8 ms·

>only peaceful non-violent struggle can bring about real change. Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power to ensure there's never any real th

>only peaceful non-violent struggle can bring about real change. Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power to ensure there's never any real threat to their position. "Just lie down while I stomp your neck. Don't resist. We'll discuss your objections later, at a more convenient time." All political power emanates from the barrel of a gun. All civil power emanates from the people's latent threat to revolt and string up the members of an oppressive regime from lantern poles. The Founding Fathers understood that more than anything else. The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. Violence should never be the first (or even second) answer, but it is the ultimate answer, and should never be excluded on principle.

jplayer01 7y ago
The non-violent protest thing seems like a myth that needs to be taken out back and shot, violently. We've seen for decades what they accomplish - absolutely nothing. It reminds me of this. https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-helped-india-break-free-from-colonial-rule-57904 https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-help...
- devchix 7y ago
  This NPR podcast/article argues different. "...found that major nonviolent campaigns are successful 53% of the time, while violent campaigns are successful only 26% of the time." The Protest Tipping Point (podcast): https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/736007317/the-protest-tipping-point https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/736007317/the-protest-tipping... The Magic Number Behind Protests: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-magic-number-behind-protests https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-...
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    I'll take a look, thanks.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    That might just mean that violent protests are deployed too widely. It's impossible to say in unique situations whether violence or nonviolence will fare better.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Was the Civil Rights movement in the United States violent or non-violent? MLK may have been the face of it, but the man that really brought the government to the negotiating table was Malcolm X... Because of the implicit threat that if non-violent resistance won't work, here's a guy that is perfectly happy to have his supporters sit outside congress, armed with assault rifles, exercising their second amendment rights. Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement.
    - amyjess 7y ago
      It should also be pointed out that while MLK wasn't interested in engaging in violence himself, he had rather harsh words for people who cared more about non-violence than civil rights (see: Letter from a Birmingham Jail).
    - dragonsh 7y ago
      > Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement. Not really a non-violent protest wins because majority move away from a violent group to a non-violent group. So it makes a violent person who already has fear, more scared of being left alone. Non-violent protests need to be planned and require strategy in such a way, it helps those non-violent protestors to self-defend with the use of non-violent means, i.e. using deterrents which create fear in aggressors mind on use of violence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mikekchar 7y ago
A revolution is round :-) Of course one can't generalise at all, but very frequently quick change results in replacing one system with another that resembles the first one an awful lot. Real, long lasting change requires a long time to influence culture and to wait until the time is right to move. However, I will also agree that usually violence is involved, even if one side doesn't participate. Gandhi referred to the people who participated in non-violent protests as soldiers because he knew that many would die. I don't think violence is the ultimate answer. The ultimate answer is the answer that works. There are many paths to the same location. It's probably best to review your options before you decide which ones to exclude.
- maxwell 7y ago
  Look into the American Revolution.
  - paublyrne 7y ago
    Look into Northern Ireland.
  - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
    That's actually a perfect example of a revolution resulting in a system that looks a lot like the previous system. Mostly self-governing colonies with Parliament exercising some limited control over them turn into mostly self-governing states with a Federal government exercising some limited control over them. Pretty much the only things that changed short-term were foreign policy and what kinds of imported goods were taxed.
    - maxwell 7y ago
      The American Revolution was won by leveraging Iroquois-style confederacy [1] as effective propaganda [2], and by employing guerilla warfare tactics learned fighting the Algonquin. This enabled securing enough victory (i.e. Saratoga) to get the French involved as the focus shifted to the Southern theater. It was the first successful war of independence [3], lead to establishing the modern elected head of state, outlawed explicit nobility, and inspired fanatical devotion to an earthly cause. For the previous hundred years, Jacobite rebellions in Europe had been crushed, seemingly due mainly to tactical failure (e.g. Culloden, the last pitched battle in Britain). But then, a few years after the American Revolution, the French: guerilla warfare, beheaded head of state, banished nobility, fanatical devotion to an earthly cause. (Interestingly, the French Revolution occurred right around the time they hit 50% literacy [4], increasing the viability of written propaganda.) Then Haiti launched the second successful independence war in 1791, kicking off centuries of decolonization. The American Revolution was a break from history. We haven't cycled back to pitched battles, if anything guerilla warfare is still under active development and experiencing significant growth. Propaganda, as an instrument of war, is only becoming more important. And colonial aggressors continue to lose when on someone else's home field. 1. https://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand/page/78 https://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand/page/78 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#/media/File:Illiteracy_france.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#/media/File:Illiterac...
dragonsh 7y ago
> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power A non-violent protestor is a person who does not fear anything, and the person who doesn't fear is the most powerful one. Violence is a result of fear, that's the reason need to use weapons and aids to fight back to increase the chances of survival. A true warrior is a fearless person who respond to violence with non-violence and make violent person ashamed of themselves. It's very easy to fight violently, every animal do it including us. We are at least evolved to tame our violent urges and that's what makes us a human. > All political power emanates from barrel of gun This is the famous quote of Mao Zedong (毛泽东). "Power flows from the barrel of gun" You might believe in it like every violent protestor. I don't. I believe power flows from the depth of heart and mind based on our connection with universe, nature and our endeavor to keep it balanced without resorting to violence. > Second amendment It's not a sacred thing, there are many places in this world way more safe and peaceful without the second amendment.
- yostrovs 7y ago
  Tianamen square and the surroundings are safe and peaceful, for decades now indeed.
- 420codebro 7y ago
  Nice and lofty platitudes. But they will shoot you and or imprison you the same.
- tekkk 7y ago
  Well, you know. You expect the violent person to be ashamed of themselves. That's a very bold assumption. A psychopath or sociopath won't feel a thing when they order their army to mow down peaceful protestors. It's a beautiful idea really. But when you are given no option other than to fight, do you think it's wrong for them to do so? Jewish, Armenians, Chinese under Japanese occupation? Might have not mattered, might have. I guess it depends on the person. An exaggeration of course compared to the issue at hand, but it seems wishful idealism. In some cases, yes, it works. But when your adversary doesn't care, it's quite ineffective. Game-theory wise I think equal repercussion works quite well, where violence is met with violence in order to prevent it from happening. Sure not always, but if there is no punishment it's simply much too advantageous to use violence if it solves the problem. I mean school bullies probably won't stop unless you hit them or they get some sort of punishment. Sure you'll feel probably mighty wise if you don't resort to violence or any kind of resistance, but it's unhelpful if it doesn't stop it. And in the meantime you'll be suffering tremendously.
whatshisface 7y ago
If you go out and start shooting people you are quickly going to end up with the reputation of a school shooter, as opposed to, say, George Washington. Most people prefer peace and safety over any particular ideology, and they will turn against anyone who throws away the former to achieve their particular version of the latter.
leftyted 7y ago
> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power to ensure there's never any real threat to their position. "Just lie down while I stomp your neck. Don't resist. We'll discuss your objections later, at a more convenient time." The post you responded to did not say "don't resist". It said "don't use violence". Peaceful protest has some track record of bringing down systems, ending regimes, and enacting lasting change. Violent protest has a worse track record; it mainly alienates the man on the street and it cannot build consensus. War can bring about lasting change, but only if your side wins. The difference between war and violent protest is that war implies two sides, each of which has a strong consensus. Violent protest only implies factions. Eliding this difference is a mistake. This is not to say that violence is unjustified, just that violent protests almost never enact lasting change (because they do not create consensus). > All political power emanates from the barrel of a gun All political power emanates from consensus. Violence and coercion can only replace consensus for short periods of time. Consensus can be established and maintained through propaganda and brainwashing - which is frightening and complicates the picture. If Mao was right then there would be no difference between a gunman and a police officer with a gun. Of course there is every difference in the world between those two figures, a fact proven by how differently we react to them. > All civil power emanates from the people's latent threat to revolt and string up the members of an oppressive regime from lantern poles. The Founding Fathers understood that more than anything else. The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. I agree: sovereignty is defined by the ability to make exceptions. Citizens are only sovereign insofar as they can choose to remove themselves from their obligation to their nation. My sense is that peaceful protests are the best way to bring about lasting change in China. What the anti-PRC groups need to do is build consensus. Once they've done that, if change does not follow, then war is on the table. But until consensus exists, I believe that violence will fail spectacularly.
- zajd 7y ago
  > Violent protest has a worse track record; it mainly alienates the man on the street and it cannot build consensus. Crack open a history book some day my friend, I think you'll find quite a different story. Now, material circumstances have changed over the centuries which definitely changes the equation, but violent protest has overthrown countless regimes throughout history and if I were a betting man, I'd say we haven't seen the end of them yet.
camgunz 7y ago
> The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was never (and still isn't) meant to ensure the right of people to violently resist or overthrow the government. The way to influence the US government is to become involved in the process, not (threaten to) shoot people. If that's ever not the case, you don't have a country, you have a failed state.
- leftyted 7y ago
  It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check. It's a persistent myth that this is not the case. The US was born in revolution and the founders were very concerned about the possibility of a tyrannical government.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Even if it wasn't explicitly stated, the Second Amendment was written by people who had just used militias as a big part of their force to overthrow the government. They weren't senile. They hadn't forgotten. They knew what they were saying.
  - camgunz 7y ago
    > It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Nah, this is totally wrong. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over state militias to suppress insurrections: "The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1] Further, the Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to take control of State militias, and this was famously used by George Washington himself to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. > Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check. He did, yes, but he was talking about States vs. the Federal government. He also later saw how bad militias were at being an army (a point Washington argued over and over again) in the War of 1812 and changed his position in favor of a strong, standing, Federal army. And FWIW, we put the question of States keeping the Federal government in check to bed in the Civil War. [1]: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-8- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...

