• NephewAlphaBravo [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.”

    ― Stokely Carmichael

  • ElGosso [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    In 1969, (Samuel L.) Jackson and several other students held members of the Morehouse College board of trustees (including Martin Luther King Sr.) hostage on the campus, demanding reform in the school’s curriculum and governance. The college eventually agreed to change its policy, but Jackson was charged with and eventually convicted of unlawful confinement, a second-degree felony.

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Social democracy is objectively the left wing of fascism” isn’t just something we say.

    A while ago she was calling for mulching homeless people, too. Glad to see she’s committing to the bit. gulag

    Always worth remembering - during civil rights people like Kasparian were screaming and frothing at the mouth demanding that civil rights marchers be gunned down.

  • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred, and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their deaths, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names, to a certain extent, for the ‘consolation’ of the oppressed classes, and with the object of duping the latter, while, at the same time, robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge, and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labour movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is, or seems, acceptable to the bourgeoisie.