Violent Revolution Thread

[Lexicus]

Last comment on the matter due to it being off-topic: Have you ever been in a riot or firefight? No? Then you haven't experienced large-scale violence. This is true for the overwhelming majority of Americans and even the overwhelming majority of Westerners in general. That's why I'm more than a little dismissive of comfortable Westerners who think violent revolution is a good idea.

Advocating violent revolution also shows a woeful ignorance of history since more often than not, a violent revolution leads to a system that is even worse than the one that was overthrown. Now I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on listening to those who are ignorant of history.

You mean like the American Revolution?

 

[Commodore]

You mean like the American Revolution?

Nice try, but I said "more often than not", not "it always creates something worse".

EDIT: Not to mention, you (or anyone else here for that matter) still aren't addressing why violent revolution is a good idea at this point in time. Exactly what positives do you think violent revolution has right now that makes it a superior option than operating within the system?

 

[Lexicus]

Did I say violent revolution was a good idea? No. But I think the question is a lot more nuanced than "revolutions are bad, mmkay."

I think most people (yourself included) would agree that violence is acceptable to the extent that it can prevent a greater evil.

You apparently think the American revolution was a bad idea; why is that exactly?

 

[trader/warrior]

Was the American revolution really a revolution? It didn't overthrow or change the government it was against, the whole "No taxation without representation" mantra suggests they just wanted equal rights to take part in what was already there. More of a separatist revolt really. Though the system of government they eventually set up was very ideologically important of course.

Not to diminish the effort of the US to win independence, but I think the French and Russian revolutions show more what kind of actions are needed to change a nation at its core.

I think civil disobedience escalating towards eventual revolution is very much a thing that could be necessary and just, and even is so today in many places around the world to some extent. Germany circa 1939 would have been an undeniable situation where one would be good.

 

[Commodore]

Did I say violent revolution was a good idea? No. But I think the question is a lot more nuanced than "revolutions are bad, mmkay."

I think most people (yourself included) would agree that violence is acceptable to the extent that it can prevent a greater evil.

You apparently think the American revolution was a bad idea; why is that exactly?

Nah, I don't think the American Revolution was a bad idea. The colonists had exhausted all peaceful attempts to get what they wanted from the crown, and war was the only option left to them. They were also dealing with an undemocratic government, so their options to affect change from within the system without violence were extremely limited.

In a democratic government though, there is absolutely no justification for violent revolution as long as elections are being held. Because as long as there are elections, the people's options to affect change peacefully are never exhausted. And as long as peaceful options exist, violence is not justified.

Yes I do agree that violence is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater evil, but only when it is the absolute last resort. As of right now, there is not a single Western society that has reached that point, which is why Westerners who are calling for the violent overthrow of their government are not to be taken seriously in my opinion.

 

[Lexicus]

Was the American revolution really a revolution? It didn't overthrow or change the government it was against, the whole "No taxation without representation" mantra suggests they just wanted equal rights to take part in what was already there. More of a separatist revolt really. Though the system of government they eventually set up was very ideologically important of course.

Not to diminish the effort of the US to win independence, but I think the French and Russian revolutions show more what kind of actions are needed to change a nation at its core.

That's a good point and I certainly agree the American Revolution was less a revolution and more an...exchange of hats, shall we say? The French and Russian revolutions represented much bigger changes of direction.

Arguably the American Civil War was more revolutionary than the revolution.

I think civil disobedience escalating towards eventual revolution is very much a thing that could be necessary and just, and even is so today in many places around the world to some extent. Germany circa 1939 would have been an undeniable situation where one would be good.

Agreed.

The colonists had exhausted all peaceful attempts to get what they wanted from the crown, and war was the only option left to them.

Was what the colonists wanted really worth fighting a war over?

In a democratic government though, there is absolutely no justification for violent revolution as long as elections are being held. Because as long as there are elections, the people's options to affect change peacefully are never exhausted. And as long as peaceful options exist, violence is not justified.

Where is the line between a democratic government and a non-democratic government?

Westerners who are calling for the violent overthrow of their government are not to be taken seriously in my opinion.

No, most likely not. They are in most cases wanting to replace it with something worse, anyway (I'm looking at you, Leninists).