jplayer01 7y ago

The non-violent protest thing seems like a myth that needs to be taken out back and shot, violently. We've seen for decades what they accomplish - absolutely nothing. It reminds me of this. https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-helped-india-break-free-from-colonial-rule-57904 https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-help...

devchix 7y ago
This NPR podcast/article argues different. "...found that major nonviolent campaigns are successful 53% of the time, while violent campaigns are successful only 26% of the time." The Protest Tipping Point (podcast): https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/736007317/the-protest-tipping-point https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/736007317/the-protest-tipping... The Magic Number Behind Protests: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-magic-number-behind-protests https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-...
- jplayer01 7y ago
  I'll take a look, thanks.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  That might just mean that violent protests are deployed too widely. It's impossible to say in unique situations whether violence or nonviolence will fare better.
- vkou 7y ago
  Was the Civil Rights movement in the United States violent or non-violent? MLK may have been the face of it, but the man that really brought the government to the negotiating table was Malcolm X... Because of the implicit threat that if non-violent resistance won't work, here's a guy that is perfectly happy to have his supporters sit outside congress, armed with assault rifles, exercising their second amendment rights. Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement.
  - amyjess 7y ago
    It should also be pointed out that while MLK wasn't interested in engaging in violence himself, he had rather harsh words for people who cared more about non-violence than civil rights (see: Letter from a Birmingham Jail).
  - dragonsh 7y ago
    > Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement. Not really a non-violent protest wins because majority move away from a violent group to a non-violent group. So it makes a violent person who already has fear, more scared of being left alone. Non-violent protests need to be planned and require strategy in such a way, it helps those non-violent protestors to self-defend with the use of non-violent means, i.e. using deterrents which create fear in aggressors mind on use of violence.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mikekchar 7y ago

A revolution is round :-) Of course one can't generalise at all, but very frequently quick change results in replacing one system with another that resembles the first one an awful lot. Real, long lasting change requires a long time to influence culture and to wait until the time is right to move. However, I will also agree that usually violence is involved, even if one side doesn't participate. Gandhi referred to the people who participated in non-violent protests as soldiers because he knew that many would die. I don't think violence is the ultimate answer. The ultimate answer is the answer that works. There are many paths to the same location. It's probably best to review your options before you decide which ones to exclude.

maxwell 7y ago
Look into the American Revolution.
- paublyrne 7y ago
  Look into Northern Ireland.
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  That's actually a perfect example of a revolution resulting in a system that looks a lot like the previous system. Mostly self-governing colonies with Parliament exercising some limited control over them turn into mostly self-governing states with a Federal government exercising some limited control over them. Pretty much the only things that changed short-term were foreign policy and what kinds of imported goods were taxed.
  - maxwell 7y ago
    The American Revolution was won by leveraging Iroquois-style confederacy [1] as effective propaganda [2], and by employing guerilla warfare tactics learned fighting the Algonquin. This enabled securing enough victory (i.e. Saratoga) to get the French involved as the focus shifted to the Southern theater. It was the first successful war of independence [3], lead to establishing the modern elected head of state, outlawed explicit nobility, and inspired fanatical devotion to an earthly cause. For the previous hundred years, Jacobite rebellions in Europe had been crushed, seemingly due mainly to tactical failure (e.g. Culloden, the last pitched battle in Britain). But then, a few years after the American Revolution, the French: guerilla warfare, beheaded head of state, banished nobility, fanatical devotion to an earthly cause. (Interestingly, the French Revolution occurred right around the time they hit 50% literacy [4], increasing the viability of written propaganda.) Then Haiti launched the second successful independence war in 1791, kicking off centuries of decolonization. The American Revolution was a break from history. We haven't cycled back to pitched battles, if anything guerilla warfare is still under active development and experiencing significant growth. Propaganda, as an instrument of war, is only becoming more important. And colonial aggressors continue to lose when on someone else's home field. 1. https://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand/page/78 https://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand/page/78 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#/media/File:Illiteracy_france.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#/media/File:Illiterac...

dragonsh 7y ago

> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power A non-violent protestor is a person who does not fear anything, and the person who doesn't fear is the most powerful one. Violence is a result of fear, that's the reason need to use weapons and aids to fight back to increase the chances of survival. A true warrior is a fearless person who respond to violence with non-violence and make violent person ashamed of themselves. It's very easy to fight violently, every animal do it including us. We are at least evolved to tame our violent urges and that's what makes us a human. > All political power emanates from barrel of gun This is the famous quote of Mao Zedong (毛泽东). "Power flows from the barrel of gun" You might believe in it like every violent protestor. I don't. I believe power flows from the depth of heart and mind based on our connection with universe, nature and our endeavor to keep it balanced without resorting to violence. > Second amendment It's not a sacred thing, there are many places in this world way more safe and peaceful without the second amendment.

