Forum Post: How long should a non-violent protest remain non-violent?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 3:01 p.m. EST by Leigonnn
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
How long will you remain beaten, pepper sprayed, forcibly moved, tear gassed, and constantly ridiculed before you decide to meet force with force? The 1st Amendment does not seem to be working. The 2nd Amendment (the right to bare arms) was created for when the 1st Amendment failed. Just something to think about. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Where is the line between trying to force a democratic solution and trying to take democracy back?
You know I asked that question a week ago, and here are my thoughts on the matter.
I thought about self-defense, the right to defend one's self and the idea of "just putting the bullies back in their place".
Sadly, this ain't high school. And even if it were, this sort of thing is no longer the fashion.
Still there was a part of me that felt nagged at the beatings and the use of force done by the thugs that seem to have replaced our police. Then I remembered something that I have re-read recently.
"The mesure of strenght is not how much you can hit, but how much you can take being hit"
The protestors are not wimps. They are taking the blows, they are rolling with the punches and showing the cops to be a disgrace to their uniforms. The law enforcement that attacks the protestors should not be considered police, but seen as just plain ol'thugs.
They must be identified, exposed and shamed. Not only by the people, but by their peers.
W01F
This post is related. You may enjoy it:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-hypothetical-scenarios/
I think the trolls are like satan tempting jesus. "what if" "you have the power" "they deserve it". this is why some people can't understand why its ALWAYS wrong to torture. because torturing people defines you as a torturer. just as being violent defines you as violent.
violent is violent because it's violent?
This man is implying that violence is not always "wrong" -- a presupposition you did not bother to reconsider before making your reply.
He specifically implied that that time (when it is not wrong) is when it is in self defense. The founders of this country, and 50 ratifying states, all agreed with that implication.
You merely resorted to Ad Hominem by calling him a 'troll'.
"ad hominem"? violence is a failure.
Ad Hominem is latin for "calling someone names".
Violence in this case is a loaded term. Self defense is not violence.
There's no mention of self defense in OP's post.
Self defense is never seen as self defense to those in power.
Bonus round - This is the "in between the lines gist' I get when I read any post advocating violence in this movement:
"Rise up and bear arms like your forefathers did so the Oligarchs, Uncle Sammy and their lackey media buddies can paint y'all as home grown terrorists. Then Homeland Security can justifiably lock you up and maybe hang a few of ya! And good riddance. Now, pass me them fish eggs"
The OP's post read:
"The 2nd Amendment (the right to bare arms) was created for when the 1st Amendment failed."
The 1st Amendment is a right of the people. The 2nd Amendment is a right of the people. (50 United States' legislatures agree in writing)
By the OP saying "The 2nd amendment was created for when the 1st failed [sic]", he is causally linking the 2nd to 'defense' of the 1st. Because the subject of both amendments is the same ("The People"), that "defense" is of the "self", therefore "self-defense"
Really, now, was it neccessary for me to spell that out? Or are you avoiding saying what you really believe, which is that physical force is never neccessary, because -- had you said THAT, I would assure that, sometimes, it absolutely is.
Your anecdote is entertaining, but wouldn't have done the Jews in Nazi germany much good; make no mistake, that is ultimately what we are facing here, for /that/ is the consequence of failure of the 1st Amendment, and the inherent purpose of the 2nd.
I'll reiterate that the people's elected representatives -- YOUR elected representatives -- of all 50 states ratified both of those amendments in full knowledge of their import.
First of all - "The People" do not have a "well regulated militia" state, or otherwise that would be necessary in order to strategically challenge the full might of the active forces of the Federal Government. One cannot count on the National Guard because it has been co-opted by the ruling classes. As have the police. Individuals with guns VS. Uncle Sam? Come on!
Second - Godwin.
Third - the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791, not to put too fine a point on it, I was unborn at the time so technically speaking they are not my representatives. But they did represent of a group of people with a mindset that feared a tyrannical leader and required firearms, powder and bullets in order to ensure that a state militia could protect them against the attacks of a standing federal army.
