Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Duck and cover
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:41 pm

My thesis is that resisting tyranny by non violent means is vastly better than resorting to the gun.

There are many recent success stories about resistance using non violent means, such as peaceful protest, and the result is the toppling of tyrants. On the other hand, there are numerous cases where those resisting turned to violent means, and the result is hundreds of thousands dead or maimed, and millions of refugees fleeing the fighting. Violence generates human misery. Non violence generates the results wanted.

Indeed, rather often, those who resist tyrants with guns will end up fighting and killing each other.

Americans who believe they need guns to resist some hypothetical tyrannical government need their rear ends kicked....hard!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:44 pm

In the current "from my cold dead hands" scenario we have the military in control of a tyrannical leader. Facing them are the Wolverines.

It would be a slaughter.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:08 am

Off the top of my head, I can name many more situations where peaceful protest was a total failure. Armed conflict makes noise. Defenseless protest does not.

.................If you really care, add them all up.

Hmmmmmm..... "maybe" peaceful protest does result in fewer deaths..... as the people choose life in oppression over death in revolt?

It will take some digging, and after that, still a bunch of value judgements.

Meanwhile.........pass the popcorn.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:52 am

Bobbo

Looking at the USA in recent decades, I name Waco as an example of armed resistance, and the actions of Timothy McVeigh as a follow up violent action. Martin Luther King, though, is an example of a leader of a non violent movement. Which achieved the most at least cost?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:My thesis is that resisting tyranny by non violent means is vastly better than resorting to the gun.
You actually have some beautiful economic rationale to support you.


Economic Coase Theory and Politics
Dictator owns all property, imposes 100% tax and thus no peasants work. ( What would be the point?)

Dictator owns all property, imposes 50% tax and peasant work a little bit. ( Not efficient as no "incentive" hidden hand)

Dictator offers shares in profit. maximises Dictator's return, imposes "laffer curve tax rate" and peasant start to work hard)

....therefore, rationally, the dictator will be handing over "rights" to revenue which is a form of property transfer. The problem with this theory, is that is assumes everyone is "rational". You and I know, that the world is not full of "rational people" but rather the opposite. :D


Non Violent Revolutions
I'm going to get slammed for this by other members, but the Russian revolution wasn't violent. The "big party" (Bolsheviks) got voted into the Duma. The following civil war against upset kulaks, monarchists, western reactionary governments and foreign banks owed money, was very violent.
:mrgreen:

First to spot V Lenin, the Bolshevik, wins!
Presidium_of_the_9th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:26 pm

Lance---I take Waco as simple criminal activity. No "social movement" at all. Everyone can name 3-4 instances on either side. The challenge: identify most "movements" ((obvious, we have to define a movement separate from a crime, and other befuddlements)) and add up the two sides.

Too easy to identify the winner as what captures our emotions. Aren't there a billion people in China right now yearning for "freedom" but there is little to no protest armed or otherwise. Where does that fit in your evaluation? Then......... we could go to the GOUSA. We here in the USA are under the thumb/boots of the Oligarchs. Top 1% owning80% of ever thing....except the misery. There "should be" resistance, armed or otherwise,........but there is peaceful submission to the force applied. How does that fit in?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:52 pm

Bobbo

You can define Waco how you like. It is simply to illustrate a point. The Waco people believed they were fighting a tyranny and they took up arms against it. So did Timothy McVeigh. Martin Luther King was smarter, and his non violent movement overthrew a major power's policies of racism. But if you do not like that example, try Nelson Mandela, who succeeded non violently destroying a racist tyranny. Or Mahatma Gandhi who peacefully and successfully opposed what was the world's biggest superpower at the time. Look at Syria, which began by opposing a tyrant, and took up arms, becoming a major disaster.

China is not a case of a billion people yearning for freedom. Nor was the USSR under Stalin, because the peoples of both places were pretty much convinced by propaganda that they had a superior system. The same applies to North Korea today. They are not overthrowing their tyrants because they are not trying to oppose them. (Except for a tiny minority, which can be dealt with by putting them in prison).*

Look at Myanmar, though. A country under military rule, and opposed by a non violent movement. The opposition did not lead to further oppression or deaths in gun battles, but it still led to the current situation with democracy being re-introduced.

*I have a personal speculation, which is that the tyrants of China and North Korea, and elsewhere, could be dealt with by a form of education of their peoples. This would be done by cell phones and the internet. Simply launch about 1,000 cube sats in circum polar orbit, all acting as repeater stations for cell phones and email and the internet, and make freely available the plans for a radio transducer to connect to this network. People power would then take off and billions of people would get connected. Free access to the international internet would effectively overcome political propaganda.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:14 pm

I think we are somewhat bypassing each other. The rub is the difference between passive resistence, civil disobedience, and being resolved to simply accept the powers that be. That, and I wonder about the civil disobedience of various groups...such as in Myramar. Did the resistence "cause" the change or simply be an ongoing nuisance while the change actually came from other sources? I don't know.

