I can't be the only one who is seeing this fucking pattern on damn loop every few years. First, leftists managed to clobber together a movement. Lets say Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter. Or we can go more recent and talk about 50501 or TeslaTakedown.
Look, I get it. Its a lot of work and coordination to build up these movements. But time-and-time again, the movement rises up. Then the right attacks it.
Then mysteriously a few very violent actors show up (maybe its far-left. Or maybe its right-wing false flaggers). I dunno, but the violence ALWAYS shows up. BLM had groups trying to take over parts of town. I know Trump agitated the protesters with unwarranted acts of force (see the Laffeyette clearout).
But it doesn't matter "how" the violence begins. The point is some level of damage starts to occur. Its inevitable and we need to not only accept it, but plan for it.
Now what? The violence gets amplified by right-wing media and then... the movement is defeated. I shit you not. Its the death of every leftist movement for the past 15 years. The movements become a symbol of violence in the mainstream's eyes and loses all power.
We're entering the same period right now with 50501 and TeslaTakedown. The violence has begun: lots of Tesla vehicles have been smashed and arsons have started to spread.
What we need is a spokesman, who can navigate and sell the situation to the public. Martin Luther King Jr. was the spokesman of the Civil Rights era, and his "branding" was the most important element of all. If you want a violent movement, that's fine. But create a spokesman. Malcom X, to counter-act and differentiate between philosophies.
Without spokesmen (like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X), we conflate the violence and the messages. And ultimately, that destroys our movements.
Please, for the love of whatever diety you worship. Get a fucking spokesman. Now. Sooner is better. Maybe its too late for TeslaTakedown and 50501, but we need movements that truly are rallied behind a singular face who can serve as the ideological leader to the general public.
A lot of it is fundamentally ideological. Anarchists are fundamentally opposed to any kind of organization, and even just the "moderates" are confusing the difference between "fascism" and "simple leadership" or "group cohesion".
You need group cohesion to build up a movement that continues long enough to affect politics. That requires a degree of group identity and group-selfishness (what's best for the group is not necessarily whats best for the movement). We need to get what's necessary without losing sight of the big picture.
Obviously Republicans / Trump go too far with this, where their lackies would rather brainwash themselves into thinking that what they're doing is the correct thing to do. But without trust in leadership or trust in the group, it becomes impossible to say simple things like "We were against the violence that happened at (such-and-such) protest". The barest minimum of discussion point needed to prevent us from being seen as extremists.