Violent revolution

Maybe I've been reading too much liberal ranting, but...

It's just that I keep reading about monopolies, powerful corporations, useless Congress, useless leaders, things that are Inherent in the System, etc making changes and reforms. It comes to the point where you really start to feel Violence is the Only Option - kill the people in power. Politicans and CE Os. Kill them non-stop. Maybe, just maybe, for real change to happen, some people have. To. Die.

But however tempting, that's not a true solution, is it? There is nothing stopping the post-revolution environment from being even worse.

To put it directly: IS violent revolution ever a good idea? Can it ever be justified? When you feel voting and blogging make no difference whatsoever?

edited 22nd Jan '11 1:05:09 PM by Exploder

Ever heard of the Battle in Seattle? Didn't really work out.

I believe the ends justify the means, so I have no problem with the concept itself. It's the fact that it's so unlikely to work out which makes me oppose revolution. And yes, you've probably been reading too much ranting from the far left.

The concept has been romanticized for so long, that a lot of people forget just what happens before, during, and after.

It wouldn't work unless it had gone so far to hell that the majority of the military itself was sympathetic to your cause.

Or if you could bring an outside force to bear against the current government.

Like France during the American Revolution.

The "after" is the part that worries me. I used to think it was a good idea, but it doesn't seem like a great foundation for a country.

And yes, I know there have been many countries that began life that way, but most went through a lot of growing pains, as it were, before reaching their current state.

^^ If you're living in South America or Africa yeah, but the kind of revolt a first-world nation would be looking at would be if a coalition of other first-world nations became hideously corrupt.

^ Revolt-born nations tend to either end up as a power vacuum that just lets in another shameless kleptocracy, or with a clear Anti-Role Model if the people who end up in charge aren't assholes. Depressingly, there's rather little in between.

edited 22nd Jan '11 1:39:03 PM by Pykrete

It is much harder now a days to set up nation after a revolution because of all the foibles of technology and interaction on the global stage. You will likely find many foreign interests mucking about. Some helping others hindering. You will in all likely hood have to rely on an existing power to make it work long enough to move on to independence but the cost of doing so might be a bit much to bear.

The only way I could see it really working is if you have a secondary government hidden away and already trained to replace the existing power in a fashion that works with the nation.

Any revolution of most first world nations will need the active support of the majority if the military to succeed.

Imagine starting a revolution in America and having all those now vetted soldiers coming home and believing home is threatened. yeah would not go well for the revolution.

You have to be cautious of who is leading the charge in the revolution and what their aims are like with Stalin for example. Lenin may have wanted a better life for the people but Stalin was the bastard who got the power. We can also say the same for Hitler, and a variety of governments in Africa and the Middles east that the U.S. has had hands on. It never quite works out the way you think it will.

edited 22nd Jan '11 2:35:12 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Couldn't we have a non-violent revolution?

Very unlikely to happen. They do happen but they are such a rarity. Someone who either wants power or has the power will likely use violence.

The non-violent option requires levels of unity that are very difficult to achieve.

edited 22nd Jan '11 3:20:08 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Velvet revolutions are actually more viable and more effective than people give them credit for. The current state of affairs makes violent revolutions pointless anyways; you've got militaries well suited to asymmetrical warfare, media that like to demonize such revolutionaries, and enough force multipliers in the hands of the people with the military tech as to make an uprising horribly ineffective.

If you want to change the system, violent uprising won't only be wrong, it will be counterproductive.

edited 22nd Jan '11 3:22:50 PM by RadicalTaoist

Unless you get the military on your side.

The peaceful revolutions are almost just as pointless unless you can get the media on your side. Again you need a lot of folks united behind the cause to make it work and that is the hardest part. All it would take is one good smear and the whole thing goes down in flames.

edited 22nd Jan '11 3:30:15 PM by TuefelHundenIV

That didn't stop non-violent movements of the past. Besides, the media will sympathize with non-violent protests more quickly. Violent revolutionists will be labeled as "terrorists" right off the bat. Not to mention the unnecessary deaths involved.

edited 22nd Jan '11 3:44:10 PM by snailbait

You either need to co-opt the media or bypass it somehow.

This is the solution.

Snail; Do not count on the media to the do the right thing.

Name the number of peaceful of revolutions that have successfully gone through with minimal violence. They are few and far between and occur under ideal conditions. Think of the society in the U.K. or even in the U.S. Society itself has to cooperate to a point for a peaceful revolution to work.

Violence is much easier and gets results much more quickly. The media can vilify peaceful groups as easily as a violent one. All they have to do is make them sound peaceful but extremist and folks will start getting worked up about it.

You have to be cautious of who is leading the charge in the revolution and what their aims are like with Stalin for example. Lenin may have wanted a better life for the people but Stalin was the bastard who got the power. We can also say the same for Hitler, and a variety of governments in Africa and the Middles east that the U.S. has had hands on. It never quite works out the way you think it will.

Lenin and Trotsky were bastards, just not as bastardly as Stalin. Trotsky once wrote a book in defense of terrorism as a tool of revolution.

Terrorism is a tool of revolution just not one that you should rely on. French freedom fighters come to mind in World War II

Remember one man's terrorist may well be another's revolutionary.

I would have preferred Trotsky and Lenin to Stalin any day.

How about this folks lets list a series of Pros and Cons for both Violent and Non-Violent Revolution as large groupings and weigh them that way.

