Violence and Political Change

How come, for most people, THIS....



....is considered glorious, heroic, admirable, patriotic, and right, while THIS....




....is condsidered criminal, illicit, and morally wrong?


I want to open up a general discussion on violence and political change. The two pictures above are considered in a very different light by most people - why is that ? Are such distinctions valid? Is there any middle ground? Can we come up with a universal morality that allows us to distinguish the difference, if any? Or is it all "might makes right"? ("History is written by the winners" - Napoleon) In what cases, if any, is political violence justified? Is there ultimately a deep distinction between "terrorism" and "revolution," or is this a word game perpetrated by TBTB? Is violent rebellion in the "developed world" a thing of the distant past, relegated to dusty books and oil paintings of people with muskets? Or is it about to become more relevant than ever as the world enters a dark new phase?

This thread is intended to address the issue from any and all perspectives. I think it is an important discussion to have, as we lurch from crisis to crisis in a world gone mad. The questions above are only openers; this is a huge topic, and I welcome all opinions.

reply to post by Leftist


I personally wish that peaceful protesting worked... But it just doesn't. It has worked a couple times over the span of 50 years or so, but of the thousands of very good peaceful protests, such a small small percentage actually change things.

Unfortunately, I now believe that the only way our government is willing to do anything inspired by the people comes from mass boycotts and violent outbreaks...

I like this thread I can already tell, I will be back to this one after more responses.

Violence is not the answer. It is a question. In this case, the answer is yes, please.

Good luck with this thread. It is brave, but Most people are too worried about Big Brother watching them over their shoulders through their computers to give their honest answers. Which is a sad thing in itself, no?

I think the Napoleon quote you have above tells much of the story on the surface. But below this story there is another moral stratum. To me, it is a question of oppression. When Oppression reaches a certain level, violence is correct.

Are we at that level? No, not in the "devloped world" as you call it, for most people at least. By my estimate.

When I was younger I participated in violence / industrial sabot / and black bloc activity in Europe, as you the OP already know. I no longer do. For a big part, because I no longer belive it can be justified morally. Does this mean I think the future will never see a time when violence is justifed? No. In fact I think its probably coming, sooner than later. Are we there yet? No, not in my opinion.

Its all fun and games until its your skull that gets the brick. Just my opinion, sister.

reply to post by Leftist


Two things are certain:
1. The people in power will never admit to their mistakes, make up for them or change their ways.
2. The people in power will never give up or get out without a fight.

History shows us that violence is necessary for progress and political change.
Not a nice thing, but..
This is who we are, it is the way of our species.
It may not be perfect but it is inevitable.

The difference between say terrorist and revolutionary is a label, it goes for most other comparative labels you can think of.

reply to post by SilentThundersGF


Do you regret your past involvement?

I am just curious. Don't answer if you don't want to.

Originally posted by Leftist
reply to post by SilentThundersGF

 

Do you regret your past involvement?

I am just curious. Don't answer if you don't want to.

edit on 3/30/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)

Happy to answer but, what do you mean exactly?

Gave you S&F by the way, great thread and very well written.

reply to post by Leftist


YES! I regret.

Because:
-I went to prison
-I lost any chance for a normal life.
-I lost a chance for education and normal career paths

And most importantly maybe:

-Nothing I did changed anything! It was all stupid and meaningless, it was silly adolescence but the consequences are forever in my life.

Although I am not from the background of privilage (quite the opposite) I was not oppressed enough to justify what I did. There were other ways.

Why did I do it?:
-For the feeling of being part of something important, larger than me.
-For the feeling of family and comradeship
-For excitement
-Because I was a stupid teenager juvinile delinquent who couldn't sit still in the classroom like normal people.


That is all. BUT (this is very important) I do NOT regret the BELIEFS I had. AND, I honor SOME people who have raised their fists from more correct motives.

reply to post by Leftist


In what cases, if any, is political violence justified?


It's a matter of perspective, that's it...so any answer is subjective, not objective, and is too general to dissect.


But if that doesn't cut it, violence is only immoral when it's made systematic - so there...

reply to post by SilentThundersGF

-Nothing I did changed anything! It was all stupid and meaningless, it was silly adolescence but the consequences are forever in my life.

Probably not true,
I am of the opinion that revolution evolves just like we do.
It grows from small beginnings and spreads like a virus over a long period of time given a specific catalyst.

If it wasn't for the small bits of resistance here and there in the past, we might never get to the stage of a full revolution.

Probably seems strange I know but humans are not removed from typical evolution especially in a social sense.

reply to post by IgnorantSpecies


It is an interesting point.

