Can we make change without violence?

[h4rm0ny]

Talking with a few Antifa types the other day. One of them declared that "non-violence is a tool of the state". I.e. the doctrine of renouncing violence is a trick to stop people achieving social change. Similarly declared that "nothing has ever been achieved without violence". I'm going to be fair to them and expand their statement to be "no significant social change" and to also include the realistic threat of violence.

That surprised me and the best things I could think of at the time were the re-unification of Germany and the independence of Canada and Australia - both of which I think were given up peacefully by the British Empire. I'm also somewhat inclined to include the Libyan revolution which was bloodless and popularly supported by the people, though it's bizarre to include a military coup in a list of social changes achieved without violence.

I'd also add the end of the Slave Trade in Britain which was led by the (obviously non-violent) Quakers and legislated against without threat of violence being a factor.

Of course my real answer to them is that I think violence more often leads to tragedy than happy resolution and furthermore, I trust them not at all to be people behind any violence given half their aims I find unsettling (communism for one). However, I like to be able to back up all angles of my argument. Can anyone think of good examples of significant social change being achieved through means other than violence / threat of violence? Social, political, legislative - what have we achieved through peaceful means that is significant?

 

[Zethor]

Violence can no longer achieve much in our times.

The threat of violence, the 'big stick' held behind one's back is quite useful because some people, mostly various forms of traditionalists( Nationalists, Islamists) do not see the world through critical thinking so they can't be reasoned with. Furthermore, their ideologies are governed by fear essentially ie. the dilution of culture or the invasion of 'dangerous' ideas/people. Living in fear makes them sensitive to displays of strength and power so that's sometimes the only way to deal with them.

 

[jsmoke]

What exactly do Antifa's want. If they could be in full power of this country for say 5 years what would the state of affairs be for example, what are their goals, I just assumed they are anarchists. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, all fine and good being an armchair General but if they were actually in power what would be the result.

 

[IronWarrior]

I'm also somewhat inclined to include the Libyan revolution which was bloodless and popularly supported by the people

Bloodless? What?

 

[Amp34]

Bloodless? What?

Presumably she's talking about the one in 1969, where Gadaffi overthrew the king

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Libyan_coup_d'état

Rather than the western backed bloodbath of 2011.

 

[HardwareGeek]

I think assuming you are talking about negotiation between unequal powers, state vs. citizens, where the citizens have nothing to trade or negotiate with as the state already has full control of resources, then i cant see how you could create change without at least the threat of violence tbh, except maybe possibly withholding labour?

It would be like a child vs. parent relationship where the best they can do is keep asking and hope it annoys the parent enough to give in, they cant physically force an issue etc so the parent is always in control and governments don't love the citizens or feel any connection to them as a parent does

Why would anyone in power or the state negotiate with someone who couldn't threaten negative consequences for not making a deal etc

For example even in the UK how could even 51% of the population create change without threat or use of violence if the government really didn't want to change, they could all vote the government out in an election, which it then ignores and cancels all further elections, then what?

 

[adolf hamster]

"those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable"

we can only make change without violence now thanks to the building of our society off the backs of violence.

each successive victory and change for the better has made the next victory easier to acheive.

however, that said this status quo is still backed by the threat of violence, i'd like to think any wannabe dictator in this country would be overthrown before they could do any real damage, or that by simply following the democratic process and the laws we have that no wannabe dictator could get enough power to tip the balance.

sure the government could call in the police and the army to quash an uprising but i have enough faith that our soldiers would refuse to do so if the need was great enough (for example during the fall of communist russia)

jury's out on may though......

 

[h4rm0ny]

What exactly do Antifa's want. If they could be in full power of this country for say 5 years what would the state of affairs be for example, what are their goals, I just assumed they are anarchists. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, all fine and good being an armchair General but if they were actually in power what would be the result.

Well this is an answer from someone who isn't themself Antifa so you'll have to take this as an outsider's statement of their goals. But hey - that might be a good thing! Essentially, Antifa are a loose affiliation of people who believe in using violence and the threat of violence to shut down their political opponents who they consider "fascists". However, and this is where the outsider opinion comes in, they define "fascist" pretty broadly and are very quick to decree something as "Hate Speech". Even if you agree with intimidating people into not saying things that are hateful, agreement on what is hateful is pretty contentious where they are concerned. There's that darkly hilarious clip on YouTube of some people ganging up on an old Black guy in Manchester and telling him he is a Nazi for listening to Tommy Robinson speak at a rally. However, that's the core purpose of Antifa in a definition of them. In practice, Antifa are typically also anarchists of the anarcho-communist variety. I.e. communists who believe in local collectives rather than state-wide communist government. Still essentially communist. In my conversations with those I know, they are against capitalism and believe in a world where everything is shared out equally or based solely on need. So for example, everything community owned and private property limited to things of sentimental / personal value. "Re-education" for those who take more than their share, refuse to relinquish goods to others who have less. If you have a home with rooms unoccupied, expect your local collective to donate them to someone else.

