Forum Post: Is violence the inevitable means to true change?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 20, 2011, 4:09 p.m. EST by Art
(17)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What do you think? The optimist in me is moved by the strength and persistence of this movement- with the ideals of nonviolent protest and remaining unaffiliated with political parties. However the pessimist in me views the core problems of corruption and greed in America that the movement is addressing as immune from all but the most extreme course of action. Furthermore I believe that the two party system only gives us the illusion of choice; the illusion that our votes can bring about change. Will the nonviolent tactics of this movement bring the changes we want?
With people on this site who proclaim that the intent of spreading the wealth implies that assets that people own now can be redistributed to others then... hell ya! You can expect plenty of people ready to defend their life's HARD work against a throng of hippies whining about how I should be there for them because they could not fend for themselves.
Another question: Is is reasonable to expect violence when the change can't be enacted by nonviolence? If this movement starts to fizzle and nothing seems to be getting done, will you be willing to escalate your actions?
That is what the robots want, you must resist!!!
That is very nice rhetoric Nicolas, but often when the people just stand together they get run over by tanks. Or beaten.
Or ignored.
Extreme courses of action are not necessarily violent. It is true that the two party system, incapable of proposing or implementing the changes needed and demanded by the people, is a problem. But the movement will not bring about change by rallying votes to either party.
Democracy is not a political system ; it is not something given by law or by government, it is not a privilege, it is not even a right. It is a fact. It is the fact that nothing can resist the power of the people once they stand together. The movement will gain all the power it could ever need simply by growing, by awakening the people to actualized fellowship. The exact means by which it will wield that power to effect change are, at this point, details.
[Deleted]
that explains why all my fish in the aquarium died, I was using water. Thanks for the 411.
NYCJames explain
No. Recent history shows non-violence does work.
really? besides Tunisia, please list the rest below
India, South Africa, USA. Should I keep going?
There is a certain room temperature dictator as of this morning that may disagree with you.
better questions how many hippies does it take to change a lightbulb. anwer three . none of which paid the bill so it doesn't matter
I do not believe that we expect the two-party system to do anything... While I am no expert, I believe that by refusing to participate in the system as much as possible, fueled by the power of this movement, we will slowly change things...
Violence is the last resort in anything.
The best way to bring about change is well look at what the Tea Party did. They went into the Republican Party and well look at what they have now in it.
If you want to make any kinda change you need to get the word out, keep going out there and saying and doing what you are doing. Find people who are like minded and have the same willingness to go as far as you.
You did not address my question Mcc. Do you believe that real change is possible through peaceful protest alone?
We can not resort to violence period. That would only discredit the cause. The vast overwhelming majority of us are angry but not enough to break any laws. No violence period.
A rape victim cannot prevent rape by peaceful protest. Ugly fact.
Yup. Because we are building, educating, for the future. This movement with its focus, discussion, and debate, through a democratic forum and parliamentary means, is precisely what Jefferson referred to when he said we must "educate" the people. Violence will only serve to silence all.