the flank effect exists and asserting that success is only possible because of the radical flank in all cases.

2. That asserting that no one has ever gotten their freedom via moral persuasion necessarily implies that moral persuasion has never been the prime mover of the grant of rights to oppressed and marginalized groups, which, itself, necessarily implies a level of violence, capacity for violence, and fear of violence that is often vastly disproportionate compared to what the historical evidence actually suggests.

3. That the reverse can be applied much easier and much more consistently in light of the evidence - that violent wings of a movement have never succeeded in the fundamental goal of eliminating oppression without moral persuasion towards oppressors; movements which rely only on violence can only succeed in establishing themselves as an oppressive regime and flipping which side is oppressed. And, for that matter, pointing out that the long history of violent movements by the oppressed do not have any track record of establishing alleviation of the oppressed in the greater polity without substantial moral persuasion; reducing a conflict to balance of power, as was often done historically before modern methods of communication and analysis resulted in more coordinated and universalist approaches towards liberation, simply results in the oppressors waiting for an opportunity to reduce the gains of the oppressed that were won by pure vigilance of arms.

I mean executing gay people is better than executing everyone, which is what Israel is doing and Iran is the only independent actor meaningfully acting to prevent.

Jesus Christ.

The cartoon is being sarcastic.

To the point of denying that Mandela, Gandhi, and MLK Jr. engaged in moral persuasion. It's utter insanity.