Violently overthrowing governments leaves violent governments in charge.

reply to post by 547000


Sorry, distracted by the TV or however you phrased. Bread and Circuses and whatnot. My point still stands.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by beezzer

 

I agree with you there Breezzer. We have seen many revolutions over the decades of supposed free peoples removing governments over their corruption, only to be replaced with alternatively corrupted governments. An example of this would be the result of the Iranian revolution or the Iraqi revolution. A movement of the people does not necessarily equate ot a change in how government works. Good OP

I do believe that revolutions are necessary, but people are quick to assume that a revolution ends once the corrupted government has been removed, it doesn't. The revolution continues years after into how government performs.

Well said. Revolutions should continue. I'd like to think that we used to have one in America every 4 years.

In Europe we know very well what blood revolutions in the name of food and freedom are about. Through some beheading of kings and armed revolutions we had it all learned by the 19th Century. Now we live quite in peace.

dreply to post by beezzer


How Nonviolence Protects the State

War is the foundation of any State, beezer.

I dare you to find me the example of a non-violent government in History, that didn't used coercion or fear, especially in a militaristic way, to defend and/or enlarge its power.

Now if you're stuck with a government that not only is disregarding the liberties and rights of its people, but also systematically employs violence on dissenters to maintain its monopoly on society, how can you overthrow it, or even change it?

Is the problem really with using political violence, or rather with a small elite of manipulators, who, within every revolution of the past, has achieved total rule over the rest of the people?

Look at this very clear example of how non-violence is politically unefficient...

The democratically-elected government of Salvator Allende was a very popular administration in Chile, and it attempted to make many policy changes favoring workers, peasants by giving them more rights and powers over their land and their own labor, previously robbed away by foreign corporations (like ITT, US-based). That worked for about 3 years, until...

9-11 (of the year 1973)

The biggest flaw of Allende was that he was far from having enough control of the military. When the crooks who reign on the government lose the "soft" aspect of their power, they will see no problem using the "hardcore" aspect, which is State terrorism, mass murder and survivors sent to small prison cells forever (and of course without trials).

You tell me that violence is not an answer against violence, alright, you can keep believing that an probably that, depending on the situation, you are right.

But when the violent power of the Police and the military is not on your side, and that these goons are ordered to mutilate you, rape your girlfriend and burn your town with everyone inside their houses, I'd be glad if you can find me a non-violent solution to this! That kind of tragedy was common within the foreign policy of "democracy" in some Latin American and African countries, and is seemingly still ongoing in Afghanistan, as it was in Iraq.

reply to post by AboveTheTrees


Did beheading anyone ever put food on a table?
Rhetorical question.

reply to post by Echtelion


So you see violence as a never ending cycle? Violence begets violence that begets violence that. . . . ad nauseum.

Why can't we break the cycle? Why in the hell do we always have to resort to it? I ask this not just to your post but in general.

If violence is alway the answer, then why bother with the questions.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by beezzer
You want change. I want change. Everyone wants change.
When a group(s) violently overthrow a government, doesn't that just leave a violent government in charge? What peace does this new government bring, after dripping blood from it's own sword of "peace"?

I'm looking at many facets, many countries, many protests. I'm also trying to see past the "glorious revolution" and trying to look at the new country(s) that may emerge.

This is not a prophetic thread about Egypt, not a veiled one at America. But a general warning, a caution. To what may be coming. What might be expected.

Personally, I think the title says it all, but if you have any thoughts on the issue, would like to hear them.

Libertarians,Anarchist,communists believe in NON-VIOLENT protest.There are ways to get their attention without resorting to insane terrorist acts or violence. An empire build on fear is fundamentally unstable. Why resort to violence and fear when public collusion is vastly more effective.

Like not buying their products. Not using their institutions(schools,banks,and other stuff.). Only voting on issues that DIRECTLY benefit the public.Not corporate interests not multinationals. Voting out every congressman that isn't libertarian AND ban corporate lobbying and earmarks. Random audits...etc...

That's the real way to get their attention.

Not true.

During the uprisings in Spain, Italy, Germany in the '20s-'30s and in Latin America since the '50s communists and anarchists were the ones taking the molotovs to the streets and attacking the infrastructure, if not cops and reactionary groups... and it's still happening today in Greece, France, China, Thailand and these north-African countries.

Moreover insurrectional anarchists and communists have always been about breaking the monopoly of violence of the Police and fighting class war through means of sabotage, destruction of property of all kinds, "savage" takeovers or spaces and factories, street-fighting with molotovs and light weaponry (and sometimes it went to guns and heavy artillery). These non-violent anarchists and libertarians in North America and West Europe are leftist liberal fakeries who work against their own movement.

Tito's troops in Yugoslavia had to make a long, painful war in the streets in order to kick out the Nazi occupiers, without even foreign help, so did Castro's revolutionaries in Cuba with Bastista's brutal dictatorship and it's US-based mafias. Both were up against some of the most powerful military forces of their times, but they did succeeded!

But don't get me wrong... there were many people who opposed Nazi Germany in non-violent ways. They ended up in concentration camps, or on the death row.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Echtelion

 

So you see violence as a never ending cycle? Violence begets violence that begets violence that. . . . ad nauseum.

Why can't we break the cycle? Why in the hell do we always have to resort to it? I ask this not just to your post but in general.

If violence is always the answer, then why bother with the questions.

No. Only a necessary, vital part the culture of any sovereign people.

Why do all the more primitive societies have people walking around with weapons, like bows, knifes and lances? Not just because of their hunting habits... also for protecting their lives against potential invaders, or even perhaps traitors or dangerously insane people from within their clan. But that doesn't mean they slaughter people every night or whatever.