Note, I'll re-emphasize that defining Antifa beliefs are the first ones - collective violence and intimidation to shut down political opponents they call "fascists" or "hate speech". The latter part is merely what most of the ones I've met and talked to ALSO believe. High overlap of beliefs, ime.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Presumably she's talking about the one in 1969, where Gadaffi overthrew the king

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Libyan_coup_d'état

Rather than the western backed bloodbath of 2011.

Yes. Thank you. That's exactly what I was referring to. I don't know if it properly qualifies - it was pretty much the army officers simply saying "you out" and the king saying "uh, yes." I would rule it out myself due to "threat of violence" still being a reliance on violence, except as far as I am aware there was massive popular support for it so it wasn't really just the army carrying out a coup, it was largely the will of the people.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I think assuming you are talking about negotiation between unequal powers, state vs. citizens, where the citizens have nothing to trade or negotiate with as the state already has full control of resources, then i cant see how you could create change without at least the threat of violence tbh, except maybe possibly withholding labour?

It would be like a child vs. parent relationship where the best they can do is keep asking and hope it annoys the parent enough to give in, they cant physically force an issue etc so the parent is always in control and governments don't love the citizens or feel any connection to them as a parent does

Why would anyone in power or the state negotiate with someone who couldn't threaten negative consequences for not making a deal etc

For example even in the UK how could even 51% of the population create change without threat or use of violence if the government really didn't want to change, they could all vote the government out in an election, which it then ignores and cancels all further elections, then what?

Well violence isn't the only negative consequence that the 51% of the population can bring to bear. It takes a lot less than that downing tools to bring any government to the negotiating table even if the strike is peaceful. And if the government responds with violence, that doesn't disqualify it as I'm talking about violence on the part of those seeking change, not their willingness to endure it which is a non-violent act. Also, there are cases, I believe. For example, people agitated for an end to Britain's part in the slave trade peacefully and the government pretty much shuffled its feet and said "yeah, that's wrong." Even politicians are people. (Most of them). I'm convinced there are lots of examples of laws and actions that are socially positive that were achieved without violent coercion which is what this guy believes is necessary.

Note, connecting this with my previous post about many of them wanting to bring down the state, obviously that will involve violence. But they believed that any significant social betterment was the result of violent action.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Talking with a few Antifa types the other day. One of them declared that "non-violence is a tool of the state". I.e. the doctrine of renouncing violence is a trick to stop people achieving social change. Similarly declared that "nothing has ever been achieved without violence". I'm going to be fair to them and expand their statement to be "no significant social change" and to also include the realistic threat of violence.

That surprised me and the best things I could think of at the time were the re-unification of Germany and the independence of Canada and Australia - both of which I think were given up peacefully by the British Empire. I'm also somewhat inclined to include the Libyan revolution which was bloodless and popularly supported by the people, though it's bizarre to include a military coup in a list of social changes achieved without violence.

I'd also add the end of the Slave Trade in Britain which was led by the (obviously non-violent) Quakers and legislated against without threat of violence being a factor.

Of course my real answer to them is that I think violence more often leads to tragedy than happy resolution and furthermore, I trust them not at all to be people behind any violence given half their aims I find unsettling (communism for one). However, I like to be able to back up all angles of my argument. Can anyone think of good examples of significant social change being achieved through means other than violence / threat of violence? Social, political, legislative - what have we achieved through peaceful means that is significant?

Your examples are mostly wrong though.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand never really sought independence, they were granted dominion status in line with British national thinking towards its Empire: When a colony reaches a certain level of development, it will be allowed self-government within the Empire. India would have ultimately benefited from this same "independence" but Gandhi chose a different route. Likewise, the slave trade was absolutely destroyed through force. It was the British navy that brought an end to the Atlantic slave trade through rather violent means.

That said, I do agree with the thrust of your statement. Very little is achieved without violence or the implicit threat thereof. That said, antifa are a bunch of morons who should be taken outside and shot. So there's that.

