• vin@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Where do you get that from? All the violent resistance like Subhash Chandra Bose and revolutionary movement were not big enough to be a major concern. Civil disobedience was more concerning given how widespread it was.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Civil Disobedience was the peaceful alternative; it is a show of force that only works if it carries the implication of a more violent alternative. Nobody ever won their freedom by appealing to the morality of the oppressor.

      • vin@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Nope, nope, nope. It is not a show of force, it’s making the society ungovernable, like not paying taxes, growing/making/selling anything to anyone etc. There was no implication of anything more violent. It is not appealing to the morality of the oppressor.

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          If that was true, the British would have had their puppets shoot and starve them until they were governable.

          • vin@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            And they tried. Look at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the salt raids, the mass imprisonments. But the point wasn’t to wait for mercy, it was to make the cost of control so high, through sheer non-cooperation, that ruling became practically impossible. The system depends on participation. Remove that, and power collapses under its own weight. It’s not about violence, nor about moral appeals. It’s about leverage. When millions stop obeying, even bullets can’t fix the math.