4 ms·
Violence is very effective. The authorities use it to subjugate the population and the American military uses the threat of violence and the action of actual vi
by vouaobrasil 2y ago
Violence is very effective. The authorities use it to subjugate the population and the American military uses the threat of violence and the action of actual violence to keep the United States the way it is. Except when it is used by governments, it is often called defense and when it is used by the police it is often called 'keeping the peace'. Violence as a tool for revolution is quite effective -- only pacifism is strongly ingrained in us to make us "good citizens".
- njtransit 2y agoViolence certainly can be effective, but also not. Everything is situational. See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution. Whether or not violence makes sense likely depends on how strong you and your friends are.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoTrue. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Obviously, in order for it to be effective, you need a good strategy.
- Clubber 2y ago>See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution. Some believe King was successful in part because of the threat of violence from alternative groups like the Black Panthers.
- hughesjj 2y agoKing was originally for violent protest until Bayard Rustin convinced him of nonviolent protest
- sitkack 2y agoThis is also why the state apparatus like it incite violence in the opposition, this gives them authority to respond with violence. Nonviolent protest and organizing is more dangerous because it could quickly become a populist movement. A small group of people incited into violence, is already fringe and can be quickly suppressed.
- hughesjj 2y agoYup, this is why you always shut down instigators at protests. Could very well be an agent provocateur.
- throwaway48476 2y agoViolence is only ineffective when you lose.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoI wasn't suggesting that violence is ineffective. The French Revolution is an obvious example. I'm thinking about the "Reign of Terror" that followed though.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThe French revolution was extremely ineffective. It turned a short term food crisis due to drought and hailstorms into a long term food crisis that lasted decades. It was a complete failure at addressing the suffering of the people, which only got better after they abandoned their revolutionary ideals, embraced an emperor, and raped and looted the rest of Europe.
- vdupras 2y agoIs it the period between 1789 and 1804 that you are quantifying as "decades"? A bit overeasy on the rounding, no?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIn my post, I thought it was clear that I blamed the Napoleonic wars on the French revolution, carrying the resulting damage and suffering longer than that. An estimated 2 million French (more than 5% of France's population) died during the Napoleonic wars, and that obviously doesn't include the maimed, injured, or otherwise harmed.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago>Recent research suggests that nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful in creating broad-based change than violent campaigns are, a somewhat surprising finding with a story behind it. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen...
- salawat 2y ago>The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide how violent the confrontation with — and reaction to — the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other security elites, economic and business elites, state media. Get the violent ones on your side to ultinately win. Got it. I don't think she's making the point she thinks she's making. And yes, I read the rest of the article. It focused primarily on events taking place in places where, lets face it, there's not quite the ah... oomph in gen pop that exists in the U.S. It's ulitimately a nice thought. It's absolutely accurate in that things like generalized striking and boycotts are great preambles as well. They're also considered illegal in the U.S. to coordinate btw, because of previous run ins with said efficacy during wartime in WWII. Secondary striking was outlawed. So formal unions can't use that as a tactic. You can thank the Taft-Hartley act for that. So... Yeah. Might want to meditate on that one a bit harder.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago1) The changes there are changes _within_ the system. That narrative only covers changes that are compatible with the industrial capitalist system. Indeed, the author focuses only on "transition to democracy". But I'd argue that nonviolent push for capitalism already has capitalism as a foregone conclusion because it is also more efficient, so even "doing nothing" can often bring it about. 2) Therefore, one could say that nonviolent action is most effective and bringing about the current corporate-controlled system. Of course, that makes sense. But let's say you want to take down a corporate-controlled system. Then violence is likely to be much more effective.
- rangestransform 2y agoIt’s effective if you’re fine with your own life and other regular peoples lives sucking for 20+ years vs. The status quo
- lelandbatey 2y agoIt's quite effective at causing _something_ to happen, but what that something is isn't controllable; the volatility in outcome can be sculpted via a lot of different approaches, but smaller actors have fewer tools to sculpt the outcome. And it's very easy to enter a state of total commitment from both sides no matter the other costs, essentially forcing other systems to be sacrificed toward what is now a "totally committed conflict." This happens on the small scale (person to person) and on the large scale (state to state). Violence forces shifts in every facet and system at every scale, shifts towards total commitments to more violence. Violence is the final means of trying to enact social change; there's nowhere else to go. Those who've lived total commitment to violence are it's loudest opponents. I hope we can continue to listen to their stories.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoViolence can be very effective. Violence is not effective by definition. Somehow people miss the fact that the difference and power to effect change resides in the context, not with violence itself. The list of failed revolutions that left everyone worse off is far longer the the list of revolutions that resulted in the betterment of society.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoDepends how you define betterment. I'd say putting society under global capitalism was worse for society (especially native tribes, but everyone I'd argue).
- goatlover 2y agoColonialism predated global capitalism, and there's always been various forms of trade routes and wars over the course of civilization, and likely going back far before then. Global capitalism has raised the standard of living over the past century.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoDepends how you define standard of living. In some respects, such has being able to live close to nature, global capitalism has made that worse.