• Is there such thing as a non-violent revolution?
    30 replies, posted
[quote]A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. [I]Taken from Wikipedia[/I][/quote] So, the question is: Is there such thing as a non-violent revolution? You can make the argument that there are bands who "revolutionized" music, but does that stay true to the hard coded definition of a revolution?
I think that there can be slight shifts in power, even over small amounts of time without violence, but in the classical definition of Revolution, or at-least how people view it, and how it has been used in the past, that it more-so defines violent protest or revolution.
Yes there is such a thing it's when a revolution happens and there's no violence. /thread, stop clogging the debate forums.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;33696492]Yes there is such a thing it's when a revolution happens and there's no violence. /thread, stop clogging the debate forums.[/QUOTE] How about stop clogging up threads with shit posting? Anyways, revolution in terms of government would imply an overthrow of the government by the governed, this doesn't mean that it has to be violent if it is assumed there are at least some who would give up their post to another individual. However, I doubt that many people would want to give up their power to someone else. That's human nature, but surely there would be some who would do so in certain circumstances.
It's technically possible, if you live in a democracy. For example, if some how a constitutional amendment turning the U.S. into a socialist nation is passed, that would be a "revolution", right? @cis.joshb This isn't a shit post, it's a legitimite topic for debate. Your answer on the other hand, is a shit post.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution[/url] Yeah we had one here
Here's another one [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution[/url]
also [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution[/url] [editline]13th December 2011[/editline] oh and these [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution[/url]
Most (peaceful) demonstrations are considered revolution by authority and leads to violence. At least in the last twenty years.
See Gandhi.
doesn't the people have a right to rise against opressive governments or govs they generally dislike? how come authorities are involved then
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;33702274]See Gandhi.[/QUOTE] india didn't really go completely nonviolently
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33705838]india didn't really go completely nonviolently[/QUOTE] Well duh, but much of it has been done through Gandhi's doctrine of Satyagraha. There has been instances of riots but he strongly denounced them as being not part of the movement.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_revolution"]Hmmm...[/URL]
Can we /thread now that the answer has been proven?
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;33712439]Can we /thread now that the answer has been proven?[/QUOTE] Stop doing that /thread shit, keep it to the Steam forums or wherever else you picked it up from. Seriously it's fucking annoying.
Yes there is, there have been plenty of them there is a whole wiki page full [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution[/url] the wave of bloodless revolutions following the collapse of the USSR for instance
[QUOTE=Chekko;33702249]Most (peaceful) demonstrations are considered revolution by authority and leads to violence. At least in the last twenty years.[/QUOTE] It depends on how popular the revolution itself is. If it's more or less population wide across a wide stratification peaceful revolutions are incredibly effective. If it's merely smaller groups of the population, usually only one social group it tend to lead to violence. That's for instance one of the reasons the OWS movement is running into so many clashes with the police. It's a fairly small movement and large swathes of the population are against it. While most nonviolent revolutions usually had at least one peacefull protest turned violent, it rarely goes beyond one.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;33712439]Can we /thread now that the answer has been proven?[/QUOTE] as said cut out the annoying /thread posts they're stupid
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33696980]It's technically possible, if you live in a democracy. For example, if some how a constitutional amendment turning the U.S. into a socialist nation is passed, that would be a "revolution", right? @cis.joshb This isn't a shit post, it's a legitimite topic for debate. Your answer on the other hand, is a shit post.[/QUOTE] Yeah but if it became a socialist nation, we'd all be fucked and it wouldn't be a good revolution. So following that we'd end up with another revolution anyway.
[QUOTE=The one that is;33724861]Yeah but if it became a socialist nation, we'd all be fucked and it wouldn't be a good revolution. So following that we'd end up with another revolution anyway.[/QUOTE] first of all, that was just an example. Secondly, Socialism is not a bad system. It's just that Stalin ruined it in Russia, and all the other major socialist nations of the time followed his lead.
we have a non-violent revolution here in the USA every 4 years. no, really.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33725353]first of all, that was just an example. Secondly, Socialism is not a bad system. It's just that Stalin ruined it in Russia, and all the other major socialist nations of the time followed his lead.[/QUOTE] Not Cuba or Nepal. However you can't really call Nepal a socialist state anymore...
[QUOTE=CcAeroN;33732126]Not Cuba or Nepal. However you can't really call Nepal a socialist state anymore...[/QUOTE] I don't know much about Nepal, but Cuba's system is based on Stalinist Marxism.
A non-violent revolution is theoretically possible, but not in the capitalism of modern neoliberal society. For a recent example on how this is the case, when the Occupy protests established some relatively concrete demands the state immediately intervened and dispersed them. Read two pages of the [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/[/url] for Marx's explanation on how non-violent reform is an impossibility.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;33712439]Can we /thread now that the answer has been proven?[/QUOTE] I wonder what is your problem there, people are aloud to debate on a subject like this, or discuss it as a matter of facts.
The Tunisian Revolution is so far looking like an effective traditional revolution which used exclusively non-violent methods
-[[B]REMOVED[/B]]
Agricultural revolution Industrial revolution Information revolution Etc.
[QUOTE=Karlos;33772304]A non-violent revolution is theoretically possible, but not in the capitalism of modern neoliberal society. For a recent example on how this is the case, when the Occupy protests established some relatively concrete demands the state immediately intervened and dispersed them. Read two pages of the [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/[/url] for Marx's explanation on how non-violent reform is an impossibility.[/QUOTE] The issue with OWS is that they actually don't have the popular support. For a nonviolent revolution to be successfull, you require support across society. At least silent. Which essentially makes the movement grow at fairly fast rates. Compared to that, OWS essentially sucked in a lot of people in the beginning and has been loosing them since. And likewise they don't seem to have a chance of a violent revolution as by and large the police and military do not support them either. Imagine if the OWS movement didn't stop growing and you had suddenly something like half a million people doing the occupation, and countless others elsewhere. That would have been enough to have an impact. Just consider the vietnam war protests. It took a a while but in the end they did ram up enough public support. It's really about a sense of scale.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.