Question - just how in the heck do you think violence would in any way, shape or form would benefit this movement? Seriously.
First - You're absolutely right, We The People are not sufficently well-regulated for the security of a free state. That would tend to support my argument for improving readiness, rather than neglecting it further.
Second - "Godwin" ? I don't know what you're referring to.
Third - Under our system of law, amendments remain in force until they are repealed, and apply uniformly across all subsequent generations, despite lack of prior representation. I have a feeling you already knew that.
Answer - I do not think that violence will help this, or any movement.
However, I do believe, as does the OP, that self defense is sometimes an unavoidable neccessity, and that in this case -- that is, the current plight of the American people -- that it will become neccessary within this generation's lifetime.
1 - To what aim and how?
2 - Godwin's law: A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
3 - Obviously, things have changed radically since the creation of the Bill of Rights. The creators of this document inhabited a very different world and sought to be as far reaching as possible in ensuring the protection of the rights of the individual against the tyranny of powerful people and nations. If we could bring a few of them back to life and update them on our situation I have no doubt that they would be appalled, but I do not believe that they would encourage the people to rise up and bear arms against a super power with tactical nuclear capabilities, unmanned drones, Bradley fighting vehicles and Black Hawk helicopters. It's absurd to follow this narrative as it leads to a no win scenario for "The People".
It is my belief that weaponry used in "self defense", individually, against any force representing the power structure will surely result in incarceration by the authorities and demonization by the press. End of movement.
I can, though, see the point you are making in predicting a scenario in which a vast majority of America will become so desperate that violence may seem to be the only choice. Global economic failure, WW3, etc. - I know there's a lot of this doomsday talk going on lately. Thankfully, we are not all of us in fear of such a hopeless future. The lies of the power elite have been exposed - "they" struggle to hypnotize us again with black friday sales at wally world and saber rattling against Iran to no avail. I believe we can win.
I prefer that OWS remain a peaceful movement that can effect change through non violent tactics, and bi-partisan appeal which will win the support of all of us who have been oppressed.
1 - The security of a free state
2 - The topic here relates to fascism. I'd consider Godwin's law to be novel ONLY when that is /not/ the topic.
3 - Once again, I agree with you. Standing armies are indeed a great threat to the people. Unfortunately, I do no see abject slavery and submission as an option. Such is the nature of self defense; it is not a choice. The need for it comes to you, unexpected and uninvited, and forces your hand. You cannot fail to act simply out of denial or consequences. You must do what you must. If you will not do what must be done, and tyranny becomes aware of that fact, then it will not hesitate to cow you fully -- that is the intrinsic value of the will to defend oneself.
When 'hypnosis' fails, they will turn to blatant theft and brute force, I have no doubt of that.
OWS will therefore fail, but we all know they have to try. Such is require of the righteous; that evil be given every opportunity to repent. Keep in mind the violence these tyrants have already perpetrated for centuries, the world over. Do not expect that to change, and don't fall into the nationalistic trap of believing that America's system of governance is somehow immune.
Before we can set our minds to do what must be done, we have to give the tyrannical 1% one last opprtunity to change, but: we also all know that they will not.
1 - and, how?
2 - Nope, the OP called for opinions on how long a non-violent protest should remain non-violent, not a comparison of Nazi Germany to present day America.
3 - This sounds fatalistic, in that in your scenario one is operating under a fight or flight reaction, as opposed to an intentional, rational response. I understand your point that there are situations wherein the f&f response would be engaged, but the end result for the defender in "average Joe Citizen v. well armed and flak jacketed army goon" would most likely be death. It is true that martyrs are powerful figures that move the masses to action, but I don't think we are at the same point that Egypt is.
Agree, but in this movement, patience and clear thinking are our virtues.
How: as best we can? :/
Amen brother.