yostrovs 7y ago
Tianamen square and the surroundings are safe and peaceful, for decades now indeed.
420codebro 7y ago
Nice and lofty platitudes. But they will shoot you and or imprison you the same.
tekkk 7y ago
Well, you know. You expect the violent person to be ashamed of themselves. That's a very bold assumption. A psychopath or sociopath won't feel a thing when they order their army to mow down peaceful protestors. It's a beautiful idea really. But when you are given no option other than to fight, do you think it's wrong for them to do so? Jewish, Armenians, Chinese under Japanese occupation? Might have not mattered, might have. I guess it depends on the person. An exaggeration of course compared to the issue at hand, but it seems wishful idealism. In some cases, yes, it works. But when your adversary doesn't care, it's quite ineffective. Game-theory wise I think equal repercussion works quite well, where violence is met with violence in order to prevent it from happening. Sure not always, but if there is no punishment it's simply much too advantageous to use violence if it solves the problem. I mean school bullies probably won't stop unless you hit them or they get some sort of punishment. Sure you'll feel probably mighty wise if you don't resort to violence or any kind of resistance, but it's unhelpful if it doesn't stop it. And in the meantime you'll be suffering tremendously.

whatshisface 7y ago

If you go out and start shooting people you are quickly going to end up with the reputation of a school shooter, as opposed to, say, George Washington. Most people prefer peace and safety over any particular ideology, and they will turn against anyone who throws away the former to achieve their particular version of the latter.

leftyted 7y ago

> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power to ensure there's never any real threat to their position. "Just lie down while I stomp your neck. Don't resist. We'll discuss your objections later, at a more convenient time." The post you responded to did not say "don't resist". It said "don't use violence". Peaceful protest has some track record of bringing down systems, ending regimes, and enacting lasting change. Violent protest has a worse track record; it mainly alienates the man on the street and it cannot build consensus. War can bring about lasting change, but only if your side wins. The difference between war and violent protest is that war implies two sides, each of which has a strong consensus. Violent protest only implies factions. Eliding this difference is a mistake. This is not to say that violence is unjustified, just that violent protests almost never enact lasting change (because they do not create consensus). > All political power emanates from the barrel of a gun All political power emanates from consensus. Violence and coercion can only replace consensus for short periods of time. Consensus can be established and maintained through propaganda and brainwashing - which is frightening and complicates the picture. If Mao was right then there would be no difference between a gunman and a police officer with a gun. Of course there is every difference in the world between those two figures, a fact proven by how differently we react to them. > All civil power emanates from the people's latent threat to revolt and string up the members of an oppressive regime from lantern poles. The Founding Fathers understood that more than anything else. The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. I agree: sovereignty is defined by the ability to make exceptions. Citizens are only sovereign insofar as they can choose to remove themselves from their obligation to their nation. My sense is that peaceful protests are the best way to bring about lasting change in China. What the anti-PRC groups need to do is build consensus. Once they've done that, if change does not follow, then war is on the table. But until consensus exists, I believe that violence will fail spectacularly.

zajd 7y ago
> Violent protest has a worse track record; it mainly alienates the man on the street and it cannot build consensus. Crack open a history book some day my friend, I think you'll find quite a different story. Now, material circumstances have changed over the centuries which definitely changes the equation, but violent protest has overthrown countless regimes throughout history and if I were a betting man, I'd say we haven't seen the end of them yet.

camgunz 7y ago

> The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was never (and still isn't) meant to ensure the right of people to violently resist or overthrow the government. The way to influence the US government is to become involved in the process, not (threaten to) shoot people. If that's ever not the case, you don't have a country, you have a failed state.

leftyted 7y ago
It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check. It's a persistent myth that this is not the case. The US was born in revolution and the founders were very concerned about the possibility of a tyrannical government.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Even if it wasn't explicitly stated, the Second Amendment was written by people who had just used militias as a big part of their force to overthrow the government. They weren't senile. They hadn't forgotten. They knew what they were saying.
- camgunz 7y ago
  > It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Nah, this is totally wrong. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over state militias to suppress insurrections: "The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1] Further, the Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to take control of State militias, and this was famously used by George Washington himself to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. > Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check. He did, yes, but he was talking about States vs. the Federal government. He also later saw how bad militias were at being an army (a point Washington argued over and over again) in the War of 1812 and changed his position in favor of a strong, standing, Federal army. And FWIW, we put the question of States keeping the Federal government in check to bed in the Civil War. [1]: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-8- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...