Social revolution and violence.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Do you think social revolution can only occur with an act of violence as an instigator?
They way I see it;corrupt government,clergy financiers and the disgruntled masses persistantly being screwed over with increased intensity. The aforementioned social establishments lose credibility,respect and are proven corrupt. Now,in such a circumstance do you think that the only way for social revolution to occur is an act of violent rebellion by a few to rally the masses? With the exception of India this seems historically true.

[zibber]

How do you mean, historically true?

In any event, this need not be the case. There will be some necessity for resistance violence to defend against the forces of reaction/counter-revolution, but violent rebellion by a few is only one form of revolution (and in conflict with the kind Marx wrote of, contrary to what guerrilleros might claim).

[hubcap]

It depends largely on the society. In a totalitarian society with little to no individual freedom violence may be the only recourse. In a free society social revolution can occur at the ballotbox.

[Arkeph]

I would disagree, at least in the sense that the ballotbox isn't where such social revolution occurs, but is only a place where it exerts its influence. A social revolution begins long before that, with highly contagious ideas and, usually, a few recognized leaders who passionately strive to make those ideas have an impact on society as a whole.

In repressive regimes, orderly implementation is suppressed and the leaders are exiled or killed, so social revolutions are often violent and chaotic. Of course, force is not the only way to suppress revolution, and it is certainly not the best.

In all societies, it's possible for the virulence of certain ideas to be diminished by use of propaganda, secrecy, misinformation, and dilution. When the information environment is murky, all kinds of psychological mischief happens which disrupts the ability of like-minded people to act in concert about any but the must trivial ideas.

This would certainly help to explain why little action has taken place in response to huge events in the political and economic realms, and why a "free society" can maintain a political system which disenfranchises and robs its people without its politicians fearing a reaction.

The problem becomes one of cleaning up the information environment, enabling people to see through it, or somehow finding the circumstances under which large groups can be made to sustain focus on one idea to the exclusion of all else.

[Dodeca]

Now that the internet has surpassed the propagandist mass media as a source of information people can research and share ideas at the speed of light. The eyes of the public are being open to new incites only known by a few. The marketplace of ideas is expanding and I believe that can only be a good thing.

[Aronnax]

That would be a false assumption. See: US Progressive movement, 1900 to 1914.

[Arkeph]

Also notable are the many polls and surveys which confirm that people are no better informed or politically savvy than they were before the advent of the internet. A bigger marketplace helps the most capable navigators find what they seek, but allows the less competent to become truly lost.

[Mader]

A GOOD social movement would not require violence.

A GOOD social movement would be embraced by the people and the people in power, unless of course, the people in power were in love with that power and the social movement would jeaprodize that power.

[Yhor]

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962I am a firm believer in these words. When given the opportunity to make changes in peace, there is rarely a desire to bring it about in violence. If left with one choice, well, then there's one choice; that one choice is usually violence.

[RBM]

In a free society social revolution can occur at the ballotbox.

True and is part of the problem in reality; the ballot box been bought by corporations.

I think violence creates more problems than it solves, but I'm also aware my view is in the minority at least in the US, so I expect my view to be ignored.

[Yhor]

True and is part of the problem in reality; the ballot box been bought by corporations.

I think violence creates more problems than it solves, but I'm also aware my view is in the minority at least in the US, so I expect my view to be ignored.

I wont ignore your view, at least not right now ;).

Do you have any evidence that it creates more problems than it solves, in long term analysis?

I'll start, in favor of violent protest.


The US revolutionary war. If not for our nation's violent protesting of taxation without representation, protesting the lack of freedom of religion, among other fundamental liberties and 'God given" rights, where would most of the civilized world be right now?
What of nations not directly under influence of war with the Germans, during the rise and fall of Hitler? Did they not come to aid what they believed in, in protest of what was happening, elsewhere?

Now, I'm sure there are examples of protest that did not end well. Such as Davidian Branch and Ruby Ridge. Also, Iraq and Afghanistan might be included, with note to it still going on (the effects can't be measured until stability is reached, etc..). There are circumstances that make a decision for violence reasonable, and circumstances that make it unreasonable. I'd say reasonable decisions that include violence are possible, when all other means to an end have been extinguished. "What determines reasonable from unreasonable though?", that is the million dollar question.