 

[Commodore]

Agreed.

As would I. However, civil disobedience and revolution do not require violent action.

Was what the colonists wanted really worth fighting a war over?

The answer to that is subjective. Obviously the colonists thought it was worth it, and I think it was worth it too. The original goal of the colonists was to achieve equal status as British citizens living on the Home Islands. That's something worth fighting for in my opinion.

Where is the line between a democratic government and a non-democratic government?

Are there institutions built into the system that allow the people to affect change, thus ultimately placing power in their hands? If the answer is yes, then the government is democratic. If the answer is no, then it's not. The answer to that question for most Western governments (including the US) is yes. The answer to that question for the British government in 1776 was no.

No, most likely not. They are in most cases wanting to replace it with something worse, anyway (I'm looking at you, Leninists).

Exactly, which is why my guard goes up every time I hear people start talking about violent resistance in a democratic society.

 

[Joecoolyo]

That's a good point and I certainly agree the American Revolution was less a revolution and more an...exchange of hats, shall we say? The French and Russian revolutions represented much bigger changes of direction.

Arguably the American Civil War was more revolutionary than the revolution.

I took a class that more or less disproved this whole notion. The American Revolution was very revolutionary. Not only in terms of government, where it was a giant experimentation with enlightenment idealism, but society as a whole too!

Just because the upper classes who revolted (due to a number of far more complex reasons besides just taxes, taxes were just an easy excuse/the straw that broke the camels back) ran the place afterwards does not mean a ton of radical change was not induced. Many in the upper classes (and the lower classes by extension) were actually fairly radical. Just read Thomas Paine's work, consider what he says, and then read all the people who argued against it. His advocacy for democracy and the destruction of monarchical institutions was the forefront of radical political thought.

In terms of social movements, there was also a ton of radicalism, and off the top of my head there was the disestablishmentarianism movement, which squeaked by with a surprising amount of support despite it never having been tried before. We have the igniting of the slavery debate, in both the north and the south. A surprising amount of debate was held, for example, in Virginia over the slavery question, even though emancipation radicals ended up losing out. It did however begin the slow process of emancipation in the north. We have women taking part in the political process in a massive way, something that no one would have ever thought possible before the revolution. Although the only place they could vote was in New Jersey (if they had property), in all other states they joined parties and took part in the chaotic post-revolutionary partisanship.

Hell, we can push the radicalism beyond social and political movements as well. The revolution ignited civil war in Iroqious country, more else destroying one of the few feared Indian states in the North East. The proclamation of 1763, one of the major reasons for the revolution, fell apart and masses of people legally moved westward at a staggering pace. We also have a very large population of loyalists who exiled themselves, which included many (forget the exact numbers, don't have my sources on me) of slaves liberated by Lord Dunmore's army. Many of these people fled to Canada or further abroad; for example black loyalists actually founded a crown colony in Africa not even a decade after the revolution!

I'm rambling here, but the basics of my argument are that the American Revolution was actually fairly radical. People who like to tote around the "it wasn't a real revolution" are falling into the trap of not only failing to consider the context of the rebellion (this crap was very radical for its time) or having their history colored by the counter-revolution that occurred several decades after revolution.

Also the fact that all this change and radicalism didn't end with extreme violence, like in Russia or France. Just because the U.S. didn't collapse into civil war for another century doesn't mean that the changes brought about by the revolution were not radical.

 

[Lexicus]

The answer to that is subjective. Obviously the colonists thought it was worth it, and I think it was worth it too. The original goal of the colonists was to achieve equal status as British citizens living on the Home Islands. That's something worth fighting for in my opinion.

The British were the ones freeing the slaves and defending the Native Americans. IMO they were really the good guys.

I took a class that more or less disproved this whole notion. The American Revolution was very revolutionary. Not only in terms of government, where it was a giant experimentation with enlightenment idealism, but society as a whole too!

But...it wasn't. The colonies had been run by the Assemblies because of the vacuum left by the English Civil War. It was during the 7 Years' War that the British began to impose tighter control on the colonies, which the colonial elites were understandably annoyed about.

We have the igniting of the slavery debate, in both the north and the south.