The Jews in Nazi Germany were systematically disarmed using a combination of gun control laws and registration laws. http://jpfo.org
There was at least one case where a small group of Jews in a ghetto acquired some machine guns and wreaked havoc on the German army for some time. They were eventually subdued, but their effort tied up a few hundred troops, thus keeping them from assisting Germany on the front lines.
A few hundred? Try thousands. Look up Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Educate yourself.
I studied it long ago, and the details have faded in my mind. I'm happy that someone here knows about it. I will reeducate myself... thanks!
Bare arms? I like short sleeves myself.
Oh, bear arms? That is in there with "well-regulated militiia".
Yes, I cut-and-pasted the original post without correcting the spelling.
calling someone a troll is describing the action they are doing. a personal flaw may lead someone to troll, but, trolling is not a personal characteristic.
Exactly!
Obvious trolls are obvious.
Until Kingdom come.
This.
We don't need (to start) another conflict. Our society has grown such that conflict CAN be avoided by using words. With today's weapons and tactics, who knows how bloody this would get.
Remember. We are not here to overthrow our government. We want our government to wake the f* up and start working for us, the people. We won't get that by shedding blood.
A violent revolt in this nation today should not be necessary. You should thank god for that since we have neither the arms nor the manpower to conduct such an effort.
And I doubt that we have the stomach for it at this juncture - it will take a good deal of suffering on our part to reach that point where we would have individuals willing to form into groups to take ground by force and to keep it by force.
The whole notion is absurd.
What that leaves is violent protest - and I can think of no better way to turn the will of the people against us at this time than with tactics of violent protest.
If they turn on us, without provocation, then there will be repercussions. You see it in California today. Two officers suspended, and their superior on administrative leave. Others who serve in some capacity within law enforcement have made statements indicating that this use of force was without justification. Two investigations are now underway, one involving the possibility of criminal charges.
Had these protesters acted with violence, then all of this would be quite different. We would be the enemy in the public's eyes.
We cannot act with violence.
When choosing tactics it is the wise tactition that recognizes that the method of attack is the battle field.
When your opposition holds more weapons than you, and greater number of well trained soldiers you are at a disadvantage. It is unwise to engage in direct physical combat!
When your enemy holds the top of the hill and the sun of information is to his back, it is unwise to attack.
Instead the wise tactition forces the enemy to attack while he is unarmed. He spreads the word of what is happening so that all can see with their own eyes. Quickly those who are in the ranks of his enemy will lose their will to fight, leaving only the most brutish amongst them. With each step popular opinion will grow in opposition to the enemy.
Be supple, be changing, fight in the world of information, and those who use brute force will lose.
Wars of information are always wars of attrician. Wars of attrician lead to the greatist suffering, when the battle field changes it will be time to change tactics, we can not allow ourselves to lose, we can not allow greater suffering.
I think we've reached the point where we should start forming a military wing and begin plans for an armed insurrection. We also need a police wing where we can start arresting the 1% and seizing their assets.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
When it gets to lining us up to enter gas chambers I think its time to fight back!
think of the Civil Rights movement or of Ghandi. these peaceful populous revolutions were successful because the protesters did not match violence with violence and they kept the public's and the world's sympathies. they did not allow themselves to become like the system that they were trying to overthrow. if they had, the sympathy would have gone and the revolution would have died.
until you get tired of being pepper sprayed
Exactly! Now is the time to take direct action - push back, throw rocks, don't take it sitting down. Let the police retaliate further and then film it. Let the country see whose side the police is on, this will mobilize more people.
I dont think that the United States government really cares about our consitutonal rights, as long as they line thier pockets and maintain power they dont care. If they feel their power threatened they will limit our rights, good examples of this are: The bonus Marchers during the great depression, the WWI veterans were promised a pention for their services in the war in the 1940's, well the depression hit and 15,000 veterans went to the capital where they camped around the capital building, and petitioned to abtain their pentions early so they could survive and feed their families. The police were sent in to clear them out, but the police paniced and fired into the crowed and killed 2 vets, Then the Goventment sent in the military to force the protesters from Washington D.C; Another example is the espionage act created during WWI which stated that anyone who says anything negitive about the Govenment will be placed in prision.I dont think that the movement should stop, just that it make itself more clear about what it wants
At the very least not until supporting OWS in any way is declared illegal, if then. I'm aware that it may eventually become violent, but it should refrain from doing so for literally as long as it is possible to avoid doing so.