[Arkeph]

I had an idea to solve the information problem I mentioned technologically. It would be pretty much a HitchHiker's Guide to Earth, capable of evaluating spoken statements as true or false. It would flash a different color if the statement were true, unverified, unverifiable, false, nonsensical, or not archived.

Of course, what's necessary is a system that can autonomously interpret the statement, evaluate its information content, retrieve relevant information from the internet and judge how that information relates to the claim, as well as its veracity.

It would do what a lot of people don't have the sense or the time to do: good quality internet research. I think someday it will be created, but in the near-term a limited device that evaluates purely political information (vote records, the content of bills, who said what, etc) might be barely feasible.

[Dodeca]

I wont ignore your view, at least not right now ;).

Do you have any evidence that it creates more problems than it solves, in long term analysis

People think that by voting they are influencing "change we can believe in" when in fact most people have no understanding they are being manipulated.

The best way to keep a slave happy is to let them think they are free.

[Yhor]

I had an idea to solve the information problem I mentioned technologically. It would be pretty much a HitchHiker's Guide to Earth, capable of evaluating spoken statements as true or false. It would flash a different color if the statement were true, unverified, unverifiable, false, nonsensical, or not archived.

Of course, what's necessary is a system that can autonomously interpret the statement, evaluate its information content, retrieve relevant information from the internet and judge how that information relates to the claim, as well as its veracity.

It would do what a lot of people don't have the sense or the time to do: good quality internet research. I think someday it will be created, but in the near-term a limited device that evaluates purely political information (vote records, the content of bills, who said what, etc) might be barely feasible.

If automated, would that not be easily manipulated by decent programmers/hackers? I do like the idea overall though, very insightful.

[ElstonGunn]

Violent revolutions can lead to changes. There's no shortage of examples of that. The problem with them, I think, is that they leave the winners in a bad situation. A successful revolution teaches the winners that violence is an effective and justifiable way to resolve disagreements. I'm not comfortable with making that concession in order to achieve the revolutionaries' desired result, even if that result is one that I'd desire as well.

I think it's not unimaginable to use violence to instigate the change you want, and then a few years in the future, you've got the Reign of Terror on your hands and you're guillotining a lot of people who got in your way. Or maybe you're invading Canada because you want to own that land and you don't think the British deserve it (hey, that's what they get for harassing your sailors). Or maybe you're assassinating Trotsky and shipping dissidents off to the Gulag.

[The Journey]

Do you think social revolution can only occur with an act of violence as an instigator?
They way I see it;corrupt government,clergy financiers and the disgruntled masses persistantly being screwed over with increased intensity. The aforementioned social establishments lose credibility,respect and are proven corrupt. Now,in such a circumstance do you think that the only way for social revolution to occur is an act of violent rebellion by a few to rally the masses? With the exception of India this seems historically true.

No, I think violence is not needed to start a social revolution. The only things needed for a social revolution is an idea shared by a group of people who have felt they have been wronged in one way or another.

Starting a social revolution with violence only corrupts the revolution itself.

[thod]

Any perceived threat to the established order will made illegal. Laws will be introduced to prevent whatever means or activities the malcontents are using. Thus all revolutionaries will be labelled criminals to allow the police and courts to neutralise them. I suggest you read the US declaration of independence for the charges against king George. The tyrants will use legalised violence and violence can only be met in kind.

The establishment does not fear individuals, they can be picked off. It fears the masses because they cannot be quelled by a few policemen. Think of the French revolution. The aristocrats body guard platoon cannot and will not face a horde of peasants with pitchforks.

[RBM]

Do you have any evidence that it creates more problems than it solves, in long term analysis?

Violence is a 'high entropy behavior'. so it has inherently more problems than it's mirror opposite 'low entropy behavior'.

[Yhor]

Violence is a 'high entropy behavior'. so it has inherently more problems than it's mirror opposite 'low entropy behavior'.

