5 ms·

The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.

by alexbeloi 10y ago

andy_ppp 10y ago
If you can suggest one?
- coldtea 10y ago
  History is filled with suggestions.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  Look at the peaceful transition in South Africa. Do you think that would have happened if the old government thought they could keep hanging on?
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    The campaign of the ANC* was peaceful? *edit: I don't know what I thought ANG was...
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      No, but the transition was peaceful. FW de Klerk freely gave the power across instead of being murdered in his bed or trying to set fire to "the homelands". Since then, despite the high crime rate, there hasn't been any ethnic cleansing or large scale retribution. Beyond generic Africa-standard corruption, the country has mostly taken the high road.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    People have a funny way to look at how violent a transition and especially leaders are or aren't depending on whether they agree with the outcome. The ANC ... well ... in the words of the Apartheid museum [1] (ie. The South African government's own words): "Demonstrations against the killings followed in many parts of the country and led to the banning of the main African opposition organisations, the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Both went underground, and formed armed wings, Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANC) and Poqo (PAC)." Yes, Nelson Mandela ... founded a revolutionary army. Yes, I agree with the outcome too, and the process was almost bafflingly well executed. Bombings, placing landmines on public roads, kidnapping and torture were some of the tactics used. Again, bonus points for the outcome, and for successfully keeping control of this army after it was no longer needed, but peaceful ? Please. Also, I would further argue that South Africa did not exactly become a haven of peaceful coexistence under Nelson Mandela. India, and Gandhi is another example of this. So is Che Guevara. Looking how peaceful what happened with them at the helm of organisations is, you really, really, really wonder why these people are considered nonviolent. Yes, Gandhi thought (and taught) that violence was beneath him, but he certainly had the option to act and prevent the people he led from using violence. What happened ... he sent out his forces and the opposing side sent out it's forces, and at least 10 million died. Granted, not during the revolution he was famous for, but he was in command during the partition wars. Doing India's independence he was not peaceful either. He commanded forces that, time and time again, attacked others. And Che Guevara. He was not a violent man, you see, he simply saw the bourgeoisie as constantly committing violence upon everyone and he was just using the minimum amount of force to prevent them from continuing that. That minimum amount of force, of course, included things like shooting any medical doctors on sight, several massacres, and having his followers do worse than even that. Plenty more along these lines, Kemal Ataturk, the French revolutionaries, the Communists (granted, not so much in the USA, but even in the USA the "real socialists" are peaceful), muhammad, the muslim prophet, ... But men of peace ! Men of the people ! In reality, living with some of these men was like living as a Jew under Hitler. Ironically, Adolf Hitler is also a Nobel Peace prize laureate. [1] https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence
    - padmabushan 10y ago
      "Gandhi sent out his forces" LOLL!! He wasnt in command either! I need what you are smoking!
    - 24gttghh 10y ago
      Seriously? Comparing Che to Ghandi? What a farce.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      I said a peaceful transition, not a peaceful protest. A non-peaceful transition of power is what happened in Zimbabwe, or Mozambique, or DRC or so many other African countries when the colonial forces let go of the reigns.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Irish War of Independence? Hungarian Revolution of 1848? A little harder if you don't count independence efforts of distinct groups of people. Solidarność? Storming of the Bastille? Hungarian Revolution of 1956? It's fairly pointless to list examples, as they are everywhere. Sometimes the goal is achieved more easily, sometimes it takes decades. But it can work.
simonh 10y ago
You mean, like an election?
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 10y ago
  Lol that an election in the UK will change the direction of the country in terms of civil liberties. No one with a remote chance of winning will do that. (and the upcoming election send like it will just give Theresa May a free hand to do what she wants)
  - simonh 10y ago
    Perhaps that's because most of the electorate think recent governments have struck a good balance between civil liberties and security. I happen to believe that trade off has gone a bit far and I'm worried that significant further erosion of civil liberties would start causing some serious issues, but lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public. Whining about living in a police state isn't going to be very productive, or lend that struggle much credibility.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Perhaps that's because most of the electorate think recent governments have struck a good balance between civil liberties and security. The results of surveys on this issue are interesting. A clear majority of people in the UK do typically back some of the stronger surveillance and security measures, when (as is almost always the case) they are presented as giving the police and security services greater powers to prevent serious crime and terrorism. I mean, who doesn't want to prevent serious crime and terrorism? On the other hand, when presented with more complete information about the actual laws that have been passed, such as the much wider range of government departments who have been given such powers, or when questioned in a way that demonstrates they themselves are subject to the same intrusions, many more people express concern and a lot object strongly. Surveys also show pretty consistently that the vast majority of people don't know even roughly what the actual situation is, and assume it is more the former than the latter. For example, many people didn't even know about the increased surveillance powers granted a few months ago. Popular support is based on trust in our government and public services, rather than knowing the facts. lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public Unfortunately, the political party with the most credible basis for arguing in favour of stronger civil liberties seems to have decided they want this election to be about exactly one issue, Brexit. Whether or not that strategy works out for them over the next couple of months, it makes it highly unlikely that other important issues like this will even make it into the public debate at all.