 

[jsmoke]

All a smokescreen for the fact that most of these people are bitterly unhappy, discontented, probably a lot come from broken families, may have drink and drug problems. They have no real guidance from adult role models, no real parental figures in a lot of cases, no common sense. I could go on and on. They see the Government as surrogate parents who they can take out all their grievances on. I think they have a point to a degree in some cases, but they are ultimatley foolish and self entitled. Just human nature I'm afriad, you'll never fix it completely. Figures of authority just have to raise an eyebrow to them and they will swell up with anger, hate, bitterness, confusion, collectivism(as you said), selfishness, voilence. I'm not saying I'm Mr Saintly by any means, but hopefully wouldn't stoop to some of those levels. While you have authority people will rebel to some degree, unless you want a dictatorship like NK. So about rebelion and humility, love and fear, freedom and repression. Goodness and evil.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Your examples are mostly wrong though.

I actually welcome people taking my arguments apart in this thread because this isn't the argument I'm having. It's me preparing for the argument I will have next time I talk politics with them. I'd far rather that you point out flaws than they. That said...

Canada, Australia and New Zealand never really sought independence, they were granted dominion status in line with British national thinking towards its Empire: When a colony reaches a certain level of development, it will be allowed self-government within the Empire.

I don't think it being deliberate policy by the British government / people negates it. On the contrary, it being normal and expected supports my use of them as examples of violence not being necessary. Self-determination and being released from colonial rule are clear Good Outcomes, imo. I'm a strong believer in self-determination.

India would have ultimately benefited from this same "independence" but Gandhi chose a different route. Likewise, the slave trade was absolutely destroyed through force. It was the British navy that brought an end to the Atlantic slave trade through rather violent means.

India as part of the Commonwealth would be an interesting alternative history to have seen. I might mention the idea that India would have been better off staying under British rule a little longer just to see if I get out of there alive!

That said, I do agree with the thrust of your statement. Very little is achieved without violence or the implicit threat thereof. That said, antifa are a bunch of morons who should be taken outside and shot. So there's that.

Actually, it is their argument that very little is achieved without violence. I personally regard use of violence as highly risky and highly prone to perpetuating cycles of violence. However, to complete the argument I need to show that not only is that true (the easy part) but that it can't be justified anyway by there being no other route to improving society. So I am gathering examples of where there has been significant achievements without violence.

 

[StriderX]

Violence is the fastest way to get what you want, so no... someone will be angry regardless of how nice you play it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Thanks for all replies, by the way! All very helpful for next time I'm crazy enough to argue politics with communists!

 

[Rroff]

Those in power don't like to let go of it - I don't think violence has an exclusivity on significant change but neither do I think that non-violent measures can solve all needs for change.

Sometimes you get a situations where two parties neither inclined to violence reach an irreconcilable position where something has to give which almost always leads to some degree of violence even with the best of intentions.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Violence is the fastest way to get what you want, so no...

But also the riskiest. And the most prone to abuse of power acquired by violence. It's only supportable if there are not other ways to bring about positive change which I think there is. Even for large ones. I feel that in a world as complex and intertwined as our current level of technology and social development make necessary, violence is too blunt an instrument even without this. Most change by this point must be incremental.

 

[Freakbro]

Not wishing to get a thread ban again by posting something off topic (gosh, i'm such a rebel) but since I now can't reply to you in the Finsbury thread ( ) Stobarts is the sons employer

Oh, and to contribute on topic, I have a friend who says exactly the same thing, about we should be able to use violence, it's just the states way of protecting themselves, and when people do deserve a punch in the mouth you should be able to administer it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Those in power don't like to let go of it - I don't think violence has an exclusivity on significant change but neither do I think that non-violent measures can solve all needs for change.

Sometimes you get a situations where two parties neither inclined to violence reach an irreconcilable position where something has to give which almost always leads to some degree of violence even with the best of intentions.

I agree. But the people I am arguing with are living in this country and trying to bring about change in this country. And believe that violence is necessary to do so. Were they formenting revolution in Saudi Arabia, I might agree with them. But as a basic and general principle, I believe there must be a lot of counter-examples that disprove it.

 

[StriderX]

Well if you constantly prove to your peaceful electorate/citizens that peaceful means are useless, then they'll get very bored of it and start wrecking **** to make a point.

The Politicians are creating their demise with every ignored petition and every ignored demonstration.