The Right of Revolution

[Anomalocaris]

Chuck, do we see a lot of instances in history where soldiers are averse to stabbing the mob? Could consult the oracle of youtube.

Yes, most recently in Egypt. There is no doubt Egyptian army could have smashed the protesters, but it declined to do so.

A little further back, in 1991, when senior Soviet conservatives staged a coup against Gorbachev, and called in the Soviet Army to Moscow to crush Yelsin's counter revolt, the vaughted Soviet Army declined to fire on its own civilian, and the coupe failed.

During the Tienamin massacre in Beijing in 1989, the communist government first called in the army group (38th mechanized army group) normally stationed near Beijing to come and crush the protest. The 38th army refused its orders. The communists then had to transfer the 14th mechanized army from half way across china to beijing to crush the protest. For a few days, the two mechanized armies deployed around Beijing as though they would engage in a tank battle against each other. Later, 2500 officers from the 38th army was court martialled.

So there are lots of occassions in history when the bayonnets of the autocracy declined to stab its citizens. Most of the time, it is only when a tyranny can't count on the unconditional fedelity of its bayonnets does the tyranny topple and fall. When the bayonnets of the tyranny remains loyal, the pitch forks of the populace is as nothing.

As a superficial observer You only see the soldiers stabbing the mob when they have no aversion to doing so. When they do have such an aversion you often see nothing because the tyranny often knows it, as Mubarik of Egypt did, and does not bring the matter to a head.

[The Grand Nudger]

"the revolution was not without violent clashes between security forces and protesters, with at least 846 people killed and 6,000 injured." And if the civil disobedience fails to produce meaningful change, then what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

---

To use Egypt as an example. If the "less violent?" revolution works, that's a 1 in the w column for humanity, without doubt. That being said, I personally would be unwilling to assume that violent tyranny had ended in the world based upon this particular case. As long as there are people willing to leverage a firearm against you, you should have the right to defend yourself with a firearm. It would be difficult to do this, if you weren't allowed access to firearms.

[Anomalocaris]

"the revolution was not without violent clashes between security forces and protesters, with at least 846 people killed and 6,000 injured." And if the civil disobedience fails to produce meaningful change, then what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

---

To use Egypt as an example. If the "less violent?" revolution works, that's a 1 in the w column for humanity, without doubt. That being said, I personally would be unwilling to assume that violent tyranny had ended in the world based upon this particular case. As long as there are people willing to leverage a firearm against you, you should have the right to defend yourself with a firearm. It would be difficult to do this, if you weren't allowed access to firearms.

You can't seriously believe access to fire arms would availe you anything against a loyal army armed with tanks. Come on.

If civil disobedience fails, and the army remains loyal to the tyranny, the only thing that you can do that will get you anywhere is to work on undermining the army's loyalty to the regime. If the army has been very loyal, shooting at it with private firearms will not undermine the army's loyalty.

[Minimalist]

There is no doubt Egyptian army could have smashed the protesters, but it declined to do so.

Yet now it is the army that is calling the shots. They simply decided not to back an old, losing horse in the hopes of making a better deal for themselves.


Which they've gotten.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course it only declined to do so in those cases that didn't end in 800 some odd deaths and 6k injuries. Bit of a whitewash there.

---

Again, the idea that it's difficult to defeat an enemy with superior firepower does very little to sway me against what I feel to be my obligation to make the attempt. Yes, you can (and most revolutions do) include subversion.

edit-double posted that somehow.

---

Chuck, a superficial observer?

[Anomalocaris]

Of course it only declined to do so in those cases that didn't end in 800 some odd deaths and 6k injuries. Bit of a whitewash there.

---

Again, the idea that it's difficult to defeat an enemy with superior firepower does very little to sway me against the very real obligation to make the attempt. Yes, you can (and most revolutions do) include subversion.

It's not a white wash, The army could have gone on killing until the rebellion is crushed. They choose not to. That is the reason why the rebels are mostly alive, not the molotov cocktails, 12 guag shot guns or 45 Magnums.

[The Grand Nudger]

And how does this apply to situations where armies do not show the benevolence you feel was in play here?

[Anomalocaris]

And how does this apply to situations where armies do not show the benevolence you feel was in play here?

Subvert the discipline and loyalty of the army.

Civilian resistence against the army is one way of subverting the discipline and loyalty of an army whose soldiers and officers ultimately came from the same civilian population. But there is scant evidence that armed resistence against the army is more effective in subverting the loyalty of the army than largely unarmed resistance.

[Minimalist]

Of course it only declined to do so in those cases that didn't end in 800 some odd deaths and 6k injuries. Bit of a whitewash there.

The police is not the army. Notice in Syria, Bahrain, Libya and Iran what happened when the army backed the regime.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you feel that the American Revolution was effective because of it's ability to subvert British forces, or through armed resistance?

---

To be fair, I'm not certain we're disagreeing about the same thing. I would also advocate anything other than armed revolt up and until and even during such time as armed revolt became a last resort. I'm merely questioning what the citizens final means of redress would be were he to allow those that govern him to remove his right to bear arms.