• Shinhoshi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

    In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

    Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

    Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

    That group was annihilated.

    — Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method

    • Black AOC
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Dr. King’s policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.”

      — Kwame Ture

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US supported its economic interests first, its ideals a distant second. If you couldn’t support the former you wouldn’t have a hope, and you didn’t understand the US.

      • Shinhoshi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        supported

        proceeds to check news to see if the U.S. has just been dissolved

        • MarxMadness
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, the crimes of the U.S. are always spoken of as history, despite no one ever being held accountable and the existence of a clear throughline from the people and institutions of decades ago to those of today (shit, sometimes it’s the exact same people!).