News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Peaceful Protests and Riots

Started by xSilverPhinx, May 16, 2019, 07:11:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

xSilverPhinx

Call me a disbeliever, but I don't think peaceful protesting will really get anybody anywhere as far as parasitic governments are concerned. These corrupt leeches look at the crowds manifesting their discontent and brush it off with statements such as 'Protesting is part of a healthy democratic system. People have the right to protest as long as it's peaceful.' Unless, of course, it's Bolsonaro, who only seems capable of spewing truly imbecilic comments and opinions best kept to himself. 'useful idiots' and 'maneuverable masses of people' he said, without really considering his part in causing all that.

Peaceful protests and strikes don't amount to anything unless they're a strategic sector of the economy. Sorry but a bunch of teachers and students protesting cuts in funding aren't really strategic to a government who doesn't care all that much about education in the first place.

At the other end of the spectrum, violent riots won't amount to much either, especially if they don't have the will of the people to back them up. Ordinary people suffer when protests turn violent and so this type is usually held in disdain by the general population. Still, it seems public disorder scares the government way more than peaceful crowds walking down roads carrying banners with angry words written on them.

Last year truck drivers went on strike to protest diesel price hikes and everyone suffered because of it. Petrol stations were closed, supermarkets weren't restocked...a disaster. Now that's a strike that brought a country to its knees.

But as for sectors that are not strategic and don't inspire those truly strategic sectors to join, between peaceful and violent protesting, as each day passes I tend to think the latter is more effective.

Am I wrong?
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


No one

Humans do not speak peace. Violence is the only language they understand.

Have I ever mentioned I hate them?

xSilverPhinx

I'm reminded of Machiavelli's advice to the ruler in his book The Prince.

"...it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."

But Machiavelli later goes on to say that a competent prince is not hated, because hatred can be his downfall.

That quote originally refers to the prince being feared, but it could probably also be twisted to mean the government should fear the people. A corrupt government, that is not truly in service to the people, should fear the people if it is going to respect them. Who is the true master in this relationship?

Brazil's president Bolsonaro is aiming to create lax gun laws that allow people to carry concealed weapons. I'm sure politicians are going to start dropping dead as soon as this new law is in effect. He himself suffered an attempt on his life prior to elections...if it had been a gun instead of a knife...
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


jumbojak

Violence is the most effective means of social change. However much the news  and politicians might demonize violent protests and riots, it's hard to argue with results. I can't think of any examples where nonviolent action produced any real results.

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub

"I'd be incensed by your impudence were I not so impressed by your memory." - Siz

No one

That's because nonviolence is a foreign language to humans. If they actually used their intelligence, they might just fair better with their needs for change.

Davin

Opposition that begins with violence has pretty bad long term violence issues. The US didn't necessarily start with violence, it started with a declaration that lead to violence. I get that there were some violent acts that lead up to things, but I'm talking about how the movement starts and for the US, it started with the declaration. Something not based in violence that people could hold onto, so they could stop. The remoteness of the US at the time probably helped too.

Most rebellions that start with violence and overthrow the existing regime tend to produce just another terrible regime that people will try to overthrow.

I'm not saying that peaceful protests are the way to go. I'm saying that if you want to prevent the new regime from being just as or more shitty than the one being overthrown, you need some kind of unifying principles that everyone agrees on that are not based in violence.

Unfortunately, violence tends to be the most effective means for change, but without non-violent motivations the only thing it tends to change is who the leaders are.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

jumbojak

Something to keep in mind is that social upheaval doesn't necessarily require a total revolution, even if the lasting effects are revolutionary. Take the civil rights movement in the US. Once its goals had been accomplished the US still had its federal government and all fifty states were still there.

The social landscape in both spheres was radically different though. Color, or lack of color, wasn't a criteria for voting. Discrimination was legally unacceptable in many aspects of society. There are many other results from the civil rights movement but the key aspect that is lost today is that violence was crucial for achieving those goals.

Groups like the SCLC proclaimed nonviolence while working with groups like Deacons for Defense and Justice to ensure space to protest. Nonviolence was a strategic plank that wasn't the reality on the ground in the Deep South. Even spontaneous violence and rioting can have positive outcomes. Just look at Ferguson.

That's not to say the violence will always work or that escalating violence is always the right decision. The Tamil Tigers were wiped out and Kurdish militants in Turkey don't exactly have an easy time of it, but the tool is there to be used when you want results and are able to apply violence in where it can be effective.

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub

"I'd be incensed by your impudence were I not so impressed by your memory." - Siz

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: jumbojak on May 16, 2019, 08:13:12 PM
Violence is the most effective means of social change. However much the news  and politicians might demonize violent protests and riots, it's hard to argue with results. I can't think of any examples where nonviolent action produced any real results.

