NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION: Is It POSSIBLE?

NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION: Is It POSSIBLE?

Posted in the African-American Forum

First Prev
of 121
Next Last

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#1 Jan 18, 2011
That is a question with which Dr. King struggled during his entire life as a Movement leader.
But is REVOLUTION possible withut spilling rivers of blood? Or are revolutions ALWAYS bloody, as Malcolm X seesm to imply in his famous "Message to the Grassroots" speech?

First, what is a revolution? A revolution--unlike rebellion or Reformisn--is a FUNDAMENTAL transformation of any entire social order, an entire poliical and economic order. It also entails a radical CULTURAL transformation, and a transformation even in day-to-day interhumean relations.
And there must be, as Dr. King argued, a "revolution of values" as well as insttutions.

But can that be achieved peacefully? In particular, King came to see racism as inseprably tied to ECONOMIC EXPLOITATON. But to overcome that implies the transcendence of capitalism itself---a "radical redistribution of economic power" were the words I recall from one of King's speeches.

But can it be accomplished by NONVIOLENT means?

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2 Jan 18, 2011
POLITICAL CONDITIONS & NONVIOLENCE

Some say that nonviolence has a chance if the ruling power is not a police state. Or if the despotic regime being opposed is a weak one, or one that has lost the will to preserve itself.

In short, it is held to be possible a relatively "liberal" regime.

In a "liberal democracy" like England or America, even Karl Marx thought that revolutionary change is possible without bloodshed.

But is a FUNDAMENTAL social transformation possible without bloodshed even in America or other similar republics?

The structure of power and wealth was not significantly affected by civil rights laws in the 1960s. Nore even by new labor reforms or laws of the 1930w under FDR.
Indeed, the nearest thing to radical social transformation in America was the Abolition of slavery and beginning of Reconstruction.
For this involved the destruction of an entire social system of bondage and its replacement with "free" labor.
But that was accomplished by means of VIOLENCE, by a CIVIL WAR.

Can new Reconstruction--multiracial--b e accomplished in America without drowning our land in blood?
Messy Panties Now

Overland Park, KS

#3 Jan 18, 2011
hi
Smelly one

Singapore

#4 Jan 18, 2011
I have to poop
Samir Shaba

UK

#7 Jan 18, 2011
No
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#8 Jan 18, 2011
Yes it is. Gandhi and King both won their battles, though they sacrificed their lives to do it.

The alternative is just not ethically viable.

I believe in self-defense. If someone comes after you to kill you, the time for turning the other cheek is over.

But otherwise, PEACE is preferable.
Cocheese

San Jose, CA

#9 Jan 18, 2011
There is no such thing as a non violent revolution.

Revolutions are fueled by blood.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#10 Jan 18, 2011
Cocheese wrote:
There is no such thing as a non violent revolution.
Revolutions are fueled by blood.
That has beeen the case with revolutions, as Malcolm X noted (even though he also considered political empowerment as a posssible alternative. Ballot or Bullet).
But must it ALWAYS be the case? A Greco-American fellow philosopher and friend once suggested that AT LEAST IN OUR TIME nonviolent revolution is possible.
In reply to the claim that it cannot work in police states, he points out that the Filipino dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos was toppled by revolutionary but nonviolenct PEOPLE POWER.

He also notes that the entire Stalinist empire in eastern Europe (excepting Rumania) was overthrown by popular, nonviolent insurgency.
In countries like America, where there's more elbow room (at least for now) for people to move, there ought to be greater chances of nonviolent change.

Of course, some peopple say that nonviolent REFORM (e.g. Civil Rights Actu, 1964) is possible, but not NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION.
it's the possibility of the latter that I am pondering.
No just for the sheer joy of intellectual speculation.
I feel that we NEED a REVOLUTION in America, and the world.

And while I'm not King or Gahdhi, I would like to be able to achieve this without drowning the land in rivers of blood.
Is it POSSIBLE?

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#11 Jan 18, 2011
A New Society?

In short, can we create a radically different, more humane,all around BETTER society without carnage?

I'm not sure, but I hope so.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#12 Jan 18, 2011
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
That has beeen the case with revolutions, as Malcolm X noted (even though he also considered political empowerment as a posssible alternative. Ballot or Bullet).
But must it ALWAYS be the case? A Greco-American fellow philosopher and friend once suggested that AT LEAST IN OUR TIME nonviolent revolution is possible.
In reply to the claim that it cannot work in police states, he points out that the Filipino dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos was toppled by revolutionary but nonviolenct PEOPLE POWER.
He also notes that the entire Stalinist empire in eastern Europe (excepting Rumania) was overthrown by popular, nonviolent insurgency.
In countries like America, where there's more elbow room (at least for now) for people to move, there ought to be greater chances of nonviolent change.
Of course, some peopple say that nonviolent REFORM (e.g. Civil Rights Actu, 1964) is possible, but not NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION.
it's the possibility of the latter that I am pondering.
No just for the sheer joy of intellectual speculation.
I feel that we NEED a REVOLUTION in America, and the world.
And while I'm not King or Gahdhi, I would like to be able to achieve this without drowning the land in rivers of blood.
Is it POSSIBLE?
The problem we face here in the USA is, of course, that the people are dolts. Look at how it's shaping up: Mexicans vs blacks in L.A., Tea Party nuts who'd rather shoot a liberal than seek a solution, and so on...

