Is peaceful revolution possible?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's not whether we fight, the OP was talking about how we fight. I do not think in my lifetime "world peace" will be achieved, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal. To answer the OP I think a peaceful revolution is possible. It's not violence, but anarchy that is required for a revolution. The type of destruction necessary for that anarchy is very fluid. It could be, obstructing traffic, toting guns, genocide, etc.,  and I don't see why in a primarily fiscally driven society in a capitalist country, how you spend your $$ couldn't be a radical call for change. Fundamentally the US economy isn't townsfolk marching with pitchforks anymore (Karen's aside), and we're also not held at gunpoint to buy certain things.  I don't see why poicy and politics can't be derived from the whims of consumerism for intelligent enough consumers. There in lies the rub, getting enough intelligent and consciences cats herded to make a difference in someone important's bottom line.


Here's a for instance. Aliens came down tomorrow and supplied enough methods of energy and replicators (star trek reference) to the entire world. We are no longer the center of the universe, we have all our needs met, and they take us to other planets so there's not a space/resources issue. With no resources to fight for and a global unity(we are earthlings) , what would be the goal of individuals? How would society operate and how would it be changed?

That scenario assumes that resources are the only thing we fight over. 

Boru

[Angrboda]

It's not whether we fight, the OP was talking about how we fight. I do not think in my lifetime "world peace" will be achieved, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal. To answer the OP I think a peaceful revolution is possible. It's not violence, but anarchy that is required for a revolution. The type of destruction necessary for that anarchy is very fluid. It could be, obstructing traffic, toting guns, genocide, etc.,  and I don't see why in a primarily fiscally driven society in a capitalist country, how you spend your $$ couldn't be a radical call for change. Fundamentally the US economy isn't townsfolk marching with pitchforks anymore (Karen's aside), and we're also not held at gunpoint to buy certain things.  I don't see why poicy and politics can't be derived from the whims of consumerism for intelligent enough consumers. There in lies the rub, getting enough intelligent and consciences cats herded to make a difference in someone important's bottom line.


Here's a for instance. Aliens came down tomorrow and supplied enough methods of energy and replicators (star trek reference) to the entire world. We are no longer the center of the universe, we have all our needs met, and they take us to other planets so there's not a space/resources issue. With no resources to fight for and a global unity(we are earthlings) , what would be the goal of individuals? How would society operate and how would it be changed?

I'm reminded of a tale about agents whose sole task was to see that your aims and goals were frustrated. As the tale goes, this would be terrible were it not for the fact that those agents had similar agents whose task it was to interfere with them.

Ultimately it's a question of resources. Capitalism isn't a question of laws but of the fundamental fact of competition. There will always be competition as it will always be possible to do better than the Joneses by some metric. Billionaires have more than they could ever consume and still want more. Satisfying peoples' needs accomplishes nothing.

[tackattack]

Yet satisfying peoples needs is part of every resolution to conflict I can ever think of. How can satisfying a need not be part of the goal of revolution?

@BrianSoddingBoru4 ofc, it's not all we fight about and it doesn't satisfy lots of emotional needs, etc... blah blah blah, but I don't think you can deny that solving clothes, food, shelter/space wouldn't make our species better as a whole. Why better, less conflict. Less need for revolutions and more time for sharing of ideas and discussion and shaping the way a society thinks.

[Anomalocaris]

Is peaceful revolution possible?

I’ve been thinking about this question, and I feel the answer is NO.

We are taught that violence is always bad, and that we should use peaceful options such as dialogue to change society. But this is clearly contradictory with reality. The powerful employ violence to keep us under control. Why then is it forbidden for us?

History has taught us that violence has been fundamental in social change. Take the French Revolution for example.

I know violence is ugly. But I think that, at least for now, it is still needed. Society still hasn’t advanced to the point where violence isn’t needed anymore.

in my opinion continuous progress that never needs intermittent violence to facilitate is in principle impossible.  it is not a matter of whether we are advanced enough.  it s a matter of it being almost an immutable emergent law of large group behavior under compulsion to change and against the self interest of some groups to resist the change.

long term peace is a state that is made possible by credible threat of descent to destructive violence, and the credibility of decent into destructive violence must be renewed periodically by actual descent into destructive violence.

[HappySkeptic]

Is peaceful revolution possible?

I’ve been thinking about this question, and I feel the answer is NO.

We are taught that violence is always bad, and that we should use peaceful options such as dialogue to change society. But this is clearly contradictory with reality. The powerful employ violence to keep us under control. Why then is it forbidden for us?

History has taught us that violence has been fundamental in social change. Take the French Revolution for example.

I know violence is ugly. But I think that, at least for now, it is still needed. Society still hasn’t advanced to the point where violence isn’t needed anymore.