I don't think this was 'ignited' by the Revolution at all. In fact, the colonies winning independence from Britain probably delayed the abolition of slavery considering that Britain abolished it about three decades earlier than we did.
Indeed, according to this page,

That war, however, proved to be the real liberator of the northern slaves. Wherever it marched, the British army gave freedom to any slave who escaped within its lines. This was sound military policy: it disrupted the economic system that was sustaining the Revolution. Since the North saw much longer, and more extensive, incursions by British troops, its slave population drained away at a higher rate than the South's. At the same time, the governments in northern American states began to offer financial incentives to slaveowners who freed their black men, if the emancipated slaves then served in the state regiments fighting the British.

Hell, we can push the radicalism beyond social and political movements as well. The revolution ignited civil war in Iroqious country, more else destroying one of the few feared Indian states in the North East.

The "feared" Indian states? The colonials were more to be feared than the Indians, in my view.

I'm rambling here, but the basics of my argument are that the American Revolution was actually fairly radical. People who like to tote around the "it wasn't a real revolution" are falling into the trap of not only failing to consider the context of the rebellion (this crap was very radical for its time) or having their history colored by the counter-revolution that occurred several decades after revolution.

The counter-revolution?

I wouldn't deny that the American Revolution brought about some very significant changes in the pattern of development for the (former) colonies. But I don't think it really amounted to much of a revolution because it represented the replacement of one imperial system with another, which was "radical" in some respects but in others (slavery being the elephant in the room) was hardly less conservative than Ancient Rome.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

While I agree that violent revolution frequently gives rise to something as bad or worse, it does tend to give rise to something less stable. Under an oppressive government the oppressed may look at revolution as a way to replace the oppressors with other oppressors who will at least be less set in their ways. Obvious example would be Saudi Arabia. Those poor saps are stuck with the house of Saud, and the house of Saud gives every indication that they will never change. A violent revolution, however unpleasant, that replaced the house of Saud with anything, however oppressive, would offer more hope for the future.

 

[Lexicus]

While I agree that violent revolution frequently gives rise to something as bad or worse, it does tend to give rise to something less stable. Under an oppressive government the oppressed may look at revolution as a way to replace the oppressors with other oppressors who will at least be less set in their ways. Obvious example would be Saudi Arabia. Those poor saps are stuck with the house of Saud, and the house of Saud gives every indication that they will never change. A violent revolution, however unpleasant, that replaced the house of Saud with anything, however oppressive, would offer more hope for the future.

Hmm, that describes the American Revolution quite well actually.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The "feared" Indian states? The colonials were more to be feared than the Indians, in my view.

The American colonials should have feared the American colonials then?

 

[Commodore]

The British were the ones freeing the slaves and defending the Native Americans. IMO they were really the good guys.

If you think the British were the good guys, that indicates a poor understanding of history. Of course, that's not saying the colonists were good guys either since it is extremely foolish for anyone to divide belligerents in any conflict into "good guys" and "bad guys". Also, the British did not abolish slavery until 1833, well after the US had won it's independence. And they didn't start freeing slaves until tensions started rising with the colonists. It was nothing more than a political stunt to undermine any revolution that might occur, so don't act like the British were some benevolent force that was freeing slaves out of the kindness of their hearts.

One also just has to look at what they were doing to their own citizens (yes, the colonists were British citizens) simply to squeeze every last drop of wealth out of the colonies they could. Just ask yourself what you would think of the US government now if they started pulling the crap the British government was pulling before the colonists rose up? You wouldn't have a very positive opinion of the US government, yet you call a British government doing those things the "good guys".

Also, the native population would be considered a foreign power. I'm interested to hear how you think relations with a foreign power has anything to do with which side had more justification in what basically amounted to a civil war among British citizens? Especially since relations with the natives had absolutely nothing to do with why the colonists were revolting against their government. In fact, the fact that the British were respecting the rights of foreigners more than the rights of their own citizens is even more cause for revolt.

The American colonials should have feared the American colonials then?