People should remain nonviolent but in reality people sometimes are less than perfect old amish saying
always, but if leaders order killing of innocent people they may be targeted example bonhauffer and hitler but in general until kingdom come
I'd say a few more years. First we have to vote this good for nothing congress out and replace it with people who are competent and care for the welfare of the country come November of 2012. Then we'll give them a chance to fix this mess.
If that doesn't work then yeah, all hell will break lose and people will have to accept there is no alternative.
You do NOT have a right to bare arms. Modest requires that you decently clothe your arms, so that people won't lust after them. We can't have people running around with bare arms, getting sunburns and inciting lasciviousness.
Ha. We got a comedian in the house.
The whole issue of violence vs. nonviolence rests on two things: the culture and the efficacy of employing one tactic as opposed to another at any given moment. With regard to the culture, I think a very large part of why fairly broad sectors of the American public supports OWS is because it has remained nonviolent in the face of police violence, repression and brutality. That is likely to be the case for the forseeable future. One possible thing that might change that is if police started going after ordinary white middle class Americans in the same way that they are now going after demonstrators. At that point the patience of the American public might snap and it could become open to all kinds of responses to police violence.
But there is also the issue of whether or not tactics other than nonviolence would work, regardless of people's attitude about it. The fact is the police forces have a legal monopoly on violence. Short of a total breakdown of the social order which would amount to a civil war, the police have all the weapons. In such an unbalanced situation, it's actually probably more practical to remain nonviolent even if the general public were more open to other tactics.
Finally there is the question of morality. I'm a Quaker and while I can't say with complete assurance that there are no circumstances in which I might resort to violence, if I did it would run contrary to my values. On the other hand, it is my experience that there are very few absolute pacifists in the United States, probably not more than a few hundred. That said, I suspect that the vast majority of OWSers would re-affirm their commitment to nonviolence both on practical and moral grounds for as far into the future as they are able to see.
You don't have the support to become a violent revolution, you barely have the support to make political gains.
They have provided us with wonderful and captivating images of police brultality...something the media loves! without these martrys getting abused while remaining peaceful we would not have gotten the publicity we now recieve on every news station. So I say Thank you to the officers who seem to want to ensure that OWS stays current and in the media. Thank you to the people who were abused for staying peaceful to contrast the brutality you were faced, it makes for great photos! keep it up cops we can't get enough of your free publicity. And thank you to mayor Bloomberg who helped make sure 32,000 people showed up to on November 17th, that was perfect timing to destroy zuccotti park encampment only 2 days before you knew we needed people to come out for the big march thanks for your support bloomberg, it wouldn't have been as effective without you. I eagerly await your next gift to help thousands more join forces against corporate greed
I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill. Mohandas Gandhi
It's a nice sentiment, in a zen/daoist sort of way, but patently false.
Gandhi ate, drank, breathed, and walked upon the ground.
By doing so, he killed millions of organisms.
The good man is the friend of all living things. Mohandas Gandhi
Yes, yes, he preached it, but he did not practice it; he could not, and no-one can. Killing is a simple fact of life
Yes, yes, death is a part of life, and that is all the knowledge you seem to want. Your education clearly ended in jr. high school, pity you didn't mature. Your mind is clearly a childish fantasy land if you think bullets or blades will ever win the day. It is time for you to put away childish things and undertake the never-ending labor of preserving our representative democracy. That is the work of real men, and that civic responsibility begins-- for all Americans-- with a trip to the library. OWS is a revolution of ideas, which are the most ancient and powerful weapon of all. That is why ideas are cherished and revered by free people everywhere.
