The success of diplomacy and peaceful protest hinges on the existence of a credible threat that the alternative (war and riots, respectively) will be worse. Even if a (mostly) peaceful solution should be found, I suspect there will have to be some measure of violence to get that point across.
As others point out, the elites won’t go down quietly, and as long as there are bootlicks willing to fight on their behalf, they’ll rather let their bootlicks die than make concessions.
So while I don’t think violent revolutions are good for their own sake, they may be a necessary evil for good ends.
If, for whatever reason, the police collectively decides to no longer enforce the commands of those in power and no other group steps up to violently defend the status quo, a peaceful revolution in the form of civil disobedience would be conceivable.
Getting to that point without some measure of violence is what I believe to be unlikely – not impossible, mind you, and I very much hope for it, but it’s quite likely that an attempt to create such a consensus would (at least initially) be violently suppressed just as violent resistance would.
Even if it is achieved, the new society will need to guard itself against opportunistic egoists seeking to exploit the new power vacuum. Here too there may be at least an initial period of violence until that new dynamic is clear.
As long as there are people willing to hurt others for their own benefit, they will have to be fought.
I know of no revolutions that didnt use force or the credible threat of force, because the ruling class would always rather escalate than voluntarily give up their power.
so voting AND revolution are both good
The success of diplomacy and peaceful protest hinges on the existence of a credible threat that the alternative (war and riots, respectively) will be worse. Even if a (mostly) peaceful solution should be found, I suspect there will have to be some measure of violence to get that point across.
As others point out, the elites won’t go down quietly, and as long as there are bootlicks willing to fight on their behalf, they’ll rather let their bootlicks die than make concessions.
So while I don’t think violent revolutions are good for their own sake, they may be a necessary evil for good ends.
what about peaceful revolutions (as long as they DON’T even escalate)?
If, for whatever reason, the police collectively decides to no longer enforce the commands of those in power and no other group steps up to violently defend the status quo, a peaceful revolution in the form of civil disobedience would be conceivable.
Getting to that point without some measure of violence is what I believe to be unlikely – not impossible, mind you, and I very much hope for it, but it’s quite likely that an attempt to create such a consensus would (at least initially) be violently suppressed just as violent resistance would.
Even if it is achieved, the new society will need to guard itself against opportunistic egoists seeking to exploit the new power vacuum. Here too there may be at least an initial period of violence until that new dynamic is clear.
As long as there are people willing to hurt others for their own benefit, they will have to be fought.
But we should try to fight as little as possible.
I know of no revolutions that didnt use force or the credible threat of force, because the ruling class would always rather escalate than voluntarily give up their power.
thejre’s the people power revolution in the phillippines back in 1986