I do know (think?) if I were a dictator, I would prefer the opposition of civil disobedience. Much easier, cheaper, safer, stable to build a jail than to enlarge the army.

Something definitional going on?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:25 pm

Bobbo

That may be, but non violent opposition has proven, time and time again, to be more effective, and at far less cost to society. Note that it is not at zero cost. Both Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were assassinated by arseholes with guns. Nelson Mandela spent a long time in prison. There is a price to be paid, but it is not the massive price that comes with armed uprising and civil war.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:27 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

That may be, but non violent opposition has proven, time and time again, to be more effective, and at far less cost to society. Note that it is not at zero cost. Both Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were assassinated by arseholes with guns. Nelson Mandela spent a long time in prison. There is a price to be paid, but it is not the massive price that comes with armed uprising and civil war.

But the gun nuts think linearly.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:30 pm

Lance: we can both name armed resistence that worked and that failed.

Can you name any passive or civil resistence movements that failed? And when any so identified movements have failed..... what happened then?

Point being........there is a huge definitional issue going unrecognized. When passive movements fail, they aren't counted or recognized. Easy to say civil dissobedients is more effective when you don't even recognize when it fails. EG: Russia, China, USA. We can think "Its Bad" but not bad enough to spark opposition. But how can we tell its not civil disobedience failing over and over again?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:50 pm

Bobbo

I use the term 'non violent resistance' rather than civil disobedience, since the latter is only one of the tools used by the non violent movements.

The thing about 'failures' is that they are not so much failures as delays. If you look at China, for example, and the small number of activists pushing for better human rights, they are actually winning, but very slowly. China has a long way to go, but is still a better place with respect to human rights, compared to Mao Ze Dong's day.

But the thing is that armed resistance is such a litany of disasters. Occasionally they work, but only if circumstances are right. The resistance in the USA against King George worked only because the French entered the war on the side of the USA. And in spite of that, the human cost was considerable. Bearing in mind how many colonies of Britain gained their independence after non violent resistance, it is probable that the USA would have also gained independence at much lower cost if they opted for non violent means. It could be argued that the violent nature of Americans today is a legacy of their violent beginnings. Cultural elements are often amazingly tenaceous.

Non violent resistance works much better most of the time. Look at Africa. There are civil wars right across the continent, and they often go on for decades, and carry a human cost that is utterly tragic. Look at the Arab Spring. Tunisia had a resistance that was non violent, and they gained most of what they were after. In Egypt, it was mostly non violent, and they are close to gaining most of what they were after. In Libya and Syria, the resistance was violent, and both nations are a mess.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:That may be, but non violent opposition has proven, time and time again, to be more effective, and at far less cost to society.
I actually mathematically proved this is true, using Coase Theory. What everyone missed was coase theory was already transferring "rights" to the lower classes since urbanisation allowed for separation of labour.

The Magna Carta was a rational Economic Coase Theory, inspired document.
:D

I argued that Coase theory only works if people are rational. If people are rational, then both dictators and peasants, will see the mutual benefit. Therefore the best weapon to use against dictatorship is still education.

(OK. I admit I'm not being pragmatic here. However a gentleman is allowed to have general goals) :D

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Poodle » Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:44 am

Isn't it rather difficult to demonstrate at what point non-violent resistance has failed?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:18 am

Poodle wrote:Isn't it rather difficult to demonstrate at what point non-violent resistance has failed?

No, just walk around a grave yard.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:08 am

It comes down to narratives and which side has the better one and is able to sell it to the population and the world community. In very oppressive regimes with no intention of appearing open to the world, non-violent protest is pretty much useless, but at least it might not get you killed (straight away).
In open societies, violence, supported by political work, might be the only way for a small minority to get their way against a larger consensus. We have seen many violent groups in Europe (Northern Ireland, Basque countries etc.) where we have terror groups with links to a radical local party. This makes it possible for the party to throw much more weight around than is warranted by the number of its supporters. In many cases, such violent/non-violent groups have leveraged great concessions from central governments in return for the promise to stay non-violent.

Myramar and others desperately wanted international recognition and access to the world economy; that required losing some of the more brutal aspects of their rule, at the the obvious ones. The opposition, by staying non-violent, put up a convincing narrative that they are fit to handle a peaceful transition to more democracy.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:25 am

EM

Northern Ireland and the Basque struggle were both violent and both failed miserably, except to inflict human misery and death upon the innocent. Northern Ireland gained when they moved from violence to peaceful negotiation.

Yet there have been some very oppressive governments that have made serious concessions to non violent oppositions (Egypt and Tunisia and Myanmar in recent years).

