Violence in pursuit of political ends is Evil

[bryant69]

We live in America. We have representative Democracy here. We have the right to elect people and to voice our opinions. That means, as unpleasent as it is, the other guys win sometimes.

I'm not arguing laxity in the face of Republican aggression--we need to be out there making our case before the American people. Pointing out the lies and the problems in the Bush Agenda. We desperately need to get a Democrat in the white house in 2004, and we need to fill Congress, Governor's Mansions, State Legislatures and so on with Democrats.

But to suggest revolution or violent tactics is a betrayal of what America stands for. Obviously the bulk of people here don't do that; it's only a few that talk about revolution and so on. But for those who do--America is too precious to abandon to the anarchy and violence that your actions would provoke. And even if you win; if you managed to enforce your political beliefs by the sword (or AK-47, as the case may be), what would America be? It would be dead.

Anyway perhaps this is an over reaction to some of the posts I've read lately, and I don't want to suggest that everybody here wants revolution.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Terwilliger]

1. I think it's irresponsible to shun violence as a means of political change

Anybody here heard tale of an American Revolution? I don't think it was a battle of e-mails!!

[bryant69]

3. Yeah, but

America exists now. We have the mechanisms to get our voices out, to get Democrats and liberals in power. A violent revolution is a decisive statement that those mechanisms have broken down--but they haven't.

[Terwilliger]

4. they haven't?

I see the NUMBER ONE POSTER BOY for idiocy in government with his elbow garishly planted on the podium saying "yeah, well...it's my nuke-u-lar bomb and I'll blow it up if I want to"

If no one on the other side of the political fence is willing to castrate this twit, then it's up to the people...

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security

http://memory.loc.gov/const/declar.html

[kentuck]

5. The assumption is that it will always exist...

We should not forget the words of Tom Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. There may come a time when we will have to fight for our independence again. It is a possibility. It will not be a few DUers fighting the "revolution" - it will be the people.

[atreides1]

6. But...

These mechanisms will only work as long as the Supreme Court keeps its
nose out of elections, places like Florida don't purge voting rolls using the standards that were used in 2000, and the software used in the Diebold voting machines is updated to keep from being compromised,
and if these new voting machines are used they provide the voter with a paper receipt.

Unless all of these requirements are met, America as we know it will cease to exist, and will become like Nazi Germany a one party government.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said "The Tree of Liberty, from time
to time, must be Watered With the Blood of Patriots and Tyrants", or
something to that effect.

Also remember these words from Emiliano Zapata, "IT IS BETTER TO DIE ON YOUR FEET, THEN TO LIVE ON YOUR KNEES."

We can do all that can be done but in the end if we are not willing to
fight for our country then it doesn't matter. This is the point that the thugs always hit us with, the Dems are soft and won't fight. As long as they can continue to convince the people of America of this then we don't stand a chance.

Remember the other side won't hesitate to lock up their opponents if
they get the chance, and if it comes to that I'll fight.

[DemLikr]

10. hmmm...THAT worked well in 2000, didn't it? NOT

the fool with the least votes is in the oval office.

[htuttle]

2. Nelson Mandela once said...

"Non-violent civil disobedience only works if your oppressor has a conscience."

The jury is still out on that issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Mairead]

7. He must have read Orwell and Alinsky

Because they said the same thing. Orwell remarked that Gandhi-ji's nonviolence would never have worked against the Nazis because their modus operandi for dealing with opponents was to take them away in the middle of the night and shoot them. And Alinsky quoted Gandhi-ji's own words to make the point that passive resistance was used because it was the only tool Gandhi had--the Indian people had been disarmed.

I note in passing that the US is currently proving to be more like the Nazis than the Brits in its disdain for lawful behavior...so let's not give up our Second Amendment rights quite yet, shall we? If we don't elect Kucinich and a supportive Congress next year, we might well need every weapon we can lay hands on, afterward, to save ourselves from a protracted holiday at Club Gulag.

[tom_paine]

19. Ghandhi also said...

If they had tried non-violence in S. Africa, the Afrikaners would have rolled right over them.

Given that the Afrikaners are such close spiritual relatives of the Busheviks, I tend to agree with that assessment.