That said, If you come to my house, I'll invite you in and feed you. I'll teach you. I'll give of myself all that I have learned. I'll listen to your own words if you have any wisdom to share. But if you come uninvited like a thief in the night? Buddy, human nature and my brownbelt dictates that you are taking your chances, and probably not much more when you leave.
We all choose our own fate, and for some, life is nasty and brutish and short. I've been burgled, and I've been mugged. I've lost more than you can ever imagine. But, never once did my pistol serve any purpose, nor would it have improved any of the situations in which I was placed. That's civilization for you-- you have to sacrifice your animal instincts in order to live as a noble savage. Nothing on Earth is worth my soul, which no man can take away from me, and no foolish tool of man can close my mind or taint the love which I carry in my heart.
Move along, Troll, since you are so preoccupied by small ideas, you must retire to a library and improve your lazy mind.
Oh good gawd, I merely pointed out that "even" Gandhi could not live without inadvertently killing -- and you respond by subjecting me to diatribes insulting my education and upbringing, culminating in yet-another-hollow cry of "Troll! Troll!"
Good effing god, are you capable of either:
-or-
-- WITHOUT resorting to Ad Hominem, character assault, and otherwise hyperbolic vehemence?!
Are you capable of that? -- Because, moment ago, you were quoting Gandhi FFS.
FFS!
You win. You lose. I win. I lose. Again, go back and mature, you are under-baked.
Realize that I'm fully aware that's the closest thing I'll get to an apology, and you know what?! Considering the rest of the discussion here...
I'll accept it!
Likewise. We both lose. Are you satisfied with your outcome?
In the battle of wisdom, both parties may be victorious, but wit's pennant can only be claimed if both parties seize the moment of truth. You, good sir, should not feel yourself to be a loser, unless you leave your share of spoils on the battlefield. Good evening, and happy reading.
Thinking about it further, you illustrate my point...
You said.. "Likewise. We both lose. Are you satisfied with your outcome?"
The best response of all is this: Agreed. We both lose. When you start trying to parse violence, there can be no other outcome, we all lose our souls, if not our lives.
You asked "when do you force democracy, and take it back..." Son, we're so far from that conversation, it's not even worth discussing, let alone thinking about. Waging a war over political dogma is the only thing more stupid than trying to wage a war of religious dogma. Bullets, killing, revenge, murder, sacrifice... I really am done with this conversation, because violent thoughts can only beget violent deeds. In this war of ideas, the contingency of violence is not a welcome, or (ever) a timely topic of thought. Gandhi killed some microbes, but we're people... well, maybe a few of us are plants. There can be absolutely no concession for anything but tolerance and non-violence. Yep, you might get pepper sprayed, you might take a rubber bullet, but my best advice is... learn to suck it up. Guns and ammo have no place in a serious political debate.
as long as it is a non violent protest
This is a battle for the future--the future of humanity, the future of global resources/$$/labor....we are fighting against those who own everything to their advantage and make the laws that protect them and their property. Read An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution...the "revolution" was contrived; farmers who fought in war had their land foreclosed on and the new courts refused to hear their petitions for debt relief; the new govt broke their promises in the new Const immediately--legal tender (paper money) was for other people: taxes had to be paid in hard currency which no one had--westward ho! Now you know why the South is the South and why they have such a shitty attitude about the Feds and all things govt...plus add Reconstruction/failure of. This is was and will always be Land Of the Wealthy Who Rely on Cheap/Slave Labor to brow-beat those who are not Them into doing their bidding...this is the state of our Federal State and especially the South, so-called Republicans who are puppets of the would-be World Kings (WMF, WTO etc).
Violence begets violence, but if there is an entity (Pol Pot, Chiang Kai Sheck, Hitler) who want EVERYTHING, who know no boundaries to horror, control--there are no limits for our enemy. If someone takes your home (they did), your job (they did), your savings (they did), your ability to work (no health care) or care for your kids/parents (no day care for either), do you need someone to tell you when to start fighting back? Do they eed to physically assault you before you DEFEND YOUR LIFE?! I think this is LATE IN COMING....we shoulda been in the streets in 2008 when the foreclosure/pension b.s was first exposed...RICO chargees shoulda been brought against banks + CEOs...this is a war for the soul of humanity....this is the Armageddon your priest warned you of, fight on the side of the angels.