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:44 am

Lance - not true in the political sense: both groups achieved a lot that would not have been possible using non-violent means alone.

The key is to have very clearly defined goals that a central government is able to grant.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:22 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Lance - not true in the political sense: both groups achieved a lot that would not have been possible using non-violent means alone.



That is definitely not the way I see it. The IRA were killing, maiming and destroying for a century with no gains. The Basque separatists did the same thing, and still have not achieved any significant gains.

On the other hand, look at what Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King achieved with their non violent methods. They make the violent approach look sick in terms of relative results.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:21 pm

MLK had no role to play until after 800K perished in the Civil War to free the slaves as the previous 200 years of non-violent resistance came up with nothing.

A point in isolation.... the above is. Yes, how to tell failure if non-violent protest "continues until it succeeds"?

Actually, this subject is somewhat of an anomaly to me: I'm not dead certain about what I'm actually talking about or concerned with. This coase theory of Ellard's is new to me. Should be fun to google.

Regarding the IRA fight against England: I'm reminded of a touchstone for me: when given an option, I always say: "both." Applying: a little bit of violence while working within the system will work the best?--Unless up against dictators who are happy to lock up or dissappear anyone involved....until as the Karmic Wheel continues to rotate some "peaceful" (temporary?) resolution is reached, and then we can all proclaim that non violent movements work best?

All very undefined. .............. makes me uncomfortable.

Ha, ha............everything is a mix of everything.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:59 pm

The Eta violence led to a UN peace conference on the Basque countries with unbelievably high ranking official. Using pure political means, the issue would never have gotten so much international exposure.

And the Parliament in Northern Island has received much greater autonomy in return for non-violent.

So in a way you are right - violence doesn't work, but credible promises to cease violence do. It is what has led to the bit of autonomy the Gaza authorities have.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:16 pm

You mean there have never been any successful revolutions?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:19 pm

Right on Topic:

"Germans must ban ALCOHOL if they want to prevent further sex attacks and help North Africans integrate, says Muslim group"

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... group.html

So.......what we have is Muslims advocating for peaceful change. Other Muslims are committing criminal acts. How long before they (some) resort to violence on this issue or will they save that for more direct anti-Islam freedoms of the West?

Solve for X: how many Muslims with such anti-Western Freedom values before ............ what?==peaceful resistance/protest/advocacy - or armed revolt takes place to encode their (religious) values into civil (Sharia) law?

"I'm here, I'm seeking sanctuary, I'm new. Now YOU change." /// A Clash of Cultures..... only one facet among the 84 different shining points of contention. Who would have thought this would not end well?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:12 pm

Germans ban alcohol?

Right....

I'm sure the 1,400 breweries won't mind, and neither will all the wineyard...

Octoberfest (or any other German festival) is just as much fun with or without alcohol, right? right?

Muslims are in for a surprise, since legal drinking age in Germany is 16...
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Poodle » Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:20 pm

Yes. I was wondering what the German for "{!#%@} off" is. There is more chance of Zeuzzz winning an argument on here than there is of Germans giving up their booze.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:36 pm

Poodle wrote:Yes. I was wondering what the German for "{!#%@} off" is.

Verpiss dich.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:MLK had no role to play until after 800K perished in the Civil War to free the slaves as the previous 200 years of non-violent resistance came up with nothing.

A point in isolation.... the above is. Yes, how to tell failure if non-violent protest "continues until it succeeds"?

Actually, this subject is somewhat of an anomaly to me: I'm not dead certain about what I'm actually talking about or concerned with. This coase theory of Ellard's is new to me.



The American Civil War did not start as a means of freeing slaves. Lincoln did not even make it an issue till the war was well under way, so your point there is not well made.

Non violent opposition fails when it turns violent. The current war in Syria is an example. It began with non violent protest, but after the arsehole Assad killede about 100,000 protestors, it turned really, really nasty.

The coase theorem is a part of economics. It relates to two parties with opposing economic goals, and states that the best outcome is achieved when the two parties negotiate together.

I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to economics, because of the serious difficulty achieving accurate empirical testing. I also feel that this theorem might not be transferrable to politics, but I am sure Matthew will have something to say here.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:42 pm

Ho Chi Minh tried peaceful means of getting Inchochinese independence. When that failed he went to war and won.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:55 pm

Resistance of any kind is the effort to impose a penalty on the actions of others. When the cost for resistance becomes too great for the rulers, they have to implement changes to remove or pacify the resisters. When the countermeasures of the rulers become too costly for the resistance, it ceases.
Resistance must therefore find a way to be costly to the rulers but even more costly to be removed. And that means that the resisters must offer acceptable conditions under which they will cease their resistance.