[David__77]

8. This cannot apply to fascism.

How were the South African people to free themselves? Only the armed struggle--a just struggle--led by the liberation forces brought apartheid to its knees. The same with Namibia, the fight against colonialism the world over. The fight against foreign occupation. There is nothing mystically powerful about peaceful protest--it only works if avenues are available for seizing power peacefully. If they do not, then other means are called for.

[kentuck]

9. Gandhi was not oblivious to the reality of violence...

" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. "

"Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. "

[mitchum]

11. No, it's not

Sometimes it is very necessary

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Violent Revolution? Not here, not now.

I'm not against the thought of it. But, the trouble is that this country is no where near having the support of enough of the people to resort to it. And, this is an industrialized society, not some banana republic with a few people at the top stealing everyone into desperation.

Further, "violence" per se, would likely be ineffective simply because the majority of the people would oppose it and see the perpetrators as mere bandits and crazies.

The foundation of this country is it's monied interests. You want a revolution? Think boycotts, strikes, and the ultimate weapon, the General Strike rather than AK-47's and car bombs.

Look at the "revolutions" in Eastern Europe as examples. Industialized country facing vast military/police power were most successful where violence was minimal - Czechoslovaia, East Germany. The people simply defied the government. They just refused to go along with it. Even in hyper-violent Yugoslavia it was the peaceful protests that worked.

Finally, in violent revolutions, it usually the people who suffer, even if the revolution is "won". The bodies littering the streets of Liberia, for the most part, aren't soldiers or "revolutionaries", but civilians. I find it difficult to equate "fighting for the people" while simultaneously killing them or causing their deaths.

Perhaps, there will come a time for violent revolution. But, it's not now and it's not here.

However, the revolution, will come. And, we will win, because we are the majority, if you consider the world rather than our small but far too powerful, and rapacious, corner of it.

[atreides1]

13. An Great Sentiment, But Is It Realistic?

You might be right, the only thing that you failed to take into consideration is that we're not in Eastern Europe, our culture is
totally different from theirs.

They were under communists rule for over 50 years before they started to resist, and what helped the most was the fact that the US became
the only Superpower, that would be able to assist those countries.

As the US became stronger the USSR weakened, and was not able to support itself, much less the puppet governments of the former Warsaw Pact. As for Yugoslavia, when Tito died it broke up into racial and religious factions, and correct me if I'm wrong but Yugoslavia does not really exist anymore does it.

We don't have a rescuer, we are on our own. If you really think that
John Q. Public is going to give up his NASCAR racing, and his can of Budweiser guess again. General strikes worked in Eastern Europe because the people didn't have much to begin with.

They stood in line to buy food, TV was censored, you had to be part of the connected crowd to get anything, including getting your children into good schools.

Are you suggesting that we wait until this happens here, before we do something. Wait until we stand in food lines, have to watch what tv programs the powers that be allow us to watch, maybe even be forced to recognize only one religion.

There is no comparison between Eastern Europe and the US, what worked there, worked because there was another alternative, another world power that was backing the resistance. Whether it was providing actual
material logistics or just a nightly radio program, it is something that we don't have access to. The US now has a policy of preemptive strikes against other countries that might present a threat, not only
militarily but also financially.

We are on our own, it is up to us to get ourselves out of this hole.

[kentuck]

14. What are you gonna fight with ? Guns?

Almost everybody here is anti-guns...there goes the violent revolution. :)

[atreides1]

15. Not Me

I'm not anti-gun, I'm for gun control. I don't believe that convicted
criminals, people with mental illness, or abusers hould have access
to a gun.

I believe in background checks and regulation of those who sell guns.

I also don't think that the NRA should be writing gun control laws.

But I am definitely not anti-gun.

[ShaneGR]

16. Pretty much why the anti-WTO protests have been failures

Smashing a gap store does no more than make the whole cause look terrible.

[theriverburns]

17. Smashing a gap store does no more...

than make the whole cause look terrible.

Wrong. Smashing ONE window makes the whole cause look terrible. Smashing ten thousand makes a point.

[leftofthedial]

18. your premise is true only if . . .

a) Elections are fair and valid

b) The political system provides choice



In the USA today, elections are no longer valid (e.g., the 2000 voting fraud and judicial coup and the 2002 voting fraud). The RNC and DLC control over 80% of the federal government and offer little to choose from on many key issues.