And what if they haven't taken my home, my job, my savings, my ability to work or care for my kids/parents?
And yes, someone has to physically assault or threaten my life before I'll defend it with violence. It's called SELF defense (not property defense or savings defense) for a reason! Comparing this to Pol Pot and Hitler strongly indicates that you have no idea what REAL horror is, or what the appropriate response should be.
Your knowledge of what "Armageddon" is supposed to be is also equally lacking.
but, I think that is your ulterior motive, isn't it?
as soon as there are casualties. If they start KILLING non violent protesters, then and only then is it time to wipe them out.
If you stop and think about it, the line is pretty cut and dried.
until then, non violence is working VERY well, and because the public will always side with the victim of abuse each abuse we suffer increases our sympathy from the general public. Occupy movement continues to grow at an exponential rate and doubles in size about every five days or week or so.
Every time they beat on somebody they create a thousand new movement participants outraged by that crime. Let that take its natural course until we truly are the 99 percent.
If they start killing protesters or etc, shipping them off to concentration camps, that will be something different.
Until then, even this kind of talk is counter productive, and could be construed as incitement to riot.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Non_Violence_Theory,_Practice,_Ethics,_and_Protest_Communication
we need to deeply explore non violence, not ask at what point the bough breaks. We will all know when enough is enough, nobody will need to tell us or ask that question.
gawdoftruth you have some good points. But you can't say this discussion isn't productive. If people start getting sent to concentration camps, it's already too late to create a strong resistance.
This discussion is not productive. if people start getting sent to concentration camps, the revolution will happen fast forward in under 24 hours and the oligarchs who are actually in a very tiny minority will all be dead. I won't have any part of that, but there are hundreds of well armed militias sitting out the protests waiting for the shit to hit the fan, and they know perfectly well that the pigs are not the real enemy.
If you want to have a meaningful discussion, lets talk about how to make night stick proof body armour for under 50$.
Go for it.
[Removed]
you are a troll. in history, every populous revolution that has remained peaceful despite what the soldiers of the status quo do has succeeded. patience is needed, to endure our strength, and eventually, no matter what violence is done to the peaceful protesters, the American people who happen to be those foot soldiers will be won over. so, go away you troll.
tulcak - What about Tibet? They believed in nonviolence so much that they did not have an army to protect them. Now China took over and controls them completely. Should they have fought back?
The Native Americans were mostly peaceful and the Europeans kicked them out of their land. Should they have fought back?
What about if someone breaks into your house and has a knife plunging towards your family and you have a gun in your hand? Should you fight back?
What if a bear is going to attack you in the woods. Should you fight back?
I'm just curious about your stance on this philosophically. It doesn't seem so black and white to me.
I talked of a peaceful populous revolution. not about Tibet or a bear in the woods. if protesters match police violence with their own, then, they have become just like the system they are trying to overthrow. and, public sympathy will die. try comparing the movement to the civil rights movement, or Ghandi. these are comparable things. yours are not.
All I am asking is how far you go with it - and what you would do in each of those situations. I'm wondering if your definition of non-violence means never being violent under any circumstances, even in situations as dire as the ones I listed above. I'm not talking about the civil rights movement or the Indian independence right now. I was just curious about your opinion. What would you do?
why? what does that have to do with corporate greed?
I am for this movement. I support OWS and believe in it. I do not disagree at all that our system has been corrupted by the wealthy elite and corporate interests and reform needs to happen. But I want to know where you draw the line on non-violence because it is possible that a time may come where the brutality becomes so great that you may have to fight back. If martial law ensues and some officer is trying to drag your children to a concentration camp, would you still promote your theory?
