> But, the collective labor pushback has stopped since the great offshoring took over in the last 30 years thanks to globalization, and various labor unions lost their power
Not just that. A large portion of the loss of influence of unions was the riseup of the pacifist dogma. Just look how all the benefits were won: by (sometimes extremely) brutal violence, by the blood of the workers who died by the hands and guns of corporate goons [1].
A very good example is the social structure and workers rights of the two neighboring countries France and Germany. French workers are routinely willing and able to commit to violence both in the office (in the form of "bossnapping") and on the streets and the public supports that, and when German protests escalate into a couple of banks getting redecorated with paint, concerned citizens turn up to clean the fucking bank [2]!
As a result of that difference in attitude, German workers have it way worse than French workers - politicians in France know that the cost of going against the people is high. A society that doesn't fight for its rights eventually gets taken over by those that do. Democracy is not god-given, it is earned by blood and needs continuous maintenance, otherwise it erodes.
Re G20: The people making the mess were young activists, the article even mentions their group affiliation by name. They are not the working class, they are a nuisance to the working class. I'd be in favor of classifying them as terrorists.
>I'd be in favor of classifying them as terrorists
Same with Antifa. Some protestors are basically just mindless hooligans and their protests and property damage are harming the small business and working class people a lot more than the politicians and the ruling class.
Like during the protests in France I kept seeing many mid-range Renault/Peugeot/Citroens on fire on the streets of Paris. Chances are those were most likely the cars working class people used to get to work the next day and not the cars of fat-cats.
I agree with protesting violently against governments but what use is destroying working class property?
The problem is that violence gets attention and sometimes conciliatory action like nothing else.
Riots and terrorism generate world headlines, while peaceful picketing rarely gets anywhere near the attention (unless it's also met by violence, as the nonviolent demonstrations and sit-ins were during the Civil Rights struggles in the 60's).
I am a pacifist myself, and am completely against violence, but I can see why some people who have less of a problem with it might find it strategically advantageous.
The willingness to resort to violence is a great part of the reason that the world is as much a hellhole as it is now.
> The problem is that violence gets attention and sometimes conciliatory action like nothing else.
The thing is, the government itself is violent at its core:
- cops beating up peaceful protesters or executing people on the streets
- cops evicting people from their homes because they can't keep up with rent
- cops arresting women because of miscarriages (over 1.200 in 15 years per [1]!) and soon because they dared to abort an unwanted pregnancy
- social security systems, especially unemployment insurance, are purposefully laced with endless hoops to be jumped through, all in the name of denying as many people as possible access to these while still being able to claim that "we have a system for poor people"
"Peaceful resistance" against this level of violence is a pipe dream. The insistence on "peaceful" resistance, the complete lack of material consequences for offenders acting as part of the government is the reason why civil rights are under attack by the government as harsh as they are at the moment.
I'm not a friend of violence myself, but I absolutely refuse to look down on people for deciding to go the militant path in the face of the violence that governments are committing against the common citizen every day.
Something else to consider, for those that don't object to violence on moral or ethical grounds, is that violence is often counterproductive.
If used against powerful governments it usually results in violent crackdowns which wind up killing off and/or imprisoning the leaders of the anti-government movements.
When used against weak governments, the government may topple, but what arises in its place is often even worse than the toppled government, and that tends to be followed by much more bloodshed.
If used against the populace it tends to cause both vigilante violent reaction and a resentment of the populace against one's cause.
Violent action usually leads to violent reaction, and the moderates are killed off by those who are even less reluctant to use violence to achieve their aims.
Countries thus afflicted not infrequently are plunged in to the horrors of civil war, which suits the extremists of every stripe, while ordinary people who just want to live their life are devastated.
Non-violence however requires (!) a functioning democracy that listens to the citizens - one might argue that a democracy that listens to and serves the interests of all people is the only way for any progress that is achieved non-violently. For me, the rise in political violence in the US is not surprising at all given how more and more of the citizenship has been left behind and ignored by its representatives. And even the progress that happened in the US' recent history... a lot of it only happened after large scale riots (such as the Civil Rights Act 1968). Fittingly, it was MLK himself who said the famous quote "riots are the voice of the unheard".
Especially regarding revolutions against authoritarian regimes - I can't name even one major society that went through the change from an authoritarian government to a democracy without a war or revolution of some sort (even the British parliament's history has a couple of wars related to it). Usually, two or three revolutions, civil or external wars are part of any major democracy's history.
Burning down property of the working people is not gonna make you friends, you know. If you are being violent and made up some excuses for it, at least direct it towards your enemy.
> In Germany at least Antifa aren't terrorists. Actual hooligans are much more destructive by several magnitudes.
Not to mention much more murderous. Fascists have murdered over 200 people since the reunification [1], left-wing oriented people four in the same time [2]
Not just that. A large portion of the loss of influence of unions was the riseup of the pacifist dogma. Just look how all the benefits were won: by (sometimes extremely) brutal violence, by the blood of the workers who died by the hands and guns of corporate goons [1].
A very good example is the social structure and workers rights of the two neighboring countries France and Germany. French workers are routinely willing and able to commit to violence both in the office (in the form of "bossnapping") and on the streets and the public supports that, and when German protests escalate into a couple of banks getting redecorated with paint, concerned citizens turn up to clean the fucking bank [2]!
As a result of that difference in attitude, German workers have it way worse than French workers - politicians in France know that the cost of going against the people is high. A society that doesn't fight for its rights eventually gets taken over by those that do. Democracy is not god-given, it is earned by blood and needs continuous maintenance, otherwise it erodes.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/the-10-biggest-strikes-in-u-s-h...
[2] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/g20-in-hamburg-bu...