I can only think of Gandhi, but I'm not sure his peaceful resistance movement was wholly nonviolent.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

It can certainly be a move with complex outcomes. I think a reasonably good outcome depends on the circumstances and how the violence is used.

I think one of the biggest problems is violence faced inwards, against innocent people. That kind of thing just can't take and keep the moral high ground, and certainly won't unify a people who suffer from the violence. If you're a shop owner and your shop is routinely trashed and sacked during riots you're not going to wear a T-shirt that says: I support the movement! If anything, you might side with an iron-fisted government promising to end the violence and severely punish perpetrators.

Terrorism for instance. Native and foreign civilians are the ones who suffer most, not the government coming up with policies that terrorists don't like. I think it's safe to say that those who are victims in terrorist attacks would rather not be. 

So I don't know, but I think when a corrupt and inept government is holding its people hostage something other than walking through the city streets shouting lines in unison and holding provocative banners needs to be done. I just don't believe in these peaceful movements anymore.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


jumbojak

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 16, 2019, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on May 16, 2019, 08:13:12 PM
Violence is the most effective means of social change. However much the news  and politicians might demonize violent protests and riots, it's hard to argue with results. I can't think of any examples where nonviolent action produced any real results.

I can only think of Gandhi, but I'm not sure his peaceful resistance movement was wholly nonviolent.

Gandi wasn't the only Indian nationalist resisting British rule. The Hindustan Socialist Republican Association published an essay titled The Philosophy of the Bomb, which they acted on. One of their bomb factories is now recognized as a monument in Punjab. They viewed their work as complimentary to that of Ghandi, even if he viciously attacked them for their methods.

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub

"I'd be incensed by your impudence were I not so impressed by your memory." - Siz

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 16, 2019, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on May 16, 2019, 08:13:12 PM
Violence is the most effective means of social change. However much the news  and politicians might demonize violent protests and riots, it's hard to argue with results. I can't think of any examples where nonviolent action produced any real results.

I can only think of Gandhi, but I'm not sure his peaceful resistance movement was wholly nonviolent.

MLK.  He was influenced by Gandhi, who was influenced by Tolstoy (believe it or not).  He achieved quite a lot regarding Civil Rights in the USA without ever preaching violence.

jumbojak

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 20, 2019, 06:12:36 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 16, 2019, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on May 16, 2019, 08:13:12 PM
Violence is the most effective means of social change. However much the news  and politicians might demonize violent protests and riots, it's hard to argue with results. I can't think of any examples where nonviolent action produced any real results.

I can only think of Gandhi, but I'm not sure his peaceful resistance movement was wholly nonviolent.

MLK.  He was influenced by Gandhi, who was influenced by Tolstoy (believe it or not).  He achieved quite a lot regarding Civil Rights in the USA without ever preaching violence.

Presching, no. But he was usually armed - believe it or not  - and his organization worked closely with armed groups. Nonviolence was a strategic decision, useful for media impressions, but wasn't the reality on the ground.

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub

"I'd be incensed by your impudence were I not so impressed by your memory." - Siz

Davin

Quote from: jumbojak on May 20, 2019, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 20, 2019, 06:12:36 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 16, 2019, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on May 16, 2019, 08:13:12 PM
Violence is the most effective means of social change. However much the news  and politicians might demonize violent protests and riots, it's hard to argue with results. I can't think of any examples where nonviolent action produced any real results.

I can only think of Gandhi, but I'm not sure his peaceful resistance movement was wholly nonviolent.

MLK.  He was influenced by Gandhi, who was influenced by Tolstoy (believe it or not).  He achieved quite a lot regarding Civil Rights in the USA without ever preaching violence.

Presching, no. But he was usually armed - believe it or not  - and his organization worked closely with armed groups. Nonviolence was a strategic decision, useful for media impressions, but wasn't the reality on the ground.
Being armed =/= being violent though.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Davin on May 20, 2019, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on May 20, 2019, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 20, 2019, 06:12:36 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 16, 2019, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on May 16, 2019, 08:13:12 PM
Violence is the most effective means of social change. However much the news  and politicians might demonize violent protests and riots, it's hard to argue with results. I can't think of any examples where nonviolent action produced any real results.

I can only think of Gandhi, but I'm not sure his peaceful resistance movement was wholly nonviolent.

MLK.  He was influenced by Gandhi, who was influenced by Tolstoy (believe it or not).  He achieved quite a lot regarding Civil Rights in the USA without ever preaching violence.

Presching, no. But he was usually armed - believe it or not  - and his organization worked closely with armed groups. Nonviolence was a strategic decision, useful for media impressions, but wasn't the reality on the ground.
Being armed =/= being violent though.

Yeah, they were constantly being threatened.  Protecting oneself and instituting violence are two different things.  He achieved what he did with words and actions, not violence.