The more this discussion goes on, the more convinced I am becoming that Lexicus is just taking the stance he is taking simply because it is edgy and nonconformist.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Freeing slaves and aiding the Indian tribes was more about hurting and pressuring colonial patriots than it was about being good guys. After the war was lost and the point became moot, the British all but abandoned their Indian allies to their fates.

 

[Lexicus]

Consequentialist ethics, what?

If you think the British were the good guys, that indicates a poor understanding of history. Of course, that's not saying the colonists were good guys either since it is extremely foolish for anyone to divide belligerents in any conflict into "good guys" and "bad guys". Also, the British did not abolish slavery until 1833, well after the US had won it's independence. And they didn't start freeing slaves until tensions started rising with the colonists. It was nothing more than a political stunt to undermine any revolution that might occur, so don't act like the British were some benevolent force that was freeing slaves out of the kindness of their hearts.

Well, in point of fact the British abolished slavery on their own shores as early as the 1500s and in 1700 it was ruled that a slave became free if he entered Britain. And slavery wasn't fully abolished in the Empire until 1843. But yes, obviously all of this is true and none of it undermines the fact that one force freeing the slaves and one was fighting to keep them enslaved. The fact that the Union fought to abolish slavery out of political-economic reasons rather than for moral ones does not detract from their moral achievement, surely?

One also just has to look at what they were doing to their own citizens (yes, the colonists were British citizens) simply to squeeze every last drop of wealth out of the colonies they could. Just ask yourself what you would think of the US government now if they started pulling the crap the British government was pulling before the colonists rose up? You wouldn't have a very positive opinion of the US government, yet you call a British government doing those things the "good guys".

Weren't you just reminding me of historical context and how it's wrong to judge the past by the standards of the present? The British government's rule in the colonies was extraordinarily enlightened - certainly the American colonies under Britain were some of the most free places in the entire world (just look up how the British ran India for an example of a place that really needed a revolution). And the revolution of course did not change day-to-day realities for the great bulk of the population - women were still subordinated, slaves remained enslaved (and of course independence actually set the stage for the expansion of slavery into the Deep South). The poor remained poor and the new nation made it clear in suppressing Shays' Rebellion that they would remain in various forms of debt peonage.

Also, the native population would be considered a foreign power. I'm interested to hear how you think relations with a foreign power has anything to do with which side had more justification in what basically amounted to a civil war among British citizens? Especially since relations with the natives had absolutely nothing to do with why the colonists were revolting against their government. In fact, the fact that the British were respecting the rights of foreigners more than the rights of their own citizens is even more cause for revolt.

It's ironic that you accuse me of a poor grasp of history when of course relations between the colonists and the natives were a major point of contention leading up to the war. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 banned settlement west of the Appalachians, which ticked off the colonists in a major way since naturally they wanted to expand westward- and since the colonists won independence and then proceeded to conquer the whole continent, we know what it entailed viz. the native Americans.

The more this discussion goes on, the more convinced I am becoming that Lexicus is just taking the stance he is taking simply because it is edgy and nonconformist.

When I say the British were the good guys, that's indeed what I'm doing. But I am just interested in why you think the American Revolution is an exception to your general rule that violent revolution is bad, when it is considerably more morally ambiguous (in my opinion anyway) than, say, the French Revolution or even the Russian Revolution. Would you consider Haiti's revolution to be justified? The German Revolution at the end of the first world War? The Irish Revolution? Let's get some larger context here.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The more this discussion goes on, the more convinced I am becoming that Lexicus is just taking the stance he is taking simply because it is edgy and nonconformist.

I think there's a autoresponse that a lot of people have whenever you approach Native Americans objectively or as anything other than constant hapless defenseless victims of colonial aggression. That may be the overall truth in the big picture but there is more nuance to it.

The Iroquois Confederacy wasn't a trivial force and the colonies did indeed fear them for good reasons; that isn't a statement whatsoever about which side was right or wrong, but Lexicus seemed to interpret it as such.

 

[Lexicus]

The Iroquois confederacy did not pose anything approaching an existential threat to the colonies; the reverse was obviously not true. And of course Europeans did not have the "right" to govern one square inch of the Americas anyway.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The Iroquois confederacy did not pose anything approaching an existential threat to the colonies; the reverse was obviously not true.