So can you explain how the colonies of the 1700s in America were to solve their problems, without violence?
How about Nazi Germany? A non violent solution would have been more effective and there would have been less death and negative consequence?
Would slavery still be common in the US without the Civil War, a very bloody and violent war among it's own? (I'd actually hope for this answer to be that it would have ended anyway, but it would still have taken longer and have had more loss of 'life').

There are other such examples, with less impact than these had, but I still don't understand how violence can be overlooked as sometimes the only means to a solution.

I don't think violence is the cure all to end all, but it has it's uses when..
“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible will make violent revolutions inevitable”- JFKennedy

[hubcap]

Violence is a 'high entropy behavior'. so it has inherently more problems than it's mirror opposite 'low entropy behavior'.
Your model only addresses the short term view. Long term you may actually have more entropy with the 'low entropy behavior'.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 09:29 PM ----------

So can you explain how the colonies of the 1700s in America were to solve their problems, without violence?
How about Nazi Germany? A non violent solution would have been more effective and there would have been less death and negative consequence?
Would slavery still be common in the US without the Civil War, a very bloody and violent war among it's own? (I'd actually hope for this answer to be that it would have ended anyway, but it would still have taken longer and have had more loss of 'life').

There are other such examples, with less impact than these had, but I still don't understand how violence can be overlooked as sometimes the only means to a solution.

I don't think violence is the cure all to end all, but it has it's uses when..
“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible will make violent revolutions inevitable”- JFKennedy
This is actually a very valid point. However it isn't consistent many people's world view and they tend to ignore it. The reality is that if one studies history it quickly becomes apparent that it is often necessary to use violence in order to facilitate change. Wars (not necessarily revolutions) sometimes result in times of great peace and prosperity. For instance, the end of the "Dark Ages" and "The Renaissance" came about largely because of the Crusades.

Revolutions and wars do not necessarily bring about good things. The Bolshevik Revolution is a good example of how "not to do it" if the goal is peace and prosperity for the masses. The Revolutionary War against King George is a good example of violent revolution bringing about positive change..........unless you were King George.

Those in power do not wish to relinquish it and will go to extreme lengths to retain it.

[saberu]

I had an idea to solve the information problem I mentioned technologically. It would be pretty much a HitchHiker's Guide to Earth, capable of evaluating spoken statements as true or false. It would flash a different color if the statement were true, unverified, unverifiable, false, nonsensical, or not archived.

Someone else would create a system that contrdicts your evaluations. Then it would be a war of credibility and were back to square one.


The u.s. federal governments weak point is legal tender laws.
If there was a coordinated effort to conterfiet vast sums of paper money and give it away all across the country the system would crash. At least temporarily.

[Arkeph]

Someone else would create a system that contrdicts your evaluations. Then it would be a war of credibility and were back to square one.


Things may tend to revert back to square one, but I think that's an over-simplification of the complex dynamics of a modern society. We might find a new information equilibrium that's much more satisfactory. Other countries have done so (as evidenced by the fact that our media companies refuse to cover complex international issues on American television, but do so elsewhere). Even so, your point is a good one. For all we know, we might end up in a situation even worse than the current one. All I can say for certain is that we've got to continue agitating the system until we find a better equilibrium.

[Blum]

Things may tend to revert back to square one, but I think that's an over-simplification of the complex dynamics of a modern society. We might find a new information equilibrium that's much more satisfactory. Other countries have done so (as evidenced by the fact that our media companies refuse to cover complex international issues on American television, but do so elsewhere). Even so, your point is a good one. For all we know, we might end up in a situation even worse than the current one. All I can say for certain is that we've got to continue agitating the system until we find a better equilibrium.

The last thing I want is a computer program telling me if my sentence is true or false. What kind of robotic, uniform, boxed in life would this be?

[Arkeph]

The last thing I want is a computer program telling me if my sentence is true or false. What kind of robotic, uniform, boxed in life would this be?

In practice, I think you'd only use it when the situation called for it. In any case, most of what we say is in the "unverifiable" category anyway.