Can we make change without violence?

[h4rm0ny]

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. I'm not sure what I can and cannot say in that thread. Thanks for the correction. The article I read seemed to phrase it as the van-hiring owner's son. Correction received. Let's not risk this thread further! Cheers!

 

[Craterloads]

It's always seems people who say violence isn't the answer are usually the ones using violence and say that to stop people fighting back.

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

That I do mostly agree with. I believe the quote is something like: "If you ignore the petitions, and you ignore the marches and you ignore the civil disobedience, then eventually someone somewhere wonders if you will listen to a bomb."

But that said, real and positive change does come about through non-violent means.

 

[HardwareGeek]

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.

Tbh it depends on the 'resolve' of the government if say 5% of the population striking would bring them to the table? With total 'resolve' not to back down under any circumstances then they could probably still cling to power with 99% of the population against them if violence couldn't be used for change, they only need to convince the right 1% to support them, police, army, people in positions of power etc, with an unarmed population like the UK it could even be possible if violence could be used by the 99%

You could say farmers and other essential workers could stop supplying food/products to the government, but they government only now has to feed 1% of the population that support them and could easily seize enough farms, factories and use some of the 1% to run them or bring back slavery from the 99% to run them etc

In this extreme example without being able to use violence the 99% only have the choice to drop the issue and carry on as normal or die/be killed by the state

You can only negotiate without violence if those in power are reasonable and feeling altruistic to deal with you when you can't either offer them a benefit or negative consequences and your asking them to do something they don't want to do

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's always seems people who say violence isn't the answer are usually the ones using violence and say that to stop people fighting back.

That is one of their beliefs also: That non-violence is a tool of the state to protect the Status Quo. That both scares me in that it's a call to violent action and seems simplistic to me.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

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.

Well, put yourself in the position of an Indian during their independence era. Would you really want to wait for Britain to tell you when you can rule yourself? Other nations were not as obliging and one need only look at the numerous colonial wars to see that Britain was more an exception than the rule.

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!

"Better off" is a rather subjective term. They'd likely have avoided the partition and religious schisms than followed as Britain would have ensured the peace. But if mans ultimate destiny is to rule his own volk or whatever, then they might not have been better off.

Oh and technically they were in the Commonwealth for a time.

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.

Gay rights is a contemporary example of political lobbying being effective without the use or threat of violence. But then, one ought to consider by what we mean by "violence" because one could argue the state is using the threat of violence and imprisonment against those who don't accept gay rights.

Ultimately, everything is achieved through violence, intimidation or some such. You might struggle to find a truly pure example of pacifist success.

 

[HardwareGeek]

Gay rights is a contemporary example of political lobbying being effective without the use or threat of violence. But then, one ought to consider by what we mean by "violence" because one could argue the state is using the threat of violence and imprisonment against those who don't accept gay rights.

Ultimately, everything is achieved through violence, intimidation or some such. You might struggle to find a truly pure example of pacifist success.

The state monopoly of violence - imagine if the state couldn't use violence and had to peacefully negotiate with all criminals etc

 

[mmj_uk]

That I do mostly agree with. I believe the quote is something like: "If you ignore the petitions, and you ignore the marches and you ignore the civil disobedience, then eventually someone somewhere wonders if you will listen to a bomb."

But that said, real and positive change does come about through non-violent means.

I thought you were going to go with:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Also it's a bit rich an Antifa thug talking about the government suppressing change since all they are is a leftist mob upset about politics swinging back towards the right, if Corbyn and Clinton were in power pushing the business as usual agenda they'd be like pigs in ****.

 

[Rroff]

That I do mostly agree with. I believe the quote is something like: "If you ignore the petitions, and you ignore the marches and you ignore the civil disobedience, then eventually someone somewhere wonders if you will listen to a bomb."

But that said, real and positive change does come about through non-violent means.

A lot of our current employment rights came through non-violent means - though some of that is via EU legislation.

(Though historically there is probably a basis of change through some violence there to get to the point where more recent changes were possible to make).

 

[StriderX]

A lot of our current employment rights came through non-violent means - though some of that is via EU legislation.

Pfft, after a bunch of rich toffs in the 1800s got a little depressed at all the children getting mangled in their machines. I think perhaps this could be described as systemic violence.

 

[V F]

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.

Who are these people as I never seem to come across them in real life yet see lots of noises online... Or is that the problem, hot air?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Gay rights is a contemporary example of political lobbying being effective without the use or threat of violence. But then, one ought to consider by what we mean by "violence" because one could argue the state is using the threat of violence and imprisonment against those who don't accept gay rights.

Thank you. Gay rights is a great example. Whilst violence has had to be endured by gay people to get recognition and equality under law, it wasn't achieved by violence. Which is the key point.

Ultimately, everything is achieved through violence, intimidation or some such. You might struggle to find a truly pure example of pacifist success.

Well, the existence of the State and fundamentals are backed by violence past or present, and the ability to carry it out sustains fundamentals such as the state, perhaps. But not all the achievments thereafter depend on violence. We live in a democracy for example. The state monopolizes the use of force but who the state is comprised by is down to us.

That's one of the arguments I have with the communist types who want a revolution: if half the people can't be bothered to vote, what makes you think they'd support a revolution? In fact, one of the people I'm arguing with is actually against voting! Don't even know where to start with that!

 

[StriderX]

Thank you. Gay rights is a great example. Whilst violence has had to be endured by gay people to get recognition and equality under law, it wasn't achieved by violence. Which is the key point.



Well, the existence of the State and fundamentals are backed by violence past or present, and the ability to carry it out sustains fundamentals such as the state, perhaps. But not all the achievments thereafter depend on violence. We live in a democracy for example. The state monopolizes the use of force but who the state is comprised by is down to us.

That's one of the arguments I have with the communist types who want a revolution: if half the people can't be bothered to vote, what makes you think they'd support a revolution? In fact, one of the people I'm arguing with is actually against voting! Don't even know where to start with that!

I personally don't believe it matters if violence was taken or given out, it still matters in the discussion.

If Gay people weren't being attacked or weren't attacking others, no one would have given a ****... Someone has to be an aggressor and someone has to be the victim, otherwise the issue was already settled/didn't exist in the first place.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Who are these people as I never seem to come across them in real life yet see lots of noises online... Or is that the problem, hot air?

Go to a few protests such as anti-Trump rallies or a speech by Tommy Robinson. Antifa will find you.

For a more helpful answer, recall the Berkley riots recently - that was Antifa. Generally seen at public demonstrations in black balaclavas and black shirts (ironically) and sometimes armed.

 

[Malevolence]

Antifa are scum. They can't even see the irony in them using violence to curtail the rights of the right-wing to publicly march and air their grievances. Wherever they go they start the violence and the biased MSM report it in such a way that it sounds like the right-wing groups started it. And the idiot generation just laps it up.

 

[IronWarrior]

antifa should be labelled as an liberal terrorist organisation and banned.

 

[Freakbro]

Liberal terrorists, could you get much more of an oxymoron?

 

[V F]

Go to a few protests such as anti-Trump rallies or a speech by Tommy Robinson. Antifa will find you.

For a more helpful answer, recall the Berkley riots recently - that was Antifa. Generally seen at public demonstrations in black balaclavas and black shirts (ironically) and sometimes armed.

LOL! Pass. Look at them all masked, gutless wonders.