Sometimes I think about the 1905 revolution in Russia versus the 1917 one. The former was a failure, small, largely condemned by the people as well as the royals and upper classe. The 1917 in contrast was the founding of a nation. There was no so much less oppression of the lowest in society between 1917 and 1905. But there was a difference. What was the difference? "The conditions were not correct in 1905" is the Marxist orthodoxoi answer. What were these "conditions?" World War I happened, and involved most normal people in Russia in some loss and suffering. War seems to be one reason for popular revolution. (I consider the American revolution to be aristocratic revolution more than popular revolution). Or situations like famine before the French revolution.

But the question remains: Would 1917 be possible without 1905? It is an interesting point. We should all think carefully about it.

Regardless of the answer I am sure we are closer to 1905 than 1917 in terms of "conditions." Although it might take less than 12 years to change this time.

I read a book on the French Revolution last year that really impressed me for a lot of reasons.

One of the things I came away with: The revolution got out of control. For everybody. It became progressively more radical. That is to say, first it started out as an attempt at reform, not revolution. Then it became more radical. Then even more radical groups got control, followed by even more radical, and on and on until the "Great Terror."

The point is: At each step, each new group that came into power thought it represented the final stage of the revolution. Only to be in turn accused of being "reactionary." Each new group thought, "The revolution needs to go this far, and no further." Only to be sent to the guillotine by a more radical group who wanted to take it even further.

As these things progress, they get out of control. They never end up as they begin.

Keep that in mind, those who would unleash violence: You can spin the wheel, but you don't control where it stops. Not even a little bit.

I didn't say it was, the TV said it,you're fine but it's not a successful work amid such apathy.I would hate for the system to have me in it for a failed protest,they're paranoid enough to really make that a problem.

Originally posted by SilentThundersGF
reply to post by IgnorantSpecies

 

It is an interesting point.

Sometimes I think about the 1905 revolution in Russia versus the 1917 one. The former was a failure, small, largely condemned by the people as well as the royals and upper classe. The 1917 in contrast was the founding of a nation. There was no so much less oppression of the lowest in society between 1917 and 1905. But there was a difference. What was the difference? "The conditions were not correct in 1905" is the Marxist orthodoxoi answer. What were these "conditions?" World War I happened, and involved most normal people in Russia in some loss and suffering. War seems to be one reason for popular revolution. (I consider the American revolution to be aristocratic revolution more than popular revolution). Or situations like famine before the French revolution.

But the question remains: Would 1917 be possible without 1905? It is an interesting point. We should all think carefully about it.

Regardless of the answer I am sure we are closer to 1905 than 1917 in terms of "conditions." Although it might take less than 12 years to change this time.

edit on 30-3-2012 by SilentThundersGF because: (no reason given)

Excellent example!
People do not like change, this is a fact.
So it must happen gradually, like the frog in the boiling water.

War does ignite revolution yes, it is upfront and shocking.
Our current system while just as dangerous, is hidden and subtle in its violence and oppression.

reply to post by IgnorantSpecies


Thank you, I agree.

The point is, people are too comfortable for now in the developed world, as a whole. This will change, I am sure.

So, the question becomes: What will be the nature of this change? What would make it happen?

I select as possible answers:

-Collapse of economy in a way TPTB cannot control (this is always a possibility - actually it could happen any time).
-War
-Natural disaster
-Disease, like an epidemic
-Something "freakish" (i.e., alien invasion, etc. if you are willing to consider it possible).
-Demographic shifts (too many old people, racial tensions, etc.)

For Europe and the USA, I think the last factor seems the most likely, We are seeing Baby boomers get old, and they are expecting momey that is not there for the pensions. At the same time, mass immigration could destabilize society unless it is managed well. So, this becomes the biggest issue IMHO, the possible catalyst for violence. It doesn't have to be so, but it seems TPTB are not managing the shift so well right now. Maybe they will improve, maybe not. We will see.

I will make a prediction: No mass violence in Europe/USA/Canada/NZ/Aus etc. until at least the year 2020.

reply to post by SilentThundersGF


I think we are alredy seeing violent change in Europe, but it is not being called that yet. The news presents the riots in places like Barcelona the other day as "civil unrest" but it if leads to actual regeme change or other notable long-term shifts, it will be considered differently by later historians, as a kind of revolution. So what we are seeing now COULD be the beginning of widespread violent change in Europe.

Another wildcard in Europe is the violent right...lunatics like Breivik...so far he is a kind of one-off example, but if racial tensions are not eased, they could become part of the mix.

In America the situation is different. America simply doesn't have the kinds of social traditions Europe does. For people to take up arms en masse would require much harsher situations than we are currently looking at. Americans are taught to view resistance as either pathological or criminal, whereas in Europe, struggle (whether violent or nonviolent) is more of an accepted part of the socio-hisorical fabric. Things would have to deteriorate much farther than in Europe. Then there is the question of whether, faced with such situations, Americans would join a single mass-movement, or fragment into lots of local struggles by different groups. I think given the strong anticollectivist, anti-ideological nature of Americans, the latter is more likely, at least at the start.