Among black Yanks in the 60's, an appeal from such as Dr. King was possible. Among Indians, Gandhi's message resonated. Among today's Yanks? doubtful

oh_Really_now

“see where the hands are?”

Since: Sep 10

Bigot, Haiti

#13 Jan 18, 2011
Cocheese wrote:
There is no such thing as a non violent revolution.
Revolutions are fueled by blood.
Obama toured this country for over a year chanting change change change, and hear were are, over TWO years later, still hearing from his mesorized morons that he can't do it "overnight". How mant Obama voters do you suppose jave fallen from grace and realized he's as much a charlatan as the Idiotsavant?
Both of these treasonous traitors may well learn that this notion of quite rebellion is an excercise in futility, that no tryranny is ever overthrown without force.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#14 Jan 18, 2011
Samir Shaba wrote:
No
Why?
blackrebel

Overland Park, KS

#15 Jan 18, 2011
Short answer, no. Revolution is rebellion against an establishment & in doing that you are going to create conflict. People always love to jump on the MLK bandwagon believing that change can be brought without violence. MLK was non-violent but those crackerjacks were violent towards him. Malcolm best defined revolution. "Revolution is hostile, revolution is bloody, revolution knows no compromise."

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#16 Jan 18, 2011
blackrebel wrote:
Short answer, no. Revolution is rebellion against an establishment & in doing that you are going to create conflict. People always love to jump on the MLK bandwagon believing that change can be brought without violence. MLK was non-violent but those crackerjacks were violent towards him. Malcolm best defined revolution. "Revolution is hostile, revolution is bloody, revolution knows no compromise."
But isn't the ESSENCE of revolution the fundamental TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY and of VALUES? A freer society, more humane one? Isn't all this the very goal of Revolution, its ACTUALIZATION?

Why can't this be achieved ny NONVIOLENT forms of struggle?
Even Malcolm X suggested that if Blacks could become politically empowered bloodless revolutionary change might be possible. At least he suggests in in speech "The Ballot or the Bullet."

Even Karl Marx argued that in at least a FEW countries, the USA among them, his own idea of a proletarian revolution might be possible without a VIOLENT uprising.
Wny can't revolutionary change be achieved by a nonviolent insurgency?
JTF

Jamaica, NY

#17 Jan 18, 2011
Savant wrote:
That is a question with which Dr. King struggled during his entire life as a Movement leader.
But is REVOLUTION possible withut spilling rivers of blood? Or are revolutions ALWAYS bloody, as Malcolm X seesm to imply in his famous "Message to the Grassroots" speech?
First, what is a revolution? A revolution--unlike rebellion or Reformisn--is a FUNDAMENTAL transformation of any entire social order, an entire poliical and economic order. It also entails a radical CULTURAL transformation, and a transformation even in day-to-day interhumean relations.
And there must be, as Dr. King argued, a "revolution of values" as well as insttutions.
But can that be achieved peacefully? In particular, King came to see racism as inseprably tied to ECONOMIC EXPLOITATON. But to overcome that implies the transcendence of capitalism itself---a "radical redistribution of economic power" were the words I recall from one of King's speeches.
But can it be accomplished by NONVIOLENT means?
I leaning toward yes if we're willing to make certain sacrifices and many of us aren't. We're too weak. We either don't have the will power and stamina (staying power) or we haven't had our fill of being kicked in the *ss over and over again. At least not enough of us.
blackrebel

Overland Park, KS

#18 Jan 18, 2011
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
But isn't the ESSENCE of revolution the fundamental TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY and of VALUES? A freer society, more humane one? Isn't all this the very goal of Revolution, its ACTUALIZATION?
Why can't this be achieved ny NONVIOLENT forms of struggle?
Even Malcolm X suggested that if Blacks could become politically empowered bloodless revolutionary change might be possible. At least he suggests in in speech "The Ballot or the Bullet."
Even Karl Marx argued that in at least a FEW countries, the USA among them, his own idea of a proletarian revolution might be possible without a VIOLENT uprising.
Wny can't revolutionary change be achieved by a nonviolent insurgency?
"Humane" is not in the devil's vocabulary. How else can you explain the greatest atrocity towards mankind (african holocaust) being labeled as "business". You are trying to find morality in a beast that has none at all. You want to live in a world of peace then you destroy the potential for destruction. The crackers idea of a "peacemaker" is a revolver or ICBM. Their interpretation of peace is insane.
Cocheese