People use non-violence as an umbrella term that solves everything - so I'm trying to figure out what you mean by it exactly. Yes, it is useful and should be attempted whenever possible to solve problems. But in reality, there may be instances where you need to defend yourself from lethal enemies. Our tax dollars pay for soldiers and police to shoot people who are a threat to our country. So while it is the least desirable method and a last resort, there are times where Gandhi may disagree with your hypothesis.
excuse me? people use violence as an umbrella that solves everything. violence is so pervasive and so commonly held as the go to tool for any and everything. so, here we are and here is the occupy movement looking to change things. while we tackle THE problem, corporate greed, why don't we try and do something about violence?
Obviously violence should be avoided whenever possible. In fact, we should go to extreme measures to avoid violence. This I agree with.
What I am asking you is if you believe there are ever some instances in life where violence is necessary in some form. But you keep avoiding my questions for some reason.
yes, and I will keep avoiding your question. its a meaningless question. what does it have to do with corporate greed? its obvious why you want an answer. and its a waste of time. again, what does my view on violence have to do with the occupy movement? I'm just one person who has joined because I also believe that the voice of the American people is being ignored. what about you?
Is it obvious? Why do I want an answer?
yes. you want an answer so you can sidetrack the real discussion: corporate greed. and, why are you here?
Wrong. I want an answer because I am trying to understand your definition of non-violence and how far it goes. Is non-violence the preferred strategy only when people feel they can't win with violence? Would people really continue to be non-violent if the other side escalates to the point of taking complete control over the lives of all citizens of this country? I'm trying to establish if you believe it's morally ever OK to make exceptions.
I personally have avoided many personal confrontations through non-violence. But there are some times where it has failed. So at that point, do you just become a doormat or do you respond with self-defense? Would the Jews in Germany in 1940 getting taken into Auschwitz be wrong for trying to lead a violent charge to break out of there? This may not seem relevant to you now but by standing up for our freedoms we are inevitably putting ourselves in harm's way against a very big and powerful group of people who do not like what we are doing. So this scenario can become very real for us in the near future. And so I ask what the right thing to do is.
and so, regardless of my answer or lack of, you still go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the occupy movement. what does your rant have to do with corporate greed? violence on the part of protesters would kill the movement. but, I think that's what you want.
This does have to do with the movement. You seem to be well versed in non-violence, and advocate it to people under all circumstances while protesting against corporate greed.
However, the police who are hired to protect those who are perpetuating the corporate greed may eventually escalate their violence to higher levels and the government may further restrict our freedoms to the point of martial law. I am saying that I am unsure that the non-violent strategy will prevail in delivering the desired outcomes in certain potential scenarios that may soon arise. So I am asking your opinion on it because you are saying it will always work. I pointed to Tibet and the Native Americans as examples of times where it didn't work. So I want to know how you can be so sure that your philosophy will work. And I was asking you about those hypothetical scenarios because I wanted you to admit what you are hiding from - that violence and conflict are, sometimes, in certain scenarios - an inevitable part of life. Of course, you should try to avoid it however possible. But sometimes you can't avoid it unless you are willing to be tortured or killed for it. But at that point, is it really the best thing to do?
violence was not needed in Ghandi's India and it was not needed in the Civil Rights movement. why should the occupy movement use it? violence by protesters is the worst possible thing that we can do. I'm not saying people won't be hurt (its already happened - Scott Olsen) or killed (hopefully not) by the police violence, but, their is no other alternative except for this movement. we have to be brave.
[Removed]
hahaha. We never had a democracy so how could we take it back?
OWS doesn't have enough members or sympathizers to even consider violence. They are currently out numbered and out gunned, by millions.
the occupy movement IS America. it is not a few disaffected young people with anarchist leanings. but, you would know that if you knew anything at all about the movement.
Jay has a point. To be successful, the violent act would have to attract the uncommitted masses to join the armed revolution. I think the true impact would be just the opposite. All you would end up with is more martyrs - but real martyrs if that is any consolation. Getting volunteers for martyrdom could be a problem.
go martyr yourself!