The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.

andy_ppp 10y ago

If you can suggest one?

coldtea 10y ago
History is filled with suggestions.
snovv_crash 10y ago
Look at the peaceful transition in South Africa. Do you think that would have happened if the old government thought they could keep hanging on?
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  The campaign of the ANC* was peaceful? *edit: I don't know what I thought ANG was...
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    No, but the transition was peaceful. FW de Klerk freely gave the power across instead of being murdered in his bed or trying to set fire to "the homelands". Since then, despite the high crime rate, there hasn't been any ethnic cleansing or large scale retribution. Beyond generic Africa-standard corruption, the country has mostly taken the high road.
- candiodari 10y ago
  People have a funny way to look at how violent a transition and especially leaders are or aren't depending on whether they agree with the outcome. The ANC ... well ... in the words of the Apartheid museum [1] (ie. The South African government's own words): "Demonstrations against the killings followed in many parts of the country and led to the banning of the main African opposition organisations, the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Both went underground, and formed armed wings, Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANC) and Poqo (PAC)." Yes, Nelson Mandela ... founded a revolutionary army. Yes, I agree with the outcome too, and the process was almost bafflingly well executed. Bombings, placing landmines on public roads, kidnapping and torture were some of the tactics used. Again, bonus points for the outcome, and for successfully keeping control of this army after it was no longer needed, but peaceful ? Please. Also, I would further argue that South Africa did not exactly become a haven of peaceful coexistence under Nelson Mandela. India, and Gandhi is another example of this. So is Che Guevara. Looking how peaceful what happened with them at the helm of organisations is, you really, really, really wonder why these people are considered nonviolent. Yes, Gandhi thought (and taught) that violence was beneath him, but he certainly had the option to act and prevent the people he led from using violence. What happened ... he sent out his forces and the opposing side sent out it's forces, and at least 10 million died. Granted, not during the revolution he was famous for, but he was in command during the partition wars. Doing India's independence he was not peaceful either. He commanded forces that, time and time again, attacked others. And Che Guevara. He was not a violent man, you see, he simply saw the bourgeoisie as constantly committing violence upon everyone and he was just using the minimum amount of force to prevent them from continuing that. That minimum amount of force, of course, included things like shooting any medical doctors on sight, several massacres, and having his followers do worse than even that. Plenty more along these lines, Kemal Ataturk, the French revolutionaries, the Communists (granted, not so much in the USA, but even in the USA the "real socialists" are peaceful), muhammad, the muslim prophet, ... But men of peace ! Men of the people ! In reality, living with some of these men was like living as a Jew under Hitler. Ironically, Adolf Hitler is also a Nobel Peace prize laureate. [1] https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence
  - padmabushan 10y ago
    "Gandhi sent out his forces" LOLL!! He wasnt in command either! I need what you are smoking!
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    Seriously? Comparing Che to Ghandi? What a farce.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    I said a peaceful transition, not a peaceful protest. A non-peaceful transition of power is what happened in Zimbabwe, or Mozambique, or DRC or so many other African countries when the colonial forces let go of the reigns.
literallycancer 10y ago
Irish War of Independence? Hungarian Revolution of 1848? A little harder if you don't count independence efforts of distinct groups of people. Solidarność? Storming of the Bastille? Hungarian Revolution of 1956? It's fairly pointless to list examples, as they are everywhere. Sometimes the goal is achieved more easily, sometimes it takes decades. But it can work.

simonh 10y ago

You mean, like an election?

gjjrfcbugxbhf 10y ago
Lol that an election in the UK will change the direction of the country in terms of civil liberties. No one with a remote chance of winning will do that. (and the upcoming election send like it will just give Theresa May a free hand to do what she wants)
- simonh 10y ago
  Perhaps that's because most of the electorate think recent governments have struck a good balance between civil liberties and security. I happen to believe that trade off has gone a bit far and I'm worried that significant further erosion of civil liberties would start causing some serious issues, but lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public. Whining about living in a police state isn't going to be very productive, or lend that struggle much credibility.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Perhaps that's because most of the electorate think recent governments have struck a good balance between civil liberties and security. The results of surveys on this issue are interesting. A clear majority of people in the UK do typically back some of the stronger surveillance and security measures, when (as is almost always the case) they are presented as giving the police and security services greater powers to prevent serious crime and terrorism. I mean, who doesn't want to prevent serious crime and terrorism? On the other hand, when presented with more complete information about the actual laws that have been passed, such as the much wider range of government departments who have been given such powers, or when questioned in a way that demonstrates they themselves are subject to the same intrusions, many more people express concern and a lot object strongly. Surveys also show pretty consistently that the vast majority of people don't know even roughly what the actual situation is, and assume it is more the former than the latter. For example, many people didn't even know about the increased surveillance powers granted a few months ago. Popular support is based on trust in our government and public services, rather than knowing the facts. lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public Unfortunately, the political party with the most credible basis for arguing in favour of stronger civil liberties seems to have decided they want this election to be about exactly one issue, Brexit. Whether or not that strategy works out for them over the next couple of months, it makes it highly unlikely that other important issues like this will even make it into the public debate at all.