Their warriors were extremely skilled and daring fighters. Especially with British weapons and supplies, they were more than capable of taking on colonial forces on their own terms which is why the colonials often resorted to targeting women and children instead.

Yes, they were indeed feared by the American colonials. I'm not sure why you're so against this notion.

And of course Europeans did not have the "right" to govern one square inch of the Americas anyway.

This is a non sequitur.

Does the statement "German troops occupying Yugoslavia feared partisan attacks" = Nazi Germany was justified in the brutal occupation of Yugoslavia? No, it doesn't.

 

[Zkribbler]

Was the American revolution really a revolution?

No. The term American Revolution was a political ploy. It should have been called the American Rebellion. It didn't seek to replace the existing government with a new one but rather to break away and form a new country. However, at the time it occurred, "rebellion" was a dirty word while "The Glorious Rebellion" was still fresh in people's minds. So it was given the inaccurate moniker of "revolution."

Freeing slaves and aiding the Indian tribes was more about hurting and pressuring colonial patriots than it was about being good guys.

 

[Commodore]

Well, in point of fact the British abolished slavery on their own shores as early as the 1500s and in 1700 it was ruled that a slave became free if he entered Britain. And slavery wasn't fully abolished in the Empire until 1843. But yes, obviously all of this is true and none of it undermines the fact that one force freeing the slaves and one was fighting to keep them enslaved. The fact that the Union fought to abolish slavery out of political-economic reasons rather than for moral ones does not detract from their moral achievement, surely?

Actually, it kinda does. At least when trying to determine who has the moral high ground. Freeing slaves for any reason other than out of the kindness of your heart takes away any moral superiority you can claim for doing so. Both the British and Union forces freed slaves to gain military and political advantages over their foes and if those advantages weren't there those slaves wouldn't have been freed. So I say bravo to them for freeing the slaves, but I'm not going to give them any moral points for doing so since they did it out of a sense of selfishness.

Weren't you just reminding me of historical context and how it's wrong to judge the past by the standards of the present? The British government's rule in the colonies was extraordinarily enlightened - certainly the American colonies under Britain were some of the most free places in the entire world (just look up how the British ran India for an example of a place that really needed a revolution). And the revolution of course did not change day-to-day realities for the great bulk of the population - women were still subordinated, slaves remained enslaved (and of course independence actually set the stage for the expansion of slavery into the Deep South). The poor remained poor and the new nation made it clear in suppressing Shays' Rebellion that they would remain in various forms of debt peonage.

Except British rule was considered intolerable, even by the standards of the time. If it weren't, there wouldn't have been a rebellion. So nice try in trying to make me look like a hypocrite, but it didn't work.

And while the condition of many did not change, the potential to change their condition now existed where previously it didn't through the new institutions that were put in place that gave power to the people. Sure, at the time it was only a handful of people, but the potential was there to expand the number people given power, which it did expand. If British rule had continued as it had, there's no guarantee democracy would have become as widespread as it is today.

It's ironic that you accuse me of a poor grasp of history when of course relations between the colonists and the natives were a major point of contention leading up to the war. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 banned settlement west of the Appalachians, which ticked off the colonists in a major way since naturally they wanted to expand westward- and since the colonists won independence and then proceeded to conquer the whole continent, we know what it entailed viz. the native Americans.

No, the major point of contention was the British government making decisions that directly affected colonial life without giving the colonists representation in Parliament. Any specific issue the colonists opposed the British on were just extensions of that main issue.

When I say the British were the good guys, that's indeed what I'm doing. But I am just interested in why you think the American Revolution is an exception to your general rule that violent revolution is bad, when it is considerably more morally ambiguous (in my opinion anyway) than, say, the French Revolution or even the Russian Revolution.

Well, for one, it was the American Revolution that inspired the French Revolution. It also inspired numerous other colonies of various European powers in the coming decades to fight for their independence. The American Revolution was also the catalyst for the spread of democracy and the idea that the republic was the best way to govern. Without a successful revolt in America, the monarchies of Europe may not have collapsed like they did in the 19th century and the colonial empires may have continued to exist. Now I'm sure you would agree a world like that would be worse than the world we have today.