United States

#19 Jan 18, 2011
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
But isn't the ESSENCE of revolution the fundamental TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY and of VALUES? A freer society, more humane one? Isn't all this the very goal of Revolution, its ACTUALIZATION?
Why can't this be achieved ny NONVIOLENT forms of struggle?
Even Malcolm X suggested that if Blacks could become politically empowered bloodless revolutionary change might be possible. At least he suggests in in speech "The Ballot or the Bullet."
Even Karl Marx argued that in at least a FEW countries, the USA
among them, his own idea of a proletarian revolution might be
possible without a VIOLENT uprising.
Wny can't revolutionary change be achieved by a nonviolent
insurgency?
revolutionary change can not be achieved through non violent movements because man is primitive.
The only thing man respects is power. A man with power will only submit to a source of greater power.
We will need to evolve to a higher level for non violent peaceful revolutions to work.

bozino
Level 6

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#20 Jan 18, 2011
Savant wrote:
POLITICAL CONDITIONS & NONVIOLENCE
Some say that nonviolence has a chance if the ruling power is not a police state. Or if the despotic regime being opposed is a weak one, or one that has lost the will to preserve itself.
In short, it is held to be possible a relatively "liberal" regime.
In a "liberal democracy" like England or America, even Karl Marx thought that revolutionary change is possible without bloodshed.
But is a FUNDAMENTAL social transformation possible without bloodshed even in America or other similar republics?
The structure of power and wealth was not significantly affected by civil rights laws in the 1960s. Nore even by new labor reforms or laws of the 1930w under FDR.
Indeed, the nearest thing to radical social transformation in America was the Abolition of slavery and beginning of Reconstruction.
For this involved the destruction of an entire social system of bondage and its replacement with "free" labor.
But that was accomplished by means of VIOLENCE, by a CIVIL WAR.
Can new Reconstruction--multiracial--b e accomplished in America without drowning our land in blood?
Lord Savant,

What specifically are you advocating? What does new roconstruction--multiracial mean??? If you feel that there is a need for social revolution then what criteria are you making your decision based upon??? You talk about power structures and how they have not changed. What are you basing these type of statements upon? You have completely changed the direction of this thread. My own opinion is that revolutions are possible without massive violence. You are always going to have some violence even without revolutions. That is in our nature. Given enough time and with the proper education it is possible to effect social change though. Women did not resort to violence to obtain the equality under the law that they now largely enjoy. Massive educational campaigns have cut the smoking rates in many nations, and the rates continue to drop. Sometimes change does not come quickly enough when clearly needed though. Unfortunately, sometimes violence and other forms of ugliness are necessary to get peoples attention in order to change matters. Good day to you sire.

“CANT WE ALL GET ALONG?”

Level 3

Since: May 07

Central coast

#21 Jan 18, 2011
is it possible?..only time will tell.

“Dynamite Diva!”

Level 1

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#22 Jan 18, 2011
Savant wrote:
That is a question with which Dr. King struggled during his entire life as a Movement leader.
But is REVOLUTION possible withut spilling rivers of blood? Or are revolutions ALWAYS bloody, as Malcolm X seesm to imply in his famous "Message to the Grassroots" speech?
First, what is a revolution? A revolution--unlike rebellion or Reformisn--is a FUNDAMENTAL transformation of any entire social order, an entire poliical and economic order. It also entails a radical CULTURAL transformation, and a transformation even in day-to-day interhumean relations.
And there must be, as Dr. King argued, a "revolution of values" as well as insttutions.
But can that be achieved peacefully? In particular, King came to see racism as inseprably tied to ECONOMIC EXPLOITATON. But to overcome that implies the transcendence of capitalism itself---a "radical redistribution of economic power" were the words I recall from one of King's speeches.
But can it be accomplished by NONVIOLENT means?
A non-violent revolution is the ULTIMATE IDEAL that we all should aim for. But how ACHIEVABLE it is in REALITY? I'm not so sure.

Call me cynical but time and time again, history as shown that the major revolutions have all happened with bloodshed and violence. I think partly because the people that want a revolution and change are TIRED and FRUSTRATED and that inevitably leads to anger, hate and violence against their oppressors. Or you have the oppressors feeling threatened and they use violence as a means of subjugating those that want change to put them in their place.

However, I still believe that it CAN be done. People need to have a common goal, and a worthy enough cause to fight for. History looks back on those that have fought their battles without using violence in a heroic light- people like MLK, Gandhi, etc

It can be done, we just need to strive for it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 121
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do white girls get mad when white guys talk... 2 min blu 32
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Marty McFly 1,523,969
Negro behavior in public places 8 min 2 Dogs 138
Israelite Supremacist - A Day In The Life 8 min Ben 2
Am I a NOG? 9 min Ttt 13
Klitschko TKOed By Another Black Man 16 min T-BOS 11
Swedish girl gives head in the Congo! 17 min The Racist Axe 30
Trump ~ 100* Days ~ Major Accomplishments? 1 hr Mick 58
Trump ~ Skipping Correspondents Dinner 3 hr Trump WINS 2016 13
More from around the web