They only integrated that nasty part of life, and they go on with it when necessary, for the sake of their own lives, dignity, liberty, and the ones of their siblings, or neighbors.

I really don't think violence is always the answer... I might have given you this impression with my post, but I don't know how.

I do appreciate your sincerity.

I think the biggest evil in our society is the all-out condemnation of violence. Nothing's wrong with a bit of fist fighting once in a while.

reply to post by Echtelion


Thank you. I will admit that we are a violent species. History has proven that. But there is good in people. There are good people.
There has to be a line drawn. Maybe that's what I'm looking for in this thread. A line drawn in the sand that says no more. We are better than this.

Les Miserable, I have seen it three times on Broadway cried from beginning to end three times. For you brave warriors and warrioresses...

The Finale:

Do you hear the people sing
Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people
who are climbing to the light.

For the wretched of the earth
there is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end
and the sun will rise.

They will live again in freedom
in the garden of the Lord.
They will walk behind the ploughshare;
they will put away the sword.
The chain will be broken
and all men will have their reward.

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
when tomorrow comes!

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
when tomorrow comes...
Tomorrow comes!

reply to post by angelwrangler


Beautiful

Thank you.

reply to post by Echtelion


I think you make some good points. However, do not underestimate the power of non-violent resistance. The power has, and does, remain in the hands of the people, not the gov., simply for the fact that it is the 'people' who enrich and supply the power to these leaders by way of hard labor and consent. As soon as the 'people' refuse to provide this labor, wealth and consent, the leaders are rendered utterly powerless. Many times throughout history this has been shown to be true.

Take Gandhi and India's revolution for instance. They were controlled and oppressed by the strongest empire in the world at that time (Britain), but when the people refused to partake in, obey or support any action, law or business interest that Britain sought to implement inside of India, Britain had no choice but to give India its independence. That happened because they (Britain) no longer saw any financial opportunities that they could exploit, and thus had no interest, in India or its people. That opportunity is only giving by willful people. Take away the willfulness or complacency, and the oppressor falls.

Yes, a good old fist fight is better than an ongoing confrontational dispute, and even more so than a gun or knife fight. But better than all three of them is a method which creates no, or at least very little, conflict and destruction. That method is called reasoning and communicating.

Why are people more inclined to resort to violence to solve their problems? Because it is far more easier to settle a dispute by picking up a gun and shooting some one or running into a gun fight and getting shot, than to deeply contemplate, study and hypothesis on more alternative, peaceful solutions. That takes a level of patience, wisdom, compassion and intellect that most are not willing to put the time into mastering.

Uhm, Violence is a part of the natural order of life, and for eons humans have held violence as a normal part of their daily lives, but to say that all governments which are born out of violence, are violent governments, is just simple black/white circular reasoning.

The revolutionary war, that America was born from... was pretty violent.

In fact, rioting in the streets, is hardly a violent revolution when compared to things like, the french revolution, and american revolution,

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I think history would show that the American Revolution of 1776 to be the only example of violent revolutions succeeding in creating a better government.

What tends to happen is those that succeed in taking a government by violent revolution is that they become despots that refuse to succeed power even if their new government's constitution says they must. Washington was the only revolutionary leader to voluntarily hand over power to a new administration. Examples of where this has not happened abounds: Napoleon, Castro, Chavez, Amin, Stalin, etc. Instead of ceding power, they executed their rivals, even the ones that were "right-hand men" during the revolution.

edit on 31-1-2011 by indianajoe77 because: typo, word choice

What??

Creating a goverment which wiped out an entire native civillisation?

And dropped a Nuclear Bomb on a city full of innocent japanese civillians?

And started a War for Oil which has now caused numerous suicide bombers in our own countries?

Better Goverment really?

OP is right

Ohh and carried on the slave trade years after Britain had declared it Illegal

All governments are violent, by their very nature--a monopoly on the use of force. The only way to replace a violent government with a peaceful one is to replace it with nothing at all.

The OP is a damn fool in my opinion. Violent protests are really the only tool available, to the people who would seek Liberty and Freedom for all people. Non-violent protests, may or may not be shown on the state run media, but violent protests will definitely be shown on the state run media.

Sooner or later, we all have to make a stand, for what we believe to be right.

Live on your knees, or die or live fighting for what your hold dear.

Does anyone have principles today, that will not be compromised?

Are people today more worried about their lives, than the quality of their lives?

Are there any "real men" left in America today?

Stand up and Voice your opinions.

Don't be a coward!

Originally posted by beezzer
You want change. I want change. Everyone wants change.
When a group(s) violently overthrow a government, doesn't that just leave a violent government in charge? What peace does this new government bring, after dripping blood from it's own sword of "peace"?

I'm looking at many facets, many countries, many protests. I'm also trying to see past the "glorious revolution" and trying to look at the new country(s) that may emerge.

This is not a prophetic thread about Egypt, not a veiled one at America. But a general warning, a caution. To what may be coming. What might be expected.

Personally, I think the title says it all, but if you have any thoughts on the issue, would like to hear them.

No flag and no star. The Muslim brotherhood denounced violence over 30 years ago. STFU with your disinformation. Thanks.

Edit: Any violence that has happened has been due to the people who joined the riot's, most of which have no part with the Muslim brotherhood

reply to post by Haydn_17


You just blamed America for the 12 different nations in riot over in the middle east. This post of your's is pure racism.

The Rebels who took over the corrupt government of Myanmar, TODAY, turned over the government to the democratically elected government.

So your premise is indeed false.

But thanks for posting, and making us think about it.