Pros

-Best prospects for complete upheaval of a power structure

-Most likely to spread fear in the regime (if this is a good thing?)

-Has an underlying appeal to those with hot blood (youths, etc.), so most likely to get them involved

Cons

-Strong probability of highest body count (duh)

-Best prospects for loss of innocent lives

-A squashed violent revolution will probably be met with the harshest retribution.

-Worst short-term stability for dealing with internal/external threats

Most of the above are just theory-craft, I guess — not certain how well they hold up in practice.

edited 22nd Jan '11 5:27:15 PM by UnabashedFornicator

Further Pros and Cons

Cons (Because I thought of a Con first)

• -More likely to alienate the vast majority, especially the peaceful, older, or already established folks out there. Of course... the latter may be the ones you're trying to take out.
• -Liable to be less well recieved by other powers, though peaceful revolutionaries can suffer in this regard too if a country has a vested interest in your revolution failing.

Pros

• -If you have the resources, it can be instant. Especially if instead of fighting the established government gives up and bolts for the open door instead. It has happened.
• -If the regime is violent, bloody and oppressive enough, may be the only way to go about things. Peace may simply not be an option!

What I like is a violent and a non-violent strategy being pursued at the same time. Then the powers that be can compromise with the peaceful faction in order to forestall the violent ones, a la the IRS/Sinn Fein in Ireland.

I'd like to refer the contributors to this thread to the music video for "Re-Education Through Labor," by Rise Against. It's available free and legal on You Tube. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Now, what did you notice about the "revolutionaries" in that video? Were they poor? No. Were they workers? No. Were they oppressed? No. They were young, mildly affluent children of the middle class, with all the dye and piercings their little hearts could desire. That, I think, is emblematic of the entire... group of people who like to talk about a "revolution" against the "corporate overlords" of the West.

When the Western World's current society falls, it will not be because of outside nations or some proletariat uprising, although the first might wind up being the precipitate trigger. It will fall because of its own petulant children, who have been raised and fattened by its wealth, and so well insulated from reality by its power that all they can think of is how evil and corporate it is.

The single largest corporation in the world is Wal-Mart, that sinister supermarket chain, and it's worth $408 billion. The current proposed Federal budget for 2011 is $3.83 trillion dollars. That means that it would take about ten Wal-Marts to equal the federal government of the United States in spending power, never mind the state governments and the power of law enforcement and the military.

And that's the largest, most powerful corporation in the world. In case you hadn't noticed, when corporations have trouble, they don't start trying to overthrow the government. They start begging for handouts.

The "corporate culture" couldn't oppress an anthill if you spotted them a magnifying glass.

And where are your revolutionaries going to come from? The college kids and younger, who come from families with enough money to pay for computers and internet connections? The same ones who react to some other privileged nutball's attempt at a US congresswoman by baying for gun control? Hardly. If there's ever a revolution in the West, it will be California trying to go back to Mexico.

You will not overthrow our society. You will not even try. You'll just vote, and talk, and your children will vote, and talk, until the whole bloated morass starts falling apart and the Chinese come in to do the heavy lifting for you.

edited 24th Jan '11 6:57:04 AM by Wanderhome

I agree with most of the things Wanderhome has said. Revolution needs to be powered by the powerful- whether that's a small few with huge military control or a vast swathe of the dissatisfied, oppressed population. The US doesn't have it bad enough for either to get involved. Free speech is widespread, people from all cultures and groups have an enviable level of equality and getting into politics is easy and effective. Of course that's all relative and things can always improve, but you're no Tunisia or Egypt.

The US has a huge number of conservatives. They feel they have a lot that deserves conserving. I'm not one of them but I can certainly see their point of view. And as well as the army, any revolution would be fighting them too.

Imagine starting a revolution in America and having all those now vetted soldiers coming home and believing home is threatened. yeah would not go well for the revolution.

Lol, Freikorps. But it depends on what type of revolution it is. Is it secessionists in Dixie? Communists? etc etc.

The "corporate culture" couldn't oppress an anthill if you spotted them a magnifying glass.

I wonder what those multinationals privatizing water, plus Banks and NG Os forcing nations into debt are doing then...

And where are your revolutionaries going to come from? The college kids and younger, who come from families with enough money to pay for computers and internet connections?

Ghetto people and/or immigrants a la the Rodney King Uprising, or the French uprisings in 2006 by descendants of Algerian immigrants...

Nice joke assuming all "revolutionaries" are rich punk white kids from suburbs, esp. given the recent to middle past (e.g. Black P Anthers) Not to mention the rightists in the USA who have been rearming and forming militia movements since the election of Barack Obama, and I'm sure they have more will, training, and werewithal given some of them are former military-esque people and survivalists.

In case you hadn't noticed, when corporations have trouble, they don't start trying to overthrow the government. They start begging for handouts.

Given large sections of such "Revolutionaries" end up remembering how both are in bed with each other....its not much of a difference.

The US has a huge number of conservatives. They feel they have a lot that deserves conserving. I'm not one of them but I can certainly see their point of view. And as well as the army, any revolution would be fighting them too.

IF the revolutionaries are reactionary conservatives who stage a revolt, the military would be more likely to line up behind them - as the US military has such a bias given where a lot of its' installations and personnel base comes from.....

edited 24th Jan '11 7:27:56 AM by BalloonFleet