My take is, if you employ violence, you better win, and you better be right about your ability to create a better future.

If you fail at either, your violence is simply another evil. One of Gandhi's issue with violence is the type of leaders that a violent uprising would promote. Instead of the ends justifying the means, the means actually affects the ends.

FSM save us from other's utopias (more often dystopias), and their willingness to do violence to attempt to bring them about.

[vulcanlogician]

Is peaceful revolution possible?

I’ve been thinking about this question, and I feel the answer is NO.

We are taught that violence is always bad, and that we should use peaceful options such as dialogue to change society. But this is clearly contradictory with reality. The powerful employ violence to keep us under control. Why then is it forbidden for us?

History has taught us that violence has been fundamental in social change. Take the French Revolution for example.

I know violence is ugly. But I think that, at least for now, it is still needed. Society still hasn’t advanced to the point where violence isn’t needed anymore.

This is something I've devoted a lot of consideration to. It may be that peaceful revolution is the only revolution that could hope to genuinely destroy oppression. I don't mean gathering around with picket signs to fundamentally change the system. There must also be disobedience (as in non-participation) in the system for any significant change to be had. The system depends itself on obedience. It cannot function without it. Unless you address the obedience problem first, you risk a continuation of oppression under a new master. Disobedience is the only thing that leaves oppressors without assets.

The issue is stickier than that, of course. We can hold up Gandhi and MLK as example of how nonviolence works. But what kept these fellows from being assassinated the moment they opened their mouths? Well, maybe the threat of mass rioting in the streets. If J. Edgar Hoover had his way, MLK would have been killed, or at least silenced, before he could enact any reforms. It may be that we aren't factoring in the unspoken "threat of violence" when we examine figures like MLK or Gandhi.


Like I said, I've given the topic much consideration. In the end, I think disobedience is key and not violence. Because, oppressors can handle violence. But they can't handle their power amounting to absolutely nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Isn't violence disobedience to an entity that claims a monopoly on violence?

That's the reason the state claims it, after all, and indoctrinates us to that effect. They'd rather not get dead-ed. Not just their power, but their existence too, amounting to nothing. I want to say that sure, oppressors can handle violence, and anything else too - but violence stresses their control. It interrupts the delivery of goods and services to state sympathizers, it provides the state with an oppurtunity to alienate itself from support.

-and they do, like clockwork.

To an oppressor, every single member of your society is a potential traitor. A potential assassin - and they're right. My fun way to put my opinion on this is that shitty people should never be allowed to believe that they're the most dangerous ones in the room.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yet satisfying peoples needs is part of every resolution to conflict I can ever think of. How can satisfying a need not be part of the goal of revolution?

@BrianSoddingBoru4  ofc, it's not all we fight about and it doesn't satisfy lots of emotional needs, etc... blah blah blah, but I don't think you can deny that solving clothes, food, shelter/space wouldn't make our species better as a whole. Why better, less conflict. Less need for revolutions and more time for sharing of ideas and discussion and shaping the way a society thinks.

I don’t deny that at all. Unlimited resources would clearly lessen the need for violence, including violent revolution.

On the other hand, unlimited resources would also increase the ability for people and States to engage in violence - if you know that you’re never going to run out of bullets, why not go ahead and invade your neighbour because you don’t like his flag?





Boru

[vulcanlogician]

Isn't violence disobedience to an entity that claims a monopoly on violence?

That's the reason the state claims it, after all, and indoctrinates us to that effect.  They'd rather not get dead-ed.  Not just their power, but their existence too, amounting to nothing.  I want to say that sure, oppressors can handle violence, and anything else too - but violence stresses their control.  It interrupts the delivery of goods and services to state sympathizers, it provides the state with an oppurtunity to alienate itself from support.

-and they do, like clockwork.

To an oppressor, every single member of your society is a potential traitor.  A potential assassin - and they're right.  My fun way to put my opinion on this is that shitty people should never be allowed to believe that they're the most dangerous ones in the room.

Violence works. I'm not disputing that. But disobedience works too. And disobedience might even work better.

Especially against something insidious like capitalism. Capitalism is like that friend that does nice things for you but also uses you. There are numerous ways to deal with such a "friend." Decking him in the face might work. But my method has always been to make myself unavailable to be used. To not participate in the friendship. And what good is decking him going to do without the underlying "I'm not going to participate in a relationship that uses me" factor. Disobedience is fundamental to change.

You made the point that violence is a kind of disobedience. Maybe that's the one and only feature that makes violence work in the first place. That it's strong and palpable disobedience. Strong and palpable disobedience is what I'm arguing for. I'm just not convinced it needs to be violent.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you want to break the robber barons back, break his factory floor.