Revolutions impose ultimate penalties on the rulers, which is why they are suppressed by any means.
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:00 pm

"Bastille Day" ring a bell?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:52 pm

Lance: quite true re the Civil War...but.... the point was that non violent movements to free the slaves did not work.

Reviewing the thread, references have been made to all the combos: peaceful vs violent charted against worked and didn't work. IE==no simple universal rules to apply. One method works in one situation, while the other method does not, and they can both be applied at the same time for different issues and aspects.

Years ago, I used to say that non-violent movements only worked in Democracies where the majority of people did not strongly oppose whatever the issue was. Dictators willing to jail and kill the opponents really only respond to violence as that is their governing principle.... but there are exceptions there too as best as I understand Myramar...or was that only a coincidence as mentioned?

Where have dictators stepped down as the result of peaceful non violent opposition? As close as I can really come is large scale peaceful protest with violence breaking out more and more often so the power behind the power tells the dictator its time to move on? And what "did" happen in Myramar? Military Dictatorship allowing transfer of gubment to the Nobel Peace Prize winning lady under house arrest? Thats my best memory, but probably wrong in key aspects.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby OutOfBreath » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lance: quite true re the Civil War...but.... the point was that non violent movements to free the slaves did not work.

Then how did it even occur to people that slavery was wrong? And who constantly nagged about it for decades if not centuries? Abolishionists who basically never touched a gun. That it happened at that precise time was militarily and politically convenient for one group in a power struggle. But the groundwork of the notion that slavery is a monstrous thing, that was pretty nonviolent change over a long period of time eating away at the system's legitimacy.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:11 pm

OOB--were the slaves freed by a non-violent movement, or did I miss something?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:13 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:The key is to have very clearly defined goals that a central government is able to grant.


That's a really important point. Revolutionaries can't demand an existing government to have a separate internal revolution to waive "their own" existing political structure. If the existing government ignores its own legislation, its not really "the government" with the capacity to recognise the revolutionaries demands, anyway. It may mean the revolution is seen as illegal.

The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were extremely careful to take power in the Duma through legitimate means.

I think Lance is right in general, but he is trying to cover to many different sorts of social revolutionary scenarios, with a broad brush. Oppressed Papuan villagers will simply kill the nasty village chief. That's just human. Marx had an extremely complex schedule of social & economic changes that he thought had to first take place before communism arose naturally. It is difficult to put these two different scenarios in the same pot.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:06 pm

The American Civil War started due to matters of political power and economics. Well into the war, Lincoln introduced abolishionism as an added factor to make his own side more motivated. The freeing of the slaves was a side issue to the real ones.

Ho Chi Minh 'won' at a cost. "Only" two million of his countrymen and women dead. Hitler was stopped due to violence, with a cost of about 60 million dead.

I dread to think what would happen if a government in the USA came to be seen as tyrannical. There are so many gun nutters. There would certainly be civil war, and the cost would be many millions of dead, and an economy in tatters. Much better if Americans realised that non violence is better.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:40 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The American Civil War started due to matters of political power and economics. Well into the war, Lincoln introduced abolishionism as an added factor to make his own side more motivated. The freeing of the slaves was a side issue to the real ones.
Fair enough. However, side issues are just as important. The Magna Carta did not bestow any rights on peasants. It gave rights to Lords, against the king. However it introduced "all lords are to be treated equally" and later on someone brought up in parliament that lords can be elevated peasants and thus it also applies to peasants.

The history of England is pretty damn complicated, but the end result today, makes sense, in a weird way. The UK could get rid of the monarchy but still do all the work for "the benefit of the crown and realm".....and it would still make sense.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:17 am

Matthew.

Yes. English democracy was the model for all democracies that followed, and was a clear example of an evolution rather than a revolution. An evolution that took time. There were violent episodes, but I do not believe they accomplished much, while the slow and inexorable evolution of democracy and human rights prevailed.

Obviously violence can achieve positive results, but at a terrible cost. Non violent opposition to tyranny and to those who violate human rights is a much better path.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7360
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby TJrandom » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:21 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Ho Chi Minh tried peaceful means of getting Inchochinese independence. When that failed he went to war and won.


Uncle Ho died before victory.... but in that, maybe he did win.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:30 am

TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Ho Chi Minh tried peaceful means of getting Inchochinese independence. When that failed he went to war and won.


Uncle Ho died before victory.... but in that, maybe he did win.

The North took the South and drove out the French and the US. Smells like victory to me.

And Giap was one hell of a general, IMNSHO.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:47 am

What we might be able to say is that, usually, change brought about by non-violent means is longer lasting than change by violent means.
Successful peaceful resistance is necessarily brought about by widespread support and without very strong opposition.

In contrast, violent resistance might be only supported by a militant minority, leaving it open to counter-resistance both by violent and non-violent means.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest